1 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education in respect of the \"O\" Level English Language oral examination conducted on 15 July 2026, whether the Ministry intends to review and improve the way the oral examination is conducted notwithstanding the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board's finding that there was no discrepancy in the question displayed on the candidates’ and examiners' screens, to minimise risks of students being unnecessarily affected.
2 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education with respect to the \"O\" Level English Language oral examination conducted on 15 July 2026 (a) whether any requests for assistance from students or their parents have been received by Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) due to the alleged discrepancy between the question displayed on the candidates’ and the examiners’ screens; and (b) if so, how has SEAB been assisting these students.
3 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Education before the 2026 \"O\" Level English results are finalised (a) whether the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) will compare candidates’ scores and responses from the 15 July 2026 oral session against other sessions; and (b) what remedies will apply if this shows a material session-level or examination-centre-level anomaly despite SEAB’s finding that one version of the examination video and questions was released.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, may I please address oral Question Nos 1 to 3 on today's Order Paper?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: My response will also address related oral and written questions filed for the Sitting on 4 August 2026.
Sir, as the questions are about the GCE \"O\" Level English Oral Language Examination on 15 July, let me first explain the examination process.
Candidates are first seated at the silent preparation station. The candidates view a computer screen with three components simultaneously displayed. The examination instructions, a text prompt and a video.
They are given 10 minutes at this station to prepare a planned response to their oral presentation. After 10 minutes, the candidate is called to the examiners' station. The oral examiner reads out the same text prompt and invites the candidate to commence the presentation. There is another examiner present.
Candidates are given two minutes to deliver their planned response. This is followed by the spoken interaction component, where the candidate engages in a discussion with the oral examiners on a topic based on the video clip.
All examination materials are subjected to a rigorous and secure process of authoring, review and approval. The oral examinations are accessed through the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board's (SEAB's) e-Examination system. Digital logs monitor all activities carried out in the system to ensure the integrity of the processes.
For each oral examination session, only one version of the examination materials is stored on SEAB's e-Examination system. All examination centres access the same materials when they log into SEAB's e-Examination system. The materials are encrypted and can only be accessed by authorised personnel.
Before the start of each session, the Assessment Specialist at SEAB checks that the prompt shown on-screen to candidates during the silent preparation and the prompt shown to the oral examiners tally exactly with the prompt on the question paper in hard copy. Once the examination has commenced, the materials cannot be amended. During the examination, all stations in the examination centres, including the candidates silent preparation stations and the oral examiners stations, access the same approved, secured, encrypted examination materials from the e-Examination system.
There were 389 oral examination teams across schools, with each team comprising two trained oral examiners assessing 13 candidates per session. The video presented to candidates depicted street barbers at work. The prompt for the planned response segment was, \"Who do you think would go to a place like this for a haircut? Why do you say so?\"
On the day of the examination, 173 candidates from 76 different schools reported that the prompt for the planned response segment displayed on their screen at the silent preparation station was different from the one that was posed by the oral examiners.
In the following days, the number of candidates who reported similar issues concerning the 15 July oral examination increased to 432 from 102 schools. Close to 5,000 candidates sat for the GCE \"O\" Level English language oral examination on 15 July 2026. On 15 July itself, SEAB took immediate actions to investigate. SEAB verified the examination materials by making system level checks and by logging into candidates' individual accounts in the e-Examination system, which shows the prompt and video accessed by the candidates. The investigation showed that the prompt on the candidates' screens match the prompt in the approved examination materials.
SEAB subsequently also reviewed all the digital logs of the authoring and delivery of the examination material from SEAB's e-Examination system and the digital logs of what was displayed on individual candidates' screens during the silent preparation, for all candidates who reported a discrepancy. In addition, cybersecurity checks were conducted to ascertain if the e-Examination system had been compromised.
Investigations showed that in all examination centres, oral examiners and candidates accessed the same examination materials during the oral examination on 15 July 2026. There was no evidence of a system malfunction. There was no discrepancy in the prompt displayed to candidates and oral examiners. There was only one source that all candidates' and examiners' accounts accessed. There was also no cybersecurity incident detected.
We also observed no discernible pattern of these incidents. The 432 candidates who reported this discrepancy came from 200 different oral examiner teams. There was also no particular order to the affected candidate. For instance, it was the second and eighth out of 13 candidates for one oral exam team. So, in that sequence, this oral exam team would examine 13 candidates, and it was the second and eighth candidate reporting a discrepancy with the other candidates reporting no discrepancy. And for another oral team, it was the third and 10th candidate, for example.
To be clear, the discrepancies reported were not about what the oral examiners asked – only that the recollection of the text prompt at the preparation station was different from what the oral examiner read out.
The reported discrepancies also demonstrated significant variation, with different phrases recalled by different students, including by students that were examined at the same centre and by the same oral examination team. The actual prompt shown was, \"Who do you think would go to a place like this for a haircut? Why do you say so?\" Some candidates reported reading the prompt as, \"Would you go?\" Others reported reading the prompt as, \"Would you visit?\", \"Would you be interested?\", \"Would you like?\", \"Would you want?\", \"Would you cut your hair at the place shown?\", \"Would you get your hair cut?\" and \"Why would I go?\"
Putting together the technical details, the distribution pattern of the incidents across the stations, schools and time, as well as the variety of phrases reported by the students. SEAB has concluded the cause of these incidents was not technical in nature, nor the result of a deliberate or malicious act.
We understand that the experience would have been unsettling for the affected candidates. Parents and candidates can be assured that our oral examiners are experienced teachers who assessed candidates based on what they demonstrated during the examination, including how they developed and presented their ideas and opinions, and how effectively they engaged the examiner during the discussion.
The preliminary data shows that the mean score for the oral examination on 15 July is comparable to that of the other four sessions in 2026. In addition, the mean score of the 432 candidates who reported the prompt discrepancy is also comparable to the mean score of the remaining candidates who sat for the oral examination on 15 July 2026.
So, therefore, as a group, the candidates who reported discrepancies fared as well as other candidates who did not report any discrepancy.
There might be some candidates who experienced significant distress arising from the circumstances. This might have affected their ability to provide a suitable response. Schools are working with these candidates to apply for special consideration. Special consideration is an established evidence-based process by examination boards to review the final subject grades for candidates whose performance had been adversely affected by circumstances beyond their control during the examinations. This is to ensure fair assessment. Each application will be evaluated on its merits.
We thank candidates, parents and schools for bringing their concerns to our attention. We take these reports very seriously. SEAB conducted a thorough investigation before coming to the conclusion that the same prompt was displayed for all candidates. SEAB will review the oral examination processes for students to read the oral prompt more carefully during the 10-minute preparation time. SEAB also remains committed to ensuring that all candidates, including those who might have misread the prompt, are assessed fairly.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his substantive reply. In relation to the special considerations that he shared with this House earlier, I also understand from my resident that that has been the reply from SEAB to one of my residents whose child has been affected.
In this regard, can I enquire so far in relation to the over 500 cases that were reported of discrepancies that were highlighted – 400 plus in total, I beg your pardon – have any of these students followed up with a special consideration application? And in such an instance, what will be the process taken and whether the students who had put in the appeal would eventually be updated that their results have taken in the circumstances that had transpired?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Ms Hany Soh for the question. Certainly, the applicants for special consideration will be updated and engaged on the process.
The process of special consideration is still in process. So, I think it is perhaps not appropriate for me to comment on the specifics. Each case will be evaluated. The process of special consideration is to look at the particular circumstances of each case.
Certainly, some applications have been made and potentially further applications will be made. So, I think we have to let that process play out.
Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
\tMr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions.
First, if I may paraphrase what I am hearing as the explanation or what the investigation has uncovered, is that the system architecture by its very nature would not permit the incident that students are describing from happening – because of the nature of the fact that it is a single question stored in the database and it is a single question transmitted to all terminals. That being said, I understand also that centralised logs were also checked to make sure that this was indeed what happened.
Can the Ministry share if the terminals themselves maintained any logs and whether these logs can be investigated to see whether what was displayed or was it recorded what was actually displayed on the screen of the individual terminals, as opposed to the centralised database? So, that is my first supplementary question.
My second supplementary question is essentially on the nature of the question itself. It would seem that given that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is convinced that no actual variation in the question displayed happened, but about 8% to 9% of students who took the exam experienced this, would MOE consider varying the way they set oral examination questions in the future?
I understand that reading comprehension is one of the elements being tested in an oral examination, but I would argue it is probably not the main element being tested. Would MOE consider in the future of setting questions or user testing questions such that such incidents would not arise again in the future and cause potential distress to our students?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Low for the questions. On his first point, indeed, the investigation involved the individual terminals, including logging on with the student's ID and authentication, so that the exact same handshake between the terminal and the centralised database was carried out, to see what was returned as material. So, very thorough from a from a technical perspective.
I would point out that his 8% to 9% is on that that day – I presume he is taking the 432 divided by 5,000 – but that was for that day only. The total number, of course, of people taking the examination across the four days is approximately four times as many.
Yes, indeed, SEAB will look to learn from this incident how we can reduce the risk of prompts being misread, guide the students about the preparation better, both in terms of the preparation for the exam and during the exam itself. And part of that technical professional skillset is to look at how specific phrases or words are used within examination prompts. SEAB will certainly do this.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof James Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, I believe the incident reports of the anomaly were made by a number of individuals, not only by – and I have to be careful about the use of this word here – at least 432 students, but also by the teachers themselves.
I accept that SEAB did their due diligence in verifying that there were no computer issues that could have given rise to the alleged outcome, and it is on this basis that the Senior Minister of State has asserted that that there were no errors. I wonder then is SEAB implicitly suggesting that there could have been an occasion of collective hallucination that occurred on that day? And if so, does this mean that the investigation would have perhaps implicitly privileged computer forensic evidence over the contemporary testimony of a significant number of human witnesses?
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, implicit in Mr Lim's question, in what he describes as a collective hallucination, is that all the students recalled the same phrase. And as our investigations have demonstrated, the students demonstrated significant variance in the many phrases that they recalled. So, I think his implication that we are privileging one set of information over the other is incorrect.
We are looking at both the testimonies, as well as the technical assessment. And the fact that the testimonies covered a wide variation in the phrases in itself is a very significant data point.
So, I would ask him to perhaps not put words in my mouth about collective hallucinations, nor imply a privileging of one set of data over the other. I think in my response, I have explained how we take all the data very seriously.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Three supplementary questions.
First, a factual question. Reports were filed on that day by SEAB's own examination personnel at the schools. So, how many irregularity reports did SEAB receive concerning 15 July English oral exam? Not complaints from candidates, but actual reports filed by its own oral examiners and presiding officers. And if the Ministry does not have this figure today, will they undertake to provide it? It seems very peculiar to me that 432 candidates from 132 schools reported it on day three, and day three alone. They did not report it on day one, day two or day four. So, to me it is highly anomalous.
Supplementary question two: did SEAB examine the candidates' contemporaneous physical planning sheets against the examiner's script?
And supplementary question three: since SEAB has all the evidence needed – the login logs, the examiners' marking comments, the contemporaneous planning sheets, as well as the audio from the session – will the Ministry allow someone outside SEAB to look at them to conduct an external investigation?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I do not have the numbers for the officers reporting. We can certainly look it up.
We have examined the contemporaneous planning sheets. It is hard to correlate those with specific reports because many of the contemporaneous planning sheets did not have candidates' names written on them; that is not a requirement. But the information from the contemporaneous planning sheets does, in some cases indicate that the student had misread the prompt. And in some cases, it indicates that the student had misread the prompt, started planning on that basis and then corrected themselves. And so on one sheet, we can see the student having written down what they thought originally what is the prompt, and then crossing that out and then writing the correct prompt and then planning from there.
Indeed, we have had GovTech come in to audit the technical platforms, the processes and so forth. And they have come to the same conclusion as SEAB.
\tMr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
\tMr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. My question comes from conversations with parents who accept the fact that their children might have misinterpreted or misread the question under examination pressure. So, three supplementary questions.
First, is the ability to accurately process a question under exam pressure, part of a skill to be accessed under oral examination?
Second, if so, how are students prepared for this, because, unlike written exams, which students experience across many subjects, they may have fewer opportunities to practise this skillset to respond under exam pressure.
Third, parents would like to know, when candidates reported the question has been asked differently from what they saw in the terminal, could we clarify what was the process thereafter?
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Hoe for his questions.
His first two questions, I think, are a little bit outside the remit of this Parliamentary Question, which is about the examination process; and more about the overall preparation for the subject, the curriculum and the approach taken to prepare students. But across all subjects, certainly, the way in which our students approach an examination is very much part of the preparation in the classroom, in the development of the student across the curriculum, across the syllabus and the skills and techniques that they learn in the classroom. And some of that will be about how to deal with errors, deal with the emotional state that they are in. So, I think it is quite beyond the remit of the Parliamentary Question today, but I thank him for highlighting this. It is indeed an important part of the work that is done by the teachers.
He then asked about the process after reporting. Can I just ask what is it he was asking about? I did not quite understand what he meant.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Hoe.
\tMr David Hoe: Thank you to the Senior Minister of State. Basically, parents are questioning, after a child report that the question that they saw on the terminal and the question asked was different, what happened after?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: With the examiner or what?
\tMr David Hoe: With the exam at that point.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Thank you, Sir. Mr Hoe has clarified that he is talking about what is happening with the examiner rather than the investigation of the incident.
The examiners are trained in a process of positive marking. They are not looking for absolute compliance with a template answer. They are looking in this exam, for the students to demonstrate their skill, their oral skill with their language – what vocabulary they are using, their sentence structure, how they use grammar and tense, how they present their ideas, how they organise their ideas and how they build upon ideas over the course of the presentation.
And this is one of the reasons why you can see that the marks are comparable. Because the students were able to speak. Sometimes, they had prepared incorrectly, but nevertheless were able to speak well, either on the initial subject that they thought they were presenting on or when corrected on the prompt that they heard from the examiner. And so, within their presentation was enough material demonstrating their ability with the language.
This approach of positive marking then allows the examiner to draw out the skills that the student has and provide them an appropriate mark. So, that is the process. And it applies regardless of whether the students hesitate, perhaps, ask a question about the prompt. There is this approach of positive marking: looking for the ability of the student to demonstrate the skills that they have, not blind compliance with a template, nor a negative marking approach looking for mistakes.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale and Cost of Developing AI Models for Healthcare Diagnostics, and Safeguards for Patient Data","subTitle":"Update on deployment of SIMFONI","sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding the Singapore Medical Foundation AI Model (SIMFONI) initiative (a) what are the rationale and cost of developing AI models for conditions that can be diagnosed by routine tests, instead of targeting rare diseases that are harder to diagnose; (b) how will clinicians access SIMFONI and whether private practitioners will be included; and (c) what safeguards protect patient identifiers from data leaks.
5 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) before the deployment of Singapore Medical Foundation AI Model (SIMFONI), whether the Ministry will subject its models to privacy testing by assessors independent of the developers to determine if they can memorise or reproduce identifiable patient information; and (b) whether test standards, findings and response protocol for any disclosure will be published.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The Singapore Medical Foundation AI Model (SIMFONI) develops artificial intelligence (AI) tools to provide clinical decision support for managing chronic conditions, prioritising conditions with high disease burden in Singapore and feasibility of development. We are starting with a couple of specialty areas and settings in the public healthcare sector. If successful, we will expand its coverage to more specialities and also possibly, to the private practitioners.
SIMFONI's models are built on existing models trained using international data. They are adapted using local patient data, they are de-identified, in a secure national platform with well-established processes, expertise and safeguards. This platform is called TRUST, which was established in 2022 precisely for research, development and innovation efforts.
To further ensure the integrity of this process, an independent safety and evaluation unit will carry out rigorous testing of SIMFONI's models before actual deployment.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. While clinicians will ultimately retain responsibility for medical decisions, international experience has shown that doctors may gradually defer to AI decisions or recommendations – something known as automation bias. Will the Ministry announce specific safeguards to detect and mitigate this risk and how we ensure that AI compliments rather than subtly replaces independent clinical judgement?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: We do not really announce what we are going to do to safeguard against this. This is very much in the way we approach AI, how we deploy and how we implement them.
I have given a few speeches on this matter. There is a lot of hype about AI, including in healthcare. And sometimes, you really wonder why are these proposals like that. Because those of us who work in healthcare, you know it is not simple, especially a public essential service.
We have to take a very careful use-case approach. That means, what problems are we facing, can AI solve those problems? Find the right tools. Never treat AI as a hammer going around looking for nails or a solution looking for a problem. We have enough problems. Let us see what AI can do to solve some of these problems.
And when you can find the right AI tool, make sure it is trained in the local context, taking into account security, de-identified data, patient data that is in Singapore.
When the model is ready, when you deploy it, you have to deploy in accordance with clinical protocols. There is a certain way we do things. There are existing legacy IT systems. AI is not something you plug into the socket and suddenly, it solves your problems. It does not work that way. And then, how do you interface with existing legacy IT systems? How the processes are thought through, with the clinicians still making the judgement?
It is early days, but I think we are very conscious that there is a lot of hype, a lot of use or misuse of AI. I think all this hype at some point will subside to a more realistic level, where people are more judicious, thoughtful and even, sober about using AI. And we tell ourselves, \"Why wait for that process? Why do we not start off being sober and judicious?\" And that is the approach that the Ministry of Health is taking.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Low.
\tMr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. Minister, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, it is about the scope of the data that is being envisaged to be used to train this AI model. Would it encompass all health data in Singapore of all patients, including data in the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) database?
Secondly, it is about the nature of the consent that will be sought before patient's data will be used for training. Has the Ministry considered, or will the Ministry consider, asking patients for explicit consent before their data can be used for training purposes?
And third supplementary question: I understand the Minister has given assurances that the data will be anonymised and have personal identifiers removed before they are used for training. However, as we can see, I have another Parliamentary Question today for a similar data leak incident with the Singapore Land Authority, where a lot of these processes are fallible. And sometimes, anonymisation of data does not actually pan out and personal identifiable data can leak into publicly available databases. What assurances can the Minister give to the public that their very sensitive health data will remain safe?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I think we all know AI is a breakthrough technology, but we must take a thoughtful and judicious approach. So, we have to decide what we want to do with it. If we start off thinking that we distrust this system entirely and therefore, let us scope down the data to be used to train models – even though we know the data is essential to train models that can improve healthcare, save lives, operate everything better and maybe help us address some of our very stark challenges of an ageing population with rising patient load – and if we accept that, but yet at the same time distrust the system and say, \"Let's scope down the data, let's not believe that they can really be anonymised and de-dentified because there can be leaks and traceability\", and \"Let's seek everyone's consent before we can use\", then it is a non-starter. It becomes a non-starter.
I think just take a balanced approach: recognise that this is a breakthrough technology that can do a lot of good, but to do so, we will need to use the data that we have and take the necessary precautions. Make sure that it is anonymised and de-identified. And we started this process some years ago. So, TRUST data has been used in various contexts already – so far, incident-free. I think we make sure it is anonymised and de-identified by international standards.
I think let us proceed on that basis. We must have safeguards, I agree. But we must strike a balance between leveraging that technology, but putting in place the safeguards. And we can proceed on that basis.
And at some point, Singaporeans will see that healthcare services are improving, yet quite incident-free. That is when they have confidence and assurance. I think let the action and the results speak for themselves.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Reviewing Operating Model for Korban Services in Singapore for Better Oversight","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in light of recent disruptions affecting korban services in Singapore, whether MUIS will (i) consider reviewing the current operating model for korban services in Singapore for better oversight (ii) introduce a licensing or accreditation framework for such operators and (iii) establish a service standard for local operators to adhere to.
\tThe Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, a question on korban disruption during this year's Hari Raya Haji was earlier addressed at the last Parliamentary Sitting on 7 July 2026. Nevertheless, I felt that it was important to address this matter again today because korban is a significant religious observance for our Muslim community.
To recap, on 21 May this year, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura or MUIS) was informed of a delay in the arrival of 400 livestock, which affected local korban services at four local mosques. This occurred because a local korban vendor was unable to secure the necessary export approvals from the Australian authorities in time.
The incident had caused concern and disappointment, understandably, to those who had made korban arrangements at these mosques. At the same time, I was heartened by the way the community responded. Many showed patience, understanding and support during this period, and this reflects the spirit of the community in supporting one another through difficult situations.
MUIS has conducted a comprehensive review of the incident. In the two weeks since I have stepped into this role, I have discussed the findings and action plans with MUIS, and we will implement concrete measures to strengthen the current operating model and better support local korban operators.
Let me briefly recap three key measures that MUIS will implement.
First, MUIS will strengthen oversight of local korban operators, particularly for new vendors. We will work closely with vendors to ensure that necessary overseas regulatory approvals are obtained in a timely manner and that crucial milestones for korban operations are met.
Second, MUIS will introduce stronger contractual and operational requirements, including clearer service standards, contingency plans and obligations. This will provide operators with greater clarity on the standards that they are expected to meet and ensure that korban participants are better informed and protected.
Third, MUIS will start preparations for local korban earlier. Engagements with mosques and korban vendors will now start six to eight months before Hari Raya Haji to provide more time for overseas regulatory approvals and operational planning.
MUIS will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the above measures and make further adjustments if necessary.
The Government will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to ensure that members of the local Muslim community are able to perform their korban with confidence, whether locally or overseas.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina.
\tMs Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Acting Minister for the responses. I have got three supplementary questions; two in Malay.
First, I appreciate that there is going to be tighter control of contractual obligations as well as service standards. Could the Acting Minister please share, aside from timeliness, what other measures of performance of these vendors will be instituted to uphold this \"amanah\" or the responsibility of the service provided? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): Thank you, Acting Minister, for outlining the measures that MUIS will undertake to enhance preparations for the upcoming korban season, especially the effort to commence it earlier.
To recap, it was mentioned that preparations would begin six to eight months earlier, which means we are almost at that stage. Could the Acting Minister perhaps clarify how far along the preparations are for the 2027 season? That is my first question. Secondly, I would like to seek some clarification from the Acting Minister on the latest update regarding the process of refunds to the sohibul korban (korban participants) who were affected during the recent 2026 season, which was supposed to have been settled by early August.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): I understand that there are those who may be disappointed by what has happened. MUIS has already reviewed the korban 2026 process and we have improved the process so that we can carry out korban more smoothly in 2027.
We have made earlier preparations for next year's korban, and the Salam SG Korban 2027 Committee will be formed next month, in September, so that we can focus on further improving the korban process. I do believe this is important because we have not only extended our preparation period, but we are also looking at how we can improve our contracts and processes and take the necessary steps in our operations to further strengthen the korban process.
I have also been informed that some korban participants have received their refunds from The Meat Brothers, and for those who have yet to receive theirs, I ask for your patience. For those who still have outstanding issues or problems, please get in touch with MUIS, as we will do the follow up with The Meat Brothers. I have also been informed that The Meat Brothers have given their assurance that they will endeavour to settle all refunds by early August.
Overall, I would like to express my appreciation to MUIS and our colleagues for their efforts in managing this issue. At the same time, I would also like to thank the community for showing their patience and trust in us. InsyaAllah, we will continue to improve this process so that our ibadah korban can be carried out more smoothly and with greater confidence in the future.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
\tMr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): I would like to declare that the owner of The Meat Brothers is my constituent and they have worked with me for some events. Thank you, Acting Minister, for your response. I have three supplementary questions.
First, will MUIS consider including enhanced compensation for any sohibul korban (korban participants) affected by disruptions as a future licensing criterion? For example, compensation could include allowing affected sohibul korban to participate physically in a live korban at a reduced rate in the coming years.
Secondly, will MUIS consider prioritising korban operators who source their livestock from countries other than Australia?
And thirdly, does MUIS have plans to work with MFA and our counterparts in the Australian Government to facilitate the process of obtaining export permits for livestock?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: (In Malay): Thank you for the questions. For the first and second suggestions, I think we can consider them, but we will need to look at how they can be incorporated into our processes, or whether they are suitable for our current situation.
As for the approval process from the Australian side, I think that this is a matter outside Singapore's jurisdiction. So, in terms of process, we do not have control over Australia's processes, but we will endeavour to work with MFA to facilitate matters for our operators. I am confident in the process where we are giving more lead time, which is six to eight months, to carry out the operations this time. We can hand-hold our operators to give assurance to our community, whereby we will provide a longer timeframe for the operators to obtain approval from the Australian Government.
As for other source countries, we can consider it, but we also need to assess their ability to supply us with livestock in an on-time, on-delivery manner, so that we can have confidence in their operations as well.
So, if we look at the situation today, the issue is not with the source, because the other parties, the two other operators, did not face any problems.
(In English): So, the issue is not on the local front. It is not with the agencies because the other operators who have been very familiar with the process have not had issues. The Meat Brothers is a new operator who is not so familiar with the environment and of course, it was also found that the authorities in Australia had also taken longer because they were operating with a new supply chain.
So, therefore, we are catering for such arrangements in future when there are new operators. And therefore, we are giving more leeway and that is why we are extending the operations time now to six to eight months instead of what it is today.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deposits Collected under Beverage Container Return Scheme From Beverage Producers and Retailers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Mariam Jaafar –
7 To ask the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the amount of deposits collected under the Beverage Container Return Scheme from beverage producers and retailers since the commencement of the Scheme; (b) what is the amount refunded to consumers who returned containers over this period; and (c) how any surplus is accounted for and whether it is retained by BCRS Ltd, reinvested into scheme operations, or returned to Government.
\t
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Question No 7.
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, my reply to Question No 7 on today’s Order Paper also addresses related Parliamentary Questions filed by Ms Mariam Jaafar for the Parliamentary Sitting on 4 August 2026 as well as Ms Joan Pereira1 and Dr Hamid Razak’s2 questions for the Sitting on or after 6 August 2026.
I thank Members for their continued interest in the Return Right Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS).
While the scheme remains in its transition phase until 30 September 2026, we have seen encouraging progress in the first three months. To date, the Scheme has handled over one million successful transactions, with 5.5 million beverage containers returned. We expect this number to grow as more BCRS-labelled products enter the market.
Most transactions and returns at Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) have been successful. For the handful of issues that occurred at the RVMs, the scheme operator BCRS Ltd worked closely with the RVM operators to respond quickly to resolve them.
On scheme finances, BCRS Ltd is a not-for-profit company funded through the producer fees as well as revenue from the sale of recyclables collected. Deposits which have been paid for by consumers but are ultimately not redeemed, may be utilised by BCRS Ltd to cover the costs of implementing the scheme. This is a common model adopted in other jurisdictions with similar deposit return schemes. BCRS Ltd is required to submit an annual report to the National Environment Agency (NEA), which includes an account of its finances, within three months after the end of each compliance year.
The consumer pricing of beverages is a commercial decision that is influenced by multiple factors, including fuel and logistics costs, consumer demand patterns as well as producer or retailer marketing strategies. Market players who raise the prices of their beverages will face direct competition with other industry players given the wide variety of beverage choices. Nevertheless, members of the public who notice improper practices among retailers may alert NEA.
On the network coverage of return points, all 1,070 RVMs that were planned for the initial roll-out have been deployed and are operational, allowing over 90% of HDB residents to be within a five-minute walk of an RVM, in addition to machines in the bigger supermarkets.
We have progressively deployed more RVMs since launch and are on track to increase the number of return points to around 2,000 within the first year of implementation. All hawker centres will either have an RVM on site or a machine located close by. Many coffee shops are located within HDB estates and would have convenient access to an RVM.
We thank all members of the public for their feedback, support and patience in adapting to this new mode of clean stream recycling as we continue to refine the scheme. We encourage everyone to participate actively by being mindful of the beverage containers you consume and returning empty beverage containers at designated return points.
Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
\tDr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I want to thank NEA for the roll-out. I saw the officers on the ground helping residents grapple with the machines.
I have got some feedback from residents that there continue as we roll out this programme, some eateries where the RVMs are not located nearby and they said that they feel that the cost is still being passed on to them. So, would the Ministry be able to provide some guidance where the merchants are able to then do the Return Right, therefore not passing on the cost to the residents in such eateries?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, NEA has indeed rolled out the Return Right F&B scheme. I thank Dr Hamid for giving me this opportunity to make a plug for it.
This scheme allows merchants to provide the drink to the consumer but take back the beverage container and to do this at scale.
\t
\t
I would encourage merchants that are interested to contact NEA. This is not relevant to the Parliamentary Question directly, but several thousands have already signed up.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there is an update on the progress of the implementation of the Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS) since its launch on 1 April 2026; and (b) whether the Ministry has data on any observed increase in the prices of canned or bottled beverages in Singapore since the implementation of BCRS.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what service standards will be used to assess whether consumers who pay the 10-cent deposit under the Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS) at hawker centres and coffee shops have reasonable access to BCRS return points; and (b) what remedial measures will apply where local coverage or machine availability does not allow deposits to be conveniently reclaimed."],"footNoteQuestions":["7"],"questionNo":"7"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Remedial Actions to Address Erroneous Disbursements of SkillsFuture Singapore Grants as Identified in FY2025/2026 Auditor-General's Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry is taking remedial steps to rectify the instances of erroneous disbursements made by then-SkillsFuture Singapore under the Enhanced Training Support for Small and Medium Enterprises scheme identified in the recent Auditor-General's report; and (b) if so, whether these will have an adverse impact on the businesses or individuals that may have relied on these erroneous disbursements.
9 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether any police report has been filed in relation to the potential gaming by training providers to obtain course fee funding from then-SkillsFuture Singapore as highlighted by the recent Auditor-General's report; (b) whether any efforts will be made to recover any grants that were disbursed to the training providers in question; and (c) if not, why not.
\tThe Acting Minister for Manpower (Ms Jasmin Lau): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take oral Parliamentary Question Nos 8 and 9 together?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMs Jasmin Lau: The Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) has zero tolerance for fraud and has fraud detection measures in place. SWDA is currently investigating training providers and trainees involved in potential gaming behaviour. If ongoing investigations indicate that any criminal behaviour might be involved, Police reports will be made. We will take appropriate action, including recovering grants where warranted, if investigations confirm a breach of funding terms or other inappropriate conduct.
In relation to the erroneous disbursements of the Enhanced Training Support for Small and Medium Enterprises (ETSS), SWDA has rectified the erroneous system logic in the information technology (IT) system that led to the misclassification of firms as small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
SWDA has also revised its operating procedures to ensure accurate SME eligibility assessments going forward.
There will be no adverse impact on the businesses or individuals who received disbursements based on the prior assessments. The Ministry will honour the disbursements which were used to support real training that benefited local workers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I thank the Acting Minister for the very clear answer. From my reading of the Auditor-General's report, it said about half the grants, about $2.24 million, were because of erroneous disbursements. I understand that the system has been rectified but the disbursements will still go out. It said another $2.08 million would have been disbursed under other subsidy schemes. Does this suggest that there is no issue within the Government that a different subsidy scheme had been used?
\tMs Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for his question. The total ETSS grant amount disbursed to the affected companies was $4.32 million, but the amount that was over-disbursed was about $2.24 million. And we described it as such because a number of these affected companies would otherwise have been eligible for grants totaling $2.08 million under the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy scheme, which also similarly provides a 20% cost fee subsidy for the workers who are Singapore Citizens aged 40 and above.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
\tMr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister for the answer given. My first supplementary question is, how will the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) strengthen oversight over the disbursement of the SkillsFuture cost fee funding? For example, will MOM consider taking such steps, such as asking participants to declare whether they are taking courses from a company they or their immediate family members are working for?
Also, I could not get the last answer. Does the Government have any information on how many SkillsFuture credits were used by course participants on these potentially gamed courses?
\tMs Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for his questions. The investigations on gaming behaviour are still ongoing, so we are unable to reveal more.
But for all such schemes, including SkillsFuture credits that we give out to support training, there will always be a risk of potential gaming. And over time, SWDA will enhance its efforts to detect and investigate different types of gaming behaviours, and where necessary, we will adjust the funding policies to address the risk of gaming.
We are also considerate and we want to ensure that individuals have good access to the grants that we give out and therefore, we do not want it to be too onerous on both individual workers and also employers in supporting Singaporeans to access training.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Root Causes of Fire Incidents Involving Mercedes-Benz Citaro Buses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has investigated the root causes of the incidents of bus fires involving Mercedes-Benz Citaro buses in 2026; (b) whether additional safety protocols and mechanical audits are being implemented across older public transport fleet assets to ensure passenger safety; and (c) if so, what are they.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan to outline the steps taken by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) in dealing with the bus fire incidents in the first half of 2026. No one was injured in the incidents, but every such fire is an incident too many.
On his first query as to whether LTA has investigated, the answer is yes. Based on the investigations, the fire incidents involving the Mercedes-Benz Citaro buses were caused by the failure of different parts. There is no indication of a common underlying cause. The parts involved were also within their manufacturer-recommended useful life.
Turning to his second and third queries, LTA directed the public bus operators to carry out additional inspections of their Citaro buses. No abnormalities were found as a result. LTA is working with the bus operators to enhance the bus inspection regime for older buses and assess whether additional preventive measures can reduce the fire risk.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I have three supplementary questions.
First, I would like to ask what fire detection or suppression systems are currently installed in the engine compartments of such public buses and whether LTA is reviewing the need for enhanced thermal monitoring or fire detection systems on especially the older buses to provide earlier warning of potential fires?
My next supplementary question; whether maintenance audit requirements and fault reporting standards are applied consistently across all public transport operators (PTOs)? I believe that the buses are used by different operators.
And what measures LTA takes to verify compliance and identify any gaps in maintenance practices?
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the first question on suppression system. It is, in a sense, related to the cause of each respective fires. For three fires that happened in the first half of this year, there were different causes. For the first incident, it involved a mechanical failure of a propeller shaft, which then became loose. As a result, the fire was caused. The second incident involved the mechanical failure of a turbo-charger.
So, the systems in place really depends on the cause that resulted in the fire. I would say that as far as the buses' electrical systems are concerned, there are indicators which will indicate the start of a fire and the bus captains would have to take the necessary steps if the bus is being used. Of course, beyond that, we have the maintenance regimes and each manufacturer would indicate the service length or time for each parts that is being used.
Moving on to the maintenance regime of these buses, indeed, the Citaro buses would have a certain manual that has to be complied with and LTA's expectation would be that the manual for the maintenance must be followed.
On the third point about audits, I would say that for the three cases, LTA has not just been in contact with the PTOs, but has also been in contact with the manufacturer – in this case, Mercedes-Benz. They have also come in to check the systems and they have found no abnormalities which may have a system-wide impact. We are continuing to monitor the situation and will not hesitate to take any further steps necessary to maintain passenger safety.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tan, a quick one.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a clarification. Actually, my first supplementary question was asking about what fire detection or suppression systems are currently installed in the engine compartments and whether LTA is reviewing the enhanced thermal monitoring or fire detection system on the buses – not just the cause of the problem.
\tMr Murali Pillai: I am obliged to the hon Member for his clarification. I can confirm that there are fire suppression systems available for the engine compartment. But as to the specifics, I do not have the details at this point in time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of Cancer Drug List Reviews and Updates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how frequently is the Cancer Drug List (CDL) reviewed and updated; and (b) what measures are in place to reduce the risk of Singapore lagging behind prevailing international standards of cancer care.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, my response will also cover Question No 93 raised by Mr Christopher de Souza from the 7 July 2026 Parliament Sitting.
The Cancer Drug List (CDL) mechanism enables the Ministry of Health (MOH) to negotiate better drug prices and keep cancer care affordable and sustainable for more patients over the longer term. Since the implementation of the CDL, we have managed to reduce cancer drug prices by an average of 30%, and up to 60% for some drugs.
MOH updates the CDL three times a year, in consultation with an expert committee comprising cancer specialists from public and private sectors. We take into consideration medical advancements, evolving evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness and alignment with international standards of cancer care. Through this process, we have listed 400 drug-indication pairings, which is comparable to all the pairings approved in 2022, before CDL was implemented.
For patients that require cancer drugs not yet listed on CDL, there are avenues for financial assistance in public healthcare institutions on a case-by-case basis through MediFund.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
\tDr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I ask this question because we know the statistics: one in four Singaporeans will be facing a cancer diagnosis by the age of 75.
I would like to ask if the Ministry tracks if there are cancer drugs, say, on a Food and Drug Administration- or European Medicines Agency-approved list that are currently not on our CDL, and also by extension of that, because companies may not be submitting some of these drugs because our market is small, whether there are other routes of applying for a drug to be evaluated for inclusion to the CDL, including that of clinician scientists locally or clinicians for their patients? Because they know that a particular recent trial or a research studies will be published, showing clinical benefit and efficacy for such drugs.
Also, by way of feedback, some clinicians have also given me feedback that despite drugs being on the CDL, some Shield providers and insurers are still asking our clinicians to go through onerous administrative processes of filling up forms and pre-approvals, which really takes time away from our clinicians from doing their clinical practice.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I note the Member's concerns and we are also equally concerned about the current situation of increasing prevalence of cancer. That is why we also put this in place to make sure that the cancer drug costs are kept in check.
On the question about tracking, yes, the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) conducts horizon scanning to track approved drugs overseas and proactively identify priority drugs in consultation with the Cancer Drug Sub-committee and also engage companies to encourage them to put in the submissions.
On the other point, I also just want to highlight that, separately, we also have broader cancer research efforts to make sure that we are also kept abreast of development of new cancer drugs and treatments to keep pace with international standards. We have two National Cancer Centres – the National University Cancer Institute as well as the National Cancer Centre Singapore – so that we are kept abreast of some of the developments and new drugs that are in place.
I note the question about the submission aside from the default company submission. In certain instances, yes, the clinicians may directly submit requests to ACE to evaluate treatments for potential inclusion in the CDL. This is intended largely for treatments for very rare cancers, for example, where there are fewer than five to 10 patients per year where the treatment is not Health Sciences Authority-registered due to the very small patient numbers, but there is clinical need and the treatment has been approved by at least one reference overseas regulatory authority. In such cases, ACE may undertake an internal evaluation.
I also note the separate point the Member made about the administrative burden that the doctors and clinicians have to undertake. We could take that separately and we could see how best we could streamline those processes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of Cruelty to Community Animals and Measures to Safeguard Welfare of These Animals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past three years, how many reports of cruelty to community animals has the Animal and Veterinary Service received, investigated, and referred for prosecution; (b) whether the Ministry assesses that existing enforcement powers and penalties adequately deter such offences; and (c) whether stronger protections, better reporting mechanisms, or restrictions on animal ownership for repeat offenders are being considered to safeguard animal welfare.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, over the past three years, the National Parks Board received and investigated an average of 75 alleged animal cruelty cases involving community animals each year. Two cases were referred for prosecution during this period.
To ensure that the Animals and Birds Act (ABA) remains effective in deterring animal cruelty and abuse, we are reviewing the ABA to enhance enforcement powers and strengthen the penalty framework for animal welfare offences. This includes reviewing imprisonment terms and disqualification orders for both first-time and repeat offences.
Mr Speaker: Ms Pang.
\tMs Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): I thank the Minister of State for the response. For the community animals, because they do not have a specific owner per se, is there a possibility for the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) to make it easier for them to report cases?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, for caregivers and feeders of community animals, in fact, AVS works very closely with them through our lead Trap-Neuter-Rehome/Release-Manage partner, the Cat Welfare Society, providing services such as free sterilisation and free micro-chipping. In fact, I was there at Cats' Day Out last month, and I think the Member Diana Pang was also there, where we worked with Cat Welfare Society, the community feeders, to get feedback and to see how we can better support them.
Mr Speaker: I was also at the Cats' Day Out.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Thank you for supporting, Speaker.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of COSMIC as Platform for Financial Institutions to Share Information on Customers Showing Money Laundering Red Flags","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what assessment the Government has made of the effectiveness of Collaborative Sharing of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing (ML/TF) Information & Cases (COSMIC) as a platform for financial institutions to share information on customers exhibiting money laundering red flags; and (b) what is the timeline of implementation for the planned expansion of COSMIC to include additional major banks and a wider range of significant cases.
\tThe Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Sir, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) launched the Collaborative Sharing of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing Information and Cases (COSMIC) on 1 April 2024, to facilitate the sharing of risk information among banks to detect and disrupt illicit fund flows in the financial sector. COSMIC's initial phase involved six major commercial banks in Singapore, and targeted three key financial crime risks: (a) misuse of legal persons; (b) misuse of trade finance for illicit purposes; and (c) proliferation financing.
Since its launch, COSMIC has enhanced participant banks' ability to detect bad actors and strengthened our financial sector's defences against financial crime. Arising from information shared on the platform, COSMIC participant banks filed additional suspicious transaction reports. Further, following participant banks' review and investigations, a significant number of suspicious customer accounts were closed.
The information shared on COSMIC also allowed participant banks and the MAS to identify suspicious networks for timely review and supported authorities' investigations. COSMIC's effectiveness was affirmed in the recent Mutual Evaluation assessment of Singapore by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Given these positive outcomes, MAS has been working with the industry to expand the use of COSMIC. We are widening COSMIC's scope beyond the three targeted financial crime risk areas that I have mentioned above, and we are also onboarding other major banks that are close partners in our Anti-Money Laundering, Countering the Financing of Terrorism efforts. This expansion is scheduled for completion within two years. MAS will carefully manage COSMIC's expansion, to reap the benefits of information sharing while at the same time, balancing against considerations of undue de-risking and confidentiality of customer information.
Mr Speaker: Ms He.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): I thank the Minister of State for the update. I have some supplementary questions.
The first is, given that this is a more or less voluntary platform to which the six banks are contributing information, I would like to ask the Minister of State on what is the participation rate and a bit more details about the volume of transactions that were shared. The Minister of State had mentioned earlier that there was a significant number that were eventually followed up on.
And then, my next supplementary question relates to how MAS assesses the effectiveness of COSMIC against other platforms, such as the United Kingdom's Schengen Information System (SIS) and also Hong Kong's Financial Intelligence Evaluation Sharing Tool (FINEST) system? What are the specific metrics that the MAS uses to do the evaluation?
And the last supplementary question is whether or not there is any indication or any exploration about whether or not the platform will eventually be shifted from a voluntary regime to a mandatory one?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Ms He Ting Ru for questions. I think her questions revolve primarily around the effectiveness of COSMIC. As I mentioned, we are expanding the scope. We are also expanding to have more other participant banks to join COSMIC. We have a two-year timeframe to do so.
I can give her some specifics. In the first year of operations, COSMIC participant banks filed additional Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) relating to aggregate fund flows of more than $1.6 billion dollars. And following the participant banks' review and investigation, more than1,000 suspicious customer accounts were closed.
So, we are reviewing the efficacy and effectiveness of COSMIC, and the mutual evaluation by the FATF also gives us some feedback on whether this is effective.
We will continue to monitor this as we expand the scope of the offences and the financial crime, as well as expand the number of participant banks into this. So, we will continue to monitor this and review this COSMIC platform.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lowering Home Caregiving Grant Eligibility Threshold to Two Activities of Daily Living in Selected Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Government will consider extending the Home Caregiving Grant to families caring for persons who require assistance with two, instead of three, activities of daily living, particularly where the ability of care recipients to live independently is significantly impaired.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Sir, there is a range of schemes to support residents with care needs. These include the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF), Migrant Domestic Worker Levy Concession and subsidised home- or centre-based care such as the enhanced Home Personal Care.
The Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) is targeted at those with higher levels of functional impairment, who require permanent assistance with at least three of the six activities of daily living (ADLs).
Mr Speaker: Mr Kwek.
\tMr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification and answer. I have a supplementary question. Let us say right now, the threshold is three ADLs, but from time to time, we, like many of my colleagues here, meet residents who only meet two ADLs threshold, but for significant certain reasons they are not able to live independently. And for such situations, will the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and the Ministry of Health be open to appeals and what is the likelihood of such appeals being taken very seriously and being approved?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, the HCG has a common three ADL-eligibility threshold, which is applied consistently and fairly across all applicants. Individual circumstances are instead considered in assessing the persons for the wider range of care and caregiver support available.
As the Member mentioned, and I am sure many Members in the House would have encountered residents who approach us, those requiring short-term care due to, perhaps, temporary disability or other medical conditions may be eligible for subsidised care under the other kind of care schemes. I have mentioned a few just now, for example, the enhanced Home Personal Care or the Interim Caregiver Support.
These schemes help to offset caregiving expenses, while supporting both the care recipients' recovery and caregivers' respite needs. These subsidised care schemes are not tied to the ADL threshold. I have mentioned some of the schemes earlier. I can mention a few more just to provide some context to the Member's question, for example, the SMF, which subsidises up to 90% of devices and home healthcare items, are for eligible seniors who are assessed to require these items to support ageing in place. So, it is not tied to ADLs per se.
There are also other schemes that there are individuals with significant short-term care needs who cannot be cared for at home or in the community, they can apply for schemes such as the Nursing Home Respite Care.
So, there are many subsidised schemes out there that we provide, and we are continually enhancing and reviewing them. We do not just look at the HCG. So, I encourage the Member to check out the AIC website to look at some of the other care schemes available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Water-intensive Projects Subjected to Mandatory Water Efficiency Requirements Since 1 January 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the mandatory water efficiency requirements in effect since 1 January 2024 for new water-intensive projects consuming at least 60,000m³ annually (a) how many projects are subject to the requirements; (b) how many have been found non-compliant; and (c) what enforcement actions have been taken.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Goh Hanyan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Since the mandatory water efficiency requirements took effect on 1 January 2024, seven new projects have been subjected to and met the design requirements. Accordingly, no enforcement action has been taken.
Mr Speaker: Mr Muhaimin.
\tMr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I have two supplementary questions.
First, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how many of the projects subjected to requirements are actually in operation, as opposed to still at design or construction stage, given that the 50% recycling rate is assessed at the operation stage?
The second supplementary question: does PUB independently verify the recycling rates reported in these plans, for instance, through metering or audit, or does it rely on self declaration by companies?
My third question — oh, sorry. Just two questions.
\tMs Goh Hanyan: Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. To the first one, out of the seven that we said were covered, most of them are in the construction phase and one is in the design phase.
To the second question on how we monitor the compliance, the water users are then required, once they start operations, to submit their water efficiency plans on a running basis, so that PUB can verify and identify opportunities for further reduction of water use and efficiency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Unauthorised Access of Vendor-managed SLA Platform Containing Real Personal Data","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Law regarding unauthorised access to a vendor-managed Singapore Land Authority test environment containing real personal data of about 70,000 individuals (a) how did the data enter and remain in a dataset intended for mock or anonymised data; (b) when was the environment last audited against Government data-security requirements; and (c) what contractual action will be considered after investigations.
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, the data security incident involved unauthorised access to a data set in a development and systems-integration testing cloud environment managed by IBM. IBM was the vendor appointed to support and maintain the Singapore Land Authority's (SLA's) Singapore Titles Automated Registration System (STARS) and the eLodgment System (ELS). The affected environment was separate from SLA's live operational systems, which were not affected.
The data set was created in 1998 for major system tests and updated periodically over the subsequent years. Although the data set was intended to contain only mock and anonymised testing data based on property ownership and lodgement records, SLA subsequently uncovered that the data set contained personal information which was not anonymised. STARS and ELS are subject to regular audits, with the most recent audit carried out in 2025.
The appropriate contractual action will be determined after the full facts and respective responsibilities have been established. SLA is investigating the matter.
Mr Speaker: Mr Low.
\tMr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. First, will SLA also be undertaking audits of any other development or test environments arising from this incident to make sure that no similar issues are occurring elsewhere?
\t
And secondly, it seems like the Senior Minister of State has acknowledged that the audits that were previously undertaken might have had some gaps, and especially, it sounds like the audits were being undertaken on the nature of the technical controls, but not of the actual data, given that the data set has been in existence for almost 20 years and it was only uncovered now. Will SLA reform their audit process going forward, so that the actual data is audited periodically, to make sure that no personal information inside is leaked?
Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, in response to the first question of the hon Member, indeed SLA has completed checks across its other systems and found no similar issues.
Turning to the second question about audit, I would like to clarify that the 2025 audit was determined through a risk-based scoping exercise that was conducted in late 2024. Based on the IT risk landscape known at that time, the audit prioritised broader information and communications technology (ICT) security and resilience controls, such as cloud security management, privileged access and third party management. The incomplete anonymisation was not identified during the audit.
The hon Member makes pertinent points. This is something that we can consider once the investigation is complete.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sleep Sufficiency Trends Among School-going Children and Adolescents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government tracks trends in insufficient sleep among school-going children and adolescents; and (b) what measures are being considered to improve sleep health.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi) (for the Minister for Education): The Ministry of Education (MOE) monitors sleep sufficiency by surveying Primary 5 and Secondary 3 students. Based on the latest survey in 2025, Primary 5 and Secondary 3 students reported getting seven hours of sleep on average on school days, with a slight increase compared to 2023.
In schools, students are taught healthy sleep habits, self-management and time management skills through Physical Education, and Character and Citizenship Education lessons. For example, students learn about the recommended sleep duration and good habits such as setting regular sleep hours, and avoiding caffeine and digital devices before bedtime.
Starting from January this year, the personal learning devices for secondary school students have been set by default to go into sleep mode earlier at 10.30 pm.
Parents too play an important part in role-modelling and developing healthy sleep habits. MOE, in partnership with KK Women's and Children's Hospital, has engaged parents on practical ways to support students' sleep health through engagement sessions with medical experts on sleep matters. Through MOE's social media platforms, parents are regularly supported with tips to better manage children's screen use before bedtime.
MOE will continue to work with other Ministries and agencies through Grow Well SG to help our children inculcate healthy sleep habits.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Choo.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. The first one, beyond sleep quantity, has the Ministry considered assessing sleep quality as well? Secondly, has the Ministry considered piloting later school start times for older students and what factors would guide such a decision?
\tDr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions as well as her concern with regard to sleep in our students.
Certainly, in the context of sleep quantity, it is a proxy for the ability to sleep and maintaining a healthy sleep routine at home. We do not have data with regard to their sleep quality at this point of time.
On her question with regard to later school times, as mentioned in our Committee of Supply in 2026, earlier this year, in terms of school start times, schools are given the autonomy to decide on their start time. They start no earlier than 7.30 am.
In determining school start times, schools do take into account specific context and trade-offs that arise with pushing back start times. For example, when we push back school start time, it would also mean that lessons might continue well into the afternoon when it can also be hot and humid, and perhaps less ideal for learning. School dismissal time will also be delayed, and after-school and inter-school programmes could also be impacted.
I ask that we take a balance with regard to school start times and give the schools the specific autonomy to do so.
More importantly, we want to be able to engage our students in inculcating healthy sleep habits, including self-management and time management skills. At the same time, it is also about working with our parents, engaging them to role model and develop healthy sleep habits at home. And therefore, allowing our students to be able to rest well before they engage in a day of school thereafter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Psychological Safety Indicators to Complement Existing Workplace Well-being Initiatives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has considered developing workplace psychological safety indicators or benchmarks to complement existing workplace well-being initiatives; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry intends to do so.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Acting Minister for Manpower): The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) recognises the role of psychological safety in fostering a positive work environment where employees feel comfortable in raising their ideas and views. At the same time, there are other important factors that influence workplace mental well-being, such as job demands, peer relationships and supervisor support.
MOM's approach is to support employers to assess and address mental well-being in their workplaces holistically rather than develop national level indicators or benchmarks for psychological safety alone.
For example, we have developed iWorkHealth, an online psychosocial health assessment tool that employers can use to identify common workplace stressors and psychosocial risks. Participating employers will receive an aggregated, anonymised report on the key work stressors or risks affecting their workforce, including psychological safety within the organisation. They will also receive recommendations to address the findings, which can be complemented by other resources on fostering a supportive workplace culture such as the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. Just one supplementary question, whether MOM can do more, especially with the stakeholders in the mental health ecosystem, to help workers feel safe discussing their mental health concerns, both at work and at workplaces.
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: I thank the Member for the question. I agree that we can do more. In fact, for this particular case, there is no single stakeholder that can act alone. I suggest for Government employers and unions work together to foster a more conducive culture and ecosystem.
\tMr Speaker: I am moving on.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Long-stay or Retirement-residency Pathway for Singaporeans Wishing to Age in Malaysia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Government will engage Malaysia to establish an affordable long-stay or retirement-residency pathway for Singaporeans who wish to age in Malaysia and access more affordable eldercare there, in view that the revised Malaysia My Second Home scheme now targets investors rather than retirees through high fixed deposits and property purchase.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Sir, every country will determine its residency requirements and policies for foreign nationals' access to their social services. Some countries may offer a lifestyle service for foreigners to retire in their countries. Our focus is on ensuring that all Singaporeans have access to quality and affordable eldercare in Singapore as they age, now and into the future.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
\tMr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. One supplementary question. I had originally posed this question to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, though I appreciate the Ministry of Health taking up the concerns.
Sir, we want to enable the greatest amount of retirement choices for Singaporeans. There are some Singaporeans whom I have met who do wish to retire in Malaysia. The pathway I am describing already exists in Malaysia. The East Malaysian state of Sarawak runs its own second home scheme with no property purchase, 30 days a year, a 10-year renewable pass and it lets the holder bring a parent aged 60 or above as a dependant.
Will the Government try to negotiate at the Malaysian federal and state levels for an expansion of this no-investment-needed residency to West Malaysia?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, firstly, we recognise that some Singaporeans may choose to live, retire or take private healthcare elsewhere for their own reasons. We respect the choices that Singaporeans may make about those choices.
We also respect every other sovereign nation, including Malaysia, on the policies they make with respect to allowing for foreign nationals to access their social services, care, or for their residency status.
On our part, we have come across many seniors, many families and caregivers who want to age in place in the community, age in place near their family, near their friends, in the neighbourhoods which they are familiar with. Our priority and focus must be on our Singaporeans to support them in those desires, and there are caregivers too, making sure that there is an eldercare ecosystem, making sure that there is a good standard of care, making sure that there is recourse for individuals if the quality of care falls short. We are always constantly bringing new partners into the community and enhancing our Active Ageing Centres to make sure that our seniors age well in our neighbourhoods. That is why we have the Age Well SG programme, we have the Age Well Neighbourhoods programme. That is our priority.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data, Research and Framework for Workplace Policies on After-hours Work Communications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what data does the Ministry collect on after-hours work expectations and digital connectivity among employees; (b) what assessment has been made of the adoption and effectiveness of workplace policies governing after-hours communication; and (c) whether the Ministry will study the relationship between workplace hyper-connectivity, family life and fertility intentions.
21 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed the implementation of the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-Being at Workplaces in relation to after-hours work communications; and (b) if so, what findings have emerged regarding its impact on workplace practices.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Acting Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to address the Parliamentary Questions filed by Dr Charlene Chen and Dr Hamid Razak together.
\tMr Speaker: Go ahead.
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) monitors the adoption of workplace practices related to after-hours work communication. Based on MOM's data, in 2025, 55% of full-time resident employees reported that their employers had policies governing after-hours communication. This is up from 48% in 2022. These policies include practices such as not expecting responses to non-urgent messages until the next working day or providing time-off-in-lieu for after-hours work. We have not conducted a separate assessment of the effectiveness of each of these individual policies.
Mental health and well-being, family aspirations and fertility intentions are influenced by a wide range of personal, societal and economic factors. Supporting work-life harmony plays an important role of creating an environment that is conducive to these aspects of Singaporeans' lives. We will continue to work with our tripartite partners to encourage workplace practices that support work-life harmony, including through the Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony and Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces.
A Marriage and Parenthood Reset Workgroup has also been set up to develop a whole-of-society approach to better support Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood journeys.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Chen.
\tDr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask if the Ministry has assessed whether after-hours work-related digital connectivity is becoming a significant workplace well-being issue in Singapore? If so, what other policy levers can the Ministry explore to help employees disconnect from work outside working hours where appropriate and whether the Ministry has studied what has been done elsewhere in other countries?
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: Speaker, I thank the Member Dr Charlene Chen for her questions.
We need to understand that technology has brought many benefits, including greater flexibility for employers and employees to communicate and work. But at the same time, we also recognise the concerns of this digital connectivity that may blur the boundaries of interaction between work and personal life.
Our approach is not to focus on the connectivity per se but on the broader impact on employee well-being and workplace practices. Through engagements with employers, the unions and employees, we highly encourage the employers to be mindful of the workload management, the work expectations and also how communication is done outside of working hours.
One thing to highlight is the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-Being at Workplaces emphasises the importance of addressing work stressors – workload itself and organisational practices – that may affect the overall well-being of employees. In addition, there are tools, which I have mentioned earlier today, such as the iWorkHealth, which helps employers identify the workplace stressors and psychosocial risks that employees may be subject to. It is important for these organisations to implement very targeted interventions and build solutions together with the unions or their employees to build a better workplace ecosystem.
\t
On the question on whether MOM has studied overseas on the right to disconnect and some of the approaches, I would like to say that we are monitoring the situation and developments in other jurisdictions including those who have implemented some forms of code of practice. But we need to understand that different countries have different approaches and it depends on their labour market structures, how their unions are organised, how their industrial relations are created and what are some of the workplace norms and culture.
In Singapore, Singapore has a very unique tripartite model which places very strong emphasis on employers, unions and the Government working closely together to develop most importantly practical solutions that can be adapted to different circumstances, to different workplaces.
Our current focus is to really talk about encouraging responsible workplace practices, address the workplace stressors and support employee well-being. And at the same time, promote more constructive employer and employee discussions and relationships and how they can bring more value together.
We will continue to study these overseas developments and if there are of these practices that may be useful, we will most certainly study them and adapt them for Singapore's context.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak, sorry, we have run out of time. Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will proceed to read the Notice of Motion.
[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":"An Economy of the Future that Works for All","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I move*, \"That this House, notwithstanding the suggestions in the Economic Strategy Review on the future Singapore economy, believes: (a) in a more equal and inclusive economy, with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive, and ideas and innovation to flourish; and (b) in an economic engine driven by dynamic local companies, healthy domestic demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad.\"
[(proc text) *The Motion was also entered on the Order Paper under the name of Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim. (proc text)]
Why this Motion? Why now?
Singaporeans face a uniquely challenging set of circumstances. The major model of Singaporeans getting on the economic ladder has been jobs. Without a job, you are not able to afford renting a place or buying a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat.
Without your own place, it is difficult to think about having children. And for these children, few dream of being entrepreneurs with nine in 10 working here, becoming someone's employee. For almost all of us, the jobs ladder is the main route up, with not many Singaporeans becoming entrepreneurs.
The reasons given are variously these: that the market is small and the cost of business daunting, that they lack social safety nets for risk taking, that not enough true growth capital exists for all the private wealth attracted here, that the biggest competitor to Singaporean startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are the Singaporean Government-linked Companies (GLCs). These we have the power to influence.
Property has been a lottery ticket to many Singaporeans, but with asset prices as high as they are, it is highly questionable if a new generation can follow this model without parental support, given initial conditions of wages lagging asset prices and declining employment prospects.
The persistence of property as a wealth vehicle breeds a rentier mindset. One generation's ideology hardens into the next generation's psychology. As inter-generational transfers come to dominate socio-economic status, they threaten to entrench inequity.
Let me recap why our job structure is threatened, though I suspect this is not news to many.
Our job structure rests on being the best place in the region for foreign companies to base themselves. We host many large companies but build few of them.
Singapore has three companies in the Fortune Global 500. All three are commodity traders. Two were founded elsewhere and moved here. Korea has 13. Taiwan has six. Theirs make semiconductors and ships. Theirs were built by their own people. Ours came here and can as easily go.
At the high value end, tariffs are pulling production home and to friendly countries, reducing the supply of marginal new investment available to Singapore. And less of what moves can be won on tax competition. For an increasing number of research and development (R&D) and manufacturing jobs, speed of iteration, equipping and supplying are decisive factors.
At the cost sensitive end, high business costs and slow manpower approvals accelerate offshoring to regional centres based in countries like Malaysia and Vietnam. The examples are not unfamiliar to this House. H&M moved its Southeast Asia Regional headquarters (HQ) from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur. Tiger Beer has been brewed here since 1932. By the end of next year, it will not be. Heineken is winding down brewing at Tuas and moving production to Malaysia and Vietnam, and about 130 jobs go with it.
For a younger generation, they face a changed playbook. The high paying entry level tech jobs that many aspired to have largely dried up. Many entry level roles have been offshored due to the high cost of business. And capable artificial intelligence (AI) agents and models are set to reduce the need for entry level hiring. But whatever the cause, it is undeniably hard for young Singaporeans to find a job today.
What follows is adaptation. Entrepreneurship by necessity, rather than by choice, second and third jobs, structural underemployment.
In a high-cost economy, the work most likely to stay is work that cannot be done more cheaply somewhere else.
The standard answer for advanced economies has been R&D. Build what others cannot easily copy so that firms come here in spite of our costs. But after decades and tens of billions, not one local R&D champion has emerged worth more than a billion dollars.
Of course, we should continue to invest, but the upshot is that our R&D complex is sadly not ready to be our growth engine. And as individual Chinese provinces and groups thereof become increasingly fiercely competitive ecosystems, every economy will need to reckon with the necessary scale, energy availability and the cost required to compete.
Alone, it is difficult. That is why I believe we must have greater industrial coordination between Southeast Asian countries and engage in transnational industrial policy, as I elaborated in both my maiden speech last September and my Adjournment Motion this July.
These are structural challenges to the industrial underpinning of jobs. I acknowledge the Government continues to try to do its best under these circumstances. Investment into Singapore is holding up. The Economic Development Board (EDB) committed $14.2 billion of fixed asset investment last year, up from $13.5 billion the year before and $12.7 billion the year before that – so three years rising.
But for it, we get the opposite trend in jobs. In 2023, 20,000 jobs; in 2024, 18,700 jobs; and last year 15,700 jobs. The value added expected went from $26.7 billion to $23.5 billion to $18 billion. So, even on official statistics, the engine of investment to jobs is faltering.
Faced with such a panoply of problems, what can and should we hope for?
First, we need an updated growth model that cares not only about the headline gross domestic product (GDP) growth figure, but the structure of growth. If we truly believe this is a changed world, then our policies must change with it. The structure of growth matters, and growth and distribution are not two things to be done in sequence.
It is acceptable as an exigency to grow first and then redistribute by vouchers and rebates. But over the medium and long term, we should be building an economy where a fair distribution is produced by the growth itself, rather than repaired afterwards out of the proceeds. Pre-distribution over redistribution.
And that is why we need an economic engine driven by dynamic local companies, healthy domestic demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. Only when Singaporeans thrive and believe the ladders of opportunity are fair to all, can this country be open.
Second, we need honest measurement and prioritisation of what matters from growth. Let me offer three North Stars for the distributional aspect of growth.
One, the indigenous share of national income, which captures the contribution to national income of Singaporeans as workers, owners and entrepreneurs. Its internationally comparable cousin is the labour share – how much of what stays in Singapore goes to the people who work here. Ours, at about 40%, lags most advanced economies. We should resurrect the indigenous income series and measure the whole of what Singaporeans contribute.
Two, real income growth that keeps pace with productivity, not lag it. Overall, labour productivity has grown by 2.5% per year from 2016 to 2024. But over the same period, real mean income only grew at 1.3% per year.
Singaporeans have always been model workers. From 2016 to 2024, according to the International Labour Organization (ILO), Singapore's output per worker grew 2.3% per year, outstripping major economies, such as the United States (US) at 1.6%, Israel at 1.6%, Hong Kong at 1.3%, Korea at 1.3% and Switzerland at 1.1%.
We need to repair this lag. Singaporean workers have kept their end of the bargain. Their compensation has not kept up with it.
Three, whether Singaporeans can still afford the city they built. Not how much we produce, but how much variety ordinary Singaporeans on an ordinary wage can enjoy. The diversity of services available, how much they can afford and the leisure they can afford to take.
The independent kitchen, the second-hand bookstore. We cannot in one breath lose our heritage businesses and our art spaces, and in the next tell Singaporeans that the city is thriving. Cities compete on the variety of things there are to consume, not only on what they produce, and high-amenity cities grow faster.
So, we should measure it. How varied the choices are and how many choices an ordinary wage can afford.
These three North Stars point us towards a more equal and inclusive economy, with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive and ideas and innovation to flourish.
Mr Speaker, the various Members of Parliament of the Workers' Party (WP) will touch on eight questions to answer the challenges I have laid out.
First, I will discuss innovation under constraint. How do we foster a dynamic enterprise and innovation system that maximises value regardless of the high business cost and physical constraints?
Second, my colleague, Jamus Lim, will discuss dynamic local firms. How can we create a business climate in which dynamic local firms emerge as drivers of innovation and become future cornerstones of the economy?
Third, my colleague, Louis Chua, will discuss land and the roof over the household. How do we ensure that attractive affordable housing is available for every Singaporean household?
Fourth, my colleague, Andre Low, will discuss the start of a working life and ask how we ensure our tertiary students and young workers find meaningful opportunities and good jobs in a challenging economy.
Fifth, my colleague, Gerald Giam, will discuss pathways to a middle-class livelihood. Taking tradespersons as his exemplar, he will ask how we create accessible pathways for them to earn a middle-class livelihood.
Six, my colleague, Fadli Fawzi, will discuss replacement and re-entry and ask whether our system of continuing education actually works. The journey, the destination and the proof.
We close the WP contributions with our two most expansive views of the economic model.
Seventh, my colleague, He Ting Ru, will discuss the lesser measured parts of the economy, in the domestically oriented sectors and ask what parts of this economy our national statistics fail to capture?
And eighth, my colleague, Eileen Chong, will discuss venturing abroad. How do we empower Singaporeans to seize opportunities in the region and beyond?
Mr Speaker, beyond these questions, there really is one question. What does it mean to take a changed world seriously?
If we mean to rebuild the ladder of opportunity in this generation, the answers to these problems must be the centre-piece of our evolved economic model. In these speeches, my colleague will lay out in eight steps, structural solutions to structural problems.
Today, the problem I will tackle is enterprise and innovation under constraint.
For two generations, we have been good at bringing other people's companies here. We have been slow to put the same land that we own behind our people building their own. Why do we take a high land price as a law like gravity? Universal land pricing is a coherent and convenient accounting ideology, but in the last accounting, the people of Singapore need to decide if this ideology still serves them.
Families already know this. Tuition is expensive and no tutor can promise a good job 20 years out. We pay anyway. Investments require outlays. We do not ask a child for an immediate pay-off.
So, the proposition: Singapore should stop treating market land value as a natural price for every socially productive use of land. And the test: a university-centred special zone where state land is priced at development cost rather than market scarcity value.
What is our offer to the young? We should remake the system with the young as the first consideration rather than the last adjustment.
Today, we tweak – a discount on a co-living room, a grant, a priority band in a ballot. Adjustments at the edge of a system designed around somebody else in a different decade. Treating the young as a first order principle means the opposite. We design for the 20-something year old foremost.
This is a supply side problem of policy.
Before we can remake society to be young, we must remake society for the young. The bargain has four parts: a place to live, near where the work and the research happen; at a price a starting salary can carry, in service of something the country needs – more local enterprise and R&D – with the upside staying with the risk-takers and a say in the rules.
What we should create a special zone surrounding Nanyang Technological University (NTU), where the state land is charged as cost recovery rather than market scarcity value and takes its returns in the companies that grow there, rather than rent. This experiment will span land rates for both residential and commercial space, spanning co-living, local enterprise and R&D.
It must be centred around an existing core, a university – because one cannot rustle up a cluster from nothing. But one can take one that exists and play to its strengths. It will be zoned for organic messiness, a district that is pro-worker and pro-business, built around the needs of young people and young companies.
And this experiment is reversible. If it does not work, we can simply revert to the Master Plan. But surely, today's Singaporeans should have as much say over scarce land as the master planners of decades ago.
So, let me take the argument in this order: land, our tertiary institutions, then governance and money.
First, land. Thirty years, tens of billions in R&D and more again on fostering entrepreneurship. Both R&D and the ladder of growing local giants have underperformed. We are worldclass at marshalling inputs but commercial outcomes, in terms of Singaporean-grown companies, have not appeared at the rate the spending implies.
On talent, we want to attract the very best to work alongside a strong local core. On capital, we disagree about design but perhaps not ideology.
But there is a serious methodological point. The state runs on taxpayers' money. Prudence is its duty. Innovation requires the opposite: calibrated risk-taking. Which is why risk capital belongs in a policy investment bank rather than inside Government, as the Prime Minister proposes. A prudent-first posture is difficult to unlearn.
Where we do have an ideological disagreement is the price of land. My colleague, Mr Louis Chua will also speak about this later.
The Economic Strategy Review (ESR) organises itself around inputs to production: capital, labour, productivity. But land is an input distinct from capital. It is discussed as revenue and not as a cost – a constraint to live within and not as a lever to change. And it is not a small cost.
In December 2022, the Government put the development cost of that year's 13,506 completed flats at $396,000 each – $234,000 of land against $154,000 of construction. Land was 59% of the cost of a flat.
But of course, we can test and change this cost. We have been here before. The Centre for Liveable Cities, the Government's own urban research arm, records what happens when One-North was planned: \"The idea of providing residential uses in the form of affordable housing was put forth. However, it was difficult for HDB to change its public housing policies for a single project like One-North. Therefore, the JTC approached the private sector.\"
National policy then could not bend for One-North. But it should have. What we need for R&D and entrepreneurship matters more than dogmatic inflexibility.
A high price homogenises. It prices out the independent kitchen and the lab with no revenue yet, and leaves to whoever can pay the rent – chains and franchises.
It also programmes space. And market scarcity rate, selects for what can be proven in advance – and nothing new can be proven in advance.
By definition, the novel has no track record. Thus, the experimental messiness of life is competed out.
A zone of lower commercial pressure is a zone for messiness, a zone where land is cheap enough for the young to make their own places and their own future organically – the first variable and not an accommodation.
If land pricing is an unnecessary drag on the young, on enterprise, on an R&D cluster, how do we test it? There is a formidable constraint: Singaporeans need land prices low – to start something, to live somewhere – and we need them high, because many of our savings sit in HDB flats and the state leans on land revenue.
To have both high land pricing and low land pricing simultaneously, we must do away with the constraint of universal land pricing. There are at least three ways to vary a price. First, across time, the island-wide price itself. Second, across a policy-targeted group, as the Build-To-Order (BTO) does for young parents. Third, across a geographic boundary – fence one area and change the pricing function inside, in service of agglomeration and enterprise, people and firms packed close enough to make each other more productive.
I believe that the third is the least disruptive theory of change if one believes that our land pricing assumptions need to be tested. And the question becomes where to test such a zone. For the young, for the R&D economy and for an entrepreneurial spirit. It belongs around our tertiary institutions. And looking at the map, I believe NTU is the obvious candidate.
Why NTU? The research cluster is already there. A large number of labs are sited on campus. And unlike the National University of Singapore (NUS), whose Kent Ridge and One-North districts have little room left, NTU can still expand. And yet, what is planned for Bahar and CleanTech Park, with 116 hectares adjoining NTU? It is another industrial park – the same answer the Party opposite has given again and again.
If we are to clear scarce greenery, the use case must be distinctive enough to be worth the sacrifice. I believe ours is, and another industrial park is not. That is something priceless and irreversible, traded for something cookie cutter.
Take Punggol Digital District. It is 50 hectares, JTC-developed and anchored on Singapore Institute of Technology's (SIT's) campus. It proves that the Government will build a district around a university. But it is more of the same we have done – a business park with a campus in it, on market terms.
If one accepts the first-principle case for a special zone, then two empirical facts must be dealt with.
First, the Jurong Region Line is being dug into NTU, with campus stations arriving at the end of the decade. Tengah's flats are rising beside it. Kept as separate plans, they make one more park that people commute into. The Jurong Innovation District, 620 hectares, holds in Bahar the next greenfield precinct, already zoned with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) underway. The better bargain is a district for living, working and playing, and for enterprise, and this new district around NTU would be our last chance to run this sort of experiment. Whatever we settle on this parcel becomes how we price the ground beside every campus after it.
Second, the Johor Zone Agreement was signed in January 2025. It is an experiment we must try to make succeed. But for all our hopes on foreign economic policy, it sits in another country and carries the risk that comes with that. We can and should run these experiments for ourselves, by ourselves, if we can – and we can.
If we want to re-orient our culture towards the spirit of independent living, towards the spirit of risk taking, towards the spirit of collaboration, then we must provide the conditions for the spirit to flourish. We should not be distracted by procedural arguments that Bahar and Jurong are already zoned in a Master Plan. The experiment can be run as things stand. The question is whether we will.
So, NTU as a centre of a live, work, build district, distinguished by charging land for housing at cost recovery. By cost, I mean cost in the ordinary sense, with all scarcity value excluded – the actual cost of constructing, financing, servicing, maintaining and renewing the buildings, not the hypothetical market value of the ground beneath them.
What would that come to? We have a few indications. At NTU this academic year, a non-air-conditioned double room costs about $412 a month, and an air-conditioned single room about $657. At NUS, a double in hall runs about $494. Under the co-living scheme announced in late July this year, under the SG Youth plan, a room starts at $1,800 a month at 1925 Quarters; $1,950 at Coliwoo Boon Lay and $2,000 at Coliwoo Lutheran, before utilities and deposits – roughly 30% below the usual rate, with operators absorbing the difference.
The one at Boon Lay is about four kilometres from NTU and cost roughly five times what the university charges its own students. Is it affordable? I do not think it is. The median fresh graduate from our six autonomous universities earns $4,500 a month last year. After Central Provident Fund (CPF), about $3,600 in hand. The Boon Lay rate, plus its fixed utility charge, takes about 60% of it after the discount.
This is not treating our young as a first order consideration. Our young want space of their own and financial autonomy as a precondition for life, not as a byproduct of marriage.
And 30% below market is measured against the scarcity market. Before the discount, the same room took more than three quarters of a graduate's take-home pay. Affordability must be benchmarked against what a young Singaporean actually has to spend rather than market rate discounts.
So, what can we offer with a different basis?
On a cost recovery basis, a room comes to well under the half the going rate, closer to a third. Take one calculation that owes nothing to a university subsidy. A 500 square foot unit at $200 a square foot – above the construction cost implied by the Government's own 2022 figures, so, it is a conservative assumption and not a hopeful one – if you put three people in it and amortise over 10 years at 5%, it comes out to about $1,061 a month, or $2.12 per square foot, roughly $380 a head, with a sinking fund in. Stretch amortisation to 20 years and it is $1.32 per square foot. Other calculations land in the same place. The university's own rate, annualised over 12 months rather than the 35 weeks a term, actually runs, comes out to about $478 to $549 a room.
The universities are already housing people at close to cost. So, we can arrive at a figure between $350 and $550 a month a room.
I know the reply this will draw. All state lands form part of the reserves. Land must be sold at fair market value. Otherwise, the reserves are depleted. So, let us look at practice and not just theory. Start with an instrument we have already written.
The Land Betterment Charge (Concessionary Relief) Order 2022, waives the betterment charge on state lease university land, put to education and institutional use, and defines \"university\" as NUS and NTU. So, concessions already exist for the universities.
Nor is that the only place the state prices by decision. Land for a place of worship or a civic and community institution is already valued at half of full land value. On the Land Betterment Charge Table effective this March, this is about a tenth of what residential land in the same sector is assessed at.
That red line is not only for rates of places of worship. Educational and institutional use sits in the same group and is charged at three rates across the whole island, while every residential and commercial rate moves across 118 sectors.
For one class of use, the state already sets a price by decision rather than location. And in 2023, the Government moved places of worship from competitive tender to fixed price ballot, precisely because bidding had driven prices to levels that distracted religious bodies into fundraising. Prices fell. Apparently, nobody raided the reserves.
What can we surmise?
For the Party opposite, fair market value is already a function of the interest granted. It is not a single number attached to a plot. Once you change the use class, the fair market value changes with it lawfully, with the Chief Valuer still doing the valuing. The Government identified a market mechanism was pricing a use out of its own purpose, replaced it with an administered price, got a lower number and the Chief Valuer still called it fair market value. So, let us use the rules as they are. Let us create a use category for non-tradable restricted-tenure, mixed housing and enterprise land, and let the Chief Valuer value that restricted interest.
A clear valuation to build productive capacity for the next generation is not a raid on the reserves. It is the outlay side of an investment. It is what every family who pays for tuition for better economic prospects for their kids already knows: it is long-term economic foresight over short-term economic thinking.
How would the zone work if demand exceeds supply? We could ballot. Once in, the rent stays low once you are part of the zone – studying, working, building or serving it. A firm gets a fixed term and an option to renew and graduates out upon success. And a person who loses a job or whose startup dies, gets a year's of grace before the rent resets. And if the housing is rented, never sold, it does not become an asset to be traded.
Mr Speaker, the price of land matters greatly. But it is not sufficient on its own. You must get the other conditions right too.
On governance, an innovation district is a place where things are tried and most of them failed. That requires us to tolerate some untidiness. Most of what I am asking requires no new legislation. JTC let its land on contracts it writes itself – rent formulas, renewal test, quotas, carve outs, occupancy covenants. These are lease terms and not statutes with already existing latitude.
We should lift the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) planning circular, capping non-academic use of a campus at 5% of floor area or 30,000 square metres. We can hasten visa decisions for deep-tech researchers and for the people the enterprises need, and aim to have every major decision in such a zone made within two weeks.
We should aim to devolve operational decisions to the zone's own board, small and nimble, with the anchor university on it, able to make the bundled decisions on space, pilots, housing allocation, visas and procurements. And the board should be responsive to the people living in the zone who should have a say in how it is run.
On money, we should give this zone the ability to back its founders and enterprises. Lower rent is part of a draw. The bigger draw should be growth capital – the zone taking a stake in the enterprises that grow inside it.
Singapore and China established Suzhou Industrial Park in 1994. The zone grew its own investment arm, Oriza Holdings – state-owned, controlled by the Parks Administration Committee, incorporated in 2001, with about US$14 billion under management today.
So, while we are not involved in Oriza Holdings, a zone-based financing body is not unknown to us. Many financial innovations have come from zones. China's New Third Board, its national over-the-counter equity market for unlisted small companies, began in 2006 as a Zhongguancun Science Park Share Transfer pilot and went nationwide in 2013.
So, we should capitalise a zone authority that can invest while providing optimal conditions for its startups and enterprises to succeed, taking a capped equity or revenue stake, and allow it to appropriate a portion of the funds it generates to further develop the zone. A zone of lower immediate commercial pressure for these enterprises is a place where experimentation and diversity can flourish.
Speaker, the zone is one bounded, reversible way to try on available land at a price that takes nothing from the reserves, with land prices outside the zone exactly the way they were – a way to make more Singaporeans involved in enterprise and R&D, and not only employees.
So, the ask is threefold: a zone around NTU; a new use category for restricted tenure, non-tradable, mixed housing and enterprise land, valued as the restricted interest it is; and a zone authority that runs its own operations and takes stakes in the enterprises it grows.
It is a controlled experiment in whether Singapore's land pricing regime is suppressing agglomeration, entrepreneurship and indigenous capital formation. If there is a Singaporean secret sauce that inheres beyond the cost pressures of land and wages, then a zone here, alongside the one in Johor, will tell us. It is a test we should run for our younger generation.
We have spent 30 years making this country a good place for other people's companies to succeed. I am asking that we spend the next 30 making it a place where our owners can – not just a better deal for the young, a country which is built categorically for the young.
Speaker, in closing, there has been much talk that the world has changed and it is not changing back. We can all feel it. So, here is the test of whether we are serious. We must reform significant parts of our present economic structure to deal with a changed world, to pursue growth that distributes more fairly and to measure what makes that growth worth having – a fair share of national income, real income growth in line with productivity and a widening range of what an ordinary wage can afford.
Many of these changes must come at the national level, but some are assumptions, long in the tooth, that must be tested. Universal market land pricing is one. And a policy laboratory at real scale is how we test it. The zone is one part.
In this Motion, each of my hon friends will bring another – structural solutions to structural problems. Singaporeans deserve serious answers; and serious answers are what the WP will provide. That is why we have moved this Motion to create an economy of the future that works for all. Sir, I seek to move. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I second the Motion in the name of my hon friend Kenneth Tiong.
I cannot agree more that we need both dynamic local companies and opportunities for businesses to succeed, which is why my contribution to this debate will focus on how we can wean ourselves away from a top-down foreign investment, reliant multinational corporation- (MNC-) centric economic model; and instead build a bottom-up domestic capital led small and medium enterprise- (SME-) focused one. I will also weave in constructive critique on the recently released ESR.
To start, it is useful to sketch out what our traditional growth model has been. Essentially, the strategy was to accumulate. Accumulate more of what economists call factors of production, to ride on increases in the labour force due to demographic change, while simultaneously building up complementary capital, both manufactured in the form of machines, factories, equipment, as well as human through education.
For the former, we marshalled foreign savings with heavy foreign direct investments from MNCs in the early years and since the turn of the century, inward portfolio investment from global funds and family offices. We supplemented this with forced domestic saving from households in the form of CPF and from the state by maintaining large fiscal surpluses.
For the latter, we cranked up educational attainment by rapidly educating our school-aged children, then starting in the 1990s, by increasingly absorbing skilled workers from abroad.
We coupled this build-up of factors with fundamentals, exploiting our geographical location, we fostered an economy open to trade in goods, services and finance.
We also placed emphasis on quality institutions and attractive low tax climate, respect for property rights and rule of law and a high functioning civil service.
We fired on all these cylinders, which brought us famously from a per capita income of around $1,600 at Independence; to more than $121,000 today – a massive increase by any stretch of the imagination.
Notwithstanding how we were already ahead in the 1960s, at least relative to the rest of the developing world, our growth story is undeniably impressive.
This model is not unique to us. It was successfully deployed by Japan in its early industrialisation and the approach, with some idiosyncratic variations, was how the other East Asian dragon economies of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea became wealthy. And starting in the 1980s, China has adapted the self-save model.
As successful as this traditional model was, it had embedded within it several pathologies. It made us obsessed somewhat with courting foreign capital and fearful of right-minded pro-worker policies that would reduce our attractiveness as regional headquarters. Our educational system to churn out a formidable number of excellent operators, but far fewer risk-taking entrepreneurs. And in the drive to economise on scarce land, our Government's leasehold model has fostered a rent-seeking mindset in real estate, rather than treating land as just another normal input to production.
Perhaps the most damning drawback is a known design flaw in the relentless pursuit of accumulating inputs to production, we have lagged in productivity growth. To be fair, this was also the case with the other dragon economies. Yet even among them, Singapore has fared the worst.
Just as important, these other economies, once they entrenched their high-income status, began to evolve their model toward a more internally driven, self-sustaining productivity led one. We have yet to do so decisively.
Some may argue that we should make no excuses for growth. I believe that this is incomplete at best and misguided at worst. After all, we already know how to drive good growth – crank up capital expenditure to the detriment of labour income and productivity.
Indeed, this has been the consistent criticism of Singapore's growth model during its rapid growth phase from the 1960s through to the 1990s and was arguably the impetus for the menagerie of productivity campaigns and bodies that, alas, has not overturned our nation's productivity woes.
And while it is tempting for us to look at bolstering growth from tried and tested tools, such as building up yet more of our already intensive capital stock, we must resist because it is clear that disproportionately prioritising resource allocation into hard infrastructure investment, especially in real estate, is running up against diminishing returns.
Sir, what would such a new model look like? For starters, we must evolve away from our traditional reliance on foreign MNCs as a driver of our growth and pivot toward SMEs as our homegrown economic engine.
While the ESR speaks about both, it betrays, somewhat, an implicit bias toward the former. We need a conscious shift from not too much fixation with tax competition and undervalued exchange rate and the wooing of footloose MNCs. We must instead promote bottom-up formation and growth of our indigenous companies and unleash the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of our local workforce. This means weaning our companies off a race-to-the-bottom focus on cost cutting as the only means to be competitive.
Revenue and wages should instead hinge on productivity gains, not a relentless search for cheaper inputs. Margins can and should be driven by elevating value add and quality. What we want is a \"made in Singapore\" to be synonymous with better, not just faster or cheaper, which is best left to economies lower down the income ladder.
To be clear, this is not simply an appeal for faster growth, not just for growth's sake. It is of existential importance, especially in the age of AI. Research shows that worldwide, small firms drive destructive innovation, and startups are the bulwark of sustainable growth through this process of creative destruction. Yet, while SMEs account for 99 out of 100 registered enterprises here and provide jobs for seven out of 10 Singaporean workers, they currently only contribute to half of the economy's value added.
If our SMEs are stifled because business or funding opportunities are crowded out by the bigger players, we will never discover our own homegrown globally competitive unicorns. Or if they simply choose to coast along without feeling empowered to challenge large incumbent firms, we will never build a vibrant body of SMEs that form the backbone of our economy, like Germany's Mittelstand or Japan's Taiheiyo Industrial Belt.
To enable this transformation, we need a domestic body of medium-sized enterprises capable of growing to become the next wave of national corporate champions and driving a 21st century innovation-led economy. We need Singaporeans to start Singaporean companies and for these companies to grow and succeed domestically and on the world stage.
Singapore is no stranger to support for SMEs. The Government would undoubtedly point to a veritable grab bag of schemes, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit, Enterprise Development Grant, Market Readiness Assistance, Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package – I could go on.
The question is not whether these are useful. They are. The issue is whether these catalytic grants will spur SME activity sufficiently to allow them to systematically advance to the next stage of growth, or whether there are other structural impediments that inhibit them from transforming themselves from small local firms to medium sized, globally competitive ones.
Businesses themselves report several key constraints to growth. Most notably, SMEs struggle with low levels of productivity, something that the Government itself has explicitly acknowledged. Many report an inability to attract and retain the sort of talent that will allow them to elevate their efficiency and output.
To be fair, our SMEs have to confront business costs among the highest in the world. And to compound the challenge, SMEs must secure financing for investment, which is especially scarce once they exit the startup stage. Our SMEs must stand ready to be the source of development innovation, the \"D\" in R&D.
I have shared with this House previously about how at less than 2% of GDP, our nation's R&D remains squarely below the global average and significantly behind that of leading innovation nations. But I also explained that this was because of anaemic R&D spending by the private sector, not the Government. Alas, among SMEs, this is even worse. The overwhelming majority of business R&D expenditure (BERD) is likely to be from large enterprises.
The ESR talks about R&D, but it does not underscore the importance of this pivot.
I note that the Prime Minister's Office announced last year a $37 billion commitment to research, innovation and enterprise funding over the next five years. This will bring our public expenditure to around 1%, which will be among the global leaders. But we need to accelerate private R&D, not just with more public funding, but with complementary funding from our private capital markets as well.
To be fair, tax incentives for corporations to undertake R&D are already very generous, with up to 400% deduction for the first $400,000 of qualifying expenditures every assessment year, supplemented more recently by up to 100% in Refundable Investment Credit. SMEs have been major beneficiaries, making up 85% of R&D claims.
But improving productivity is not about innovation alone. Research has shown that one important impediment to improving the efficiency of smaller firms is the quality of management. This means there may therefore be a case to expand the scope of qualifying R&D activities for the purposes of tax deductions for this group. This is especially for activities aimed at product commercialisation, enhanced internal business operation or overseas expansion.
What is also missing is a coherent innovation pathway for all SMEs, not just those oriented towards sexy, cutting-edge fields. Founders of old economy startups may not necessarily possess the technological sophistication to navigate the GoBusiness Directory or the awareness to seek out business advisors in Enterprise Singapore. They may not be able to string together the myriad packages available or even put together credible applications.
What is needed is a push rather than pull strategy, where new business registrants are automatically and routinely offered information on how they can access support from the Government to roll out business development innovations over the course of their initial years. Even better, startups can match with seconded experts that grow their R&D capabilities in-house, akin to the Agency for Science, Technology and Research's (A*STAR's) Technology for Enterprise Capability Upgrading (T-Up) programme.
There remains additional room for the state to act as well, through its indirect influence on GLCs. Despite being half of our economy's value-added R&D spending by domestic enterprises account for only $1 of every $5. Our GLCs can lead the way by dedicating more of their retained earnings toward expenditures in applied R&D, subject to a reasonable return on investment period. Over the medium run, they can look more towards elevating their spending to more closely match those of other MNCs.
Finally, we can also support SME productivity indirectly by tackling our sky-high business costs. Speaking to SMEs, the subject of crushing manpower and rent inevitably emerges. Yet scaling up and relocating is not always an option. Hence, we need to look for alternatives. One simple strategy is to cap the maximum quantum that rents may increase every year to the historical increase of about 3% annually.
This is a limit on the rate, not the level. Market rents will still prevail in the long run. Still, doing so will give time for businesses to adjust to jumps in their fixed costs. Such restrictions have been employed by many jurisdictions worldwide. Even if we limit it to Government and agency landlords, such as the HDB or JTC, it will be a major step forward.
It may also be time to revisit the dependency ratio ceiling for certain sectors, like F&B, where Singaporeans continue to shun open positions that are advertised even at attractive wages.
Sir, at the heart of the challenge of raising up our local SMEs is the difficulty of attracting and retaining talented workers. Singaporeans often view small firm jobs as small-time, second-tier operations compared to a more lucrative prestigious MNC career. The ESR report, while rightly emphasising the importance of good jobs, remains largely silent on the gap between SME and MNC positions and how they may be bridged.
Bridging this gap must recognise that smaller firms often struggle to round up sufficient financing for investment compared to larger ones. Relieving internal and external access to finance for the purposes of easing cash flow that will unlock hiring is first order if we wish to improve the viability of our young dynamic companies.
There are already schemes that support small enterprise business development. For example, the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) is aimed at projects and the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) is aimed at IT equipment. They ostensibly relieve financial constraints. The EDG even explicitly recognises human capital development projects as a core capability.
Our PSG should do the same since productivity is boosted as much by human capital as it is by IT equipment.
While one may argue that the Workforce Development Grant (WDG) does much the same thing, the WDG appears overly restrictive, reliant on an approved consultant panel and is not available on an ongoing basis.
I believe the scope should be more flexible and allow SMEs to bolster compensation and benefits to better match starting salaries offered by MNCs.
Beyond salaries, jobseekers may be attracted to work in SMEs because of the promise of greater work variety and flexibility, and greater exposure to business roles and functions. Internship and apprenticeship programmes, including those from polytechnics, universities and the Graduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme should actively look to enfold SMEs into their slate of potential employers. The Career Conversion Programmes should not be limited to the wholesale trade but be expanded to encompass a wider range of SME sectors.
That said, application and reporting requirements for these programmes are often onerous, stretching the already thin resources of small businesses. While I accept the need for prudence in managing public funds, we should not turn SMEs into another Government bureaucracy. There should be a simplified application process for grants and reporting process requirements should focus on fraud audit rather than extensive documentation compliance.
Moreover, funds are provided on a reimbursement basis at the moment. But any small business owner, especially one that is starting up, knows that one of the principal challenges that they face is sustaining cash flow. We should also reimburse any support we offer upfront and trust SME owners to deploy these grants wisely. Of course, supporting SMEs with young talent can occur even earlier upstream. SMEs in search of skilled workers often seek out interns. Unfortunately, many young would-be graduates remain unmatched to potential SME employers.
This is not for lack of trying. Most tertiary institutions already include a job exposure scheme, but take-up remains low. In 2024, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) supplied 1,300 students while autonomous universities sent 800. This is despite how attachments often translate into jobs. Perhaps more importantly, SME participation remains low. Around 300 firms have joined such programmes, which are less than 1% of registered SMEs.
One factor behind the low take-up rate could be because companies that hope to partner with tertiary institutions must co-design and co-deliver bespoke curricula. This can be insurmountable for smaller companies with limited resources and understanding of how to go about doing so.
It may be better to take a cue from the German approach, where more than one in 10 companies participate in their equivalent programme, by expanding the scope of potential applicants, allowing interns to be hired using SkillsFuture funds and accepting simpler application criteria from SME employers.
Yet even when directed towards hiring talent, there is little structure to ensure the systematic transfer of skills such that the benefits of human capital are spread across the firm. That is especially the case for foreign talent.
There is room to place greater emphasis on local capability development built into schemes, such as the Pioneer Certificate Incentive, and Development and Expansion Incentive to better embed skills transfer to Singaporean employees. Larger grants in particular should be paired with a clear proposal and timetable for ensuring skills transfer, including the possibility of a sunset of foreign Employment Passes after a designated duration if no additional transfer is taking place. When local employees are sent for skills upgrading, employers of micro and small enterprises can be partially reimbursed with make-up pay to cover the costs of temporary hiring or overtime, similar to make-up pay when NSmen fulfil their reservist commitments.
Sir, let me close.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Lim, you have a minute left.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I hear you.
To be clear, what I am calling for is not a wholesale overhaul of our GLC-heavy, MNC-led and foreign capital-reliant model, which has to date served us well. Sidelining these actors would amount to killing off the golden goose, which have established themselves as cornerstones of our corporate and industrial landscape. Our GLCs have also been increasingly competitive on international shores, projecting the economic influence of Singapore Inc worldwide.
Nor am I proposing that we abandon our foreign investment and shut the door to foreign capital flows. This will hollow out our capital base. No modern economy, much less a globalised one, like ours, operates without due attention to international players. But what I am calling for are policy and institutional shifts that will usher in a changed mindset for how we should view our homegrown companies in an already wealthy, advanced economy. The shift will place small, but especially, medium-sized firms at the beating heart of our nation's economic model, away from the interests of large foreign-based MNCs or even our GLC behemoths.
What we need is creative destruction. By destroying, we will create simultaneously an economy ready for the 21st century.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the Motion sets out aspirations that few would disagree with – a more inclusive economy, greater space for entrepreneurs to experiment, opportunities for businesses and workers to succeed, and a stronger base of Singapore companies and capital capable of venturing abroad.
These are not Government aspirations or Opposition aspirations. They are Singapore imperatives. The real question is not whether we want them. It is how we achieve them and who must act.
But we should begin with two truths.
First, Singapore's economy grew by 5.7% in the second quarter of this year. Manufacturing expanded by 12.2%, driven largely by AI-related demand for electronics and precision engineering. This growth is real and welcomed.
Second, it is not being felt evenly. On the ground, I have heard that unless your business is AI, then it must be BI, BI means \"bei ai\" (悲哀), which means \"to be sorrowful\", in Mandarin.
Many businesses, especially domestic-facing ones, continue to grapple with uncertain demand and persistently high manpower, rental and operating costs. For these businesses and their workers whose livelihoods depend on them, headline GDP does not feel like growth. It feels like daily firefighting. That concern is real.
Our response must therefore work on two horizons – practical, time-bound relief for viable businesses under immediate pressure and longer-term transformation support to help them raise productivity, scale and reach new markets.
But relief without transformation merely postpones the problem. The Government must build the runway for our economy through sound regulation, infrastructure, education, fair regulation and a strong social safety net. But firms, entrepreneurs and workers are the planes that must still take off. From a business perspective, this means three imperatives – enabled enterprises, expand opportunity and embed responsibility.
To enable enterprise, we must build an inclusive economy, one that gives people and businesses equal dignity, genuine access to opportunity and meaningful support when they face disadvantage or disruption. But fairness is not sameness. A traditional SME trying to digitise has different needs from a technology start-up developing intellectual property. A promising local enterprise preparing to expand overseas needs different support from a company whose business model that may no longer be viable.
Fairness means understanding what each business needs to progress and being clear about the outcomes public support should achieve. If support is spread too thinly, we fail to give enough runway to companies with the potential to break out internationally. At the same time, inclusion cannot mean guaranteeing the survival of every business.
A dynamic economy requires entry, experimentation, occasional failure and renewal. Entrepreneurs should have the room to fail responsibly and try again. But public support cannot remove every commercial risk or socialise every business loss. The Government's role is to create a fair and enabling environment. Businesses' role is to use it to improve, invest and compete.
This is where our business institutions must step up. My practical message to businesses is simple. Whatever stage of development you are at, your first port of call should be SBF or your relevant chamber and trade association.
A company should not need to understand the entire Government organisational chart before it can obtain help. If you need to understand a policy or regulation, start with us. If you need guidance on financing, start with us. If you need to transform your workforce, adopt AI, enter a new market or find the right Government support, start with us. We may not have every answer. But we will own the handover and help every company find the right door.
Take All Hearts, a homegrown training provider. As it grew, manual processes led to mounting errors and delays. Through SBF's Technology Implementation Advisory Service, developed with support from Enterprise Singapore and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), we helped the company adopt a single integrated tech solution. Manual data entry fell by half, reports became almost immediate and the staff gained more time to train and support learners.
For an established SME, the next step may be new financing, stronger management capabilities or entry into an overseas market.
UTRACON, a Singapore engineering firm seeking to grow in the Middle East, had the capability but lacked local partners and market access. Through GlobalConnect@SBF, supported by Enterprise Singapore, SBF connected it to a United Arab Emirates (UAE) partner and opened doors to regional projects. Our role is not to venture for companies but to shorten the distance to their first opportunity abroad. Enabling enterprise also means ensuring our regulations remain fit-for-purpose.
Regulations are necessary to protect workers, consumers, public safety, the environment and the integrity of our economy. But over time, rules can accumulate and create unintended friction. The answer is not deregulation for its sake. It is disciplined experimentation. Test changes carefully, learn from evidence and adjust where rules no longer work.
The Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Competitiveness demonstrates how this can work. It brought businesses, trade associations and chambers and public agencies together through 25 engagement sessions. So far, 24 of 27 recommendations has been adopted in some shape and form. These included changes to foreign manpower sources for select occupations; retention of experienced Work Permit holders; more flexible industrial leases; faster solar-panel deployment approvals; and the creation of the SME Pro-Enterprise Office.
The value of the AfA was not that Government agreed with every business request. It was that businesses explained where rules created problems, and that agencies explained the safeguards and trade-offs they had to manage. Sometimes, businesses changed their views after understanding the policy reasons. In other cases, agencies adjusted the rules after understanding operational realities.
This is what good collaboration looks like. Not Government always saying yes, not business always being right. But policy learning through engagement and improving over time.
Mr Speaker, the Motion also speaks of healthy domestic demand and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. I agree.
For Singapore, domestic demand can only provide a buffer, but it cannot be our principal engine of scale. To grow, Singapore companies must venture abroad, find new customers, build new production capacity, acquire technology and participate in supply chains beyond our shores. So far, SBF has facilitated 108 overseas projects for 79 Singapore companies across 44 markets. That is the ambition we need to enable – Singapore companies venturing out, while keeping their most valuable capabilities anchored here.
Golden Bridge Foods is one example. With SBF's facilitation, this Singapore agri-food company invested more than RM50 million to establish a new manufacturing capacity in Johor, Malaysia, while retaining Singapore as the base for managing its regional business. This is why the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) matters. Its potential can be strengthened by linking it more closely with Batam, Bintan and Karimun (BKK). SBF has initiated a strategic study on how better physical and digital connectivity, smoother customs arrangements and closer regulatory coordination could bring the JS-SEZ and BBK together as a wider regional cooperation.
But expanding our hinterland is no free lunch. Better connectivity also gives consumers more choices and exposes businesses here to greater competition.
SBF's Johor Bahru–Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link study, done together the Restaurant Association of Singapore and the Singapore Retailers Association illustrates this trade-off. After the RTS Link opens, Singapore consumers could spend an additional $1.05 billion annually in Johor Bahru, while Johor visitors could spend an additional $756 million in Singapore.
Our response cannot be to stop people from crossing the border. Neither can Singapore businesses compete on price alone. We must compete on quality, trust, productivity, innovation, distinctive products and better experiences.
As we expand markets to create new opportunities, competition will come. The answer is not protection. It is to help Singapore companies build the capabilities to venture abroad, anchor value here and become strong enough to compete.
This brings me to my third point on embedding responsibility. Companies that benefit from access to global talent must also help develop Singaporeans by mentoring them, build local successors and give Singapore employees regional and global exposure. We should not frame this as a choice between developing Singaporeans and remaining open to foreign or global talent.
Foreign professionals bring networks, technical knowledge and experience in overseas markets. But openness will remain socially sustainable only if it comes with real integration, knowledge transfer and investment in local leadership. The Alliance for Action on the Integration of Foreign Professionals, convened by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and SBF, shows how this can be done. It produced practical recommendations to strengthen workplace integration while keeping Singapore open to global talent.
SBF, with support from MCCY, now has an Integration of Foreign Professionals Programme Office. It works with trade associations and chambers to run orientation for new Employment Pass holders, provides workplace-integration resources and conducts cultural-sensitivity workshops.
Finally, Mr Speaker, economic success must strengthen our wider society. Businesses benefit from Singapore's stability, infrastructure, educated workforce, rule of law and social cohesion. Giving back to society is not charity, but reinvestment in the foundations that enterprise depends on. That is why the work of the SBF Foundation and our social impact programmes matters.
Through VolunteerInc., we help companies, including SMEs, mobilise their employees to contribute skills and time in the community. Through EmployWell and MigrantWell, we create employment pathways for vulnerable groups and support migrant workers' well-being.
More than 5,200 companies have taken part in these programmes. But the human outcomes matter more. Through EmployWell alone, over 2,100 individuals facing barriers to work received employability support, and more than 1,000 re-entered the workforce. This is how businesses strengthen the social compact.
Mr Speaker, what do these examples show? They show what becomes possible when businesses and Government work together. Business leaders serve in SBF and our trade associations and chambers not because they have time to spare. Far from it. But because they know that no company can build a competitive ecosystem alone. Government cannot know every operational difficulty that businesses face. Businesses may not fully appreciate every national trade-off that Government must manage. Unions must understand that better jobs depend on viable companies, while employers must recognise that transformation cannot succeed without workers.
That is why our tripartite and public-private partnerships remain important. The parties do not need to agree on everything. But there must be enough trust to discuss difficult trade-offs honestly and enough commitment to act after the discussion.
If each of us plays our part, Singapore will not merely respond to the future. We will shape it together. That is the economy of the future I believe Singapore must build. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the current global economic outlook is uncertain. Fluctuating oil prices and frequent tariff changes have seriously affected economies and business worldwide. Singapore, as a small open nation with no natural resources, is likewise under considerable pressure.
Fortunately, we have a robust financial system. Businesses have been actively diversifying their investment and managing risks and the Government has recently introduced a range of support measures that can in the short term ease the pressure faced by SMEs and the people from external pressures.
Looking ahead, we still face several structural challenges. While AI is driving technological transformation, it is also pushing up energy demand and we need to develop renewable energy. The ageing population is also a serious concern – an inefficient youth population will lead to a dual shortage of both the workforce and consumer base.
These challenges are real and cannot be ignored. We must adapt in a timely manner. We all share the same goals. Our differences lie only in the path forward. As the saying goes, if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together. If everyone acts independently and looks only after their own interests, some short-term progress may be made, but it will not last. Only by supporting one another and working together can we move forward steadily and sustainably.
Therefore, businesses should actively seize opportunities while giving back to society. Workers should continue learning and upgrading skills and the Government should continue building a fair, open and transparent business environment.
I firmly believe that as long as the tripartite partners work together, we will be able to weather the difficulties and achieve long-term development.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the wording of the Motion suggest that these aspirations somehow stand apart from the ESR. I am not entirely persuaded by that framing. As such, I cannot support the Motion in its current form.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I declare that I own and operate a biotech startup that provides circular food solutions to local companies and global enterprises. I rise to speak on the Motion on an Economy of the Future that Works for All. I agree with the broad aspirations behind the Motion.
We all want a more inclusive economy – stronger local companies, good jobs for Singaporeans and growth that gives our people confidence in the future. But I believe the Motion can be strengthened by making clear that these aspirations are aligned with the ESR, and by better reflecting the realities of Singapore's small and open economy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your consent to move amendments to the Motion.
Mr Speaker: May I have a copy of your proposed amendments?
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Yes, Sir.
Mr Speaker: You can hand it to my Clerk. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]
Okay, I see you have four proposed amendments. They are in order. Are copies available for Members?
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Yes, Sir.
Mr Speaker: We will get this distributed to all Members. [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.]
Alright, looks like every Member here has been given a copy. Mr Chia, you may move your amendments.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, I move that:
\"In line 1, to delete 'notwithstanding', and insert 'in line with'.\"
\"In line 5, to delete 'economic engine driven', and insert 'economy powered'.\"
\"In line 5, after the words 'local companies', to insert 'global enterprises'.\"
\"In line 5, after the words 'healthy domestic', to insert 'and external'.\"
The proposed amended Motion will therefore read, \"That this House, in line with the suggestions in the economic strategy review on the future Singapore economy, believes: (a) in a more equal and inclusive economy with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive, and ideas and innovations to flourish; and (b), in an economy powered by dynamic local companies, global enterprises, healthy domestic and external demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad.\"
Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments strengthen the Motion in three ways.
First, it makes clear that the aspirations of inclusion, entrepreneurship, innovation and good jobs are aligned with the ESR, not pursued in spite of it. Second, it recognises that the Singapore's future economy needs both dynamic local companies and global enterprises. Third, it recognises that healthy domestic demand must be supported by strong external demand, especially for a small and open economy, like Singapore.
I will therefore speak to the proposed amended Motion by making three points.
First, is that the ESR provides a strategic foundation for an inclusive and innovative economy. The ESR recognises that the world has changed fundamentally. In a more fractious environment, Singapore cannot simply preserve what worked in the past. We must renew our strategy. Its three imperatives are clear: sharpen Singapore's value proposition; enhance agility and adaptability; and build resilience alongside efficiency.
These recommendations did not emerge in isolation. The ESR was shaped through extensive engagements with businesses, unions, workers and industry stakeholders. It should therefore be seen not merely as a Government report, but as a national strategy, co-created, shaped with the people and enterprises that helped carry it out.
So, the next challenge is execution. And we start from a strong base. Investments in R&D have anchored research talent in Singapore and also catalysed business expenditure in R&D. Business expenditure in R&D has reached about $9 billion in 2023.
So, what we need to do next is to strengthen research translation. Singapore not only must produce more research, but translate more ideas into products; more intellectual property to businesses; more innovation into globally competitive Singapore enterprises.
This requires strong partnerships between our universities, research institutions, investors and enterprise. We need clearer pathways for promising technology to commercialise more industry-led research collaborations and better access for startups and SMEs to capital, customers and global markets.
Second, we must help workers move up, move across and move forward. Even as technology disrupts jobs, the answer is not to slow down technology adoption. That will make our firms less competitive and ultimately, weaken opportunities for Singaporeans. The answer is to give workers access to relevant training, better career guidance, industry-recognised skills and real pathways into growth sectors. An economy that works for all must create a broad range of good jobs for technicians, operational specialist, tradespeople, associates, and professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), service workers, mid-career workers and mature workers.
My second point is that Singapore's economic engine must be powered by both dynamic local companies and global enterprises.
Dynamic local companies matter, but we should not frame local companies and global enterprises as competing choices. Singapore's success has never been built on such false choice. Instead, our focus should be on helping MNCs, large local companies, SMEs and startups build up one another. Global enterprises bring investments, technology and international networks while local enterprises contribute agility, innovation and specialised capabilities. Together, they create an ecosystem that builds capabilities, accelerates innovations and creates better job opportunities for Singaporeans.
We have already seen how this works in practice. AEM, a homegrown Singapore company, designs an advance system that test semiconductors before they reach the market, including the thermal control technology needed to screen today's power-hungry AI chips. Through a partnership with a global semiconductor MNC in the 2010s, AEM evolved from a contract manufacturer into a trusted innovative engineering partner to the semiconductor industry, delivering tests, thermal automation solutions to AI, high-performance computing and memory devices.
From a Singapore base, it has grown into a global test leader, with operations across Asia, Europe and the US, and it is now extending its expertise to the world's most advanced AI processors. This shows how partnership with a global enterprise can help a Singapore company build proprietary capabilities, move up the value chain and compete and win on the world stage. And I just last checked, AEM's market capitalisation is around $2.8 billion.
So, the challenge before us is to deepen these partnerships so that more Singapore enterprises can innovate, scale and internationalise. These connections strengthen research translations by bringing researchers, startups, SMEs, investors and industry together to move innovation more quickly from the laboratory to the marketplace. We must help our SMEs and startups scale while ensuring that global enterprises continue to find Singapore a trusted and valuable base. If we become less open, less connected and less attractive to global capital and talent, it is actually our local companies that will lose access to markets, partners, technology and opportunity.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point is that Singapore's future must be open and outward-looking while ensuring that growth strengthens our social compact and benefits Singaporeans. This is why we need both healthy domestic and external demand. Domestic demand matters. It sustains many local enterprises, supports jobs and reflects confidence among households and businesses. Yet our whole market alone cannot provide the scale needed for every sector. We therefore need both a vibrant domestic market where locally focused enterprises can thrive and strong global connections that help other firms reach larger markets.
In 2025, Singapore's exports for goods and services amounted to approximately 178% of our GDP. This reflects how deeply our economy is connected to regional and global markets. We must continue to serve the world from Singapore as a trusted hub for finance, trade, technology, logistics, aviation, maritime, data, arbitration, greenfields, professional services and innovation. At the same time, the benefits of this external orientation must flow back to Singaporeans through good jobs, wages, skills and enterprise opportunities. This reinforces confidence and demand at home.
This is why the ESR emphasis on Singapore as a connected and trusted hub is so important. In a more fragmented world, connectivity alone is not enough. We must become a place where flows are orchestrated, finance governed, translated into economic value. This is how we remain relevant. This is how we create high-value jobs. This is how we secure our future.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amended Motion also refers to Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. This is important, but this must be done from a strong and open Singapore base from which capital, talent and enterprise can scale into the region. We want Singaporeans to lead, manage, invest, build and operate across borders. We also want global partners to use Singapore as a launchpad and to create opportunities for Singaporeans from Singapore.
This is especially important in Southeast Asia. Our region is growing, but it is also diverse, complex and uneven. Singapore companies need support to understand local regulations, build partnerships, manage risk, access financing and scale operations. The Government can do this to help local enterprises internationalise through market access platforms, financing support, overseas networks, talent development and stronger partnerships with regional governments and businesses. But this must sit within an open and outward-looking strategy. We become stronger by helping the world solve problems from Singapore.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this brings me to the broader question of inclusion. Sometimes, economic debates frame equality and competitiveness as opposing objectives. I do not agree. For Singapore, competitiveness is what gives us the resources to be inclusive. Without growth, there will be fewer jobs. Without investments, there will be fewer opportunities. Without productive companies, wages cannot rise sustainably. Without fiscal resource, we cannot fund education, housing, healthcare, social support and skills upgrading.
So, the question is not whether we choose growth or inclusion. The question is what kind of growth we pursue and how we ensure that Singaporeans will benefit from it. We want growth that will create good jobs; growth that allows workers to move into better roles; growth that strengthens local enterprises; and growth that supports families, seniors, lower-wage workers and mid-career workers.
This is the exactly the kind of growth the Government has emphasised in its broader economic strategy. Progressive wages help lower-wage workers. Workfare supports workers who need additional help. SkillsFuture helps Singaporeans upgrade and reskill. The Forward Singapore agenda strengthens social support across different life stages. The ESR builds on this by focusing on good jobs, lifelong learning, enterprise transformation and resilience.
There is also another dimension to enterprise that we should not overlook. We should view enterprises not only as economic units but also as social actors. Companies create jobs, pay wages and generate growth, but at their best they can also strengthen communities, support vulnerable groups, care for the environment and contribute to a stronger society. The National Volunteer And Philanthropy Centre's (NVPC's) Company of Good Movement is one example. It has just marked its 10th anniversary and recognises businesses that embed corporate purpose and create positive impact beyond traditional economic indicators. The movement encourages companies to act across five areas: people, society, governance, environment and economic.
This is not just philanthropy. It is about how companies execute purpose through their core business and operations. Some companies do this through inclusive hiring and people-first workplace cultures. Others do this through employee volunteering, mentoring SMEs, supporting community partners, reducing waste, improving sustainability practices or using their products, services and supply chains to create wider social impact. Examples include Sheng Siong's people-first culture, HPE's waste recycling, HP's Planet Partners programme and Fraser's Property's efforts to shape environments and communities through its role as a real estate developer. In just three years, the movement has conferred 1,046 companies, more than 70% of them local companies. This is encouraging progress with room to grow further.
This matters because an inclusive economy cannot be built by the Government alone. Startups, SMEs, large local enterprises and MNCs can be a force for good when they embed purpose into how they hire, buy, build, serve and grow. A future economy that works for all must be one where businesses do well and also do good.
Sir, inclusion cannot mean insulating everyone from change. The role of the Government is not to freeze the economy in place. Instead, the role of the Government is to help workers and businesses adapt before disruption hits and to provide support when transitions are difficult. This requires honesty. The reality is that not every existing job will remain unchanged. Not every firm will survive in its current form and Singapore cannot avoid global competition.
But we can commit. We can commit to helping Singaporeans build new skills, access new opportunities and navigate change with confidence. We can commit to helping businesses transform, adopt new technologies, access new markets and build the capabilities needed to compete in a changing world. This is a more honest and sustainable form of inclusion.
This is why the proposed amended Motion matters. It reflects the balance Singapore must strike. It is aligned with the ESR. It supports dynamic local companies and global enterprises as part of one ecosystem that creates opportunities for Singaporean entrepreneurs and workers. It values healthy domestic demand while recognising the necessity of strong external demand. It encourages Singaporeans and Singaporean capital to venture abroad while remaining anchored in a trusted, open and resilient Singapore.
Our future economy must be open, competitive and inclusive at the same time. We must attract the best from the world while developing the best in Singaporeans. We must support local enterprises while staying plugged into a global network. We must embrace AI and technology, not to replace human capability, but to expand it – using AI to strengthen workers' judgement, free up time for meaningful interactions and support roles where trust remains central. We must grow externally while ensuring that Singaporeans benefit domestically. We must build resilience without becoming closed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the ESR provides serious and forward-looking roadmap for the next phase. It recognises the real anxieties that workers and businesses face, but it also recognises that Singapore cannot respond to uncertainty by becoming smaller in our ambition. We must be bolder. We must take calculated risk. We must back our enterprises. We must invest in our people. We must strengthen our role as a global trusted hub and we must ensure that every Singaporean has a fair chance to contribute and benefit from the future economy.
An economy of the future that works for all is not built by choosing between openness and inclusion. It is built by making growth translate into good jobs. It is built by making innovation accessible to enterprises and workers. It is built by making change less frightening, because Singaporeans know that we will face it together. This is the economy we must build.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek Members' support for the amended Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong, hang on, let me go through the process. There are four amendments proposed by Mr Edward Chia to the Motion:
Amendment No 1: \"In line 1, to delete 'notwithstanding' and insert 'in line with'.\".
Amendment No 2: \"In line 5, to delete 'economic engine driven' and insert 'economy powered'.\".
Amendment No 3: \"In line 5, after the words 'local companies,' to insert 'global enterprises,'.\".
Amendment No 4: \"In line 5, after the words 'healthy domestic' to insert 'and external'.\".
It may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement to this?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated agreement. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Assent of the majority of Members is given. The question is the amendments as moved by Mr Edward Chia. The debate can range over the original Motion and the amendments.
Before I call on Mr Louis Chua, Mr Tiong, do you want to make a clarification? You certainly have the right of reply at the end, at the closing. Do you want to raise a clarification now? Sure.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Thank you. Just one clarification for the hon Member Edward Chia. While we will have comments on some of the other amendments, for the second amendment, which is to delete \"economic engine driven\" and insert \"economy powered\", I am not quite sure what the purpose of this amendment is. It appears to me, to use a favourite word from a Minister opposite. Quite otiose.
Mr Speaker: Mr Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we do not want to really debate on the choice of words or semantics at this point. But I think it is basically really saying that an economy must be powered by both local companies and global enterprises. And I think we could hear from the Member at his closing.
Essentially, I think the crux of the amendment is to first say that the spirit of your Motion, the intent, the original Motion is aligned with the ESR. And to support local companies, we must also take the view that global enterprises must be part of the single ecosystem that in turn supports local companies.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, in May this year, the ESR presented 32 recommendations across eight thrusts, the product of five committees and consultations with more than 7,700 stakeholders, with the full report released in June.
It is a serious piece of work and I commend those involved. But as I noted in this House last September, Singapore has never lacked task forces and committees – the Economic Strategies Committee in 2009, the Committee on the Future Economy in 2016, the Future Economy Council, the Industry Transformation Maps, the Emerging Stronger Task Force in 2020, and now the ESR and the Singapore Economic Resilient Task Force.
At this rate, reviewing the economy risks becoming a growth industry in its own right.
The ESR asks searching questions of our businesses and our workers: sharpen our value proposition, be agile, be resilient. These are fair propositions. But there is one economic actor of whom the report asked remarkably little – the Government itself and specifically, the Government in its most lucrative role as our landlord.
The state owns some 90% of the land in Singapore and it is by a wide margin the biggest landlord in the country.
My contention today is a simple one. The ESR ambitions for enterprise and innovation will not be realised so long as the Government continues to see itself as a landlord and as long as Singaporeans continue to share in the Government's rentier mindset.
In fact, even as economists often identify the key factors of production, being land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship, there is not a single mention of land in the 32 recommendations of the ESR report, even as the report itself had acknowledged that land, energy and demographic constraints are expected to tighten.
Mr Speaker, rent-seeking behaviour permeates our society and the tone is set at the top. As I have shared in my speech at the opening of this term in Parliament, policy should not inevitably reward the highest bidder at the expense of wider societal outcomes.
And it is in upstream land costs that we must go further. State land forms part of our reserves, but excessive land prices push up development costs and rents, impacting tenants and companies, and eventually consumers.
As a local C-suite member of one of Asia's largest real estate groups has shared in the past, in Singapore, land costs now form roughly 70% of total project development expenditure, up from just 4% in the 1980s for Raffles City. These costs do not vanish. They cascade from developer to tenant, from tenant to hawker, clinic, shopkeeper and finally, to every consumer.
I anticipate the familiar reply that rental is not the largest cost businesses face. Indeed, when this House debated hawker culture, the Senior Minister of State cited a National Environment Agency (NEA) survey showing that rental forms less than 10% of store holders' operating costs against 56% for raw materials and 20% for manpower.
But this argument proves too little. Where does the hawker suppliers operate from? A rented industrial unit on state priced land. Where does the wholesaler store his goods, the logistics firm parks its lorries, the essential kitchen prepares its ingredients? All on land whose price the state sets and extracts.
High land prices feed into rentals and rentals feed into every line of the cost structure, including the 56% we are told to look instead. Rent is not one cost amongst many. It is a cost embedded in all the others and an important, fixed overhead that cannot be avoided.
Members will recall the $52,000 monthly rental bid for a general practitioner (GP) clinic in an HDB estate. Minister Ong Ye Kung himself acknowledged that this must feed through to healthcare costs one way or another and that the highest rental bid does not deliver the best care for the community. I agreed with his view then and I continue to hold this view. During this year's Committee of Supply, I appreciate that HDB is expanding the Price Quality Method for commercial tenders of neighbourhood shops.
But if we accept this logic downstream at the level of a single shop tender, we must have the intellectual honesty to apply upstream to land policy itself.
Mr Speaker, there is a structural reason why these costs keep rising. Our land sales system is built so that prices can only ratchet upwards. Sites are awarded to the highest bidder generally, subject to a reserve price that is not published for any individual site. When the market bids above the reserve, the land is sold and a new benchmark is set. When the market bids below it, the tender is simply not awarded, barring other specific circumstances and the state waits for a better day. Heads, land prices rise. Tails, land prices are not allowed to fall.
In a reply to my Parliamentary Question in July 2021, the Minister for Law disclosed that the reserve price is pegged to 85% of the estimated market value assessed by the Chief Valuer's office; and that of the 133 sites launched for tender between 2016 and 2021, 17 were not awarded because the highest bids were deemed not reflective of the fair market value of the land.
That is roughly one in eight tenders aborted rather than allowed to clear at what the market was actually prepared to pay.
The pattern continues in February 2024, when the URA declined to award the Marina Gardens Crescent white site because the sole bid of $770 million, or $984 per square foot per plot ratio, was assessed to be too low.
The history of Paya Lebar Quarter, one of my favourite mixed-use sites in the East, tells the same story. In November 2011, URA rejected the sole bid from a consortium of UOL Group and Singapore Land for a mixed-use site in Paya Lebar Central at $529.5 million, or $566 per square foot per plot ratio on the grounds that it was too low. The consortium asked for reserve prices to be made public, given the cost and efforts of submission of such a scale. URA declined, saying disclosure would not be in the public interest.
When the site was eventually tended and awarded in April 2015, it was sold at $1.67 billion, or $943 per square foot per plot ratio, at a rate some two thirds higher than the bid the Government had earlier refused. The land waited four years; the price went up by about two thirds. The state coffers are higher by a billion, even as the site area is now bigger, and we saw private residential prices in that area reach new highs after Park Place Residences was eventually launched. Is this a healthy development?
The irony is that the Government understands this perfectly well in certain cases. NEA proudly sets no reserve rent at all for hawker stall tenders since 2012 and does not set a minimum bid price for hawker stall tenders.
My first call, therefore, is that maximising revenues from land and building should no longer be a primary consideration of land policy. As I have argued in this House before, we should bring back the two-envelope concept and price tenders as the default for strategic and community facing sites, so that land is awarded on the quality and value of what is built and not simply to whoever bids the most.
The Government is the biggest landlord of all benefits, but it does so at everyone else's expense.
The same logic applies to households. Home loans make up at least 70% of total household liabilities in Singapore and mortgage borrowing grew 5.8% year on year in the first quarter of this year. Our own regulatory framework, the total debt servicing ratio, contemplates households committing up to 55% of gross monthly income to debt service obligations.
A household servicing a 30-year mortgage at anywhere near that level does not leave the perceived security of a monthly paycheck to start a company with no visibility over cash inflows for years. It optimises for the next paycheck because it must. Moreover, according to ADP Research, 60% of workers in Singapore were living paycheck to paycheck as of 2024.
What capital is there for entrepreneurship? It is no wonder that risk aversion in Singapore is not some cultural mystery, but a lived balance sheet reality. That is why in the last term of Parliament, I moved an Adjournment Motion calling for rental housing to be developed as a genuine housing model and not merely a residual safety net for those with no other options.
The build-to-own model has served asset accumulation well, but it frontloads a lifetime of leverage onto Singaporeans in precisely the decades when they are most able to take entrepreneurial risk. In many other global cities, young professionals rent for years without stigma, preserving the flexibility to move, retrain and build.
My second call is therefore for a meaningful public rental option for young and middle-income Singaporeans with tenure-security and rent set with reference to income rather than market value. We already have a variance of this in the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme for married or engaged couples with more modest incomes and who wish to rent a temporary flat while waiting for their new home to be built.
If we want a generation of founders, we should stop shackling them to mortgages in their 20s and 30s.
Mr Speaker, since the Government seems to relish its position as being the largest landlord in the country, let me offer a new estate to develop. In the AI economy, compute is to value creation what land was to the industrial economy, the scarce foundational input on which everything else is built.
We have made a start and I acknowledge that an Enterprise Compute Initiative was announced at Budget 2025 with up to $150 million of funding support. This is however only meant to be a short-term programme that will only run for one year for the respective launch dates of each cloud service provider. By October 2025, we had reportedly paired some 1,000 firms with cloud partners, but this is a very modest figure as compared to the 385,000 or so firms in Singapore's enterprise landscape in 2024, as identified in the ESR's final report.
I also recognise that the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) AI-Ready SG subsidises half the subscription cost of eligible AI tools for members, if you first go for an approved course. In other words, the principle of subsidised access to compute has been accepted by the Government. The questions that remain are of scale, duration and ambition.
Some examples from overseas may be instructive. Hong Kong built its own AI Supercomputing Centre at Cyberport and allocated HK$3 billion to a three-year AI subsidy scheme, under which eligible users receive subsidies of up to 70% of a centre's service list price. That is a state-owned facility with a published rate card and a discount.
Canada's Sovereign AI Compute Strategy pairs public supercomputing investment with a C$300 million Access Fund that covers two-thirds of eligible costs for local cloud-based AI computing services, on projects with compute costs of up to C$5 million. Note the word local, and that these are targeted at SMEs.
The United Kingdom (UK) having found itself with only 1.3% of global compute capacity in late 2022, committed up to £2 billion by 2030 under its Compute Roadmap, and its AI Research Resource now allocates compute directly: 10,000 GPU hours for first-time users and 20,000 GPU hours for SMEs, awarded as capacity rather than cash.
Consider also the asymmetry closer to home. We extract some $20 billion in a single year in land sales proceeds also and yet, we are only setting aside $150 million for the digital land on which our own companies must build, and $1 billion over five years in overall national AI research. And for all our first-place finishes in AI-readiness, only 4% of firms had embedded AI into core business processes by 2026, with adoption at 15% among SMEs, against 63% for larger firms. AI diffusion is a big concern.
I could not have summed it up better than a 2025 World Bank report on Digital Progress and Trends report, that governments should create an enabling environment to facilitate access to compute resources, catalysing AI adoption, adaptation and innovation. This can include targeted interventions such as compute subsidies for SMEs and researchers, regional data centres and public-private partnership.
More recently, NVIDIA CEO, Jensen Huang, also remarked that a strong AI ecosystem is not a foregone conclusion. Policy-makers have an important opportunity to act, such as through expanding access to compute for startups and researchers, and investing in shared training assets. This is not a one off or time limited effort, but instead we should spare no effort until a significant majority of our local enterprises have truly embedded AI into their core business processes.
My third call is therefore a so-called \"HDB model for compute\". The HDB public housing model made the Government's objective of home ownership for the people programme during our early years attainable through subsidised access to state land. Similarly, a national compute programme should offer a subsidised allocated capacity to local companies and particularly, SMEs and entrepreneurs. This will draw on capacity in which the state has an ownership interest, priced below market with a published rate card with tenure certainty and eligibility weighted towards local ownership and local value capture. As what Liang Wenfeng, chief executive officer (CEO) of DeepSeek said recently, \"人才的差距，本质上也是因为算力的差距\". Let us not have a talent gap in Singapore, simply because of a lack of access to compute.
Mr Speaker, I can already anticipate the Government's response to the proposals I have raised: that pricing land or compute below the highest market bid amounts to raiding the reserves. Allow me three responses.
First, the reserves belong to all Singaporeans, not to the government of the day. Foregone rent extraction that flows into the productive capacity of Singaporean households and firms is not a raid, but an investment in our collective future. It is the owners of the reserves investing in themselves.
Second, on the Government's own explanation to this House, leasehold land reverts to the state at the end of its term and is protected as past reserve once again. The debate is therefore about the pricing philosophy for the use of land over 99 years, not about giving the freehold away.
Third, we do not apply this stinginess to foreign investment promotion. We extend generous low tax incentives and charge as low as 5% corporate income tax, instead of 17% to attract MNCs via a series of incentive schemes. Why is a discount for a foreign MNC prudent economic strategy, but a discount for a Singaporean entrepreneur a raid on the reserves?
Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mr Speaker, on what the real risks are for Singapore.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, what are the real risks facing our country and our economy? Is it that we are pricing a small number of land parcels, rental flats or GPU clusters below the highest level that the market can bear? Or is it that generation after generation, Singaporeans will quietly come to the conclusion that, in their own country, the most lucrative business is to be a landlord and the safest life is to become a homeowner burdened by mortgage repayments for half their lives?
I welcome the final recommendation report of the Economic Strategy Review Committee and I support that Motion moved by Mr Kenneth Tiong and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. But, as long as the state remains the most successful rent maximiser in our economy, the grand vision of this strategy will remain only on paper. The Government should stop seeing itself as Singapore's biggest landlord and should instead see itself as more actively as the people's greatest enabler.
Mr Speaker, I support the Motion proposed by Mr Kenneth Tiong and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the amendments moved by the hon Member Mr Edward Chia.
Let me begin by acknowledging something important. The hon Members Assoc Prof Lim and Mr Kenneth Tiong have tapped into a sentiment that some Singaporeans genuinely feel: some business owners feel the economy has grown harder to navigate; some SMEs feel squeezed by costs, including rents, by manpower, and they feel crowded out for business and funding opportunities by larger competition; some workers, including younger workers, wonder if opportunity for them is expanding as fast as the economy itself.
Those feelings are real. If Singaporeans feel anxious about the future, it is our job to listen carefully. But listening carefully also means diagnosing carefully. Understanding how people feel is not the same as understanding why they feel that way and more importantly, what to do about it.
And that brings me to the central question before this House: how does a small country like Singapore continue to create prosperity in a changing, more volatile world?
It is a question every generation of Singaporeans has had to answer. Singapore's answer has never been abundant resources nor a domestic market of scale. Nor has it been abundant land. We have never had those luxuries. Everything we have achieved has depended on our ability to create far more value than our size would suggest possible. That has been Singapore's story for the last 60 years. It must be Singapore's story for the next 60.
Mr Speaker, a successful economic strategy for Singapore has to do two things: first, create as much value as a small nation possibly can; second, make sure Singaporeans create, capture and own a growing share of that value. Both questions matter. But they must be answered in the right order, because no nation has every captured value it did not first create. Chapter one must come before chapter two.
Sir, I have spent the bulk of my career advising companies on growth and competitiveness. One lesson has remained remarkably constant: the strongest organisations do not succeed because of one advantage. They succeed because they build complementary capabilities that reinforce one another – technology, talent, capital, customers, partnerships, compounding together. None of these strengths is sufficient on its own. Together, they create greater value than the sum of the parts.
The modern 21st century economy works the same way. It is not built around one company or one sector. It is built around ecosystems.
Singapore has never competed by trying to be bigger than anyone else. We have competed by bringing complementary strengths together faster and better than other countries many times our size. We connect capital with ideas, research with enterprise, talent with opportunity, local ambition with global markets, global enterprises with capable local suppliers. Each connection strengthens the next. Each success attracts another. Over time, those connections become an ecosystem that is far more competitive than any individual company, institution or sector can be on its own.
Singapore's advantage has been our ability to combine complementary strengths that reinforce one another into ecosystems that create more value.
I suspect there is broad agreement across this House that we want more Singaporean enterprises to succeed globally. The difference is not the destination. It is the path we believe gets us there.
That is why we should be careful about thinking of our choices as trade-offs, a tug of war, a zero-sum game – local enterprises versus global enterprises, domestic demand versus external demand, growth versus inclusion. These are not opposing forces. They are mutually reinforcing.
Take the relationship between global enterprises and local enterprises. Dynamic local companies are essential to Singapore's future. They embody Singaporean entrepreneurship, innovation and ambition. We should want more of them, larger ones, more productive ones, more that succeed well beyond our shores.
Global enterprises are equally indispensable, not because they are larger, not because they create jobs, but because they expand the productive frontier of the entire economy. They bring frontier technologies. They bring world-class management practices. They develop Singaporean talent, some of whom will one day set up their own companies. They connect Singapore companies to global customers and supply chains even if those supply chains are re-configuring. They create demanding customers for local suppliers. They expose our companies to international best practices. They raise the standards of the ecosystem around them.
In short, they expand the frontier of what Singapore's economy is capable of achieving.
But none of this happens by accident. It is built deliberately. When EDB approves a major investment, it is not simply asking how much capital will come or how many jobs will be created. It also asks what capabilities will be anchored here and how Singapore enterprises will benefit. In 2025, working alongside Enterprise Singapore, EDB generated 19 MNC-local enterprise partnership projects. That is not simply investment promotion. It is deliberate capability building, deliberate ecosystem deepening.
A small precision engineering firm here might start by supplying components to an MNC here. If the ecosystem is working, that story does not stop here. Exposure to global standards, new technologies and production methods, and demanding customers lets that firm deepen what it can do – move from making parts to designing solutions, from serving one market to several, from supplier to competitor in its own right. Eventually, it is no longer simply benefiting from the system. It is strengthening the system for the next generation of Singaporean companies. That is how capability compounds. That is how stronger Singapore enterprises are built.
I have had the privilege, particularly over the last few years, to work with more local SMEs. What is holding them back from scaling globally is rarely a lack of ambition or a lack of demand for what they make. The constraints are usually different – access to growth capital, management with experience running operations across borders, or leading technology transformation, networks that open overseas markets, risk appetite.
These are capability gaps and they are unlikely to be closed simply by wining ourselves off connections with our global capital. If anything, they are closed by making those connections work better for many more Singaporean enterprises.
That is why the real question is not whether local enterprises matter. It is not whether we should support them more strongly. We should. The real question is how we can build an economy where local and global enterprises reinforce one another, makes the other stronger. The real question is whether we are helping enough Singaporean enterprises get connected to the ecosystems, acquire the capabilities that allow them to climb the value chain, compete internationally and ultimately, become ecosystem builders themselves. And that is precisely what the ESR seeks to do.
The same logic applies to domestic and external demand. Domestic demand is important. It sustains heartland businesses. It provides resilience. But for a country of six million people, domestic demand cannot sustain the growth, wages and opportunities we aspire to. We must continue to compete in far larger markets.
Of course, many Singapore enterprises are not exporters. As the Member of Parliament for Woodlands, I perhaps feel more keenly than others, that heartland businesses are feeling the pressure and the RTS Link may accelerate this.
But the answer cannot be simply to strengthen domestic demand. We cannot ask consumers to ignore value, we cannot ask consumers to spend differently, we cannot ask them not to spend their money elsewhere. Our response has to be to help business compete differently.
Also, ultimately, domestic demand, for every hawker, every family business, every heartland retailer, ultimately depends on Singaporeans' spending power. That spending power comes from productive jobs, rising wages, competitive industries and companies succeeding in global markets. In turn, a vibrant domestic economy provides the stability, talent and confidence that enable more firms to grow and venture abroad. Again, these are not competing priorities. They are complementary strengths.
Mr Speaker, some Members have asked in the past: who ultimately captures the value? It is the right question. But I think we should answer it in the right way.
Ownership matters. It matters who owns the intellectual property. It matters who owns successful enterprises. It matters who owns the next generation of globally competitive companies. But ownership does not just become reality simply because we declare it to be our objective. It is built patiently, capability by capability, enterprise by enterprise, institution by institution. Capability makes ownership possible.
Take PSA. It began as a domestic port operator. Today, it operates over 70 terminals across more than 180 locations in 45 countries. But the most valuable thing PSA has now is not simply a larger portfolio of terminals. Managing ports across the world's major trade routes gives PSA a unique view of global supply chains. By combining operational expertise with digital technologies, data, automation and AI to design solutions its customers cannot get from a single-port operator. The ports were the entry point. The data advantage, the capability, that is the competitive advantage. And ownership follows.
Ownership is most durable when it is built on capability, because capability is what allows ownership to endure and grow.
Singapore will not own every company shaping the global AI economy. Nor do we need to. These companies create enormous value for Singaporeans, through jobs, supplier ecosystems, knowledge spillovers, capability building. And yes, an MNC may one day leave Singapore. Investment can move. Capability stays.
The most important question is whether Singaporeans are building the capabilities to create value alongside them – as founders, as engineers, as researchers, as investors, as suppliers, as technology leaders and increasingly, as owners of globally competitive enterprises themselves.
Ownership in a modern economy takes many forms: a founder building the next regional champion, an employer with stock options in a growing company, a Singapore supplier moving into higher-value-added design and engineering, an investor participating in the growth of world-class businesses, our sovereign wealth funds investing on behalf of every Singaporean. These are all ways in which Singaporeans participate in, capture and own the value that our economy creates.
The goal is therefore not simply to own more assets. It is to build an economy where more Singaporeans have meaningful ownership in the value they help create. And we do this by building the whole innovation ecosystem: research, talent, capital, patient financing, market access, regulation, strong global partnerships. These are complementary strengths. And when they come together, they create something larger than any one policy, say on research, could achieve.
I want to go back to where I started. If an SME owner says, \"I don't feel these benefits,\" we should listen. If they say, \"I feel crowded out,\" we should listen. If they say, \"This ecosystem seems to work for everyone except businesses like mine,\" we should listen.
Global firms do compete with local ones for talent, for capital. Wages feel the pressure and it falls unevenly and this is real. Openness is not costless. But the answer to that real cost is not to become a less open economy, when openness is where the capability comes from. The answer is to make sure more Singaporeans capture the upside instead of only absorbing the cost, skills that move a worker toward the frontier rather than away from it, capital markets deep enough, partnerships between MNCs and local firms that help more local firms becoming suppliers, adopters, internationalisers and owners in their own right. And that is firmly, firmly embedded in the ESR strategies.
Mr Speaker, we all want to see more large successful Singapore companies. More value captured here. More Singaporeans venturing abroad. But if we make rebalancing the organising principle of our strategy, we may not end up with more of those companies. We get fewer. Target ownership before capability and competitiveness, and we do not own more of the pie. We own more of a smaller one.
That is why I support the hon Member Mr Edward Chia's amendments. They recognise something this House has known for 60 years and cannot afford to forget for the next 60. Our strength has never come from any one source alone. It comes from strengthening the connections between them – dynamic local companies, global enterprises, domestic demand and external demand, Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing confidently into the world. These were never separate engines to be weighed against each other. They are complementary strengths, working together as one system, working together to lift ordinary Singaporeans.
Singapore never succeeded by asking the world to make room for us. We succeeded by becoming useful, indispensable to it, even as the world changes around us.
Our task is now to continue to build an economy of the future where each reinforces the other, where the best companies, foreign or local, want to be. And to make sure more Singaporeans have the capability, the confidence and the opportunity to shape that future, to create value, to capture it and increasingly, to own it. So that every generation of Singaporeans begins with opportunities greater than the generation before. Mr Speaker, I support the amended Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the ESR is organised around workers adapting again and again. It proposes training, pathways and career bridges between jobs. But it gives far less attention to the all-important first transition from education or National Service (NS) into stable work, and to whether young people get a fair start.
In February, during the Budget debate, I called this phenomenon the broken bottom rung of the career ladder – when young Singaporeans are unable to make that first meaningful step. The first job is where someone takes a chance on you. It is where you gain the experience that every subsequent employer expects you to have. A young person cannot create that opportunity alone. When firms stop taking chances on beginners, Singapore eventually stops producing experienced workers.
Today, I want to ask the Government a practical question: if a young Singaporean has prepared for work, searched earnestly and still cannot secure stable employment, what must change so that their sustained effort can lead them somewhere?
Today, most graduates still manage to find work. Among autonomous- university graduates in the labour force, those who secured employment of any kind within six months of completing their final examinations amounted to 88.9% of the 2025 cohort, a slight drop from 91.2% in 2024. So, eight out of nine graduates found work last year, but that figure is a broad measure. It includes graduates in full-time permanent employment; but also, those in part-time, temporary or freelance work; those who have accepted a job that starts later; and those taking steps to start a business.
However, those in full-time permanent employment amounted to 74.4% of the cohort last year, down from 79.4% the previous year. That means only three out of four – down from four out of five – found more stable, long-term roles and could start building an actual career.
I would not sound the klaxons just yet, but these are among several worrying signals, both in Singapore and from around the world, that it is getting harder for our youngest amongst us to find work.
The signals grow stronger when we look across different educational paths. Among surveyed fresh graduates from full-time external degree programmes at private education institutions, 78.9% secured employment and 46.9% were in full-time permanent employment. So, another 24% were in part-time or temporary work, including 9.7% who said this was involuntary. It is clearly not a bed of roses for everyone. The transition into stable work looks materially different depending on where you graduate.
Behind these figures are young people who have done what was asked of them and still cannot get started. I have heard from young graduates who told me about searches running into the hundreds of applications. One submitted more than 500 applications over six months and received few interviews. Another submitted close to 200 in four months without securing a single one.
For these young people, the first transition meant repeated effort, very little response and no clear place to turn should their efforts repeatedly fail to net a reward.
A confluence of factors is likely driving the cooling job market for young Singaporeans. With the increased adoption of both AI and \"old-school\" technological and productivity advancements, a firm may make the entirely rational decision to automate away the basic tasks once given to junior employees. It may decide that training a beginner is too costly in today's high cost environment and when that person can ultimately leave after gaining critical experience.
Take those same rational decisions and scale them across the economy, and we can start to see the problem. If every firm, local companies and global enterprises alike, makes the same calculation, the economic engine gradually stops producing experienced workers. What works for one company's balance sheet damages the national workforce.
The Government has introduced several measures to support the transition into work. The SG Youth Plan has introduced Job Tasters to help young people explore an occupation. Training helps them prepare. Matching services connect them to vacancies. Work-Study and Company-Led Training can combine a real job with structured workplace learning.
However, each helps at a different stage. Taken together, however, a young person can still move from exposure to training to job matching without getting a fair start. Exposure is useful, but exposure is not employment. That is the gap we must fill.
And Mr Speaker, that is why I propose a \"Fair Start Promise\" to all our youths – a national commitment to work towards a simple goal. If you are a young Singaporean under 30 making the transition from education or NS into working life, that you will get a fair start, through stable employment or a proper paid career-building pathway. That means we must rebuild the broken bottom rung of the career ladder.
The establishment of the Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) gives us an important opportunity to make this promise real. By bringing skills and employment under one roof, the Government can now judge the whole journey by one outcome: whether young Singaporeans actually get a fair start.
The Government should make fulfilling the \"Fair Start Promise\" a core mission of SWDA, with staged targets that show whether Singapore is moving closer to the goal.
For the individual young Singaporean, what this means is targeted and individualised support from SWDA case officers and that should begin early. Six months into the transition is a sensible checkpoint at which to assess outcomes. Any young person still searching at that point should continue to receive active support and no one should be left to flounder alone.
But a national goal alone will not create opportunities. So, we must create more genuine ways for young people to get their fair start.
First, we should open more ordinary entry-level jobs to capable beginners, where an employer has real work that can develop a beginner through the ordinary course of employment, the priority should be that proper job.
My colleague Eileen Chong spoke during the SWDA Bill debate about the implementation gap in skills-based hiring. Singapore has produced tool kits and established institutions to promote this, but we still do not know clearly whether employers are changing how they hire or if they are lagging behind. She called for the Public Service to lead by example and for a published baseline tracking skills-based job postings by sector and employer size. I support these proposals.
I have also previously proposed that the Careers and Skills Passport evolve from a digital filing cabinet into a dynamic, living credential. I now propose extending that idea: making it work better for hiring. The Passport already allows Singaporeans to share verified qualifications, training and employment records with employers.
For a fresh graduate, however, that record will naturally be thinner. The SWDA should establish standards through which the institutes of higher learning (IHLs) and employers can verify substantial projects, internships, Work-Study learning stints and other assessed competencies through the Careers and Skills Passport. Employers should then match that evidence to the actual skills required for the job and where appropriate, let applicants demonstrate these skills through a structured practical assessment.
The Public Service should apply the same discipline to its own entry-level roles: identify what must genuinely be known on the first day, remove degree and prior-experience requirements that cannot be justified and publish whether its hiring practices are changing. The Government should again lead by example.
These measures would improve the match between capable beginners and entry-level jobs that already exist in the market. But matching alone cannot build the workplace experience that some jobs genuinely require and Singapore must therefore also create more places where beginners can acquire it.
That brings me to my second point. We should build proper paid apprenticeships. In some occupations, competence can only be built through sustained, supervised practice. Employers want experience because the work genuinely takes time to learn. Yet, every firm has an incentive to wait for another firm to bear the cost of producing that experienced worker.
Singapore already has workplace programmes for young entrants. GRIT, for example, offers a three- to six-month allowance-based traineeship and can provide useful short-term experience. But where an occupation requires sustained, supervised practice over a longer period of time, we need a different, more well-developed route: a proper apprenticeship framework providing paid employment, full employee status, CPF, structured training and portable competences.
That is why Singapore should build a national market for proper paid apprenticeships. SWDA should identify occupations where employers need workers but beginners need sustained workplace training, and work with employers and sector bodies to expand apprenticeship places that meet a common quality floor. That means recruiting firms and coordinating the teaching assessment and supervision needed to build competence while making sure every place provides enough real work.
Shared capacity is especially important for SMEs. A smaller firm may have valuable work but lack a training department, a full curriculum or enough varied tasks to train an apprentice alone. Sector bodies and consortia can provide common teaching roving mentors and independent assessment while coordinating rotations between these SMEs, where these are needed to fully develop a range of competence.
Employers would still provide the job and the wages and the workplace supervision as well as their own share of investment.
The quality floor must be clear. A proper apprenticeship is paid employment. It should carry a contract of service, wages, CPF and ordinary workplace protections. The apprentice should perform productive work, learn through a structured plan and have a named mentor. Wages should progress with competence. These skills should also be recognised independently of any one employer and carry value elsewhere across the market. The same employer need not guarantee permanent conversion, but before the pathway ends, there should be credible decision on conversion or progression.
The Government should support the shared infrastructure and portable occupational training that individual firms are unlikely to provide alone. Employers must remain substantial investors from the first day. That is the bargain we strike. The Government solves the coordination problem, firms provide real work and help build the worker.
Proper apprenticeships are central to a fair start for young people. The same principles have wider application across the economy. My colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, will speak next about the application to the skilled trades, where verified competence should lead to recognised mastery and real progression.
Third, the Government should use its economic leverage to create genuinely additional job opportunities. Some employers have productive work but still hesitate to hire a beginner because of the initial wages, supervision and lower productivity. The Government can change that decision selectively.
One lever is expanding targeted temporary risk-sharing arrangements. Support should be available where an employer can show that they will create a genuine additional employee job or proper apprenticeship, and that the opening would not proceed on the same terms without help. The employer must contribute throughout and take responsibility for wages, CPF, real work supervision and development.
Another lever is public procurement. Where workforce development is relevant to a substantial public contract, procuring agencies can require or recognise proportionate commitment to proper apprenticeships and genuine employee entry level roles. The purpose is to connect public purchasing demand to the development of Singapore's future workforce without imposing a blanket quota on every contractor.
Both levers should face the same test: did public intervention change the employer’s decision and create a productive opportunity that would not otherwise have existed? Public money should not pay employers to relabel planned vacancies, displace existing workers or cycle young people through temporary seats. Support should depend on additional work and real development. Money should be recovered where an employer misrepresents the role or fails to provide the job, wages or development promised.
These measures will not eliminate every difficult transition for our youths, but they can however increase the number of genuine first opportunities without compelling private employers to hire or manufacturing make work in the economy.
Finally, we must measure whether young people actually get that fair start. The Fair Start Promise should be judged by whether they enter stable employment or a proper paid career building pathway and can build from it. The SWDA should publish a baseline and staged targets for those outcomes. It should report whether employment lasts, whether job responsibilities and wages progress, and whether the results differ across groups.
The results must also show how many young people remain without stable employment at the critical six-month mark, for how long and for what broad reasons. A youth should not disappear from the figures because a referral failed or a programme ended. Keeping these outcomes visible will show where vacancies, training capacity or practical support remain inadequate.
A downturn may also make progress towards the Fair Start Promise harder. That is when honest measurement matters most. It tells Parliament and the public how much opportunity has disappeared and whether the national response is strong enough.
The Fair Start Promise sets the national ambition. The three proposals I suggested are the practical ways to move closer towards making that a reality: opening existing jobs to capable beginners with skills-based hiring, building proper paid apprenticeships and creating additional opportunities where public intervention changes the calculus and hiring decision for any employer. Transparent results will also show where progress is being made and where the Government must do more.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Fair Start Promise asks something of everyone. Young people must prepare, search earnestly and engage with suitable opportunities. Employers must provide real jobs and invest in beginners. The Government must build the conditions in which sustained effort can lead to progress and lead to a stable career.
The Government must not stand aside when every employer waits for someone else to provide a first chance. It must not let young people disappear between programmes and institutions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Azhar Othman.
Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Motion \"An Economy of the Future that Works for All\".
I would like to declare that I am the Deputy President of the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI), Chairman of SME Centre @ SMCCI, a Council Member of the East Asia Business Council and an Executive Chairman of Enercon Asia Pte Ltd.
I would just like to highlight that the Motion itself is quite important. More importantly is the collaboration between the private sectors and the Government. The reason I say this is because we do not want to go into a Motion whereby we want to re-invent everything. I think the most important part is not break what is already working.
I say this in my context of travelling with the SME Centre to one of the Central Asian countries. We did a business study over there. The government of the day or the chamber that we met was quite amazed with what we have – a system, from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, down to Enterprise Singapore, down to the SME Centre, that creates a cohesiveness between the Government to the ground. This does not exist in other countries. This is something that we should be proud of. We should retain – the ability to grow together.
The fundamental of our livelihood cannot be disrupted or changed. And that is trade. We live in an era of heightened geopolitical tensions and a multi-polar world. Countries are turning inwards, protectionism is rising, supply chains are being re-configured along political lines. In such a climate, the instinct of many nations is to build walls.
For Singapore, that cannot be our response. Trade is the lifeblood of this nation. We must not become a trade barrier. We must be the bridge of trade. Our strategy must clear, open, connected, trusted and resilient. We must double down on what makes Singapore unique – a credible, rules-based hub that can link markets, capital, talent and ideas across a fragmented world.
I would like to highlight importance of working together – that includes the Government, GLCs, Enterprise Singapore, private sectors, SMEs, unions that represent the workforce, trade associations and chambers. Member Mark Lee has commented on how important the trade chambers are.
There are seven parts to my speech which I believe will put a clear perspective to achieve a concentrated network of help as one ecosystem of support to tackle the challenges ahead and devise a set of common strategies to ensure we progress and be very successful.
The first one. Trade as our lifeblood in a protectionist world. Mr Speaker, Singapore's prosperity has always been anchored on trade. In a world where major economies are derisking, diversifying and sometimes decoupling, we must be the connector others can rely on.
To do this, we must expand our network of free trade agreements (FTAs). We must pursue FTAs with as many countries as possible, not just big economies but also, emerging markets. Africa, Latin America, Central Asia. Every new FTA is a new door for our SMEs, a new channel for our services and a new vote of confidence in Singapore's open economy.
Position Singapore as a bridge of trade. While others raise tariffs and impose quotas, we must lower friction. We must be the neutral ground where East meets West, where North connects with South. Our legal system, financial infrastructure and logistical capabilities make us ideal for this role.
Empower Enterprise Singapore to be a global conduit in creating Queen Bee companies from GLCs that supports SMEs. This is something that I would like to share for us to be able to be a strong economy which is unique to our country – whereby the cohesiveness of working together is very important.
Enterprise Singapore's international presence must be leveraged more aggressively. Their overseas centres should act as business matchmakers, linking Singapore companies with partners, distributors and joint venture opportunities abroad. They should not just be officers, they should be deal makers.
Recently, I attended an Enterprise Singapore talk on the Middle East situation and shared with local businesses about what to expect and what are the opportunities. Of course, there are challenges. Of course, there is risk. But through that informed setting, we are able to make good judgements on whether we should come in or should not come in. But overall, the value that is given to companies is that it allowed us to evaluate with certainty and with clarity. That is the part that I see as going together, of having Enterprise Singapore overseas and bringing information back to the ground.
For GLCs, I think they play an important role as well. Similarly, I attended a session organised by the SBF, where they were trying to connect the Queen Bee or GLCs to local businesses in Singapore. That is very important as well. We are overdue on such kind of collaborations. We have companies that go all over the world, that tender for big projects. The ability to work together is more important than ever. This is quite crucial. Through that collaboration and interaction, we also show that we have the right sentiment whereby businesses can work with the Government and GLCs very, very well.
Moving on, we can reduce the cost of error for SMEs going overseas. Expanding abroad is risky, especially for SMEs. A single misstep can be fatal. The Government should enhance grants – as what we have seen before – and financial support to derisk internationalisation. This includes shared warehousing or logistic hubs in key markets, tax incentives for re-investing overseas profit back into R&D or capability building.
When we reduce the cost of failure, we increase the courage to try. That is how Singaporean companies grow into regional and global champions.
Second, Singapore as the hub of hubs. Mr Speaker, in a fragmented world, Singapore's greatest advantage is our ability to be everything to everyone – a one-stop hub for all main industries. We must consciously position ourself as a: financial hub – continue to deepen our capital markets, attract asset managers and investment, and become the leading centre for green finance and fintech in Asia; logistics hub – leverage our port and airport connectivity to be the premier transshipment and distribution centre for the world; transport hub – expand our aviation and maritime networks to remain the gateway between various countries; education hub – attract top global universities and research institutions and nurture homegrown talent to serve regional and global needs; management hub – position Singapore as a regional headquarters for MNCs and the base for professional services in law, accounting, consulting and so on; medical hub – build our world-class healthcare system to attract medical tourism, clinical trials and biotech innovation; and of course, AI hub – invest in AI research, talent and infrastructure to become the leading AI ecosystem in Southeast Asia; sustainability hub – another part that is important in creating a centre of excellence and trust for sustainability reporting and deployment.
This \"hub of hubs\" strategy is not about doing everything ourselves. It is about creating an ecosystem where global players want to base their operations, where Singaporean SMEs can plug into global value chains and where talent from around the world wants to work and innovate with.
Third, empowering SMEs to thrive locally and globally. SMEs make up 99% of our enterprises and employ about two-thirds of our workforce. They are the backbone of our economy. Yet they face rising costs, tight labour markets and intense competition. We must do more to help them not just survive but thrive.
SME Centres, which are one of the hubs that can offer to companies, must be the first port of call for every small and medium business. They have provided and should enhance their services. SME Centres do provide business advisory services, free of charge, with the support of the Government, workshops on digitalisation, sustainability and internationalisation, access to templates, tools and best practices for governance and compliance.
Leverage trade associations and chambers. Organisations like SBF, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, SMCCI, the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprise and others must be empowered to do more and not limited to the following: organise business missions and networking events; host sector-specific forums on growth areas like green economy, AI and healthcare; educate members on regulatory changes and emerging opportunities; advocate for SME concerns at the policy level. And I think one that has been doing very well is mentorship programmes, pairing seasoned entrepreneurs with startups. This is something that even the SMCCI has started doing.
Next, to encourage businesses to adapt to changing demand. The market does not wait. SMEs must be ready to pivot, whether it is adopting e-commerce, shifting to sustainable products, or tapping into new customer segments. Government, and the trade associations and chambers can help by providing real-time market intelligence and trend analysis.
The next part is promoting \"Buy Singapore, Support Singapore\". The reason I raised this issue is regarding GLCs supporting local SMEs. I think that is where we can work together to lift everybody up. And doing so, this recognises every dollar spent is circulated in our economy, creates jobs and builds resilience. Government procurement can lead by example, prioritising local SMEs where quality and value are comparable.
The fourth part, embracing sustainability as a competitive edge. Sustainability is no longer optional. It is a business imperative. As Singapore aims for net-zero by 2050 or earlier, companies must embed sustainability into their operations. Incentivise green adoption. The Government should expand grants for energy-efficient or even increase the grant and of course, carbon accounting and reporting tools, sustainable packaging and supply chain solutions and build green capabilities.
We would also like to see Singapore positioned as a green hub. We can attract green investments by offering tax breaks for sustainable ventures, fast-track approvals for green projects, a one-stop shop for sustainability certification. Companies that adopt sustainability early will not only comply with regulations but also, gain a competitive edge in global markets where consumers and investors demand responsibility.
Fifth, manpower and lifelong learning in the age of AI. Mr Speaker, I must address the challenge of AI. AI is not coming; AI is already here. It is transforming industries, automating tasks; in some cases, replacing workers. This is a distant threat; it is a present reality.
We cannot stop technological progress, but we can ensure that no Singaporean is left behind. Workforce must be ready to learn and relearn. The half-life of skills is shrinking. What you learned five years ago may be obsolete today. Every worker must embrace lifelong learning, not as a slogan, but as a survival strategy.
Government to fund training and AI tools. The SkillsFuture framework is a good start, but it must go further – allow training credits to be used for subscribing to AI-powered productivity tools, fund memberships in trade associations and chambers, and business networks that provide continuous learning, provide stipends for mid-career workers undergoing reskilling, not as a support but as a programme.
Focus on human-centric skills. AI can automate routine tasks, but it cannot replicate creativity, empathy and leadership. Our education and training systems must emphasise these uniquely human skills.
We must support workers in transition. For those whose jobs that are displaced by AI, we need stronger monthly income support during retraining, career conversion programmes tailored to growth sectors, counselling and mental health support to manage anxiety and uncertainty. Constant learning is the only way to stay competitive and employable. The Government must make it affordable, accessible and relevant.
The sixth part, supporting R&D and reducing cost pressures. Innovation is the engine of future growth. But R&D is expensive, especially for SMEs. The Government must increase R&D grants and tax incentives, expand the Research and Development Tax Incentive scheme, create co-funding pools for industry-academia collaborations, support proof-of-concept and pilot projects that bridge the gap between lab and market.
Of course, the next one is mitigating high cost of living and operating. Singaporeans are feeling the pinch. Businesses are grappling with rising rents, utilities and manpower costs. We must review regulatory fees and streamline compliance burdens, provide targeted relief for SMEs in high-cost sectors, ensure housing and transport remain affordable to retain talent. A thriving economy requires both innovation and affordability.
The last part, part seven, keeping the Singapore Dream alive. Mr Speaker, at the heart of this Motion is a simple question: what kind of future do we want for Singapore?
The Singapore Dream must remain alive. It is the belief that with hard work, determination and a fair chance, every Singaporean can achieve aspirations, whether in arts, sports, academia, business or culture. We must ensure that no one feels left out. Inclusive growth means that the benefits of progress are shared broadly. We must uplift the vulnerable, support the middle, and celebrate the successful.
Pride in our nation. Singaporeans must be proud of their country. They must see themselves in our economic story, not as bystanders, but as protagonists. Mr Speaker, do allow me to speak the following in Malay.
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the Motion before us calls for an economy that is equal, inclusive, and driven by dynamic local companies. In a world that is increasingly turning inward, Singapore must stand firm as a beacon of openness.
We must be the bridge for trade, not a barrier. We must become the Centres of Excellence – in finance, logistics, transport, education, management, medical, sustainability and AI.
We must empower our SMEs to thrive both locally and globally.
We must embrace sustainability as a competitive advantage.
We must prepare our workforce for the AI revolution.
And we must ensure that the Singapore Dream remains alive for all.
Let us build an economy where every Singaporean can prosper, where every enterprise can grow and where our nation continues to punch above its weight on the global stage.
(In English): Allow me to do a pantun on this.
(In Malay): The changing world brings uncertainties;
Singapore companies brace and prepare;
Steered by the Government's strategies;
Together as one, we forge ahead from there.
(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Motion before us calls for an economy that is equal, inclusive and driven by dynamic local companies. In a world turning inward, Singapore must stand firm as a beacon of openness. We must be the bridge of trade, not the barrier. We must become the hub of hubs – financial, logistics, transport, education, management, medical, sustainability and AI. We must empower our SMEs to thrive locally and globally. We must embrace sustainability as a competitive advantage. We must prepare our workforce for the AI revolution and we must keep the Singapore Dream alive for all.
Let us build an economy where every Singaporean can prosper, where every enterprise can grow and where our nation continues to punch above its weight on the global stage. Mr Speaker, I support the amended Motion on the context that we have to work together as one. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, for decades, skilled trades persons – from electricians and plumbers to lift engineers and infrastructure and technicians – have not been accorded the prestige and pay that match their vital economic contributions. We have relied on foreign labour arbitrage and allowed unlicensed workers to perform tasks meant for certified practitioners, inevitably suppressing local trade earnings over time.
With a median monthly income of just $2,700 in 2023, skilled trades are seldom seen as a career of first choice for young Singaporeans. Over the past decade, the local craft workforce has shrunk by 40% to 50%. Of the 186,000 craftsmen and trades workers in Singapore – only 28% are locals and their ranks are ageing with a median age of 56 years old.
Yet, skilled trades persons form the bedrock of our national infrastructure. While AI can automate administrative reports, and overseas remote workers can process corporate accounts, they cannot physically rewire a server room, repair a water main, or maintain critical infrastructure in Singapore. These crafts are inherently localised, highly skilled and resistant to remote replacement.
If we want to offer genuine economic mobility to our vocational graduates, we cannot leave the skilled trades trapped by undercutting from unlicensed workers, rigid licensing regimes and limited career progression pathways. We must elevate these vocations into respected high earning avenues of trade, entrepreneurship and national pride.
While upskilling is essential, classroom retraining has limited utility in technical crafts, compared to master-led apprenticeships, and training alone cannot resolve deeper market distortions.
As we look to elevate skilled technical vocations, reliance on frameworks patterned after the Progressive Wage Model or the Career Progression Model will reach natural structural limits. While these models establish important wage floors across foundational sectors, their design relies heavily on climbing fixed corporate ladders into administrative or supervisory roles, positions that are inherently limited in number, and compel artisans to abandon their practical craft just to earn a higher income.
To enable our artisans to achieve true long-term wage progression, we must look beyond administrative ladders and restructure the underlying market so that technical mastery naturally commands the true market value of their craft.
To achieve this, we must introduce a market-friendly trade competency framework that elevate skilled trades into highly respected avenues of independent enterprise and professional advancement. We must enable trades persons to contribute to and build prosperous, scalable businesses, ensuring they do not feel stuck in demanding jobs with limited prospects.
The ESR report rightly acknowledges that essential physical trades are vital to Singapore's economic resilience. However, its recommendations continue to rely on incremental tweaks within employer-led models. While the ESR points to outsourcing and weak skills recognition, it remains silent on the deeper structural distortions depressing trade wages.
The report features an inspiring young electrician whose grit is truly commendable. Yet, his pathway is telling – unlocking high earnings required four academic degrees, including a master's degree from Nitec all the way to a master's degree. I applaud his drive but question the system. Why force a master craftsman through an academic obstacle course instead of directly valuing hands-on mastery and independent enterprise?
This paradigm shift must begin with how these essential vocations are regulated and protected in the open market.
Consider all our current licensing regimes, almost all fixed electrical work legally requires an Energy Market Authority (EMA)-licensed electrical worker, while regulated plumbing requires a PUB-licensed plumber. While non-compliance carries statutory fines of up to $10,000, a jail term of up to three years, or both, daily practice reveals a massive gap between the rates charged by licensed trades persons and unregulated marketplace alternatives. This economic gap tempts cash constrained buyers to opt for uncertified options across many routine property maintenance tasks.
Such choices carry serious public safety risks. Uncertified electrical work can cause loose connections, arcing, structural fires or electrocution, while improper plumbing joints can lead to concealed leaks, sewage backflow or water supply contamination.
In 2016, the improper wiring of a water heater to a three-pin plug by workers unlicensed to do electrical work resulted in the tragic electrocution of a 15-year-old boy in his HDB flat. Similarly, in 2020, an elderly couple and their son were electrocuted to death in their Jurong flat due to similar unsafe installation of a water heater.
To protect public safety and shield local artisans from wage depressing undercutting, regulators, including EMA and PUB, must enforce strict regulatory baselines for all market players, whether local or foreign, to ensure local artisans compete on a true level playing field of technical quality and safety. This will require the agencies to staff sufficient inspectors and auditors to conduct enforcement and respond to whistle-blowing complaints.
Second, we must streamline how local talent enters and moves through the vocational talent pipeline. Local manpower supply is currently constrained by rigid structures that force junior workers and mid-career entrants through a long, uncertain route just to secure a licence. We should promote the skills traits to students and mid-career switches as viable, respected alternatives to polytechnic diplomas and university degrees.
Training pathways already exist, whether through full-time ITE programmes or certification courses at the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Academy or Singapore Institute of Power and Gas for mid-career switches. However, despite completing their classroom education, aspiring tradespersons face structural challenges when attempting to translate those qualifications into licenced, independent careers. The structural bottleneck lies in the post-graduation licensing requirements of completing two years of relevant practical experience, covering a full spectrum of trade work.
Trade practitioners I spoke to have highlighted that in reality, almost no small contractor covers the entire spectrum of work, expecting a residential service plumber to log experience across industrial supply systems creates a practical bottleneck as current evaluation criteria favour multi-year commercial construction projects over day-to-day residential maintenance.
We can resolve the licensing bottleneck by implementing a modular trade endorsement pathway. Instead of requiring two years of full spectrum experience before a worker can practise independently, this pathway certifies specific verified competencies task by task. Each cleared module would legally authorise the tradesperson for that specific scope of work, whether in water heater installations, sanitary piping or wiring loops. These milestones are verified via hands on practical assessments, customer ratings and structured peer reviews by master practitioners. This allows local apprentices to start practising legally and earning a respectable living for the task they have mastered, while progressively expanding their certified scope over time.
To operationalise these modular endorsements, we need a modern digital architecture, an official tradesperson skills ledger platform. This platform serves a dual purpose. It allows tradespersons to log task-specific trade endorsements, verified under the supervision of licensed artisans, creating an immutable record of their practical milestones. It can also double as a national trades marketplace, connecting buyers, both enterprises and homeowners, directly with licensed tradespersons, based on verified modular competencies, domain expertise and clear rate schedules set transparently by the artisans themselves.
Clear benchmark call out rate bands can be established, providing upfront price transparency for property owners, while guaranteeing fair off-hours compensation for artisans, eliminating both predatory surge gouging and artificial wage caps. By streamlining, matching and reducing administrative overhead for both small contractors and buyers, the system enables tradespersons to establish sustainable commercial clients, secure corporate procurement contracts and build long-term business equity.
Fourth, we must eliminate the structural overload reliance on an employer's sole discretion to advance an apprentice's career. Across skilled trades, the Government currently enforces safety through rigid employer-tied licensing requirements, inadvertently, granting employers veto power over an entry-level worker's advancement.
Under the current market structure, established employers have little commercial incentive to sign off on the logbooks and testimonials of apprentices, who may later become direct competitors. While on-the-job training under senior practitioners remains essential, we must ensure that if an apprentice faces unreasonable administrative delays or employer gatekeeping, an independent audit mechanism exists.
An apprentice should be able to submit their immutable digital work logs and project portfolios to an independent technical panel for verification. This preserves direct supervisory accountability while protecting apprentices from career stagnation and employer hold-up.
Finally, to tie these pillars together, I propose establishing a new autonomous entity called the Singapore Guild of Skilled Tradespersons, which will define baseline competencies, advocate for fair commercial rates, manage the tradesperson skills ledger and empower local tradespersons to self-regulate and scale their operations.
Existing industry bodies, like the Singapore Plumbing Society, the Singapore Electrical Contractors and Licensed Electrical Workers Association, and the Specialist Trade Alliance of Singapore, possess relevant sectoral familiarity. These trade societies can be reformed and integrated as dedicated chambers under this guild. This will give every tradesperson a direct voice, remove corporate employer gatekeeping and empower artisans to govern their craft under a self-regulatory model similar to those enjoyed by doctors, engineers and accountants.
Under this four-sided partnership of shared accountability, employers provide structured apprenticeships with all. Progress and milestones log transparently in the Tradespersons Skills Ledger. The Singapore Guild of Skilled Tradespersons acts as an independent quality auditor and serves as a safety guardian. Tradespersons maintain verified digital profiles and direct statutory accountability for work within their endorsed scope and consumers gain direct access to a trusted, transparent marketplace with verified quality assurance.
Mr Speaker, elevating our physical crafts requires more than just policy tweaks. It demands restoring the social standing and institutional dignity of our artisans. When we give skilled tradespersons the autonomy to govern their own professions, command transparent commercial returns for their mastery and build independent, high earning businesses, we can fundamentally change how society views this form of blue-collar work.
By replacing rigid academic trade mills with direct market rewards for technical excellence, entering a trade will no longer be seen as a second-best option, born of academic detour, but a proud, lucrative and respected pathway into entrepreneurship and master craftsmanship. Through independent representation, technology driven competency tracking and structured apprenticeships, this comprehensive structural redesign will restore our workers' leverage, and ensure that national economic progress serves the dignity and prosperity of every Singaporean.
So, I support the original Motion standing in the names of my hon friends, Mr Kenneth Tiong, the Member for Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC), and Assoc Prof James Lim, the Member for Sengkang GRC.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first declare that I work in a foreign financial institution based in Singapore, serving SMEs and corporates.
I rise to speak on the Motion before this House. There is much in the Motion's aspirations that I support. We want stronger Singapore enterprises. We want our entrepreneurs to succeed and internationalise. We want good jobs and rising opportunities for Singaporeans. Ultimately, economic progress must translate into better lives for our people.
I also recognise the argument made by Members proposing this Motion. Singapore's traditional economic model has served us well, but the competitive environment has changed. On this, there is common ground. Costs have risen. Technology has made it easier for corporate functions to move. Other economies have developed deeper capabilities. Geopolitical fragmentation is reshaping investment and supply chains.
So, yes, Singapore's economic strategy must evolve.
But a more competitive environment does not make external demand or global companies less important to Singapore's next phase of growth. It makes our ability to compete successfully for them and to capture greater value from their presence here, even more important. Healthy domestic demand can strengthen our resilience, but we should be cautious about suggesting that it can substitute for the scale and opportunities provided by our global economic connections.
Mr Speaker, there has been a suggestion that Singapore needs a new economic playbook. I agree, but this is precisely what the ESR already seeks to address. The ESR was informed by more than 80 engagements involving more than 7,700 businesses, workers, unions and trade associations, some of whom are in this room.
It recognises that assumptions underpinning Singapore's success are changing. Its response is not simply to repeat the strategy of the past six decades; it is to upgrade it. And in fact, many of the ESR's recommendations are strikingly similar to the aspirations contained in today's Motion.
The ESR's recommendations will drive the next bound of economic growth and workforce transformation amidst drastically changed global environment. The ESR calls for stronger support for entrepreneurship and access to growth capital, more and better jobs, stronger career transition support and lifelong learning for workers, strengthening Singapore's position as a global leader in AI and a hub for global flows, and building a more dynamic enterprise ecosystem so that more Singapore-based companies can start, scale and succeed globally.
These are not merely aspirations on paper. Many have already begun to find expression in Government policy, including measures announced in recent Budget, enhancing enterprise financing, supporting SMEs and internationalisation, strengthening workforce transitions and investing further in our AI capabilities.
This suggests there is considerable common ground between the aspiration in today's Motion and the direction Singapore is already taking through the ESR.
The useful question for today's debate, therefore, to me, is where the substantive difference lies, whether they concern the overall economic model or the balance, emphasis and policy choices within that model. So, I think that distinction matters because the debate is not really between an old playbook and a new one. It is about what should be in the new playbook, and where we may differ on the balance and emphasis.
One area where I believe we should be careful is the weight we place on external demand and global companies in Singapore's next phase of growth. We have heard many speeches before me on this, but I just want to reiterate it again, briefly.
There is one economic reality Singapore cannot escape. For a small country, like ours, domestic demand alone cannot provide the scale of opportunities that Singaporeans aspire to. In 2025, Singapore's merchandise trade reached almost $1.4 trillion, equivalent to several times the size of our GDP. That gives some sense of just how deeply Singapore's prosperity is connected to demand beyond our shores.
Our semiconductor plants do not produce mainly for Singapore consumers; our pharmaceutical facilities do not manufacture only for patients here; our port, airport and financial centres serve markets far beyond our shores. Domestic demand supports our economic engine. External demand provides much of its scale, and the same applies to global companies.
We should absolutely build more Singapore champions, but this is not a choice between global companies and local enterprises. The ESR itself calls for Singapore to support high-potential enterprises, both homegrown and global.
And this remains the very real source of economic opportunity. In 2025, EDB secured $14.2 billion in fixed asset investment commitments, with the investment commitments expected to create around 15,700 jobs when realised over the next five years. But the model must evolve.
The relevant question today is no longer simply how much investment did we attract, it should increasingly be how much value do we anchor in Singapore. Our strategic functions located here – are Singaporeans progressing into specialists and leadership roles? Are our SMEs becoming suppliers and partners? Are technology and capabilities diffusing into the wider economy?
The ESR seeks to address precisely these linkages, as I infer from its report. It calls for us to go beyond simply attracting investment and to embed these investments more deeply into Singapore through stronger local supplier networks, partnerships with our research institutions, deeper innovation capabilities and stronger pipelines of skilled talent.
We have already built considerable capabilities. Private sector R&D expenditure more than doubled from $4.3 billion in 2013 to $9 billion in 2023. The next challenge, as the ESR recognises, is to connect these capabilities more tightly to industry needs.
Indeed, spillovers extend beyond the firms themselves. A 2025 Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) study estimated that between 2012 and 2019, each EDB-supported firm generated net spillover benefits averaging $48.5 million in value added annually for non-EDB-supported firms.
Significantly, this spillover benefits accounted for 41% of the firms' total direct and spillover economic contribution and much of this came through the labour market, as skills and capabilities developed in these firms benefited the wider economy. Being an economist, I read the report. It is quite rigorous. I can see that the numbers actually do show benefits on Singapore's front.
In other words, the objective is not simply to bring global companies here but to anchor more of their capabilities here and ensure that their presence strengthens Singapore companies and Singaporean workers as well. That should increasingly be our test of successful foreign investment.
Let me make this less abstract, Mr Speaker. My office is in One Raffles Quay in Raffles Place. Almost every morning, I take the lift up and down. I see young Singaporeans going into offices occupied by global companies, including firms, such as ByteDance, financial institutions and technology companies. They work in technology, data, finance, compliance and regional functions. These are young Singaporeans, building careers in global businesses while remaining based in Singapore.
When these companies choose Singapore as a regional hub, they do not simply rent office space. They create jobs and demand for local services. They bring technology and managerial capabilities. They contribute to the vibrancy of our business districts. And this brings me to the concern about a \"two-speed economy\" narrative.
We should take that concern seriously. Indeed, I note that the ESR itself recognises the capability and cost constraints faced by SMEs and the difficulties smaller firms can face in navigating and accessing existing support. In areas, such as AI adoption, ESR specifically calls for support to extend beyond leading firms to the wider business base.
So, the challenge facing smaller enterprises is not absent from the ESR. The more important question is whether our transmission mechanisms are strong enough to reach them. But the answer is not to slow down firms operating at the productivity frontier. It is to strengthen the transmission mechanisms and help more firms move towards that frontier, to create convergence upwards.
A Singapore SME supplying an advanced manufacturer may have to meet exacting global standards. In doing so, it builds capabilities that can help it win other customers and enter new markets. Workers trained in MNCs carry skills and experience throughout the economy. Technology and management practices can diffuse, and anchor companies create demand for suppliers, professional services, logistics and specialised skills.
But these spillovers are not automatic. That is where policy matters. Openness must create capability and this principle applies to workers too.
Take the administrator or driver working in the logistics and supply chain industry, for example – and I serve as a union advisor to the Supply Chain Employees' Union. As AI, automation and digitalisation transform supply chains, our objective cannot simply be to preserve today's job exactly as it exists. We must help workers move up the same value chain that we want Singapore's economy to move up.
That is also why capability transfer matters. We already have the Capability Transfer Programme, supporting companies in bringing foreign specialists to transfer capabilities to our local workforce as well as overseas training for Singaporeans. Could we go further, for example, by facilitating more structured capability transfer from foreign professionals already working here to Singapore colleagues?
This is precisely the transmission mechanism we should strengthen. Openness must create capability. Global expertise anchored here, with Singaporeans progressively equipped to take on more sophisticated roles. That is not a retreat from our hub strategy. It is an evolution of it.
Mr Speaker, there is one further area I would like to touch on – costs and the policy choices involved. Singapore cannot compete with much larger economies principally on cost. We must compete on value through skills, connectivity, trust, infrastructure, innovation and our ability to manage complex regional and global operations.
I think Members on both sides of this House would agree that many local enterprises face significant cost pressures. That is not in dispute. But if business costs are an important concern in today's debate, or in other speeches later on, I hope we can also have greater clarity on the policy choices that would address them. For many SMEs, particularly in sectors, such as services, retail, logistics and F&B, significant cost pressures include labour, rental and energy.
So, the question I have is: so, what are the policy choices? I have heard some from the earlier speeches. If labour costs are the principal concern, are Members suggesting that we significantly relax our foreign manpower policies? If rental costs are the concern, are Members proposing some form of rent regulation or greater intervention in commercial leasing? If energy costs are the issue, are Members suggesting energy price controls or longer-term subsidies?
These are not rhetorical questions. They are genuine policy questions. Because every proposal involves trade-offs. We all want our businesses to remain competitive and to manage their costs. But measures to reduce one cost can have consequences elsewhere.
At the same time, Parliament has debated proposals before aimed at strengthening wages and retirement adequacy, as well as more ambitious environmental measures. These may be legitimate policy objectives, but they illustrate the trade-offs involved – measures that advance important social or environmental objectives can affect business cost structures
So, when we call for lower costs and greater support for local enterprises, I think the next questions should be: what are the concrete policy choices? What are the trade-offs? And who ultimately bears the costs?
So, I hope today's debate and later speeches can therefore move beyond identifying the challenges facing SMEs, on which there is considerable common ground, towards a clearer discussion of which policy choices we or they are prepared to make and which trade-offs we are prepared to accept. Essentially, economic policy ultimately requires choices, and choices require prioritisation. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, before I touch on the efforts within the Malay/Muslim community, allow me to summarise one important point. As a small country, Singapore cannot depend on domestic demand alone. We need global markets, global investment and international economic linkages to create greater scale for growth and opportunities for our people. But our objective is not simply to bring more global companies to Singapore.
What matters more is how much value, capability and opportunity we can anchor in Singapore.
Are Singaporeans getting better jobs and opportunities to progress? Are our local SMEs becoming suppliers and partners to global companies? Are technology, skills and expertise spreading across our wider economy? Efforts to address these questions are aligned with the key thrusts of the Economic Strategy Review, or ESR, report. We do not have to choose between global companies and local companies. We need to ensure that both can grow together.
If different parts of our economy are moving at different speeds, the answer is not to slow down those that are most competitive. Instead, we need to help more enterprises and workers build their capabilities so that they can progress together. Economic openness and inclusion are also not conflicting objectives.
Our challenge is to remain open to the world, while ensuring that more Singaporeans, workers and Singapore enterprises can seize the opportunities that this openness creates. All this is aligned with the recommendations of the Economic Strategy Review report.
This is also the spirit that we want to bring to the Malay/Muslim community. National strategies will only bring about meaningful change when our communities understand the changes taking place and are able to seize the opportunities available. Within the Malay/Muslim community, the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs has announced the establishment of the Committee for Economic Resilience, which I co-chair with Dr Wan Rizal. We want to listen to the aspirations and economic concerns of our youths, workers, professionals and entrepreneurs, and help translate the ESR recommendations into more tangible opportunities.
Our purpose is not to create a separate economic strategy for the Malay/Muslim community. Our objective is to ensure that our community is prepared for change and well positioned to seize and create new opportunities. Our priorities are aligned with the ESR.
First, technology and AI. How can we help more Malay/Muslim business owners use AI to raise productivity, strengthen competitiveness and grow their businesses? This is where M³+, business leaders and community networks can serve as a bridge between national programmes and needs on the ground.
Second, growth and internationalisation. For enterprises with the aspiration and potential, Singapore should be their starting point, not their limit. We want to help more enterprises build capabilities, become suppliers and partners to global companies, and eventually venture into ASEAN and wider markets.
Third, jobs, skills and career transitions. Technology will change jobs and the skills required. We need to help workers understand these changes early, upgrade their skills and seize opportunities in growth sectors.
We should not wait until someone loses his or her job before we act. Economic resilience also means preparing before change occurs. From awareness to participation.
Mr Speaker, ultimately, our ambition cannot stop at simply raising awareness about the ESR. We need to move from awareness to participation in the ESR strategy.
Can more Malay/Muslim SMEs become suppliers and business partners to global companies? Can more of our entrepreneurs expand into ASEAN? Can more of our young people enter sectors such as advanced manufacturing, digital technology, AI, the green economy and other emerging sectors? These are among the questions that we want to examine through the Committee for Economic Resilience.
Inclusion is not simply about redistributing the gains from growth after they have been created. Inclusion also means widening opportunities so that more members of our community can participate in the very process that creates that growth.
And our aspiration should be clear.
The Malay/Muslim community should not merely be prepared for the economy of the future. We should have the confidence, skills and capabilities to help shape that future economy and succeed in it.
Allow me to conclude this Malay section with a pantun:
Sailing our boat on tranquil seas;
Stopping awhile at Pulau Ubin;
Knowledge acquired, talent grows with ease;
Progressing together, a secure future is attained.
(In English): Mr Speaker, as I said at the outset, there is considerable common ground between the aspirations in this Motion and the direction already set out in the ESR.
The question is therefore not whether our economic model must evolve. It must. The question is how it evolves and which foundations of Singapore's economic success we must preserve even as we strengthen local enterprise, resilience and inclusion.
One such foundation is our openness and connectivity to the world. We can build stronger Singapore companies, strengthen resilience and broaden participation in growth. But these objectives should complement our global orientation, not substitute it.
Our task is to create convergence upwards, so that more Singaporean companies and workers benefit from the technology, capabilities, investment and opportunities flowing through our economy. Because the choice is not between being global and inclusive. Our challenge is to remain global while ensuring that more Singaporeans, businesses and communities participate in the opportunities our global connections create.
So, Mr Speaker, while I support the aspirations underlying this Motion, I cannot support the Motion as it stands. I will, however, support the Motion with the proposed amendments by Member of Parliament Mr Edward Chia. And I will also support, especially the second line, where the word \"engine\" needs to be replaced, because it is not just a single economic engine. It is about the whole economy, powered by multiple factors. It makes the second sentence clearer to me. The amendment may seem minor but it makes it clearer in that sense.
So, that is, in that sense, with the amendments, how we build stronger companies, create better jobs and build an economy of the future that truly works for all. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I speak today in support of the original Motion filed by my hon friends, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Kenneth Tiong. The ESR recognises that the global economy is changing in ways that are structural rather than cyclical. My speech will focus on Thrusts 6 and 7 of the ESR. While their broad aims are laudable, I hope to advance some different recommendations for consideration, in the shared hope and spirit of better preparing and protecting our Singaporean workers.
I will frame my suggestions through three questions.
The first question concerns the journey. What is the journey for Singaporean workers who find themselves displaced in the workforce or at risk of being made obsolete?
The second question is about the destination. What is the destination for those who undertake skills training or upgrading and how can we ensure that such retraining or upskilling results in a job on the other side?
The third question ties the previous two together. What is the proof that our continuing education system actually works?
Mr Speaker, I begin with my first question. What is the journey like for Singaporeans who undertake reskilling or retraining opportunities? More importantly, how can we make sure that these workers can and do benefit from these opportunities, and what can be done to make the journey easier for them?
My answer is two-fold: one, is to offer a robust safety net so that workers, especially those who are displaced, can pursue retraining and reskilling opportunities without anxiety or worry; two, is to unlock sources of funding for those who may wish to pursue deeper mid-career upskilling.
Sir, Singaporean workers deserve a robust safety net. Upskilling and retraining sounds good in the abstract as a response to job displacement. But we have to remember that Singaporean workers are not video game characters, progressing through a skill tree to get an achievement unlocked. To workers made redundant or are on the verge of losing their jobs, upskilling and retraining may not sound like solutions in the immediate moment, but rather as another source of stress and uncertainty.
Let us not understate the psychological distress and desperation that precarious employment can cause. Other than anxiety and disappointment, workers can also feel shame and embarrassment, especially if they are breadwinners with children or elderly depending on them.
We must thus manage workforce transformations and transitions with sensitivity. We need our Singaporean workers to feel secure and have confidence that they can and will overcome an employment disruption if and when they face one. We need affected workers to be confident that they have the full backing of society and the Government as they endeavour to overcome this setback.
Sir, that sense of security, hope and confidence can only come by offering our workers the protection of a robust safety net, namely through: one, mandatory retrenchment benefits; and two, a universal redundancy insurance scheme.
Mr Speaker, the ESR in Thrust 6 calls for earlier intervention in retrenchment support. Early intervention makes sense. However, I want to ask whether this alone is sufficient or even fair for the affected workers who have sometimes contributed years of service.
Crucially, employers are encouraged to abide by the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment. As a result, retrenchment benefits remain at the discretion of the respective employers. This is a policy choice that unfairly disadvantages our workers and leaves them vulnerable. To me, this is wrong. We must protect hardworking Singaporeans and legislate mandatory retrenchment benefits.
Sir, now, I turn to another concern raised in Thrust 6 of the ESR about strengthening support for our PMEs.
We believe that a redundancy insurance scheme offers better protection for all workers, including our PMEs. In contrast to the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme, our proposal is meant to be universal and funded by joint contributions from both employers and employees, amounting to a combined 0.1% of the worker's monthly salary. Because every worker pays into it, every worker will be eligible to benefit from it. The basic idea is for each retrenched worker to receive 40% of their last drawn salary, which will be further capped at 40% of Singapore's prevailing median income. These payouts will last up to six months at most.
Sir, one of the advantages of our redundancy insurance scheme is that the payouts are straightforward. Workers will not have to go through an application process or face an agonising wait about the outcome or stress themselves out further about what they should do if their application was rejected. Our proposal offers displaced workers the assurance, peace of mind and financial buffer to properly reskill and seek a better job fit since the worker would not need to jump at the first offer that comes along. This will also reduce the prospect of underemployment.
Mr Speaker, at this point, I can already hear the murmurs about moral hazard from hon colleagues across the aisle. I want to reassure them that our redundancy insurance features the following \"4Cs\" to address this. The 4Cs are coverage, conditionality, caps and cushion.
First, coverage is restricted only to cases of involuntary redundancy, thus eliminating the concerns that workers may quit in order to collect benefits.
Second, conditionality payouts for the second and subsequent months will be made conditional on the individual's job searching and/or retraining efforts.
Third, caps. The payouts are modest and limited by a double-40 cap, that is, only 40% of the last drawn salary, which is also further subjected to a cap at 40% of median income.
Lastly, cushion. These payouts are time limited and not meant to fully replace lost income. Rather, it is intended to merely cushion the harsh impact of retrenchment and provide a semblance of security and assurance to the worker and his/her family and dependants in their immediate future.
Beyond the 4Cs, Mr Speaker, let me make a more fundamental point about the redundancy insurance scheme. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is here in the House, because he would perhaps best appreciate how our universal redundancy insurance scheme can reflect and foster a \"we first\" spirit by pooling our resources collectively and engaging in risk sharing. It is a reminder that all of us Singaporeans are in this together and that we mutually help and support each other when things get difficult.
Sir, I return to the question about the journey. What else can we do to better support workers who are retraining or upskilling? What I want to suggest here is especially pertinent for Singaporeans who have spent time in the workforce and may now want to upskill in a major and deeper way. This could mean taking on a postgraduate degree. In doing so, workers would then gain the qualifications and competencies needed to either value add to their current work or even to pivot to new industries.
However, such deep upskilling is often more demanding, very time- and energy-intensive, and involves a longer-term commitment. It can also be financially exacting.
Here, I am in agreement with ESR's diagnosis and recommendation in Thrust 7, which calls for expanding funding support to cover a broader range of deeper rescaling pathways, including post-graduate programmes offered by institutes of higher learning (IHLs). I have two specific proposals in this regard.
First, the Government should directly offer mid-career Singaporeans undertaking a postgraduate degree with access to education loans that are interest free for at least the duration of the course and with repayments to start at a modest rate before progressively increasing after a certain period. What I have in mind here is something like the MENDAKI study loans, which has a repayment arrangement that scales up over a period of time.
Second, the Government should expand the CPF Education Loan Scheme to cover part-time and full-time Master's programmes at our IHLs. This is currently not possible.
Finding the funding for postgraduate studies is often a challenge for many working professionals. Yet, postgraduate degrees remain useful in improving employability. For instance, employers sometimes reduce the years of working experience needed for applicants with a postgraduate degree.
Sir, these suggestions partly emerged from my own experience of pursuing a mid-career switch a few years ago. I left the Public Service to pursue a postgraduate Juris Doctor (JD) programme at Singapore Management University to become a lawyer. The temporary transition back to being a full-time student was difficult, not least due to the loss of a stable income for the three years of the JD programme.
However, securing an interest-free education loan from MENDAKI was helpful for me. Also, while being a JD student, I was in a slightly better financial place as a result of holding a Master's in sociology, that enabled me to secure part-time employment teaching at Singapore Institute of Management, which helped me with my day-to-day expenses.
Today, retraining and upskilling is something unavoidable for the Singaporean worker. However, we in this House would do well to recognise that the process of retraining and especially deeper upskilling involves opportunity and real cost, some of which can and should be alleviated.
Mr Speaker, I now arrive at my second question – the destination. Training by itself is not an economic outcome. Obtaining a certificate does not necessarily translate into a livelihood. If retraining ends with the worker returning home to search job portals alone, then we have merely replaced one form of insecurity with another.
I am thus encouraged by the opportunity presented last month by the merger of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore into a single Statutory Board. SWDA has the potential to serve a new integrated system where workers can be supported actively by the state throughout the entire process of displacement, retraining, job matching and re-employment. I believe that this is in line with the recommendation in Thrust 7 of the ESR.
As such, SWDA should avoid merely becoming a larger training administrator. Instead, it should be connecting together employers, training providers and workers so that retraining culminates in a real opportunity for employment.
SWDA should serve as a premier one-stop employment centre where every involuntary unemployed jobseeker can be assigned with a dedicated caseworker. Jobseekers will meet with the caseworker for a one-on-one guidance on the job search process. After a careful consideration of the jobseeker's circumstances, skills and experience as well as the expected vacancies in the job market, the caseworker can then either match the jobseekers to available jobs or else recommend retraining or upskilling courses that can prepare these jobseekers to transition into another role.
To properly fulfil this bridging and matching function, SWDA will have to do two things in tandem: (a) tracking the macro developments in the job sector; and (b) ensuring that its programme offerings are fit for purpose.
The first task is for the SWDA to have a good understanding of the ever evolving needs and demands of the job market so that they can better match or train jobseekers for these jobs. Here, SWDA can work with employers to understand which sectors are expanding, which firms are expected to have vacancies over the next six to 12 months and which industries face persistent worker shortages.
The second task requires the SWDA to build a culture of rigorous evaluation so that taxpayers' monies are funding courses and training programmes that actually provide good employment outcomes for workers or at the very least provide skills needed by the industry. For example, in many industries, there are companies that compete commercially but require many of the same foundational competencies. SWDA can work with industry partners to build training programmes that focus on sector-wide skills during the first few months, followed by a shorter company-specific immersion.
SWDA should also work with industry professionals to design training curricula for workers. It should regularly collect employers' requirements across each industry or perhaps even receive curricular proposals from these employers, as suggested before by two of my hon friends, Mr Gerald Giam and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Training providers should then demonstrate how their own programmes meet these industries' identified needs. If this is not the case already, industry representatives should sit on these curricula's steering committees.
SkillsFuture providers should also be governed by tougher quality assurance frameworks with frequent audits on providers and trainers. There should also be industry input on the assessment standards for SkillsFuture courses. Every SkillsFuture programme, from curriculum to assessment, should require sign off from three stakeholders: an employer or industry representative, the Government and the training provider.
Finally, SWDA should work with employers to provide probationary opportunities for successful graduates from SkillsFuture programmes. This will demonstrate that they are solid training programmes that can prepare workers to enter new jobs or new industries.
I believe that a new SWDA can best serve our workforce by becoming the national convener for matching displaced workers, employers and training institutions into a single coherent system of retraining and rehiring. SWDA can then develop a niche in creating the career bridges which the ESR talks about in Thrust 6 – those structured pathways for at risk workers to gain employment in more resilient occupations.
Mr Speaker, my third question is the proof. How can we be confident that our system of continuing education actually works? Where is the evidence to tell us that our training programmes actually succeed?
We spend billions of dollars supporting workforce development, but surprisingly, little outcome data enters the public domain. We know, for example, that around 55% of previously unemployed trainees who participated in the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme found new jobs within six months. But we do not know which courses perform better at helping trainees to find new jobs, which providers consistently deliver stronger outcomes, whether wages rise after retraining and whether workers remain employed one year later.
I understand that SkillsFuture and continuing education more generally should not be narrowly evaluated in terms of employment outcomes. SkillsFuture also serves the purposes of enrichment and lifelong learning, which is why one of my hon colleagues shared with me even her 88-year-old mother receives SkillsFuture credits.
However, Mr Speaker, the point remains. If the Government is primarily relying on SkillsFuture as a platform to deliver workforce retraining and upskilling, then surely our evaluation of SkillsFuture and its offerings must reflect that priority. The Government should thus publish more metrics to help workers assess the effectiveness of specific SkillsFuture programmes in relation to employment prospects. For example, for each provider and course, we should publish how many trainees found new jobs within six months and the average wages of these new jobs.
The availability of such data will transform accountability throughout our training ecosystem. Providers will be forced to complete on outcomes rather than marketing and workers would make better informed decisions before going for training. Government spending should then flow towards programmes that demonstrably succeed.
Mr Speaker, one last point on why we invest in the upskilling of our workers. Singapore has built one of the world's most generous systems of continuing education. Without a doubt, the Government has invested significantly in our people, But as always is the case with Government expenditure, where the money goes and how it is spent matters as much as how much is spent.
The recently released report of the Auditor-General raises questions about whether the money has been fruitfully used. The Auditor-General's Office (AGO) flagged some issues with the Career Conversion Programme and Mid-Career Pathways Programme. In page 65 of the report, the AGO found that six group of 30-related entities had engaged in patterns that suggested \"potential gaming of the programmes to maximise grant claims rather than genuine training initiatives\".
While I understand that Workforce Singapore has addressed some of these findings, my concern is about the vulnerabilities in the system that can be exploited. The Government must remain vigilant in detecting any abuse of the system and plugging these gaps, so to ensure public monies can deliver genuine training of our workforce, because every dollar diverted and wasted is a dollar not spent to re-train or upskill a worker to stay employable. And we must ensure that taxpayers' money that we spend to support reskilling and career conversion should produce genuine workforce outcomes and meaningfully help displaced workers rebuild their careers.
To recap the proposals in my speech: one, legislating mandatory retrenchment benefits; two, implementing universal redundancy insurance; three, introducing interest-free education loans and allowing CPF to be used for postgraduate studies; four, consolidating SWDA into a one-stop shop for employment and upskilling, with dedicated caseworkers; five, collaborating more closely with industry partners to finetune SkillsFuture offerings and curricula; and six, publishing more public outcome data by provider and course.
Mr Speaker, the ESR rightly observes that Singapore's greatest asset has always been its people. And to maximise our competitive advantage, we must enable Singaporeans to move confidently from one stage of their working lives to another. Ideally, the worker should begin re-training or upskilling with a clear idea of the destination ahead, he or she should be able to see, right from the start, a credible career bridge, rather than resting on some vague hope that re-training will lead to some hazy notion of somewhere better. With that, I reiterate my support for the original Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would first like to declare my interest as a faculty member at an autonomous university.
Mr Speaker, the ESR sets out how Singapore can remain competitive in a fast-changing world. Its central themes are adaptability and resilience. It also calls for a more dynamic enterprise base, stronger support for career transitions and AI that augments workers.
The movers of the original Motion have described it as complementary to, but distinct from, the ESR. And I agree with many of the aspirations in paragraph (a) of the Motion. Entrepreneurs should be able to experiment, businesses should have room to succeed and workers should thrive and innovation should flourish.
But agreement with those aspirations is not the same as support for the original framing of the Motion. My concern is that the wording does not adequately address the trade-offs involved.
I will begin with fairness, then turn to enterprise dynamism and the relationship between workers and innovation.
Let me start with the phrase \"a more equal and inclusive economy\". A more equal outcome is not always a fairer one. Equal pay for equal work may be fair, but we also give more help to households with greater needs. It can also be fair to reward greater contribution or responsible risk-taking. The appropriate principle really depends on the issue. So, the question is not simply whether outcomes are equal. It is whether they are fair.
This does not mean we should simply accept inequality. Large differences in income and wealth can generate wide social and economic costs. They can entrench advantage, weaken mobility and leave people with very different capacities to pursue opportunities or recover from setbacks. Where essential costs overwhelm lower-income households, greater support should be provided. Where family resources determine access to education or career opportunities, the pathways available to those with fewer means should be widened. So, the response to the social and economic costs of inequality should be to target those specific costs, rather than assume that equality is always the appropriate remedy.
We should also not only look at the distribution of wealth, but also, at how that wealth is put to use. This points to a broader understanding of inclusion. People should not only have access to opportunity at the outset; they should have the ability to change direction throughout their lives.
The ESR's proposal for proactive career bridges for workers in at-risk roles is an important step in that direction. And I would extend the same principle more broadly – across education and work, employment and entrepreneurship, and transitions between different careers.
Consider university students who discover during their first year that they have chosen the wrong course. When they transfer programmes, the subsidised semesters already used count against the tuition grant available for the new programme. Any additional study required may therefore attract non-subsidised fees. The fiscal rationale for that is understandable. But the ability to correct an early mismatch can then depend on family means.
Could there be a limited, one-time course-correction allowance for a first transfer made during the first year? For example, one or two subsidised semesters could be disregarded, subject to appropriate academic advising and maximum recognition of credits already completed.
This is not a case for unlimited switching or subsidy. It is about ensuring that an early mismatch does not become financially irreversible. It may also reduce the pressure on families to secure the \"right\" course at the first attempt.
Our systems can sometimes behave like conveyor belts. They work very efficiently when the destination is known, but they are a lot less forgiving when someone needs to change direction. So, a more adaptable system should allow people to switch pathways without losing all the progress they have already made. That is how I would calibrate the Motion's reference to inclusion: not identical journeys or destinations, but real opportunities to change directions as people develop.
Sir, my second point concerns opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment and for businesses to succeed. The ESR is right to emphasise enterprise renewal, including restructuring and exit. Indeed, enterprise dynamism must work for people too, not just for capital. Experimentation involves uncertainty, so some ventures will pivot, others will end. And when that happens, the learning should not be lost and the entrepreneur should not be permanently penalised.
A worker who leaves a job to pursue a venture should be able to return to employment, regardless of the venture's eventual outcome. Employers should recognise the judgement and practical experience gained, rather than viewing that period as a blemish in that person's career.
At the same time, business success should not be defined only by scale or profitability. Consider Bettr Group, it is a homegrown specialty coffee company that combines its business with training and inclusive employment for people facing social and economic barriers. Its value lies not only in its commercial activity, but also in the skills and opportunities it helps create.
Bettr Group reminds us that enterprise dynamism should make room for a wider range of enterprises and forms of value. A healthy economy should allow experimentation and exit. It should also give enterprises that create wider societal value a fair opportunity to develop.
And so, my final point concerns the Motion's call for opportunities for workers to thrive and for ideas and innovation to flourish. Both the proposed and amended Motions' use of the word \"thrive\" is one I support. It sets a higher aspiration than simply keeping people employed and it is worth striving for. Workers should be engaged in their work and able to build a good life through it. They should also see a path to develop and progress. This builds on the ESR, which calls for AI to augment workers through job redesign and training, and for learning to be integrated more closely with real work and employers' needs.
Realising this higher aspiration requires reciprocal commitments. Let me turn first to workers and then to employers.
As routine tasks become more automatable, workers will need to exercise more judgement and deal with problems that do not have formulaic answers. Reskilling cannot stop at attending courses. Workers must be willing to apply what they have learnt and take on new responsibilities. Employers, in turn, can decide how technology changes work. They can use it mainly to do the same work with fewer people, or they can use it to help the organisation grow and create more valuable roles for workers.
Where workers take on greater responsibilities and help generate productivity gains, this should be reflected in their pay or greater autonomy over their work and time. This does not mean preserving every task or preventing disruption. It means that workers should take responsibility for adapting, while employers should use innovation not merely to reduce costs, but to grow the organisation and share the resulting benefits with those who produce them.
Mr Speaker, my concern is not with the aspirations in paragraph (a). It is with compressing distinct principles and trade-offs into a single proposition. Fairness does not always require equal outcomes. But inequality should not become a lasting barrier to opportunity.
Enterprise dynamism requires room for experimentation and exit. It should also recognise wider societal value. Workers and innovation can flourish together, but only through a reciprocal commitment: workers must adapt and employers must create more valuable work and share the gains.
I therefore retain reservations about paragraph (a) as presently framed. I would have preferred a more nuanced and calibrated formulation, one that preserves its aspirations while making the trade-offs and responsibilities clearer.
That said, the amendments proposed by Mr Edward Chia brings the Motion closer to my position and it is more consistent with the points I have made. And on balance, I would support the Motion as amended. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the original Motion. The full report of the ESR released on 24 June goes to the heart of what kind of economy and what kind of society we want to build for Singapore and for our workers. It is situated within a world increasingly shaped by AI, technological disruption, geopolitical fragmentation and intensifying economic competition.
In addition, the ESR speaks extensively about jobs and strengthening resilience, with section (b) of the report specifically devoted to it. Thrust 6 makes a specific call to shorten the current requirement for companies to submit a mandatory retrenchment notification within five working days after workers are notified.
My speech expands on this and will focus on worker resilience, the reality of how retrenchment hits our workers and how we can better support them, because a resilient economy cannot be built on the backs of insecure workers.
That is why I believe the time has come for Singapore to legislate minimum retrenchment benefits, a subject I have pursued previously in this House, most recently in April this year, and separately, in the context of the ongoing review of the Employment Act.
In advocating for the legislation of retrenchment benefits, my speech will cover four broad sections: first, I will provide an overview of the retrenchment situation in Singapore; second, I will summarise the legal position on retrenchment benefits in Singapore. thirdly, I will explain why retrenchment benefits are important for workers; and fourthly, I will address the common reasons against the legislation of retrenchment benefits and how they should be reviewed in light of the ESR's broader recommendations.
First, the local situation. Last Friday, The Straits Times published an article titled \"Singapore adds more jobs in Q2 even as retrenchments rose\". Within the story, it was reported that the 4,500 retrenchments from April to June this year were the highest since the last quarter of 2020. Over the last 12 months, Lazada, Gardenia, Shopee, Asia Pacific Breweries, Agoda, DHL and Yeo Hiap Seng are just some of the household names that have announced retrenchments, which made the headlines in Singapore, with some moving operations across the border to Malaysia. In 2024, the major technology companies in Singapore such as Meta, Tiktok, Dyson, Microsoft and Google collectively cut at least 9,000 jobs in Singapore.
In this regard, two specific data points are noteworthy.
Firstly, in 2024 and 2025, total employment in Singapore grew, and the unemployment rate has remained low at around 2% in 2024 and 2025. However, recorded retrenchments have increased in recent years from 6,440 in 2022 to 13,020 in 2024, and 14,490 in 2025.
Secondly, from 2020 to 2025, eight out of 10 eligible employees were paid retrenchment benefits at or above the prevailing tripartite guideline of two weeks' salary for every year of service. This bodes well for a baseline legislated minimum retrenchment benefits starting point for all workers. This data point provided by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), however, does not specifically reveal how many workers receive the unionised norm of one month's salary for every year of service, although I understand this is not uncommon in many collective agreements.
Critically, though, what we can reasonably extrapolate from both these data points is that in 2024, for example, potentially close to 3,000 retrenched workers in Singapore either received no retrenchment benefits at all or received less than what is prescribed by the tripartite guidelines. That is not a small number by any stretch.
Today, many economies in Asia provide some form of legislative statutory protection for retrenched workers. However, workers in Singapore have no statutory entitlement to retrenchment benefits. Outside contract, retrenchment benefits remain largely governed by tripartite norms and employer practices. To receive retrenchment benefits, workers in Singapore are dependent on the goodwill of employers, the terms of their employment contracts, or the strength of their bargaining position after they have already lost their jobs.
This legislative omission in our employment laws sits in stark contrast to the reality our workers face as set out by the ESR report: first, that Singaporeans should not assume that economic growth will automatically result in the same extent of job creation as before; and secondly, that despite Singapore's positive employment situation, worker anxiety has increased across a wide range of sectors.
I now move on to the second section of my speech on the legal position. Singapore's courts and tribunals have reaffirmed a legal position that does not sit easily with workers. In JIF v JIG, the Employment Claims Tribunal held that section 45 of the Employment Act does not create a statutory entitlement to retrenchment benefits. The tribunal held that retrenchment benefits are payable only when they arise from a contract of employment, collective agreement, or some other legal basis. Tripartite guidelines do not create such a legal basis. Indeed, this position can be traced back to the Court of Appeals decision in Bethlehem Singapore Pte Ltd v Ler Hock Seng, which made it clear that section 45 does not compel employers to pay retrenchment benefits simply because an employee has completed a qualifying period of service.
The significance of the tribunal judgment in particular is magnified by its timing and it forces us to confront an important policy question. At the very moment, the ESR is asking Singaporeans to prepare for an era of more frequent restructuring, more rapid technological disruption and greater economic uncertainty, the Courts have reminded us that workers facing retrenchment possess no general statutory entitlement to retrenchment benefits.
The question before Parliament is whether the law remains adequate for workers and the economy that the ESR hopes to evince.
In my view, the law has fallen behind. Let us look around the region. China legislates economic compensation for workers affected by redundancy and restructuring. South Korea imposes significant legal requirements before redundancies may be carried out. Taiwan legislates severance entitlements. Malaysia legislates termination and lay-off benefits. Thailand legislates severance payments based on years of service. Indonesia legislates retrenchment compensation. The Philippines legislates separations pay.
These countries differ enormously in their political systems, labour markets and stages of economic development. Yet they have all reached a common conclusion: business flexibility for employers and worker protection are not mutually exclusive.
I now move on to my third section on why retrenchment benefits are crucial for our workers.
Retrenchment benefits matter because they support workers and their families precisely at the stage of life when financial obligations can often be at their greatest. They represent an important layer of support provided by employers, complementing taxpayer-funded assistance such as the Jobseeker Support Scheme.
In the Singapore context, this additional financial relief is especially important, given how leveraged many households are. According to DBS Bank's 2025 instalment of its financial wellness series, which analysed aggregated and anonymised data from approximately two million DBS and POSB retail customers, Gen Zs and Millennials aged 25 to 44 are increasingly shouldering heavier liabilities and are falling behind their older counterparts in building retirement savings. Among pre-retirement age groups, those aged 35 to 44 are the most financially stretched, with debts slightly overweighing liquid assets, largely due to housing vehicle and credit card loans.
Outside these age bands, when a worker in his 50s loses his or her job, the consequences extend far beyond immediate income loss. CPF contributions stop, retirement balances grow more slowly, housing obligations continue, healthcare expenses continue, caregiving responsibilities continue. Retrenchment is not merely a labour market issue. For many, it is also a retirement adequacy issue, a housing issue, a family issue and a social stability issue.
As Singapore transits towards a high wage, high-cost economy, the effects of retrenchment will become even more severe, if workers are unable to secure employment at a comparable income level. The mental health dimension of job loss and financial insecurity cannot be understated either.
Taxpayers are playing their part financing the Jobseeker Support Scheme, and the Government and Labour Movement are devoting significant resources towards retraining. Employers must play their part too, based on the available data on retrenchment benefits, we know that many employers are already prepared to shoulder that responsibility and pay retrenchment benefits to workers.
The fourth section of my speech will deal with the arguments against the legislation of retrenchment benefits. Throughout Singapore's history, many worker protections were initially criticised as threats to business competitiveness. When Workfare was introduced, concerns were raised about costs, even as Workfare was taxpayer-funded. When the progressive wage model was expanded, concerns were raised about costs, especially after Government wage support tapers off. When platform workers were granted stronger protections, concerns were again raised about costs.
In fact, when the Government announced the review of the Employment Act last year, the Singapore National Employers' Federation cautioned that the review should not, and I quote, \"inadvertently mandate progressive employment practices that may reduce flexibilities for employers and undermine business competitiveness\".
Yet, advancing major pro-worker reforms are always important because economic growth alone is never enough.
Today, we regard things like Workfare as part of a mature and balanced economic system. Retrenchment benefits should be viewed in exactly the same way.
Over the years, MOM has advanced several arguments against legislating retrenchment benefits for our workers. However, the risks it has hitherto identified should be carefully examined and weighed afresh against the increasingly unpredictable economic landscape facing workers in the years ahead, as outlined by the ESR report.
The first argument is that mandatory retrenchment benefits may make employers more hesitant to offer long-term or permanent employment contracts. Yet, the existence of mandatory retrenchment benefits in many economies, including advanced economies, has not eliminated permanent employment. It is clear that such demands are influenced by a range of factors, including labour demand, skills and manpower shortages, productivity and broader labour market regulations. In the Singapore context, a generally tight labour market could have the opposite effect with employers competing to hire the best with a permanent contract, an important lure.
Second, the Government has argued that legislating a minimum retrenchment benefit may result in employers converging on that very minimum. However, the facts do not fully support this concern. There is already a tripartite guideline. There are already collective agreements that prescribe retrenchment benefits and the vast majority of employers converge at those benchmarks anyway, with a very small number paying more than the one-month norm for each year of service.
It is therefore not obvious that legislation would necessarily result in a different status quo with employers prevented from paying a higher amount should they deem it appropriate to do so.
Finally, it has been argued that mandatory retrenchment benefits may affect the viability of companies already facing financial difficulties and could place remaining employees at greater risk. This concern must be weighed against the reality that financial difficulty does not automatically extinguish obligations of distress firms, such as unpaid wages, CPF contributions, taxes, supplier debts or bank loans. Businesses do also account for employee leave encashment, gratuity obligations, contractual liabilities and debt repayments. Retrenchment benefits can be similarly treated as a foreseeable employment cost as they are today by progressive employers.
More importantly, this argument assumes that retrenchments only occur when companies are losing money. But that is not always the case. Many retrenchments occur when profitable firms restructure, automate functions, consolidate operations, relocate activities or seek to improve profitability – as we have seen in Singapore over the last few years. In such circumstances, retrenchment is often a strategic business decision rather than a last resort.
Indeed, this helps explain why some unions have successfully negotiated for enhanced retrenchment benefits in the absence of statutory protection, precisely because not all firms retrench workers due to financial distress. Like earlier efforts to strengthen worker protection, legislating retrenchment benefits will inevitably attract concerns from businesses.
Those concerns deserve attention and respect, because it is neither simple nor straightforward to start, build or sustain a business. However, we should not forget that many responsible employers already provide retrenchment benefits: eight out of 10 eligible employees already receive retrenchment benefits up to the tripartite guideline of two weeks salary for every year of service.
As I mentioned earlier, this can serve as the starting point for legislative retrenchment benefits. This would largely formalise an existing practice while ensuring that workers who fall through the gap that cannot be bridged by non-binding tripartite guidelines are protected. Responsible employers would no longer be disadvantaged relative to those who provide the bare minimum or nothing at all.
A statutory framework could also be enhanced by subsidiary legislation directing higher payouts for larger firms, such as up to the union norm of one month salary for every year of service, something which larger global MNCs in particular would not necessarily baulk at, especially since they are already subject to legislative regimes governing retrenchment benefits in other countries where they operate.
The ability of smaller employers to pay retrenchment benefits often comes up as a concern against legislating retrenchment benefits completely. The concerns of these small businesses are not irrelevant or unimportant. A business with a revenue of half a million dollars is certainly a different enterprise compared to one that records $50 million in revenue.
Various countries address this particular issue differently, even as they legislate for retrenchment benefits. Some create backstops, such as national insurance schemes, while others advance wage guarantee agreements, while yet others treat retrenchment benefits as a preferential debt through insolvency laws.
These are not uncharted waters, and a perfect legislative retrenchment benefits regime does not need to be the enemy of a good regime that protects more workers than it does today in Singapore.
In conclusion, the call for legislating retrenchment benefits is about what kind of society we want Singapore to become. The ESR calls on more international enterprises to set up regional headquarters Singapore and is fundamentally an economic plan for the future. It sees international trust in the Singapore brand as a strategic asset that Singapore rightly seeks to leverage in advancing its economic value proposition.
Yet that trust hosts an important domestic dimension that builds that very Singapore brand. Trust and commitment to an employer is strengthened when workers know that after years of service, if restructuring occurs through no fault of their own, they will receive fair and meaningful protection. Therefore, as part of the Government's implementation of the ESR, I urge the Government to convene employers, unions and workers to develop a statutory retrenchment benefits framework with the objective of introducing legislation.
A resilient society requires workers who know they will not be left to bear the burdens of economic change alone, because in line with the call of the Labour Movement in NTUC, no less, while not every job can be protected, every worker deserves protection.
I support the original Motion in the names of Members Kenneth Tiong and Jamus Lim, which calls for an inclusive and equal economy for all Singaporeans. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Order. We have been in session for close to five and a half hours, so I propose to take a break. I suspend the Sitting and will take the chair at 4.20 pm. Order. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Terence Ho.
Assoc Prof Terence Ho (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the amended Motion. I would like to declare my interest as the Executive Director of the Institute for Adult Learning, Singapore’s National Centre of Excellence for Adult Learning.
It is, without doubt, critical for Singapore to sustain an inclusive and dynamic economy. We are building on firm foundations and the ESR provides a robust blueprint to take our economy forward. That said, more ideas to spur inclusive economic growth should be welcome. There are many dimensions to this Motion and I will focus my remarks on our workforce and people as the key to an inclusive and dynamic economy.
An inclusive economy must benefit its people. In Singapore, the main channel through which economic growth benefits Singaporeans is good jobs and incomes. This remains the central socio-economic strategy, as affirmed in the recent debate in this House on an AI transition with no jobless growth. While we will have to consider new ways to strengthen social support and protection, and to step up redistribution for more equitable outcomes, we must continue to prioritise employment and good jobs.
The first limb of today's Parliamentary Motion speaks of providing opportunities for workers to thrive. It is worth reflecting on what this means.
To me, it means that workers are not locked into pre-set pathways or dead-end jobs on their basis of the past educational qualifications. Instead, they must have opportunities to continually grow and develop in their careers. It also means that workers are not confined to tasks that are mundane or repetitive because all the interesting work has been taken over by AI. Instead, workers must have autonomy to express their talent and creativity, and to find meaning and self-actualisation in their work.
Three sets of factors are needed: first, workers must be nimble and adaptable; second, organisations must transform to activate skills and unlock the potential of workers; third, we need a refreshed work and learning ecosystem enabled by public policy to support workers and organisations, and help them thrive.
First, nimble and adaptable workers. Singapore tops the world in test scores of 15-year-olds, but can we top the world in the skills and learning agility of 45-year-olds? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) survey of adult skills suggest that we are only in the middle of the pack relative to OECD economies in adult literacy and numeracy.
Framing our ambition is important. We should set our sights high, not just to have the world's best students, but also to have the world's most agile, adaptable and innovative workforce. We must reaffirm that people are our key competitive advantage, and not just technology or infrastructure. In Singapore, we often say that people are our only resource, hence, the sustained investment the Government has put into education and human capital development through the years.
Today, it is not just about developing hard skills and competencies. The human skills, or critical core skills, are coming to the fore, and the meta-skill of learning to learn is perhaps the most important of all. We need to emphasise learning agility and adaptability amid disruption, and dynamic innovation beyond static excellence. AI and automation will analyse and execute, but it is human beings who set the agenda, prioritise tasks, frame the questions, weigh up the options that AI suggests, make decisions and ultimately, take responsibility for outcomes. All this requires judgement and creativity rooted in continual learning.
As individuals, we must get out of our comfort zones to seek new opportunities to learn and grow. We must also plan for our careers and invest in our career health. We should not limit ourselves to being just students, employees, freelancers or employers at any one time. Everyone can be a worker-learner and a worker-entrepreneur. And because learning never stops, there should be no hard boundary between Pre-employment Training and Continuing Education and Training. And everyone, regardless of occupation, needs to have the mindset and instincts of an entrepreneur to contribute and succeed in the future economy.
Second, let us focus on what organisations can do. They must transform to activate the skills of the workforce and unleash the creativity of their people. Otherwise, the gains from training and reskilling will not be fully realised. A body of research, including findings from the Institute for Adult Learning's Skills and Learning Survey, suggests that much of what people learn in formal training is not applied at work, often because there is no opportunity to do so, or because the workplace is not conducive.
Learning must therefore be dovetailed with organisational strategy and not treated as a standalone activity. Enterprises must become learning enterprises, where learning is embedded in corporate DNA. Leaders, human resource (HR) professionals, line managers and unions all have a role to play in enabling learning by activating mindsets, securing training resources, embedding learning and work, and creating conducive environments for learning and experimentation.
It should also be a priority for organisations to adopt skills-first practices, where skills, rather than credentials, become the key consideration for hiring, career development and advancement. This will give employers access to a larger pool of talent, while workers will enjoy greater career mobility as they are not limited by their previous educational qualifications or work experience, but can leverage the skills they have picked up through work to take on new job roles or cross into other sectors.
It is important that employers conduct regular structured career conversations with employees across all career stages and not just older workers. Such conversations help individuals understand the strengths, aspirations and development opportunities, while enabling organisations to better develop and deploy talent. Finally, organisations should encourage ground-up innovation by looking to the workforce as a source of insight and innovation.
In a complex and uncertain environment, it is particularly important for workers to make sense of the evolving context and to be empowered to co-create solutions with opportunities to hone their instincts and build their confidence. Workers' tacit knowledge is also valuable in human-centric work redesign, where involving workers in redesigning work can lead to greater ownership and better outcomes.
Third, a refreshed, integrated work and learning ecosystem is necessary to foster an agile, adaptable and innovative workforce, along with a labour market characterised by quality jobs, skills alignment and strong labour mobility.
Let me first acknowledge what is already in place under SkillsFuture. There is generous support for training and reskilling. We have a common skills taxonomy and a Careers and Skills Passport that support skills certification, recognition and portability. There is also a network of training providers whose quality standards are closely monitored. Labour market intelligence is made available to individuals, firms and training providers via a suite of online tools and dashboards.
What more can be done?
First, I think we need to accelerate efforts at making skills-first practices more prevalent and indeed, the default for firms and organisations. The Institute of Adult Learning will be launching a skills-first framework for action in October, which will set out concrete actions and behaviours that we hope will become widely adopted by individuals, employers and training providers.
Second, we need to develop robust skills credentialing. Today, there is a gap in the Careers and Skills Passport in that it primarily captures formal training and credentials, along with work experience. As workplace learning becomes an increasingly important part of lifelong learning, we need to be able to assess and recognise skills acquired on-the-job and demonstrable at the workplace. The Institute of Adult Learning has pioneered skills credentialing for the training and adult education sector, and we are working with partner agencies to adapt this methodology for other sectors.
This is important, as a more complete skills passport would enable and encourage adoption of skills-first practices. IHLs, too, can support this by designing student testimonials to better reflect skills acquired through coursework, internships and co-curricular activities.
Third, there is a need to support enterprises in becoming learning organisations by providing practical tool kits and resources to strengthen organisational capabilities, while helping leaders, HR and organisational development professionals place learning at the heart of organisational strategy and unlock the potential of their workforce.
Fourth, there is scope to further invest in personalised career guidance and job-matching capabilities, not just recommending jobs based on skills, but also on values, aspirations and personality fit.
A senior consultant psychiatrist recently told me that job fit is a major factor for human health and happiness. He observed that different kinds of work may be better suited to different personability types. Forcing a square peg into a round hole may lead to stress, burnout and poor mental health. Conversely, a good job fit is likely to result in personal fulfilment, more engaged and energised workers along with higher productivity and creativity on the job.
A more comprehensive and effective system of career coaching and guidance, not just for displaced workers but also for those in employment, can moreover support better career health and resilience.
Fifth, we can strengthen support for micro entrepreneurship. Thanks to AI, individuals can now put their business ideas to the test with much lower barriers to market entry. AI is making one-person companies increasingly viable. The Government could review what more could be done to support such ventures, whether through financing, access to AI compute, business networks and mentoring, or other targeted forms of support to encourage micro entrepreneurship as a viable career pathway or source of supplementary income for Singaporeans.
Finally, we need to invest significantly in understanding the nexus among technology, adult learning, employability and business performance.
Every chief HR officer I spoke with recently has shared that one of the central challenges facing their organisation is AI and its impact on work and their workforce. In this new reality of rapidly advancing AI, no organisation or government has all the answers. We need to experiment, test, iterate and scale up what works in AI-enabled learning, work redesign and employability across a range of sectors and organisation types.
Just as we have built up considerable expertise in pedagogy that has placed Singapore at the forefront of global education for school-age children, we need to similarly build up expertise in lifelong learning and employability. We should bring to Singapore the world's leading experts – not just academic researchers but practice-oriented academics who can bridge the world of academia and industry with timely research that informs practice in a fast-changing landscape. By building up our research and practice ecosystem, Singapore can be at the cutting edge of learning and employability in the AI age.
Let us match our ambition for our workforce with sustained investment in expertise and capability. Our guiding star should be to give our people the best chance of succeeding and contributing in the AI age, which is critical to a dynamic and inclusive economy and fundamental to renewing our social compact.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, post-Independence, we were laser-focused on pursuing economic growth as a young nation trying to stand on our own two feet, opening ourselves to foreign investment, connecting ourselves with networks of global trade and providing fertile ground for businesses both global and local to flourish. This resulted in vast improvement of the quality of life for large swathes of our population. For many, the promise of a better future for our next generation was a beacon of hope for which we worked towards.
Yet, in recent years, it is not unheard of for our residents to ask: should economic growth be our ultimate endgame?
The latest ESR report provides us a valuable opportunity for reflection and to rethink what progress means to Singapore. But at a time when retrenchments dominate newspaper headlines, anxious residents worry about unstable livelihoods and our little red dot feels ever-rising heat from climate change, it is timely for us to think how we can put economic growth in service of broader societal progress.
We need a Singapore economy that provides breathing room for each and every one of our people to be the best version of ourselves.
A few years back, I spoke about Kate Raworth's concept of doughnut economics, which envisions an economy that places at its heart a collective well-being and equality to achieve a safe and just space for humanity whilst protecting our earth from further environmental destruction. This is more relevant than ever. Our economic policies must embody an ethos of equity, and collective and planetary well-being while providing opportunities for all in our society to thrive.
I will address three key areas today towards this goal: first, tackling our care system; second, providing the right ecosystem for creatives and entrepreneurs to thrive; and third, protecting our planet.
If our economy is to be rooted in equity and collective well-being, we must first look at who determines how our economic pie is sliced. Of the members and five committees involved in the ESR, it appears to mainly comprise C-suite and the NTUC union leaders.
Even as we recognise their insights, organisations representing migrant workers, women's rights and persons with disabilities should also have been more clearly represented. Our economic trajectory must be shaped by the people, with the people and for the people. Diversity and perspective, representing the diverse stakeholders in our economy, must be used to identify potential blind spots and marginalised communities, and how these diverse communities live and experience our policies, economic and otherwise.
When we talk about economic contribution, our economic structure often focuses on the elite worlds of finance, tech and commerce. Yet, our economy is kept dynamic by a very diverse group of professionals whose contributions are invaluable for their collective economic success.
In particular, our care economy comprising both paid and unpaid labour in childcare, eldercare, healthcare and various social services. A foundational building block for any economy, our care infrastructure is what leads to the broader growth, well-being and human development for current and future generations. Building our care infrastructure must be seen as a priority, not just an afterthought, a problem to fix due to demographic changes.
In this line, Thrust 5 of the ESR recommended that we improve the attractiveness of AI-resilient sectors, such as allied health, early childhood education and social work. Many proposals were raised, such as job redesign, clarifying progression pathways, and strengthening skills development and certification. But also it mentioned increased wage support.
Granted, this is a tricky balance. An example can be seen in action by the UK's latest attempt to reform social care, which is envisaged to be a long and costly process involving difficult decisions even as there is room for statements that carers need to be the best paid in society rather than the worst.
Yet even in Singapore, wage support is solely needed for our caregivers. Latest MOM data as of June 2025 indicates the median gross wage earned by registered nurses at $5,129 per month. Social workers earn $4,565, preschool teachers earn $4,150. These numbers are lower than the overall median gross monthly income from employment of $5,775.
Even as we acknowledge that wage support is overdue, care workers must also be better acknowledged and supported for their invaluable contribution towards our society, regardless of their ability to weather AI-induced disruptions. Wages in the care economy must commensurate with the rising cost of living.
We also need to address the heavy emotional toll faced by care workers. A 2022 study published in the Academy of Medicine, Singapore's official journal measuring burnout in the public healthcare sector between July 2019 and January 2020 found that 37.8% of respondents had high emotional exhaustion scores; 29.7% had high de-personalisation scores and 55.3% had low personal accomplishment scores. Another study conducted in the second half of 2024 in our National University Polyclinics also found that nearly 10% of participants stated that they intended to leave their current position in the next six months. The authors of the study found this concerning, noting that the resignation rate of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic was just 4%.
Just as the Law Society recently started to review the prevailing work culture for lawyers, it is time for our regulatory bodies to work with industry and non-governmental organisations in care economy segments to officially track workplace well-being and examine prevailing workplace standards.
Support for local entrepreneurship in the care economy is also key. The care economy is highly labour-intensive, and our general grant supporting capital needs in entrepreneurship and capability building needs closer scrutiny. While the current existence of the VentureForGood Grant administered by raiSE SG supports early and growth-stage social enterprises for up to $300,000 in capital expenditure and operating costs, how can we support more startups and commercial enterprises in this space to bring sustainable investments into the care economy? raiSE SG must work with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and the Ministry of Social and Family Development jointly to review the care economy investment ecosystem to build a more sustainable investment and employment ecosystem.
Caregiving is also borne by informal carers, such as family and friends. This labour of love is not reflected in GDP figures, but its importance is underscored by the inaugural Duke-National University of Singapore study, which valued the economic contribution of informal caregiving for seniors at $1.28 billion annually.
The efforts of our caregivers often come at a cost – sacrificing health, careers and leisure time to care for loved ones. It is also why I have been calling since 2020 for official regular time-use studies for us to better understand our carers' needs and to measure the hidden economic and personal costs behind care. Carers also need better support, which is why our Party's manifesto has called for, amongst others, compensation for family caregivers and the expansion of respite care.
Singapore must bridge the gap of seeing care beyond being a cost. We must see caregiving as a growth segment that builds not just the economy of today, but the society of tomorrow.
Our society of tomorrow must also support creatives and entrepreneurs who dare to dream and pursue their own passions. How do we ensure that our local entrepreneurs and dreamers can have their passion made possible in Singapore?
To create the conditions for entrepreneurship to grow, we must first, as a society, foster a culture of self-discovery and exploration from young. Expanding entrepreneurship-related programmes in schools and encouraging critical thinking and empathy as prescribed in the ESR report only goes so far if our system does not reward risk-taking or having room to make mistakes and learn.
How do we explain the gap between the decades' long efforts to build an education system to be more holistic against the reality that these additional layers simply create new pathways for education arms races? What do we need to do to address parents' or would-be parents' fears for the next generation in an age of million-dollar HDB resale prices, ever-soaring Certificate of Entitlement prices and the never-ending sense of scarcity?
While this is a whole other topic, it is relevant to our economic policies for the future. For today, I would like to instead focus on our creatives and entrepreneurs.
Our creatives are risk-takers and visionaries. They turn ideas into commercial and cultural value and inspire the wonder that a thriving society needs. Yet a career in the arts remains a difficult choice in Singapore. Regulatory hurdles have forced artists to alter or remove public artworks while beloved art spaces have shuttered under rising costs and redevelopment pressures. These are not small setbacks. They kill the very activity we say we want to nurture.
The one-off Culture Pass is only a first step. What our creatives need is sustained support, dedicated work, display and commercial spaces to hone their craft and earn a decent living, backed by sensible commercial space regulations. These should sit alongside spaces for budding entrepreneurs, much like the creative and cultural parks we see in cities, such as Beijing and Taipei, proof that culture and commerce can thrive side by side.
Next, supporting the growth ambitions of our businesses, large and small. Small home-based businesses can be a testbed for aspiring founders to launch businesses. But the next step is often daunting, with commercial overheads quickly becoming prohibitive. Can the Government, across agencies, provide more affordable short-term stalls and shop spaces across HDB, URA and JTC-managed properties for first-time entrepreneurs, taking inspiration from the now ubiquitous shared office facilities to offer smaller modular units with lower renovation and deposit requirements and allow tendency periods that are shorter or easier contractual conditions for potential exit?
For SME looking to scale, the ESR report acknowledges that companies still find it difficult to secure growth stage capital and that Temasek already participates in SME co-investment. But what our businesses need to grow is bolder and broader base access to financing catalysed by private and public capital.
Enterprise Singapore-co-invested companies, through the Startup SG Equity Scheme, should be re) mainboard or catalyst, and ESG should work with SGX on governance and disclosure requirements for co-invested companies to ease the path to listing. Together with the Equity Market Development Programme, this can improve liquidity in our domestic equity market and attract more liquidity into these companies. Such companies should also be explicitly tracked on the impact they have beyond returns, for example, their contribution to activity and employment in Singapore. This is similar in spirit to Ireland's Strategic Investment Fund which has a double bottom-line mandate. To further encourage would-be entrepreneurs, we also need an ecosystem with structural measures to protect necessary risk-taking for success.
After I spoke in early May this year about supporting entrepreneurship amongst youths, including a call to adapt our current bankruptcy framework, a Straits Times' article on 26 May indicated that business failure is among the top reasons why individuals go into personal bankruptcy. Yet, working out a bankruptcy is often difficult, with practical limits on day-to-day activities and no automatic discharge. This can hold back those with bold ideas from taking the plunge.
Pro-data reforms have been found to be linked to better entrepreneurship and innovation outcomes. A European Union (EU) expert group report in 2011 that, \"A second chance policy that enables formally bankrupt entrepreneurs to restart may represent one of the most promising and under-exploited policy options for company creation and job growth.\"
The EU has since adopted a more balanced preventive restructuring approach for bona fide entrepreneurs seeking a second chance. I will thus repeat our call to see if our bankruptcy regime can be reformed to encourage more would-be entrepreneurs to step up.
Finally, thriving humans need a flourishing planet. Yet, the relentless pursuit of economic growth on this planet has resulted in the over extraction of precious natural resources, damaged ecosystems and disruption to communities.
Thrust 8 of the ESR recommended that businesses prepare for a low-carbon and climate-resilient future. Noticeably, a heavy emphasis was placed on preparing businesses to shield themselves from the harmful effects of climate change, while not acknowledging that historically, it has been corporations and industrial development that have been the very reason we are now experiencing planetary distress. We need more attention and details on how our policies will make our enterprises and economies to be part of the solution to climate change, particularly in Thrust 2 of the ESR involves making Singapore a global leader for AI.
As I said during the debate on Singapore's use of AI, there's undoubtedly potential to harness the power of AI for greater economic and societal good. Yet, we, at the same time, hear about how low-wage workers, in developing nations are forced to view explicit content to train AI, as well as concerns about adverse effect on cognitive development and critical thinking. More expressly, data centres driven by AI-induced demand, guzzle up large amounts of energy and water, increasing carbon emissions, driving up utility prices and disrupting the lives of nearby communities.
The earlier 2019 moratorium on new data centres, as well as higher operating costs here, drove operators to set up shop in neighbouring Johor and Batam, with Singaporean companies owning the largest proportion of data centre capacity in both regions. This has caused disamenties for local communities, even prompting a group of Johor residents to protest against the construction of a nearby data centre.
Moving data centres further away also does not solve the problem. During my trip to Thailand in June, I noticed that while policy-makers were excited about investment and growth opportunities for AI in partnership with countries, like Singapore, there were also concerns about the environmental and sustainability impact of such investments.
While the planned resumption of data centre construction in Singapore requires the use of greener energy sources, how exactly are we balancing the needs for our precious land? Does this result in land that could otherwise be maintained to be for nature and green spaces to be ultimately razed to meet industrial and housing requirements?
Such green spaces are key to bolstering our heat resilience and are rapidly disappearing in the name of growth and economic survival. Concern is mounting over forests being cut down for housing, both at Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks, alongside a patch of forest near Woodlands Checkpoint, which would be cleared for the development of a new commercial hub, while over 52 hectares of forested land would be cut down for the next phase of the Jurong Innovation District.
Intensifying business and industrial operations ultimately affect our energy consumption. EMA noted that electricity consumption increased by 4% year-on-year in 2024, with commerce and service-related businesses consuming the highest proportion that year at 40.2% of our total electricity use. The situation is worse for water, particularly with data centres being huge consumers. Already, non-domestic water consumption takes up 55% of our total water use and PUB estimates that this is expected to increase to 60% by 2065. What are we doing to mitigate this impact?
Even before we craft our policies to address the impact on the climate, we must first measure the environmental impact. As I first mentioned during my Budget speech in 2022, a critical first step will be to track and monitor our policies, environmental outcomes via an environmental dashboard. This could be aided by the recent introduction of the Singapore classification for environmental purposes, which is used to classify data relating to environmental activities and products.
We would do well to remember that Mother Earth is not humankind's personal automated teller machine (ATM). We must ensure that our economic policies should not result in further destruction of our planet and a transparent accounting of its environmental outcomes would be a helpful tool keep us on our toes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, progress towards tomorrow does not mean that we compromise on our collective well-being for the sake of GDP growth. Progress means that we, as a society, support balance and well-rounded lifestyles with strong safety nets for our people, recognise all who contribute meaningfully to society, provide opportunities for everyone to dream big and uphold our responsibility as stewards of Mother Earth. The society of tomorrow that is built in Singapore must be one where all of us will thrive and enjoy the fruits of our effort together, and I believe that we can achieve that, and so much more for us and the generations that come.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Motion before this House, and I support the amendments proposed by hon Member Edward Chia.
The aspirations expressed in this Motion to support local businesses – help workers succeed, build a Singaporean footprint overseas and ensure shared prosperity – are aspirations that all of us in this Chamber can support. Indeed, these have been central to the work of NTUC and the Labour Movement, our unions and our tripartite partners for many decades. They are also aligned with the spirit and direction of the ESR.
For many Singaporean workers and business owners, the future economy is already being felt in very real ways in uncertain demand, rising costs, sharper competition, new technologies and industries that are changing faster than ever before.
I am now into my 25th year in NTUC, and currently serve as the Executive Secretary of the United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI). Over the more than two decades, I have walked with workers through many storms, from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), to the Global Financial Crisis to the COVID-19 pandemic. Every crisis was different.
Every transition was painful in its own way. But the lesson was the same: workers must never be treated as collateral damage in economic change. At every phase of Singapore's development, we needed clear national direction and most importantly, the assurance that those who work hard, adapt and contribute will not be left behind.
The ESR is our latest national roadmap to create a broader range of good jobs, stronger enterprises and growth that benefits Singaporeans fairly and tangibly.
Today, I want to focus on three priorities, what I call the \"3S\" that are essential to build an economy that works for all.
First \"S\", safeguard the rules; second, share the gains; and third, strengthening our Singaporean Core.
First, safeguard the rules. Part (a) of the Motion speaks of an economy where \"workers thrive\". But workers cannot thrive on aspiration alone. They need fair rules, fair opportunity and fair protection. When the economy changes faster than workers can adapt, many feel that the odds are stacked against them. Our duty is to level the playing field for them to compete fairly.
AI will disrupt jobs at a speed and scale that we have not seen before. It can raise productivity and create new possibilities. But if poorly managed, it can also widen insecurity, compress career pathways and place too much risk on workers. Workers must not be asked to carry the burden of this transition alone.
There are two topics in this space, firstly, on retrenchment benefits and unemployment support. And on the topic of mandating retrenchment benefits, the NTUC and the Labour Movement, including myself, have been working with tripartite partners to ensure that no worker is left behind. NTUC and the Labour Movement, including many of our union leaders and unions, we have been negotiating collective agreements, unionising companies to ensure that they are well protected in the event that there is a lay-off and retrenchment benefits can be paid out.
In fact, we have such strong existing mechanisms, such as conciliation and MOM, and even the Industrial Arbitration Court – very unique, creature of statute – which I appeared before on multiple occasions to support and obtain retrenchment benefit payouts for workers, including PMEs. In fact, we have been trying to lobby, myself inclusive, in this House, for the past decade, including earlier this year, for further strengthening of the retrenchment protection regime here in Singapore.
It is in the common intent of everyone, I am sure, in this House, to ensure that affected workers are taken care of as every worker matters.
In fact, the tripartite partners, as I am involved in the negotiations for the Employment Act as well as all the relevant statutory provisions as well as advisories, we remain open in negotiating and discussions are underway, whether it is the Employment Act reviewing the Tripartite Advisory to strengthen it to tripartite guidelines, which I have raised before in this House, and even stronger measures against companies that flopped or failed to, comply with advisories.
These are things that we have been raising and I believe it is a journey, a journey which require all our tripartite partners to work closely together so that we achieve what we always say, a win-win-win outcome. It is always in the NTUC's and the Labour Movement's interest in our agenda to look after workers and their families, especially if they are affected by lay-offs.
And there are a whole plethora of measures and support measures to help them land the next job, support them well in the company as well as on many occasions. I have done this, in fact, in the last couple of years in my capacity as Executive Secretary of the UWEEI, I have been very, very involved in the many lay-offs that you see in the manufacturing sector.
The key is, we will continue to lobby, advocate on behalf of our workers. But more importantly, to work with our tripartite partners closely to ensure that we have the regime and the mechanism. We are also observing that the tripartite partners are very open to see new ways and mechanisms to overcome this to ensure no worker is left behind in the event of a lay-off or retrenchment.
On the topic of unemployment insurance support, this is something I spoke about more than a decade ago, lobbying for some form of unemployment support for workers in Singapore. I am very happy that it has been introduced last year, on 26 April – I remember the fateful date – the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme was implemented.
What is unique about the scheme is that, unlike in an unemployment insurance, where there are premiums to be paid by both employers and employees, this is a situation where Government picks up the tab and gives that needed support through and with active labour market policies. That is something which will lessen the burden on workers having to fork out premiums.
And I have, at the same time, in this same House, also lobbied for this area to be further expanded and rebuilt, now that we are seeing in the last 24 months more PMEs being affected by lay-offs. So, that is an area which we can review, whether the income threshold of the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme can be raised – because currently, that is $5,000 – whether it can be raised to the median salary of PMEs, so, that is one avenue to explore. Or even another new scheme to support PMEs now that we know they are equally vulnerable as rank-and-file workers.
Local PMEs, I must say are a definite group which I have constantly spoken up for in this House. They form the broad middle of our workforce. They are also those most exposed to technical or, should I say, technological disruption and yet, may not always enjoy sufficient representation and protection.
Over the years, NTUC has worked closely with our tripartite partners to build stronger institutional safeguards, for example the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) framework for Employment Passes to the newly enacted Workplace Fairness Act.
I am therefore heartened that the ESR recognises PMEs as a group deserving enhanced support and that it prioritises investment in AI technologies that augment rather than displace workers. I think that is the right direction.
Earlier this year, MOM, NTUC and Singapore National Employers Federation announced the formation of the Tripartite Jobs Council. Initiated by NTUC, this Jobs Council brings together unions, employers and Government as a central node to coordinate existing and new programmes to help workers reskill, and to help businesses redesign jobs responsibly so that AI becomes a tool for uplift, not displacement.
I think the difficulty of landing a new job is not a new discovery – I have raised this on numerous occasions – and we must pay particular attention to younger PMEs entering the workforce. They may be among the hardest-hit if AI compresses entry-level roles and creates a \"broken rung\" of sorts at the very start of their careers. And we unanimously agreed that if our young graduates cannot get that first meaningful foothold, their long-term progression may be affected. We cannot allow the first step of a career to become the weakest link in our labour market.
This is why I have lobbied also for, in this House, coaching, mentoring and expanding the SkillsFuture credits for use in the area of coaching and mentoring which has been supported, and really to have a stronger mechanism to help those transiting from school to work effectively, efficiently and seamlessly.
Through the GRIT programme, NTUC works hand-in-hand with Government and employers in sectors such as financial services, information and communication technology, manufacturing to give young graduates structured, industry-relevant experience.
Beyond the traineeship period, NTUC and Workforce Singapore, through the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and Careers Connect, help these young workers move into full-time roles and build confidence with AI tools so that they are not just job-ready for today, but career-ready for tomorrow.
And I have suggested for this scheme before in this House to be further expanded, to cover more areas, more sectors and maybe a review of whether it should be made permanent to really help new job entrants entering the job market which remains an issue and challenge.
The second \"S\" is share the gains. Part (b) rightly highlights the importance of healthy domestic demand. But for a small and open economy like Singapore, external demand is equally critical. According to the SBF, overseas revenue accounts for more than 40% of the total revenue for half of our businesses.
I am glad that the ESR has identified a dynamic enterprise ecosystem for Singapore-based companies to succeed globally as a key thrust. Domestic demand and external demand are not competing choices. We need both engines working together.
External demand helps Singapore grow the pie. But growth alone is not enough. The real test is whether that growth translates into better jobs, higher wages, stronger skills, and expanded opportunities for Singaporean workers and local businesses.
Global enterprises locate in Singapore not only for our domestic market, but to tap growth in Asia and beyond. But if Singapore is to remain a trusted global node, our workers must also move up the value chain. This is where the NTUC Company Training Committees (CTCs), play a critical role.
Since 2019, our CTCs have brought company management, workers and union leaders together to drive business and workforce transformation. In 2022, the Government provided NTUC with $100 million to scale up this initiative and subsequently another $200 million after it showed results in producing real shared gains for workers.
When companies modernise or adopt new technologies, our unions sit down with management to ensure workers are trained for higher-value roles and that productivity gains are reflected not only in company results, but also in workers' pay packets and career progression.
Let me give a practical example from our NTUC Electronics, Marine and Engineering Cluster. Through a CTC Grant project, a company introduced automation to its production process so it could take on more orders. But automation did not mean displacement. The union and management worked together on a structured training roadmap – 24 workers were reskilled, production capacity improved by 12%, and more importantly, these workers received a 5% wage increase over and above their annual increment, in addition to career development support.
To date, more than 15,000 workers have benefited from NTUC's CTC Grant projects, with workers in these projects receiving an average wage increase of 5% above their increment through this scheme.
Wage increases in tandem with productivity increase. This is what real sharing of gains look like. Not theoretical redistribution, but negotiated, sustainable outcomes where better productivity leads to better pay. This works in tandem with the National Wages Council, a tripartite body which responds to the uneven and sometimes unpredictable outlook for different sectors and different companies.
The last \"S\" is strengthen our Singaporean core. As our economy globalises, we must ensure that Singaporeans are not bystanders to our own success. We need both global enterprises with substantial operations here, and dynamic local companies with the ambition to venture abroad. But wherever Singaporean capital flows, Singaporean talent must flow too – to lead, not just to support. Singaporeans must have a fair shot at leadership, regional exposure and global careers.
Local SMEs cannot grow well and grow fast on the domestic market alone. In high-tech manufacturing and commercial services, many local firms have scaled by first becoming trusted partners to global MNCs based in Singapore; then, using that credibility to venture into overseas markets, including high-tech and industrial parks in Southeast Asia, China, and India. They build operational strength at home so that they can seize opportunities abroad.
Government schemes are important enablers. The Market Readiness Assistance Grant helps SMEs co-fund up to 50% of eligible overseas market entry costs, capped at $100,000 per new market. The Enterprise Development Grant supports SMEs in building core capabilities to compete internationally. These schemes help our local enterprises take the first step ahead with greater confidence.
But as Singaporean capital expands overseas, we must be intentional about building Singaporean corporate leaders. Our workers and PMEs must not only support regionalisation from the back office. They must be given the chance to lead, to manage, to build networks and to represent Singapore confidently in overseas markets.
I am glad that the ESR has recommended expanding the Overseas Markets Immersion Programme to give young professionals overseas and leadership exposure, and to support their progression into international postings. I encourage the Government to monitor and strengthen the proportion of Singaporeans in management positions, so that local PMEs have fair opportunities alongside their foreign counterparts.
Mr Speaker, Sir, building an economy of the future that works for all is not just a slogan. It is hard, continuous, collective work. It is work that NTUC and our unions have carried out for decades, sometimes visibly, sometimes quietly, but always with one purpose – which is to safeguard the rights, wages, welfare and work prospects of our workers.
In fact, I want to use this opportunity to thank my fellow union leaders who stand in line, to lend a hand, to watch their backs, give a shoulder to cry on sometimes in events of ups and downs in the economy.
But make no mistake – tripartism is not easy. Balancing the needs of workers, businesses and the nation is not easy. But precisely because it is hard, it forces us to find practical solutions that endure.
The ESR gives Singapore a comprehensive roadmap to stay globally competitive. Our task is to make sure that this roadmap is also worker-centric, inclusive and fair.
So, let us continue to strengthen this practical, tripartite partnership. Let us Safeguard the rules, Share the Gains, and Strengthen our Singaporean Core anchored by strong and lasting tripartite relationships. I support the amendments by hon Member Edward Chia to the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Eileen Chong.
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last July, the Prime Minister noted that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN's) per capita GDP today is around $6,000. And that if it reaches $10,000 or more, it is, in his words, a complete game changer. A young region, a rising middle class on our doorstep.
His observation is not new. The latest ESR report identifies Southeast Asia as an engine of growth. The Emerging Stronger Taskforce in 2021, under its Stronger Together pillar, had called for the deepening of partnerships, especially with Southeast Asia. So did the Committee on the Future Economy in 2017, in the first of seven strategies.
Every major economic blueprint of the past decade has named the region as key to Singapore's future. So, the question is not whether Southeast Asia matters. We have consensus that it does, but what have we actually done about it?
This Motion believes that an economy of the future that works for all includes an economic engine driven by Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. The ESR is explicit about the latter and several Members of the House have echoed this. The report asks that more of our own companies start, scale and succeed globally. It seeks deeper trade and supply chain links across the region and it envisions a Singapore where capital is raised, structured, deployed and recycled across the region and the world. Around each sits a familiar architecture of support, grants and market entry support for our companies, while our public institutions co-invest, de-risk and finance their expansion, which draws private Singaporean capital out alongside them.
The WP supports all of this, but capital does not manage itself in a market it does not know. Someone has to be there to turn capital that has been deployed into capital that is productive. The more successful we are at sending capital and our companies into the region, the more pressing the question that ESR does not answer: who are we sending with it?
Two weekends ago, the Government unveiled the new SG Youth Plan. A separate blueprint for young Singaporeans just a month after the ESR report, guided by the same conviction that our future lies in the region. It picks up on this threat that the ESR left hanging. It puts young Singaporeans and regional exposure at its centre and comes with some numbers. It commits to expanding overseas exposure for young Singaporeans: 17,000 short-term exposure places a year by 2030, up from the current 9,000; 3,000 overseas internships in ASEAN, China and India, doubled from today's 1,500. It expands on what young Singaporeans say we want. 63% agree that regional work experience would help us advance faster and half of us are willing to take up internships or jobs elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is encouraging. The appetite is there. If half of us are already willing to go, then what we should be looking at is whether the state invests in building us something worth going to and something worth coming back to. And on this note, I want to highlight three gaps.
The first is offtake. The SG Youth Plan outlines a game plan focused on supply. More trips, more internships, earlier access. Every one of its regional commitments is about sending young Singaporeans out. But what happens when we come home is the most decisive, because if we return to a job market and promotion board that treats six months in Jakarta as a detour rather than an asset, then only one obvious conclusion will be drawn – that such experiences are a penalty rather than a premium.
Do enough employers in Singapore value and reward regional experience? While I cannot speak for all employers, I would like to share a perspective from our largest employer, the Government.
In April, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking where Government scholars have studied in the past decade. The answer I received was, \"Taking into account all Government scholarships, including Public Service Commission, over the last three years, from 2023 to 2025, on an annual average basis, 49% of the recipients studied at local autonomous universities; 30% in the UK; 15% in the US; and 6% in other countries\".
Six percent for the entire rest of the world, the whole of ASEAN included. I also asked if there were minimum targets for scholars to study in non-English speaking countries and or regions. The answer was no.
I am not doubting the quality of an Oxford, Cambridge or an Ivy League education, but these numbers mean that when we select and invest in young Singaporeans who will return to serve in the Public Service, a small group of whom might even take public office in the future, 10 out of 20 of them stay home, while another nine go west. If the Government is not prioritising and encouraging region readiness in the Public Service, how can we ask young Singaporeans to believe that there is market demand for this?
The second gap is depth. Exposure does not equal fluency or capability – 17,000 young Singaporeans spending some time in the region is not 17,000 region-ready Singaporeans. The SG Youth Plan included the story of an Institute of Technical Education student who came home after being sent to Hanoi. She was more confident and eager to explore opportunities beyond our shores. But inspiration is only a beginning. It is not an outcome.
Real region readiness is built over years, not weeks. The language learnt, the workings of the market understood from the inside, the network that answers when you call. Have we invested sufficiently in structures that will deepen this?
Key third languages offered to our students remain French, German, Japanese and Spanish – when blueprint after blueprint emphasise that our future lies with neighbours whose languages we do not teach. If we are serious, is it not time to ask whether Thai and Vietnamese also belong on that list? A short trip creates a memory. Language and cultural understanding are often the difference between a visitor and a partner.
The third, and perhaps most important, gap is whether and how any of this will be measured. Because we have heard this aspiration before, especially in 2018 during our term as ASEAN Chair. It was appropriately a year of speeches about how the region was our future and how the Government will help Singaporeans seize it.
In September 2018, in a written reply to a question on our progress in going regional, then Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Chan Chun Sing, set out what we were doing for talent. We had the Youth Talent Programme, which targeted sending 1,000 students each year for work opportunities in overseas markets. We had a Professional Conversion Programme for Southeast Asia Ready Talent to reskill professionals for roles in the region. We also had an ASEAN Leadership Programme to help senior business leaders understand and grow into Southeast Asian markets.
And what became of them? It appears that the first two, in one form or another, are still with us. The Youth Talent Programme was folded into the Global Ready Talent Programme, which we were told supported 29,470 students between 2020 and 2024. The Professional Conversion Programme was renamed and runs today as the Career Conversion Programme for Internationalisation Professionals.
But what is less clear is what outcomes they have achieved eight years on.
The 29,470 figure for the Global Ready Talent Programme includes both domestic and overseas placements. It is only starting this April that local internship support has been discontinued. So, how many actually went abroad? And of those who did, where did they go? How many of them went on to work in the region or in a region-facing role?
For the Career Conversion Programme, how many professionals converted? From what sectors and into what roles? Has it helped their career trajectory?
What about the ASEAN Leadership Programme? How many leaders went through it? What became of their companies’ regional ambitions?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have looked and struggled to find answers to the above questions from the public record. We have been generous in announcing schemes to build region-ready Singaporeans but seemingly less willing to measure whether they worked. If yes, what worked well? If not, what fell short of expectations?
Some figures that I do have are from the ESR report. While 50% of Singaporeans expressed interest in working abroad, only 3% have actually done a stint of six months or more. So, with the new SG Youth Plan aspiring to 17,000 regional immersion opportunities for young Singaporeans, I would like to ask what has changed this time, so that in 2030 we will be able to say whether it worked. How will the Government track not just how many places were filled, but how many young people go on to work in region-facing roles or to build a career in the region? Because if not, we are simply announcing a larger number to not measure.
And as we chair ASEAN again in 2027, I hope we will not only articulate our ambition to plug into the region but actively track and report on our investments in resourcing this ambition.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to now highlight a scheme, the Overseas Market Immersion Programme (OMIP), that best captures how our ambition and strategy diverge. The OMIP aims to give young Singaporeans real regional work experience, not just a taste of it. It works by helping employers send younger Singaporeans on structured postings abroad. It was launched in 2024 with the goal of 250 places over two years, significantly lower than the 2018 target of 1,000 a year. To date, it has supported more than 180 professionals.
The SG Youth Plan will expand the OMIP, not by scaling it so there are more places but by widening the eligibility by dropping the two-year rule so that younger professionals may qualify. This means more will be eligible without a commitment to send more people.
Widening the gate is not the same as sending more people through it. Eligibility without capacity is an invitation without a seat.
On behalf of fellow young Singaporeans, I have two asks: one, complement the eligibility widening by scaling the number of available places; and two, de-link it from employers. An employer-led scheme means a young Singaporean can only go if a company chooses to send them. It is dependent on the company having the HR capacity to manage an overseas posting. Rather than run a people scheme through companies, let us focus it on the people instead. Fund the OMIP directly as a fixed-term stint, at fair wages, open to all graduates from our tertiary institutions. Let us select based on our graduates’ drive, curiosity and seriousness, rather than our companies’ ability to shoulder the administrative burden of overseas postings.
We would not be the first to do this. France's Voluntariat International en Enterprise (VIE), the International Corporate Volunteer Programme, proves that it is possible to do more and even shows us how. The VIE places more than 11,500 young people abroad every year. They can directly search and apply for open positions that range from six to 24 months on the VIE platform. When selected, these young people sign a contract with Business France, a state agency, instead of the host company. Business France looks after payroll, health coverage and social protection. The host company picks the candidate, supervises their work and pays the allowance to Business France. The state sits in the middle and absorbs the friction that neither an individual nor a small company can carry alone.
It works. And the French government has the numbers to prove it because they measured it. Nine in 10 young persons on a VIE assignment find a job within six months of completing their stint. More than seven in 10 come back fluent in the language where they were posted. It is a scheme that produces more than inspiration. It kickstarts careers and builds capabilities. And tellingly, Singapore is among its top 10 destinations. We are on the receiving end of another country’s talent pipeline but are struggling to build our own.
I am not saying that we copy the French VIE programme wholesale. But we should draw inspiration from its design – explore how the state can offer support for what individuals and small companies cannot do on their own. And we should measure the outcomes of our programmes like France does for the VIE – publish not just how many places are filled but how many are in a role with explicit regional mandate or impact two and five years after completing the OMIP stint.
Let us fund the appetite that young Singaporeans have and measure outcomes rather than output.
And finally, we should go beyond the scheme and consider how we can tear down the wall that young Singaporeans find ourselves up against. The SG Youth Plan will see the launch of a new programme called “Adulting 101”. It will teach us about CPF, public housing policy, marriage and parenthood. It correctly identifies the very things that weigh on a young person deciding whether to take an overseas work opportunity. But these are not just facts to be explained. They are structures that will need to change for those who aspire to be regionally mobile.
A young Singaporean weighing three years in Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh is not only weighing salary against salary. She is weighing it against a BTO queue that rewards those who stay home; against CPF contributions a regional employer will not make; against the challenges of coming home to a housing and healthcare system she stepped out of. We have built a domestic architecture so finely tuned for staying home that leaving often means accepting penalties.
During his Institute of Policy Studies lectures last year, Mr Philip Yeo acknowledged this wall. His account of his EDB years was blunt – send officers out while they are young and single, because by their mid-30s with children and a mortgage, it becomes too hard.
So, developing region-ready Singaporeans means we should also consider how we can better support those who choose to go out. Explore how we can ensure that a regional posting does not complicate BTO opportunities and obligations; that children who go on post with their parents can have a seamless re-entry into school in Singapore. These cost only a fraction of the benefit they could bring and could go a long way to quell a family’s hesitation.
Let me close by drawing these threads together.
The ESR speaks of creating good jobs and the SG Youth Plan echoes it with the moves to help young Singaporeans land them. But for too long, we have pictured the good job as a high-value role inside an MNC that chose to base itself here, in Singapore. It is a good job that depends on someone else’s decision to come.
There is another kind of good job; one we seize because a field is taking shape around us and Singapore is well placed to lead it – the growing social impact sector in Southeast Asia. And here, I declare my interest as a professional in the social impact space.
As the public and private sectors in the region turn towards impact to close gaps in issues ranging from health and education to financial inclusion and climate resilience, someone has to convene players, develop benchmarks and innovate for solutions. These are building blocks of a new pool of good jobs that a small country like Singapore can punch above our weight in.
But it is also the kind of ambition that goes unrealised if we do not build a pipeline to seize it. For years, our answer to the regional talent gap has been to draw in the region’s brightest, educate them here and hope they stay. That worked well when we were the obvious best choice. But our region is catching up and this advantage shrinks each year as our neighbours close the gap.
As fellow Member, Mr Edward Chia, said earlier, we must attract the best from the world while developing the best in Singaporeans. The talent we import appreciates for a while then goes home. The Singaporean we equip to work in the region appreciates for a lifetime. A region-ready Singaporean holds capability that is hers – portable, not contingent on a company’s decision to base itself in Singapore. We have been slow to build the bridge that carries our people out and quicker to build a wall that keeps them home.
So, next year, when we assume the Chairmanship of ASEAN, it will, once again and appropriately so, be a year of speeches about how the region is our future and how the Government will help Singaporeans seize it. I hope that this time around, we will not only name the potential of the region as we did in 2018 but also help more Singaporeans seize it.
I rise in support of the original Motion tabled by my colleagues, Mr Kenneth Tiong and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, the question before us is not whether our economic strategy points the right way. It is whether it reaches the worker who needs it. That is the work of NTUC and NTUC’s e2i, connecting workers to jobs: our youths who are taking their first step. Our lower-wage workers. Our mature PMEs. And those who start further back than most.
Every worker matters. That has been my conviction since I first stepped into this House. The ESR gives us a clear direction, and our task now is to turn that direction into something a worker can feel. Together with fellow Member, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, we co-chair the Committee for Economic Resilience, or Jawatankuasa Daya Ekonomi, for the Malay/Muslim community. And our job is to mobilise the community, so that these strategies become opportunities for our youths, businesses can scale further and higher wages for our workers.
And we should be honest about our size. Our domestic market is limited, and we have to tap demand in our region and beyond. The global enterprises based here support a large number of local workers. They have been a source of innovation, management practices and technology that helped our local businesses grow. They have also spurred the development of startups and new local enterprises.
What I want from our global enterprises and our local enterprises is the same thing – stand by our workers; help those who are retrenched bounce back with dignity; and help the rest become AI-ready before the changes arise, rather than after.
Today, I will speak on three things: first, supporting our lower-wage and mature workers; second, on building career clarity and safeguarding mental well-being as AI transforms our workplaces; and third, strengthening pathways for our underserved communities and our youths.
First, on supporting ourr lower-wage and mature workers. When we talk about lifting the bottom, the conversation usually turns to where the floor should sit. That is a fair question, and I understand why it is being asked. But a floor on its own only tells a worker where the first rung pays. It does not tell him whether there is a second rung or who will help him reach it.
That is the thinking behind the Progressive Wage Model. It sets a wage and it attaches a ladder to it, with training and a higher wage at each step, differentiated by different sectors. Cleaning, security, landscape, retail, food services, waste management, lift and escalator. Each of those sectors took years of negotiation because wage floors do not rise on their own.
And the work is still live. Just last month, as Chairman of the Tripartite Cluster, I was part of the announcement extending the Progressive Wage Model to our pest management workers. Alongside it, we have the Local Qualifying Salary that sets a floor for local workers in firms that hire foreign workers and Workfare tops up the income and CPF for our lower-wage Singaporeans.
So, the question is – has it worked? Over the past decade, incomes at the 20th percentile grew by 2.9% a year, ahead of the 2.1% at the median. And the ratio between what a worker at the 20th percentile earns and what a worker at the median earns has risen to 0.55. That gap is narrower in 2020, and narrower than it was in 2015.
To put it plainly, over the past decade, workers at the bottom of our ladder have been climbing faster than workers in the middle. But I will not pretend that our work is over. It is progressive, it is sector by sector. A segment of our lower-wage workers still sits outside these layers, many of them in platform and freelance work. And we have made real progress there. The Platform Workers Act now gives our delivery riders and private hire drivers CPF contributions, work injury compensation and formal representations. But as that segment continues to grow, I would ask the Government to study how our wage and protection floors can follow the worker rather than the job title.
Sir, behind every retrenchment statistic is a person, often someone who has given decades of their lives of loyal service and who is now unsure whether he or she still has a place in that workforce. That is why the NTUC set up the Job Security Council in February 2020. Managed by e2i, the Council supported more than 110,000 workers with job matching between 2020 and 2024.
Let me be clear about what the Council is for. Retrenchments edged up in the first quarter of this year, though the incidence remains within the non-recessionary norms. In an economy that keeps restructuring, some displacement will happen and we should be honest about that. But the majority of these retrenchments came from businesses re-organising themselves and restructuring. Firms are reshaping themselves and they will keep doing so.
So, the test is not whether the retrenchments happen. The test is what happens to the worker afterwards. On that test, unemployment has held steady even as retrenchments rose. The share of retrenched residents back in work within six months has also improved for a second consecutive quarter, to 60.7% in the first quarter of this year, and that does not happen on its own.
We also watch closely whether the help actually works. The Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation brings together MOM, NTUC, e2i, Enterprise Singapore and SWDA, and it has tracked our outcomes carefully. Between 2022 and 2024, about seven in 10 retrenched workers who received career coaching from our agencies and e2i were placed within six months. The median time to placement over that period was around three months.
Close to half of those placed came in at similar or higher wages than before. And more recently, among workers who took up the Taskforce's help before their last day of employment, about two-thirds were back in work within six months, better than the median for retrenched residents. That is the case for reaching our workers earlier, and not later. Numbers like these matter.
Let me tell you about one person. Mary Ho is a senior worker at Mandai Rainforest Resort. Through an agreement between the resort, e2i and the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers' Union, she was offered a redesigned role suited to her needs. What stayed with me was what Mary said herself. She was struck by how we had been involved at every step, making sure she was placed in a role that suited her.
That is what personalised support looks like. Someone walking beside a worker until they land a job.
To reach more workers, e2i now runs 27 National Career Centres across Singapore, expanded since 2024. That brings career, training and employment support closer to where our workers already live and work.
Sir, second point on career clarity and mental well-being at the AI age. In my Budget speech this year, I shared the story of a mid-career worker who had completed several courses over three years. She showed me her certificates with pride. Then she asked me a simple question. Had she upgraded in the right direction? I could not tell her the answer.
Effort without direction creates frustration. Effort with direction builds confidence and clearly, it gives a lot of clarity. And that is why I welcome the formation of the Tripartite Jobs Council. It brings our partners together to help workers reskill and to help businesses redesign jobs responsibly as AI reshapes our workplaces.
For this Council to succeed, its work must reach workers where they already are. That means the trusted touchpoints that I had mentioned earlier, on the ground, the very career centres and coaches that workers, like Mary, could turn to.
And the Labour Movement is not waiting. Through AI-Ready SG, we are already helping our workers and continue to do so, especially our PMEs, our youths, to gain practical confidence with AI, while supporting businesses to redesign jobs responsibly.
Our CTCs are where the real work happens. More than 3,800 CTCs have been formed, benefiting over 300,000 workers. And AI is now the centre of gravity. About 31% of CTC Grant projects supported this year are AI-related, up from about 17% for the whole of last year.
That is what turning technology into practical help looks like. Training that workers can use that same Monday morning. Because the anxiety is real. The fear of being replaced. The fear of falling behind is scary. The fear of being too old to start again causes confusion.
That anxiety does not stay in the workplace. It follows a person home and it wears on their health. I have long advocated in this House for a whole-of-society approach to mental well-being, including a Motion I had co-filed with fellow Members on this very subject. At the recent economic resilience dialogue with businesses and youths, may came forth and mentioned how important mental well-being is in a stage like this. Their ability to have support matters to them. And that is why the Committee for Economic Resilience will work very closely with community leaders and businesses to ensure that we give support for our community.
As we equip our workers for an AI-enabled economy, our support must address not just their skills but their peace of mind. Only then can they face the future with confidence, with clarity.
Sir, my third point on strengthening pathways for our underserved communities and our young people. The ESR focuses on strengthening lifelong learning and on linking training more closely to employment outcomes. I welcome that. But I would like to add this. Some workers start further back than others, whether because of their age, their background or simply because they lack the networks to open doors for them.
Part of my role at e2i is to sharpen our focus on reaching these groups, our lower-wage and mature workers. The aim is for our career services and programmes to be designed around their needs, like what we did with Mary, rather than around conveniences.
For our young people, clarity has to begin before they graduate, and we will come forward to them at an earlier stage than before, ensuring that they have the right clarity and a pathway to go into areas and sectors that have been assigned in the ESR.
A student who has stood inside a real workplace and who has a mentor she can call, makes a very different first decision from one who is guessing. And that is why early career exposure and structured mentorship and internships matter so much, and we will have many of those in the pipeline. Sir, please allow me to continue in Malay.
(In Malay): Sir, the Economic Strategy Review report is comprehensive, and it gives us a clear direction for the economy of the future. For our young people, their first foray into the working world is often the most daunting. Through NTUC Youth, our younger members receive career guidance and industry exposure. There is also a structured Career Mentorship Programme, with more than 400 volunteer mentors from over 20 industries, offering our members a four-month mentorship.
Our objective is simple.
So, that a young person does not have to figure out their first steps alone. This complements the work of the Tripartite Jobs Council that I mentioned earlier, as well as the Graduate Industry Traineeships programme, so that our young people are supported throughout their first transition. This is also why NTUC signed a memorandum of understanding with the MENDAKI Foundation this year. It aims to strengthen the skills of Malay/Muslim workers, and to help more of them secure employment in growing sectors.
Within the Focus Area of M3+, NTUC, e2i, NTUC LearningHub, SWDA and the Lifelong Learning Institute have collaborated with MENDAKI. Together, we have supported more than 6,000 Malay/Muslim workers through career fairs and skills carnivals. Nearly 20% of them went on to receive more in-depth mentorship.
Now, as AI begins to transform the way we work, the same worry is felt in our homes too. So, allow me to offer this assurance.
NTUC and e2i are ready to move forward together with our Malay/Muslim workers, especially our young people. We will help them upskill, adapt, and access meaningful employment opportunities, whether in global companies or in local enterprises, where we want them to develop further.
(In English): Mr Speaker, before I entered this House, I spent nearly 25 years as an educator. I learned that no one should be written off just because of a label that has been placed on them, not the academic stream that were put at them in schools and not the sector that they happen to work in.
And that belief still guides me in my work today. An economy of the future means an economy where every worker has someone walking alongside them, and gives them a clear path forward. Whatever their age, whatever their background, whatever their starting point. It means that our national strategies on AI, on skills, on enterprise growth, are only as good as how well they reach the worker who really needs them. They will be judged in the career centres, in the union offices and in the community partnerships where the real support is being delivered.
Let us make sure that no one, no Singaporean is left to struggle alone in this journey of AI where clarity is needed the most. Because every worker matters. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Motion, as amended by Mr Edward Chia. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash.
The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth, and Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for bringing forward this Motion and support the amendments proposed by Mr Edward Chia.
At the heart of this Motion is an important aspiration: that Singapore remains an economy where our people have opportunities to succeed and our workers can look to the future with confidence.
I believe every Member of this House shares this aspiration. The Government certainly does. It has always been at the heart of our economic strategy. Our objective is not simply to grow the economy, but to improve the lives of all Singaporeans. We do this by creating better opportunities, better jobs and raising incomes, by ensuring that the benefits of growth are widely shared.
Let me make three points: first, Singaporeans have been, and always will be, at the centre of our manpower policies; second, we must transform enterprises and uplift a broader range of jobs together; third, our tripartite model is a fundamental source of strength, turning these aspirations expressed at this House into practical outcomes.
Our approach has delivered good outcomes for Singaporeans across the workforce. Our resident unemployment has remained low at 2.9% in March 2026. Real incomes have risen across the board. From 2021 to 2025, real income at the median grew cumulatively by 7.4%. Lower-income workers have seen faster income growth than the median worker. Over the same period, real income at the 20th percentile rose by 10.1%. Income inequality has also fallen.
Few advanced economies have been able to achieve all these outcomes at the same time. Some Members have contrasted Singapore with other industrialised economies, arguing that their greater reliance on local champions had produced better productivity models and better outcomes for their workers. But on comparable measures, Singapore's wage outcomes are higher than these economies, not only at the median but also at the lower levels of income.
In recent years, real wage growth has also kept pace with and exceeded productivity growth. From 2021 to 2025, real value added per worker increased by about 0.7% a year. Over the same period, real median income of full-time employed residents rose by about 1.8% a year while real income at the 20th percentile grew much faster.
This did not happen by accident but through sound growth policies and strategies and tripartite efforts like the Progressive Wage Model, Workfare and the Local Qualifying Salary that have uplifted wages.
More recently, despite a challenging external environment, Singapore's labour market has remained resilient. While retrenchments in some companies may have dominated the headlines, employment expanded for the 19th consecutive quarter in the first quarter of 2026. Resident employment continued to grow, unemployment remained low and firms continued to hire.
These outcomes are the result of deliberate policy choices. We have kept our economy competitive while ensuring that Singaporeans have access to opportunities, better jobs and clear pathways to progress. This has only been possible because Government, employers and unions have worked closely together.
Thus, the evidence does not support the conclusion that Singapore's economic model is a failure. We are navigating a structural transition, however difficult and uneven, from a position of strength. The system has served us well, but we must and will remain adaptable to the changing world.
Importantly, we are not standing still. We know the pace of change has accelerated. Workers expect more churn and disruption. Those who are displaced worry about how long they will take to find another job and whether the next job will be as good as the previous.
So, how should we respond? Some fundamentals remain. As an open and small economy, Singapore's prosperity has always depended on our ability to compete successfully in global markets while ensuring that Singaporeans benefit from that success. I am glad that there is broad agreement in this House on this fundamental point.
The ESR provides an actionable blueprint to address the very challenges that our economy faces. It was not a theoretical exercise. It was shaped by engagements with more than 7,700 stakeholders, including businesses, unions and workers, and grounded in Singapore's realities.
The ESR also puts workers at the heart of its strategies. Let me elaborate this in four ways: first, clearer pathways from skills to jobs; second, a stronger first step into work for our younger workers; third, a trampoline back to work; and finally, stronger ladders of mobility.
First, it is to make it easier for Singaporeans to access career and skills support. After more than a decade of SkillsFuture, we have built a stronger culture of lifelong learning. We will now focus even more sharply on employment outcomes so that training leads to better jobs, better wages and better career progression.
Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about the outcomes of our workforce programmes. In 2025, more than 62,000 jobseekers secured employment after benefiting from Workforce Singapore's programmes and services. Among jobseekers who received career-matching services in 2023, about six in 10 found employment within six months.
Our Career Conversion Programmes show what we can achieve when we journey with our workers. In fact, about nine in 10 participants remained employed for 24 months after embarking on the programme and about six in 10 earned more than their previous salaries.
These are not perfect outcomes and we must continue to improve them, but it made a real difference to those 62,000 jobseekers. They show why we should strengthen the system, not dismiss it.
Mr Fadli Fawzi also called for more robust reviews of SkillsFuture training programmes and for funding to be channelled to industry relevant training. We agree. We have been strengthening quality assurance and sharpening our focus on courses that address identified skills gaps, improve employability and support workforce transformation. We are also looking at to strengthen signals of industry demand so that training remains relevant and delivers value.
At the same time, we recognise that we can do more to tighten the nexus between training and jobs. This is why we merged SkillsFuture Singapore with Workforce Singapore into the new SWDA. SWDA will enable us to align future skills more closely with future jobs, identify at-risk workers earlier and provide more seamless support from training to placement. This will help us close the gap between learning and earning. We will share more at the SkillsFuture Festival Launch event in September.
Second, a stronger first step into work, giving young Singaporeans a stronger start. In today's uncertain economic environment with AI reshaping entry level tasks, many fresh graduates and their parents are understandably anxious about entry into the workforce. We recognise these concerns.
The WP argues that entry pathways for young people are broken. But the current picture is more resilient than suggested. In 2025, vacancies continued to outnumber jobseekers. In the first quarter of 2026, there were about 32,800 entry-level PMET vacancies, exceeding the number of graduates looking for jobs. Against this background, around nine in 10 university graduates from the 2025 cohort found employment within a year of graduation, comparable to previous cohorts. I believe my learned colleague from the WP has also highlighted a similar point.
The system has served us well, but must continue to evolve with a new generation of workers and a changing work environment. As part of the ESR, we saw the need to bring learning and work closer together, including formally recognising on-the-job training as part of qualifications. We do this precisely because we want our young to have a good headstart in their jobs.
In this regard, we agree with Mr Andre Low on the value of expanding work-based pathways like apprenticeships. This is already a key direction of our efforts. Through initiatives such as SkillsFuture Work-Study Programme, the AI Apprenticeship Programme and sectoral programmes such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore's Young Talent Programme for AI in Finance, we are helping more Singaporeans gain industry level skills while working and supporting smoother transitions into growth sectors. The task now is to broaden and deepen these pathways to connect education, work experience, skills recognition and employment.
We share the aspiration of giving every young Singaporean a fair start. Our goal is not just to help young Singaporeans get their first job, but to build strong career health from the start. This means giving them more opportunities to learn through work, gain recognised skills and credentials, and access tools and support, including the Careers and Skills Passport, to better navigate their careers.
We will continue to strengthen these pathways so that more young Singaporeans can build skills, gain experience and make a confident start in a changing economy.
Third, we are helping workers bounce back better. In line with the ESR's recommendations, we are studying ways to better support displaced workers and help them bounce back, including enhancements to the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme. We did this because we understand what a challenging operating environment we are in and we believe that Singaporeans who fall on hard times should receive support to enable them to return to work. That is why we designed the Jobseeker Support Scheme to support re-employment, not unemployment.
Mr Fadli Fawzi suggested the introduction of an unemployment insurance scheme that is funded through premiums and conditional on job search and retraining, time limited and capped at a certain percentage of your last drawn pay. It is not clear how this differs from the Job Support Scheme, except that the Job Support Scheme places more emphasis on re-employment. But I suspect both schemes are similar to one another.
Instead of coming up with a new mechanism, the ESR has recommended that we strengthen schemes like the Jobseeker Support Scheme, especially for PMEs navigating more difficult career transitions. We are also studying how to do so, including whether the Jobseeker Support Scheme should be enhanced to cover more PMEs and give them greater confidence and assurance in their search for their next job.
Mr Fadli Fawzi and Mr Pritam Singh called for mandatory retrenchment benefits. In fact, NTUC had long advocated that workers affected by retrenchments should be fairly compensated. I believe Mr Patrick Tay had also mentioned this in his speech earlier. We will study this further under the Tripartite Workgroup on the Employment Act Review.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore's success has never come from choosing between protecting workers or keeping our economy competitive. We have to get it right by creating job opportunities, helping Singaporean workers access them, and when they face the effects of economic disruption, ensuring that they will never have to navigate difficult and uncertain times alone.
Fourthly, we are putting in place strong ladders of mobility to ensure inclusive growth. We have consistently put inclusive growth at the heart of our strategies to make sure that no worker is left behind. The ESR follows that tradition. It is not about creating a fast lane for a few and a slow one for the rest. It is about broadening our shared lanes to give every Singaporean the space to move forward and to get to their destination.
We are building on good foundations. From 2014 to 2024, the ratio of income at the 20th percentile to the median improved from 0.52 to 0.55. Our efforts like the Progressive Wage Model and Workfare have been critical to this outcome.
Beyond uplifting the bottom, we are also building more pathways for good jobs. This includes jobs in domestic and essential services, where many workers are currently employed.
To this, let me briefly address Mr Gerald Giam's suggestion on uplifting the skills trades. We share the aspiration for the skills trades to offer better wages, stronger professional standing and clearer career progression for Singaporeans. We expressed that aspiration in the Forward SG exercise. The ESR similarly recommended broadening the range of good jobs, including by uplifting skills trades and making work-based learning a more recognised route to mastery.
We are already working to realise this aspiration. As MOM announced in the Committee of Supply this year, we have formed a partnership with the Specialists Trade Alliance of Singapore to develop more structured pathways into good jobs in the skills trades, starting with the electrical trades. This initiative seeks to address many of the issues that Mr Giam had raised.
But more broadly, the sustainable route to better jobs is higher productivity, better job design, stronger certification, modern tools and processes, and employers who are willing to share productivity gains with their workers – all of which the Government will double down on to strengthen.
This leads to my next point. Enterprise transformation and workforce transformation must work together. We support enterprises because their success creates opportunities for Singaporeans. This is especially important for SMEs as they employ about two-thirds of our workforce. When firms invest, innovate and raise productivity, they create better jobs, build deeper capabilities and sustain wage growth.
We also want Singaporeans to have different pathways to contribute and succeed. For some, that will mean building a career in an established enterprise. For others, it may mean starting a venture of their own. With AI and new technologies lowering the cost of developing products, reaching customers and scaling across markets, entrepreneurship is an increasingly viable pathway.
Not every venture will succeed. That is the nature of enterprise and risk-taking. But we are expanding support for promising startups to build, grow and reach global markets. Singapore now has more than 4,500 tech startups. And the ESR recommendations will strengthen access to growth capital, technology, networks and overseas markets. Successful ventures do more than reward their founders; they create job opportunities for other Singaporeans.
Some Members may call for stronger Singaporean representation in our economy. We too, want more of our local businesses to thrive, but the answer is to build them up, not to shut them out.
Take Carousell for example. Founded by three NUS graduates, Carousell began with a simple idea – to make selling pre-owned items as easy as taking a photograph. What started as a mobile-first classifieds app, it has since grown into a leading online marketplace and omnichannel e-commerce business operating across Southeast Asia, Taiwan and Hong Kong, serving tens of millions of users across the region.
This illustrates how Singapore firms grow as they access international markets, overseas customers, global technologies and world-class business networks. We will continue to support young Singaporeans to go abroad and gain exposure through programmes, like the NUS Overseas College and the Overseas Market Immersion programme. Strong local enterprises and global companies are not mutually exclusive. They complement one another.
Let us also not forget that MNCs support Singaporeans too, not just Singapore businesses. Foreign-owned firms make up about one-fifth of firms in Singapore today but employ nearly one-third of resident workers. In 2025, Singapore citizens and permanent residents held about 85% of senior management roles in these MNCs.
My final point is on the importance of tripartism. In many countries, economic debates have become increasingly confrontational and divisive. Singapore has avoided this outcome, but we should never take this for granted.
I have listened carefully to how this Motion frames its vision of our economic engine – entrepreneurs, households, businesses, workers, capital. Two partners are notably missing from that list: employers and unions. That is not a small omission. It is precisely the space in which wages are negotiated, jobs are redesigned and disputes are resolved without a single strike in decades. Any vision for our economic future that is silent on how we will work with these partners is an incomplete one.
Our tripartite partnership brings Government, businesses and workers to work together to expand the economic pie and ensure that gains are fairly shared. That is what turns inclusive growth from an aspiration into practical outcomes – more investment, better jobs, rising wages.
The Company Training Committees (CTCs) are one practical example of tripartism in action. Since 2019, more than 3,800 CTCs have been formed, benefiting over 300,000 workers. Through the CTC Grant, companies and unions redesign jobs, build new capabilities and translate business transformation into better wages and career prospects. We will continue working with both NTUC and SNEF to build on this model, so that more enterprises and workers can benefit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the aspiration behind this Motion is one that we all share. We want an economy where Singaporeans can participate, contribute and succeed. An economy where workers can build meaningful careers, enterprises can innovate and grow, and more Singaporeans can create opportunities not only for themselves, but for others as well.
This is precisely what the ESR seeks to achieve. Not by choosing between growth and inclusion, local enterprises and global connections, or competitiveness and worker protection. But by pursuing all of these together. This is how we turn economic growth into broad-based progress – through better jobs, better wages and better pathways for advancement. That is how we have and will continue to build an economy that works for all Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Motion, and the Motion as amended. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi, you have a clarification of which Member please? Yes, please proceed.
Mr Fadli Fawzi: Mr Deputy Speaker, first I would like to thank the Minister of State's openness towards the legislation of retrenchment benefits for the workers and I hope that this would lead to a Bill for this House's consideration sooner rather than later. However, I would like to address the Minister of State's statements on the Jobseeker Support Scheme in comparison to the Redundancy Insurance Scheme. He suggests, if I caught his point correctly, that both schemes are broadly similar, but I just want to make the following point.
Because the Redundancy Insurance is funded by joint contributions from employers and employees, the payouts are automatic and seamless. The Jobseeker Support Scheme, however, requires the retrenched worker to go through an application process and face the prospect of rejection. In fact, last year, only 4,000 out of 10,000 applicants were successful. Hence, there are three questions, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Fadli Fawzi if I could invite you to ask your clarifications promptly. Thank you.
Mr Fadli Fawzi: I will, I will, Sir.
One, would it not be better if retrenched workers did not have to go through this arduous application and waiting process which can be very stressful to such workers in that situation?
Two, would our automatic and universal Redundancy Insurance Scheme also not reduce the risk of underemployment since the worker would not have to jump at the first job available?
And three, it was reported in CNA on 6 April 2026 that the Ministry of Manpower expects the Jobseeker Support Scheme to cover only 60% of the involuntarily unemployed each year. Again, would a universal Redundancy Insurance Scheme not be better in providing 100% coverage to our retrenched workers?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash, would you like to reply to those three clarifications put to you?
Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member. Maybe just to highlight that the positions are not really very far. The only difference is perhaps the fact that for the Jobseeker Support Scheme, the need for the worker to indicate that they are in the process of applying for re-employment; and perhaps their friction is for that particular purpose. But if the Member reads the ESR report, the ESR report also highlights the need to consider whether an insurance scheme of sorts is indeed useful and that is something that will have to be studied as well.
So, I will probably frame it from that perspective and to add that friction in the process is not one that is intended to make it difficult for someone who is already going through difficult times but it is to make sure that they can bounce back, and bounce back stronger.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam, you have a clarification? Of whom, please? Yes. Please proceed.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification to seek from Minister of State Dinesh.
Sir, he mentioned about the Specialist Trade Alliance of Singapore initiative that MOM is working with. My question is: the upgrading certification and tools only work if certified practitioners are not continuously undercut in the open market. So, how will this initiative address this structural problem of uncertified operators who drag down market rates for properly accredited local tradespersons?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash, would you like to reply to that clarification?
Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash: I would just add that we are still studying that particular perspective. It is a bit easier from the electrical trades because there is EMA as one of the agencies who oversee parts of the system. But more importantly, increasing costs in itself may result in other considerations that we have to study fully to make sure that it does not end up in a situation that results in an increase in cost of the service and then we will have other unintended knock-on effects. It is still being studied and perhaps we can have a fuller discussion when the scheme is a bit more ready to be discussed.
Mr Deputy Speaker: There being no further clarifications, we will move on with the debate on the Motion and the amended Motion. Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling.
The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Kenneth Tiong as well as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for bringing this Motion before the House, as well as Mr Edward Chia for the amendments that he proposed to the Motion, as well as all the Members who spoke before us for contributing to what has been a very rigorous as well as substantive debate.
At the heart of this debate is a fundamental question: How do we ensure that Singapore enterprises can continue to thrive in a rapidly changing world?
The answer matters because our enterprises are central to Singapore's success. SMEs make up 99% of all enterprises and employ more than 70% of our workforce. SMEs create good jobs, strengthen our communities and bolster Singapore's economic competitiveness.
But all the Members who spoke before us also shared that the environment that the SMEs operate in is becoming more challenging. Technology is reshaping industries. Competition is intensifying. And global disruptions have become a recurring nature and feature in the global economy. The recent Middle East crisis is the latest reminder of how quickly external events can affect our businesses.
Our response is not just to help the enterprises weather the new storm. It is to help our enterprises become stronger, more competitive and more resilient over the long term. Our economic strategy has always been centred on improving the lives of Singaporeans, because strong local enterprises are indispensable to that goal. That is why we will continue to stand alongside our businesses, help them build stronger capabilities, expand with confidence and innovate and grow beyond Singapore.
Let me share more about how we do so. Let me start with capability building.
Businesses today compete not just on cost, many of the Members said that. They do not just compete on cost but on innovation, on quality, productivity as well as speed. Yesterday's strengths are no guarantee of tomorrow's success. Enterprises that continue to build new capabilities will be better placed to stay ahead. Those that do not do so risk falling behind.
During the ESR, we engaged widely with trade associations and chambers representing SMEs and various businesses. Most SMEs recognised that transformation is no longer optional. The question is not whether to transform, but really how to do so in a practical, in an accessible as well as sustainable manner. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Every enterprise starts from a different position, serves different markets, customers and faces different opportunities. That is why we tailor our approach to support the company's needs, whether it is adopting AI, improving productivity, developing new products, services expanding into new markets.
Through Enterprise Singapore, businesses can access a wide range of Government support to build capabilities and transformation their operations. For example, Sin Chwee Mini Mart started as a wet market seafood store by Mr Goh Thiam Chwee in Bukit Gombak in 1990. Faced with changing consumer preferences, the second-generation owner Mr Jimmy Goh, his son, made the decision to reinvent the business. He launched Tankfully Fresh, transforming what had been a traditional wet market seafood stall into an omnichannel retailer.
With Government support, the company accelerated its transformation by implementing an integrated inventory management system to support its growing omni-channel business. The system enabled a 50% improvement in manpower efficiency. What used to be a wet market, small minimart, grew into new retail, B2B and online sales channels through contract manufacturing. Today, within a few years, 60% of the business revenue comes from online sales.
If anything, this example reminds us that every successful transformation begins with a decision by the business itself. The aim of our efforts is to help enterprises build the capabilities that matter most to their business at that point in time, so that they can become more productive, more competitive and more resilient.
Members over the last few hours have spoken about the challenges facing our F&B businesses. We Singaporeans, we love our food and we treasure our distinctive food culture. But the industry is changing rapidly. Operators face higher manpower, rental and operating costs, while consumer expectations continue to rise. This is not unique to Singapore. Around the world, diners are demanding greater convenience, better value and more differentiated experiences. Digital platforms, food delivery and social media have transformed how customers discover and consume food.
These trends present challenges, but also new opportunities. In fact, many of our F&B businesses are responding with determination. They are redesigning their operations, they are embracing technology, they are centralising food preparation and adopting AI and digital solutions to improve productivity and to serve their customers better.
Our role is to support these transformation efforts with practical assistance that helps businesses become more productive, competitive and resilient.
Our objective is not simply to help F&B businesses cope with higher costs. It is to help them operate differently and compete more effectively because that means improving productivity, redesigning their processes, embracing technology and finding new ways to deliver better value to their customers. That is why Enterprise Singapore has put in place a range of initiatives to support the transformation.
Businesses can improve productivity and redesign their operations through the F&B Process Optimisation Programme. Smaller businesses can lower costs and achieve greater scale through FoodX, by sharing manufacturing and food preparation facilities.
We also offer help for businesses to adopt digital and AI solutions. Coffee chain, Kopi & Tarts, which has about 20 outlets all over Singapore, they have benefited from these initiatives that I talked about. And across their outlets in Singapore, it has reduced more than 40 hours of food preparation time each day by outsourcing part of their ingredient preparation through FoodX. Forty hours a day is almost equivalent to allowing them to avail four full-time staff to focus on greater value-add services.
Another group of businesses close to our heart are the heartland enterprises. They are more than places to shop. They help define the character of our neighbourhoods, bring communities together and contribute to our social fabric. But like all businesses, they must adapt to changing consumer preferences and new technologies.
Ms Mariam Jaafar will be glad to know that we have been the heartland enterprises through the years with many initiatives, such as the Heartland Enterprise Placemaking Grant and the Enhanced Visual Merchandising Programme. In fact, earlier this year, just a few months ago, we enhanced both of these schemes by increasing the support level from 50% to 70%, helping our heartland enterprises refresh their concepts, improve their storefronts and to attract more footfall, more customers into their shops.
So, whether young or established, traditional or modern, every enterprise must continue building new capabilities to remain competitive. We will continue to support our businesses in this journey. And this journey includes going beyond Singapore to the world. Because our domestic market is limited, enterprises must venture beyond our shores to grow. Our small economy also needs strong external demand in addition to healthy domestic demand.
To help enterprises go global, we have established support for enterprises across their different stages of internationalisation. From grants like the recently enhanced Market Readiness Assistance, which helps businesses springboard overseas, to programmes like the Scale-Up. Let me elaborate.
Enterprise Singapore's Scale-Up programme helps high-potential Singapore companies build the capabilities they need to scale effectively and compete internationally.
To date, Scale-Up has supported more than 100 companies from diverse sectors – 80 of these companies have generated a combined $2.5 billion in additional revenue within three years of joining the Scale-Up programme. International expansion accounted for $1 billion of this growth.
One of these companies is Mlion Corporation. This is a steel foundation solutions company specialising in waterfront and underground construction. It sharpened its market entry strategies through Scale-Up just about four years ago. Since then, the company was able to, in the last four years, secure large-scale infrastructure projects in Southeast Asia markets and the Middle East and Africa. As a result, Mlion saw a fourfold increase in their revenue in 2024.
Another example is Space Matrix, a workplace design and build firm. The company accelerated its international growth by sharpening its strategy and strengthening its supply chain and procurement capabilities. Within two years, it has expanded into India, the Philippines and Dubai, and moved into the life sciences and data centre sectors. The company's revenue has grown more than 25%, and their profitability more than 200%.
So, as enterprises venture overseas, we know they will navigate unfamiliar regulations, higher operating costs, new competitors and geopolitical forces.
We have a network of over 35 Overseas Centres around the world, providing market intelligence, introductions to in-market partners and on-the-ground support for Singapore companies that want to capture growth opportunities overseas.
While the decision to internationalise is one that the enterprises must make for themselves, our goal is to create the conditions and provide the support that will spur them to compete and to succeed on the global stage. We will continue to monitor the global economic landscape and refine our globalisation schemes and support for Singapore enterprises to become global champions.
Every successful enterprise operates within a wider ecosystem of partners, networks and institutions.
Over the years, the Government has invested in building a strong and vibrant enterprise ecosystem. Our goal here is to create an environment in which enterprises can succeed, one that enables them to innovate, to build deeper capabilities, to gain access to talent, technology and market, and to be able to seize opportunities to enter new markets overseas.
And Ms Mariam Jaafar shared very eloquently earlier, a key element of this vibrant enterprise ecosystem is that mutually beneficial, mutually re-enforcing partnerships between our SMEs and our larger companies, including MNCs. As Mr Edward Chia and Ms Mariam Jaafar mentioned earlier, local and global enterprises in Singapore can work together to strengthen their capabilities, accelerate innovation and in doing so, create better jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans.
Look around at the MNCs' C-suite executives over the years, the positions are also taken up by Singaporeans. That is an important proof point.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may share my previous working experience which attests to the symbiotic working relationship between the smaller companies and larger companies. I recall, as an EDB officer some 26 years ago, I had worked on the Local Industry Upgrading Programme that matched the SMEs and the MNCs, company by company, sector by sector, matching them based on their workplan, their vision, their ambition and their values, but in a win-win partnership. And the programme allowed the MNCs to gain a strong base of suppliers, while allowing the SMEs to learn from the larger industry players and upgrade their capabilities.
Today, the programme has evolved to become what we call the Partnerships for Capability Transformation (PACT) programme, While LIUP focused primarily on strengthening supplier relationships between MNCs and SMEs, PACT brings the companies together to skill up, to innovate and in fact, to capture new opportunities together.
Since 2010, PACT has supported 137 partnerships and benefited more than 2,500 Singapore-based companies. PACT has progressively expanded to support a broader range of partnerships. Members will remember that last year, in this House, we announced expansion of the PACT programme to include internationalisation, corporate ventures and capability training. This has enabled SMEs to gain entry into regional as well as global value chains. In addition, SMEs get access to new customers and valuable chance to build stronger capabilities. They also co-create solutions and grow with the larger partners in their overseas operations.
Take the partnership between ForeFront AM, which is a local additive manufacturing firm, and GlobalFoundries MNC. Due to their collaboration, Forefront AM was able to increase its capabilities in additive manufacturing to create critical, highly customised parts for GlobalFoundries' high-value semiconductor manufacturing tools. And on the part of GlobalFoundries, the company qualified nine local SMEs to produce more than 200 critical tool parts as a result of the two PACT programme.
We also partnered industry leaders to help companies. Take AI adoption, for example. Mr Louis Chua called for greater support for AI adoption and acknowledged that the Enterprise Compute Initiative was announced last year. This is a scheme that where we work with leading cloud service providers like Google and Amazon as well as consultant partners to give enterprises access to cutting edge AI tools, cloud credits, training and certification. The Enterprise Compute Initiative is meant to kickstart adoption and to build momentum. So, we will continue to monitor the take-up closely and refine the support where needed.
Partnerships like these have enabled our local enterprises to capture fresh opportunities, build stronger and deeper capabilities, and compete in higher-value segments of the economy.
As shared by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, attracting MNC investments and the support we provide to local enterprises are complementary strategies. A robust economy needs the contributions of both the MNCs and SMEs.
On that note, let me now turn to another important pillar in our vibrant enterprise ecosystem – our close partnership with trade associations and chambers.
As Mr Mark Lee noted earlier, the trade associations and chambers play an important role as trusted intermediaries because the trade associations and chambers not only represent the enterprises and their respective sectors, they also help the businesses cope with shifts, like moving towards sustainability, digitalisation and workforce transformation. They are also instrumental in developing shared solutions as well as aggregating industry needs.
We will continue to work closely with all our trade associations and chambers in Singapore as they lead initiatives that bring businesses together to address common challenges and to seize new opportunities.
And furthermore, the trade associations and chambers have contributed their insights and industry perspectives on the needs of their sectors as part of our ESR process. The ESR recommendations and the directions we are taking reflect our trade associations and chambers' input and feedback. We value our close partnership and dialogue with our trade associations and chambers because we do not work in silos. The door is always open for discussion. And as Mr Mark Lee pointed out, 24 of the 27 recommendations by the Alliance for Action on Business Competitiveness have been accepted.
In fact, in April 2024, we sent up the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong as well as the various Ministers to oversee the agencies' efforts to improve regulatory efficiency and to reduce compliance burdens especially for SMEs. And the Inter-Ministerial Committee has achieved progress in these few areas within two years.
For example, 93% of all business regulatory applications have published service standards, with 80% of them committing to processing the applications within 30 working days. Agencies have also reviewed their license validity period. Today, 45% of the licences have validity period of at least three years. This will increase to 80% of licences by year 2029.
In parallel, we also started the SME Pro-Enterprise Office last year to cut red tape and to help our businesses address regulatory challenges, especially where it involves multiple agencies or emerging nascent sectors. This approach keeps our enterprise ecosystem vibrant as Government and regulations stay responsive to the needs of our businesses and to the needs of our SMEs.
And recently, just three months ago, in May this year, JTC streamlined lease transfers for smaller industrial sites with remaining tenures, reducing the processing time from two months to one month, to help our businesses acquire space and respond more quickly to changing needs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the close consultation and support provided to our SMEs can also be found in a network of 10 SME Centres across Singapore. We recognise that many SMEs do not have dedicated teams for strategy, technology or business development. As mentioned by Mr Azhar Othman very passionately earlier, SME Centres help our SMEs identify opportunities, navigate available Government support and chart practical next steps for their growth.
Just last year, our 10 SME Centres with 75 business advisors supported close to 30,000 companies in one year. That is about 2,500 SMEs in a month.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim earlier in his speech has called for simpler grant application processes and we have continuously been reviewing ways to improve. For example, under the Productivity Solutions Grant, Enterprise Singapore has streamlined the processes, and reduced processing times significantly to two weeks.
Together, these efforts strengthen Singapore's enterprise ecosystem, which in turn underpin the success of our enterprises. They ensure that the businesses are supported, not only through Government programmes but also through strong partnerships, responsive institution and a business environment that enables growth.
Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.
Ms Low Yen Ling: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, fellow Members of this House, Singapore's economic performance was strong, with the economy growing by 5% in 2025. This year, although we are affected by adverse factors such as uncertainties in the Middle East, energy prices and tariffs, we still forecast an economic growth of around 2% to 4%. This achievement is the result of the collective efforts of businesses, workers and the Government, that is, our tripartite partners.
Maintaining long-term, sustainable economic growth and ensuring that Singaporeans have good jobs and can live and work in peace and stability have always been our goal. Strong local enterprises, especially SMEs, are crucial to achieving this goal.
Across Singapore's economy, SMEs make up 99% of all enterprises and employ more than 70% of the workforce. They are a very important part of our overall economic ecosystem. SMEs create many job opportunities for Singaporeans, strengthen community cohesion and enhance Singapore's economic competitiveness.
Over the years, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, together with other Government agencies, has continued to roll out many measures and programmes to help local SMEs grow and thrive. We have focused on three areas:
(a) First, creating a pro-business environment and encouraging Singaporeans to start businesses;
(b) Second, working closely with local TACs to strengthen the capabilities and resilience of each of the sectors; and
(c) Third, encouraging and helping local SMEs venture into overseas markets.
In my English speech earlier, I also mentioned many successful examples of enterprises that have received practical assistance. When facing exceptional challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent conflict in the Middle East, the Government will also adapt our measures based on the circumstances and introduce timely support measures to help enterprises tide over immediate difficulties.
But Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must remember that Singapore is a small country with no natural resources, a small market and an ageing population. In the last 61 years of our independence, although we have accumulated a certain level of economic strength, we cannot simply rest on our laurels and live off past successes. Like businesses, the Government must also maintain an enterprising spirit, consistently upgrading, improving and adopting so as to secure a better future for our next generation.
During the Economic Strategy Review, we held extensive discussion and engagement with 7,700 enterprises as well as representatives from TACs across various sectors. These included local heritage businesses and representatives from heartland merchant associations. We listened to their concerns and gathered their views.
Mr Deputy Speaker, every enterprise is unique. Every company is also at a different stage of development, with a different starting point, different customer segments and different challenges and opportunities. The key is whether the business owners, partners and employees have the will to find ways to ensure the business can sustain in the long term and achieve continued success.
We all know that yesterday's strengths do not guarantee tomorrow's success. Businesses that continue to work hard to upgrade their capabilities will be able to go further.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's economic development and future success will depend on our country's enterprising spirit and the unity of our people. We believe that as long as local enterprises commit themselves to upgrading their capability, seizing development opportunities at home and abroad and cooperating with one another, they will be able to sustain their operations and achieve sound growth.
The Government will continue to create favourable conditions for businesses to flourish, and work hand in hand with businesses and Singaporeans to build a better tomorrow together.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have debated this Motion and heard a range of views and suggestions. We share the same vision – to see Singapore's economy succeed, businesses thrive and good jobs created for Singaporeans.
The Government continues to support and stand alongside our Singapore enterprises. Our goal is not just to help businesses weather the new storm, but to help them grow, to help them improve their competitiveness and strengthen their resilience to scale and compete internationally. We will continue to create the conditions of a vibrant and effervescent enterprise ecosystem to help them flourish and thrive. While we catalyse the ideal environment, it is the enterprises that continuously innovate, adapt and strengthen capabilities that will thrive and conquer new markets.
Together, we can build a strong and resilient economy for the future, for better lives, for Singapore. I support the Motion as amended by Mr Edward Chia. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, do you have a clarification? Of whom? Please proceed.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
The first concerns her point about internationalisation through Enterprise Singapore. During her speech, she offered more than a few examples of local SMEs that have successfully internationalised. This is without dispute something that both sides of the House can agree on.
The relevant question, however, is that this is a selection on what we have seen. Successful cases. I wonder if she will be able to share how many Enterprise Singapore-supported SMEs, out of those that have applied, have actually succeeded in their internationalisation plans. What is the ratio of applicants to these programmes versus those that have successfully managed to break into foreign markets and remain there after, say, five years? And what is the internal rate of return for Enterprise Singapore's internationalisation grants.
My second question has to do with the F&B sector, which Senior Minister of State Low also spoke about.
One notable difference between this sector and other SMEs is that the vast majority of our hawkers, coffee shop operators, restaurateurs deal with essentially a non-tradeable product. This is why suggestions that erase profits by scaling up often ring hollow to them, at least based on our conversations with them. Rather, what they seek is some form of relief from business costs, principally, rent and manpower.
I had suggested two channels in my speech on rental rate increase controls and different dependency ratio ceiling quotas, but if this is not something that the Government will entertain, I wonder what other suggestions, other than trying to scale up, which is something that these companies struggle with doing —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, if I could invite you to promptly come to your second clarification?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: My second clarification is what the Government is doing to help these local F&B operators with their business costs.
Ms Low Yen Ling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his questions.
Earlier on, when I talked about the range of support that we gave to SMEs, I had also taken a focus on F&B. I talked about how we have within the last 12 months rolled out – and these programmes were not rolled out in isolation – for example, Enterprise Singapore rolled out what they called the F&B Process Optimisation Programme. Allow me just one minute to explain what this is.
Like the Member mentioned, these are domestic companies, they cannot really go overseas unless through franchising. They are very much looking at how they can overcome manpower constraints. Based on our focus group discussion with them, we understand their pain points. That is why we came up the Process Optimisation Programme.
The Kopi & Tarts example is a simple example, but it is quite powerful. If you google them, do support them. They serve really wonderful ayam merah – it is really good – and protein bowls. They outsource the ingredient preparation for these two dishes.
For example, we shared with the F&B, you do not have to outsource everything. Just try a few things. They themselves were pleasantly surprised because by outsourcing the ingredient preparation for these two dishes, they can save 40 hours a day. That is 1,200 hours a month. This allows them to then redeploy their four full-time staff, who have to come in early into the kitchen and so on, into other positions. So, we are tackling, step by step, based on their pain points.
We have also done a productivity study together with the Singapore Productivity Centre and identified that the process optimisation really helps the top 10% of F&B achieve three to four times higher revenue than the bottom group. That is one.
The second one is FoodX that I talked about sharing of resources and so on.
More recently, at Restaurant Asia 2026, we launched the F&B AI and Digital Integration Programme. Elsie's Kitchen is one good example where they have done that. They plan to use AI to help them to achieve better kitchen planning and a logistic fleet so that they can have route optimisation as well as to ensure food safety.
It is a lot of grunt work. I want to assure him that we are working with the trade associations, like what Mr Mark Lee has mentioned. In this case, it was the RAS who addressed the issues and helped them to grow their top line and as well as bottom line.
The first question is on internationalisation. He asked about some of these big numbers. If I could request for him to file a separate Parliamentary Question, we will surely look into it and come back to the Member. But suffice to say, within the enterprise ecosystem, it is not just Enterprise Singapore that account manages each of these companies. I have talked about the 10 SME Centres. Within a year, we supported 30,000 SMEs. And earlier on, some of the Members talked about GoBusiness.gov.sg. Some of our business owners are very adept at that. They are gleaning a lot of information from that as well.
We will continue, just like how earlier on I responded to the Productivity Solutions Grant processing time, we will continue to look at how we can use technology to ensure that we can serve our SMEs better.
On internationalisation, it is not just companies, like Space Matrix or the Mlion or the manufacturing company I talked about, ForeFront AM, let me cite an example called Hegen.
I have known Ms Yvon Bock for close to 10 years. Ten years ago, Hegen was a startup, some Members are smiling because they probably used the company's products. We connected them overseas. They took part in \"double 11\" back then. That was how we helped them to leapfrog to China, to various provinces. Hegen has grown into a global consumer brand with a very significant international footprint. In fact, their products are available in more than 25 markets.
I am using Hegen to say one thing. I am using Hegen to say that, if we work together to ensure that in Singapore, we have a vibrant, effervescent enterprise ecosystem, our companies are not just selling products and services. Our companies can also twin it with a Singapore brand, which stands for integrity, quality, reliability, which is what Ms Yvon Bock told me.
Mr Deputy Speaker: There being no further clarifications. Leader of the House.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"An Economy of the Future that Works for All","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you.
I would like to state that I have been recently elected as vice president of the Institution of Engineers Singapore and I am tasked to take care of all technical committees, including innovation acceleration and technology entrepreneurship. The first thing I did was set up a technical committee for space engineering, nuclear engineering and quantum engineering. The latest stuff. So, we try to transform the Institution of Engineers Singapore from the built environment to the latest emerging technology cluster.
Last week, a famous Singaporean son, TikTok chief executive officer Chew Shou Zi, addressed the doctoral graduation ceremony at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU). He noted that we are standing at a pivotal juncture, \"Change is not just constant, but exponential and compounding.\"
We all know that change is inevitable, but exponential and compounding are really another expression for disruptive and transformative. So, I sent him a message and said, \"Can I quote you in my speech?\" And he said, \"Go ahead.\"
That was on a Sunday evening, so I redrafted my speech. So, I will be quoting his various quotes, so I will not requote again.
To thrive in this new landscape, I would like to propose \"3Is\": innovation, investment and internationalisation.
Innovation – moving from a very fixed blueprint to embracing the messy unknown. As an engineer and educator, I have been championing the growth of our deep tech ecosystem. However, true innovation requires cultural shift in how we manage risk.
At NTU, Mr Chew challenged the doctoral students to take the superpower, which is their knowledge and research knowledge, and of course, it is not necessary that PhD students have the knowledge, everybody has the knowledge at their mastery. He said to take the superpower and apply it to the messy, ambiguous problems of the real world, adding that we must embrace uncertainty because that is where meaningful innovations happen.
I would like to quote a case of Blackstone. Five years, six years ago, someone attended my class in NUS on technology entrepreneurship. Blackstone deals with submersible robotics, things that swim in the water, which we cannot see. And at that time, it is about just trying to do video analytics and – very much like student projects – we touch something so that it is accurate. But the videos are great. We tried to find some application for this. And within five years, we looked at trials in Singapore, trials overseas. I will not mention the countries, but we look at trials in lakes, ponds, seas, including Hawaii.
And today, after much trialling, they are selected for the US Navy's \"My countermeasure modernisation challenge\". They are one of the two selected among the world challenge submissions, and the only Singapore firm or the only firm that is non-US. The other one is a US firm.
But I spoke to them last week and the journey is really difficult because the US firm can easily raise $30 million; but they just recently raised US$7.7 million. That is public information. Of course, supported by Cap Vista; and Monk's Hill Ventures among the investors. I wish to state my interest. I am an angel investor, because when I see that they are really startup, I will put some money in for them, to help out.
So, what we really need is much more aggressive regulatory-like sandboxes. It is not just domestic because in this kind of deep tech environment, domestic, sometimes, it is not applicable, so we should then look at sandboxes that are domestic, regional and even global. In this case, they have tested the craft in Hawaii.
Therefore, I call on MTI to expand funding lines, specifically for early-stage high-failure, high-impact deep tech ventures and allow them to fail. We cannot have sure bets, but we can actually give them opportunities to ride out that phase for the next generation of breakthrough technologies. It takes six years.
They need very sophisticated equipment and labs. In the first two years or first three years we were actually operating out of NUS labs. So, my suggestion is that we take a leave from the partnership between MOE and MCCY, where facilities that are unused – for example, badminton hall, football fields – if they are unused, then open it to the rest who can use it. We can kick football on Sundays in certain school fields, right?
The same thing, whether it is universities, polytechnics or A*STAR, all these research labs, they have really expensive equipment and very sophisticated equipment that all these deep tech startups can use. The question is how to manage it so. It is like facilities on a shared economy basis. If we believe in the Institution of Engineers Singapore, then maybe the institution can help you to manage it. So, that is one proposal.
Coming to investment, the second \"I\", shifting capital to skill up revolutionary ideas. Sir, our investment philosophy really must evolve, highlighting the significant trend. Mr Chew Shou Zi noted that the massive shift in investments towards early-stage startups that emphasise the true impact lies in, \"taking a single idea and giving it the scale to reach millions or billions,\" he said, \"if you are lucky.\"
The reality on the ground, for Singapore, is that it is really difficult to get Series A, and you have to prove profitability and the likes. Last year, A*STAR's spin-off, MetaOptics, pre-profitability, a little bit of revenue, but high potential – it listed on Catalist. It was about $30 million and now it has a market capitalisation of about $200 million, and it is going to NASDAQ.
That points us to a path for all these deep tech startups. Let us not depend too much on the venture capitals, maybe public money or public funding might be a better option or another option.
I convene a group of tech entrepreneurs, investors like Catalist sponsors, and investors, and we meet at the Singapore Exchange (SGX). SGX is very supportive to give me the room. And SGX participated in what we term special pathway for Catalist listing of technology ventures.
We note that in Hong Kong Exchange chapter 18(A) for biopharma companies, chapter 18(C) of the Hong Kong Exchange basically says that pre-revenue, pre-profitability companies can list, but the size is huge. We are talking about HK$1.5 billion to $1.8 billion. We have the Global Listing Board but it is also a big number. So, perhaps the sweet spot is not really to go for the $1 billion size capitalisation, but actually to go for $50 million or $100 million, as a pathway to get them funded properly because these are long-term investments, but with a high potential to go global and worldwide. So, that is case two of MetaOptics.
Internationalisation. Using our knowledge or education passport for global impact, Mr Chew pointed out Singapore has historically looked outwards and upwards and has created an outsider global footprint, advising the graduates to use the extraordinary educational passport to take their work to the world. I give you another case of space engineering. Alenia, I am not sure Members are familiar with them or with Dr Mark Lim. He developed plasma-based propulsion for spacecraft. I invited him to sit on my technical committee; I am going after all of these people. And his business obviously is not really much in Singapore. In Singapore, he would probably have one or two customers —
Mr Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Dr Neo. I have given you 10 minutes of latitude. I am beginning to ask whether you are going to draw any of your insights to the subject of the Motion.
And I turn you to Standing Order 50(1), and these are rules and Standing Orders that apply to all Members of Parliament. You do have a few more minutes. Could I invite you to draw a link from your observations, insights and experiences to the Motion or the amended Motion at hand? Thank you.
Dr Neo Kok Beng: Sure. Okay, alright let me finish this. What we need is not just encouraging the startups to work, but also to tap on the ecosystems and the ecosystem is like the Institution of Engineers, whether it is a global or regional setup.
As far as the Motion is concerned, it is not just assisting, it is not just getting startup, giving resources to push them. I think the Motion has to include the system of innovation. And the system of innovation does not just have a couple of parties. Competitors, especially MNCs, suppliers that are based here, are very important to help create this ecosystem to have a much more vibrant ecosystem, not just what you call – okay, I will stop at that.
I just want to declare one more interest. I quote so much of Mr Chew Shou Zi and my mother maiden's name is Chew. He is my nephew. That is all that I have.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Neo, you have got another few minutes. Feel free to carry on if you can make your points relevant to the Motion.
Dr Neo Kok Beng: Alright, so as far as the Motion is concerned, Mr Edward Chia took my technology entrepreneurship class in NUS also. He understands that to build tech ecosystems, we really need a complete system and innovations, so I therefore support his amended Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: We carry on with the debate on the Motion and the amended Motion. The next speaker is Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, youths and/or aspiring entrepreneurs catching snippets of today's debate may think that there is a dearth of ideas or entrepreneurship in Singapore, or that this is a place where there is no room for experiment. I beg to differ. In fact, just end-June, I met eight startups at NUS Homecoming, from the very same programme that Minister of State Dinesh mentioned, NUS Overseas Colleges.
I met companies involved in robotics, social enterprise and edutech, and that is just a very small subset of the thousands of entrepreneurs that the NUS Overseas Colleges have bred. But every generation of startups and companies face challenges, and we are here to diagnose and address the gaps to help them succeed.
The aspirations expressed in this Motion are ones that Members on both sides of the House can support. An economy where Singaporeans can thrive, entrepreneurs can experiment, businesses can succeed, workers can progress and good ideas can flourish. The more important question is how do we turn these aspirations into reality?
My central argument today is simple: thriving Singaporeans drive thriving Singapore businesses, and thriving Singapore businesses build a thriving Singapore.
Businesses need skilled, confident and adaptable Singaporeans to grow. Singaporeans in turn, need strong businesses that can create good jobs, invest in their capabilities and give them opportunities to lead. We should therefore avoid viewing workers and businesses as being on opposing sides. When businesses do well, workers should share in the gains. When businesses face genuine transformation pressures, our policies should help both companies and workers make the transition together.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
I have seen our enterprise landscapes from several perspectives, having worked in a successful startup, supporting Singapore companies in the Public Service and now running an SME. These experiences have convinced me that good ideas need \"5Cs\" to grow: customers, capital, connections, capabilities and confidence.
I will trace the journey of a company through our enterprise ecosystem, from turning an idea into a viable product to winning its first customers, scaling through capital and global connections, and eventually reaching an exit that recycles capital, experience and confidence into the next generations of our enterprises.
Our enterprise policies should help promising companies to make each of these transitions. In the world of startups, it is no longer merely a contest of ideas. Increasingly, it is a contest of adoption. A good idea that nobody buys remains an idea.
For Singapore startups, the domestic market is where they can prove themselves, but the region and the world are where they must scale. That requires more than grants, competitions and technical development. It requires someone willing to become the first serious customers.
Yet, every founder encounters the same dreaded question: \"Who else has already used it?\" This creates a familiar paradox. A company cannot establish a track record without a major customer, but it cannot secure a major customer without an established track record.
I recently met this company, Mottainai Food Tech, and \"Mottainai\" means \"too good to waste\" in Japanese. It is a local startup that turns food-manufacturing by-products, including soybean pulp, into nutritious food products. Its technology supports food security and circularity, and it has developed a commercial product. But like many young companies, it still needs sizeable orders to prove that it can produce and deliver at scale.
This challenge is not unique to food technology. Singapore companies in sustainability, advanced manufacturing, healthcare and enterprise technology encounter similar barriers. I therefore welcome the ESR's recommendation to mobilise lead demand from large companies and the public sector. This does not mean buying an inferior product, simply because it is local. Nor should Government agencies become the permanent customers of every startup. It means giving credible companies a fair opportunity to test, demonstrate and improve their solutions. It means helping them to cross the difficult gap between having a technically viable product and building a commercially proven business.
A reference customer in Singapore can provide more than just revenue. If a young company can show that its product meets the standards of an established corporation or Government agency, it becomes easier to approach customers abroad. Our domestic market may be small, but Singapore's reputation for quality, standards and reliability is significant.
A first customer in Singapore is often a passport to the region. I experienced the value of such an opportunity early in my career at Brandtology. It is a Singapore technology startup developing natural language processing and social media analytics before these capabilities became mainstream. A major Singapore Government contract gave the company both a credible reference customer and evidence that its team could deliver at scale.
Singapore's concentration of multinational and regional headquarters then amplified the value of that first reference customer. Once we had demonstrated our capabilities here, many of their regional decision-makers were already based here and would ask us a very different question from before: \"Do you want to follow us into our other markets?\"
A successful project in Singapore therefore became more than a domestic reference. It became a platform for regional growth.
The lesson remains relevant today. If every major buyer insists on an extensive track record, new companies will never have the opportunity to build one. Yet, buyers also have legitimate reasons to be cautious, especially when procuring critical or untested solutions. They must be confident that the technology is reliable and that the company can deliver.
The challenge, therefore, is to manage these risks without allowing past track records to become the only measure of credibility. For suitable purchases involving new solutions, agencies and major buyers could give greater weight to independently verified technical performance, relevant certifications, pilot results and delivery capacity.
And where the risks are manageable, smaller initial contracts or phased procurement can allow credible new entrants to establish a track record without requiring the buyer to assume the full risk from the outset. This is not about lowering the bar. It is about ensuring that the bar measures what truly matters: whether the solution works, whether it meets the required standards and whether the company can deliver.
Mr Speaker, Singapore companies do not grow in isolation. Leading global companies contribute more than investment and direct employment. Their regional management, technical and procurement functions can connect local enterprises to sophisticated demand, new technologies, international standards and global supply chains.
However, these connections do not arise automatically. Smaller companies may lack the information, networks or resources needed to identify suitable partners, understand overseas requirements or anticipate where an industry is heading.
This is where industry associations and consortiums can play a much larger role. As the special advisor to Battery Consortium Singapore, I see how an effective industry platform can bring together startups, established local enterprises, MNCs and research institutions across the value chain.
They come with different strengths and interests. A startup may have a promising technology, but lack the production experience. An established enterprise may understand customers and operations, but need new technologies. An MNC may be looking for qualified partners that can meet its standards. A research institution may have valuable intellectual property that has yet to find a commercial application.
The role of an industry platform is to then make these connections useful. It should identify actual market needs, bring suitable partners together and help promising solutions move from research and pilot projects to paying customers. Its effectiveness should therefore be measured not by membership or the number of events organised, but by partnerships formed, standards attained, projects commercialised and contracts secured. Foreign investment and local enterprise development are not competing strategies. At their best, they reinforce each other.
The deeper question is not simply how many global companies we attract or how many local SMEs we support. It is whether they interact in ways that build lasting capabilities for Singapore and Singaporeans.
The objective should not be to shelter our companies from competition. It is to ensure that they are sufficiently connected, informed and capable to compete.
Securing a major customer is an important breakthrough, but it often creates the next challenge: cashflow. A company may have to purchase materials, expand production, hire workers and provide bank guarantees before receiving payment. A healthy order book does not necessarily mean that there is enough working capital to fulfil those orders.
Penguin International's \"Electric Dream\" project illustrates how customers and capital must come together. After securing Shell as a customer, Penguin obtained a green loan under the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green to support the design, construction and operation of Singapore's first fully electric seagoing passenger ferries and their rapid shore chargers. The customer provided the demand and commercial validation, while suitable financing enabled the company to deliver an innovative project at scale. That successful delivery can, in turn, become a track record for winning future projects.
And financing requirements change as a company grows. Early funding may help develop and test a product. Fulfilling the first major order may require working capital, while expanding production or entering overseas markets may require longer-term financing.
Deep-tech companies may need capital that is willing to wait several years before earning a return. We therefore need suitable financing at every stage, from developing a product and fulfilling the first major order to expanding overseas or preparing for acquisition or listing.
Different businesses will also require different forms of financing. These may include equity, venture debt, private credit and acquisition financing. Not every promising company will fit the venture-capital model of rapid and exponential growth. Some will grow more steadily while creating good jobs, accumulating valuable capabilities and becoming strong regional businesses. Our financing landscape should have room for the whole range of companies.
Government intervention should not replace commercial discipline or protect unviable companies. Our role is to address genuine financing gaps and crowd in suitable private capital.
I also want to touch on a point on enterprise policy. Singapore has built up a large and active startup community today. Our next challenge is to help more promising companies survive, scale and expand overseas.
This should also shape how we evaluate enterprise policies. Too often, success is measured by participation: how many companies received a grant, joined a programme, attended a trade fair or mission or completed a pilot? These figures tell us whether support has been delivered, but not whether enterprises have progressed.
We should also track how many companies move from pilot to first contract, from first contract to export and from export to scale. This does not mean that every company must follow the same path or grow at the same speed. It means each programme should be clear about the next commercial milestone it is intended to help companies reach. Where companies repeatedly stall at the same stage, whether in securing their first major customer, obtaining working capital or finding overseas customers, that tells us where our support system must improve.
Enterprise policy should therefore be evaluated not merely by participation, but by progression.
In practice though, business progression ultimately depends on its people. While policies, financing and connections matter, businesses do not transform automatically. People transform businesses.
For an SME owner, AI, higher labour costs, overseas expansion and new regulations do not arrive as separate projects handled by different departments. They all land on the same desk. The owner must manage cash flow, chase payments, retain workers, serve customers and resolve the day's operational problems, while still finding time to invest in technology and plan for the future. The owner must work in the business while also finding time to work on the business.
Enterprise transformation therefore cannot be reduced to giving a company a grant to purchase equipment or adopt a new system. We must also invest in the capabilities of SME owners, directors and business leaders. Leadership development should be practical. It should help them interpret new technologies, assess overseas opportunities, understand financing options, manage people and decide when to adapt, expand, pivot or diversify. This matters because entrepreneurship must remain a viable path for capable Singaporeans.
We have strengthened protection, support and progression for workers, and rightly so. At the same time, we should recognise that business owners carry risks that are less visible and often less cushioned.
An owner may invest personal savings, guarantee a loan and forgo a salary during difficult months, while remaining responsible for paying employees, suppliers and creditors on time. We should not romanticise business ownership, because being your own boss also often means that every customer, creditor and employee becomes your boss. Responsible entrepreneurs need mentorship, suitable financing, strong networks and a reasonable second chance after honest commercial failure.
Risk-taking does not mean irresponsibility. An economy that wants entrepreneurs to experiment must distinguish genuine commercial failure from misconduct. Not every startup will become a MNC. Many will find a sustainable place in the SME landscape as employers and capability builders.
But Singaporeans must continue to see starting and growing a business as a worthwhile path. This is also where confidence matters. Entrepreneurs need confidence that a credible idea will receive a fair hearing, that financing will be available when real demand emerges and that one honest failure may not end their entrepreneurial journey.
This returns me to the relationship between workers and businesses. It is tempting to view economic policy as a choice between supporting workers and supporting businesses. But businesses succeed through people and workers progress when their companies become more productive and competitive.
Every successful transformation therefore depends on whether employees understand it, contribute to it and share in its benefits. A grant may help a company purchase a new machine, but workers must learn to operate it. AI may improve productivity, but managers must redesign jobs and equip employees to use it effectively. Internationalisation may open a new market, but Singaporeans must be prepared to lead teams, serve customers and operate across cultures.
Wage standards provide an important floor, but sustained real wage growth must also be supported by higher productivity, stronger capabilities and businesses that create greater value. Crucially, workers must share in these gains through better wages, stronger career progression and greater opportunities to take on skilled and leadership roles.
Workers also need confidence that the transformation will lead not simply to disruption but to better skills, wages and opportunities. Workers and businesses are therefore not opposing interests. Their success is interconnected and our economic policies must help them progress together. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): As the sayings go, the lips and the teeth are interdependent. Businesses and employees have to rely on each other. Only when a business develops well can employees enjoy better salaries, and only when employees continue to improve can the business become more competitive. Both must grow and benefit together.
(In English): In conclusion, there is considerable common ground between the aspirations of this Motion and ESR. The direction is sound. The next task is execution.
We should focus on four practical priorities. First, help credible young companies secure their first major customers while maintaining rigorous standards and managing the buyers' risks. Second, connect global companies, local enterprises and research institutions through industry platforms that are accountable for actual partnerships, projects and contracts. Third, ensure that companies can access suitable financing as they move from product development to order fulfilment, expansion and internationalisation. Fourth, invest in the business leaders and workers responsible for carrying out transformation and ensure that both share in its gains.
Across these areas —
Mr Speaker: Mr Ng, you have about a minute left.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan: — we should evaluate enterprise policy by progression, not merely participation; whether companies move from pilot to first contract; from first contract to export; and from export to scale.
Ultimately, an economy for the future must be built around its people. Thriving Singaporeans drive thriving Singapore businesses. Thriving Singapore businesses build a thriving Singapore. Our task is now to give Singaporeans a fair chance to build, grow and lead successful businesses from Singapore, and the ESR recommendations set out how we can get there for both businesses and workers.
I support the Motion as amended, especially Part (b), where local and global enterprises should be interacting with each other and not grow in isolation.
Mr Speaker: Minister Jeffrey Siow.
The Minister for Transport and Second Minister for Finance (Mr Jeffrey Siow): Mr Speaker, let me begin by first thanking Members on both sides of the House for a thoughtful, wide-ranging and constructive debate on our economy. Many have observed that our world has changed, constraints are tighter and our economic future could be more uncertain. I am glad Members across the aisle recognise that Singapore must refresh our economic strategy. And that is precisely why we started ESR a year ago.
The ESR was one of the most extensive reviews in recent years. Five ESR Committees engaged more than 7,700 people over nine months. These included: business leaders of large and small enterprises; trade associations and chambers representing SMEs; unionists supporting and championing workers' interests; and experts with decades of experience, including academics, venture capitalists, senior civil servants and global CEOs. Many of these people are on the economic frontline, making decisions today that will shape the direction of our future economy.
The ESR was a collective endeavour by all of these Singaporeans, and this is how we were able to produce a comprehensive economic blueprint grounded in experience and reality.
Today, we have heard several speeches from WP. Sifting through the veritable grab bag of pet issues raised, nevertheless, I found agreement with quite a few of the WP's economic ideas.
For instance, there were suggestions on how to better support our SMEs and startups and build a stronger base of local companies. These goals are not in dispute and the ESR report sets out specific recommendations, whether on more broad-based support for overseas expansion or nurturing the next generation of Singapore global enterprises.
While we can debate the details, it is clear that the suggestions from WP are not so much a different economic playbook but instead, very much in line with the direction of the ESR. So, we have considerable common ground. We do want an economy with dynamic local enterprises and good jobs for Singaporeans. There are some differences over the means of achieving these goals, but there is no need to overstate these differences.
However, there is one significant difference we need to address, and this is in how we understand Singapore's economic model. From the speeches I have heard, WP appears to believe that Singapore's economic model is imbalanced and needs to be fundamentally re-oriented. They have portrayed Singapore as a place where MNCs create wealth and there is some Faustian bargain where SMEs are held down, and Singaporeans receive the benefits through redistribution.
I disagree with this characterisation. And this is not an academic disagreement but one that is crucial to the policies that we will pursue. If the original diagnosis or assumption is wrong, the proposed remedy will send us in the wrong direction. The wrong medication may cause us even more harm than good.
One example, Mr Kenneth Tiong referred to the Government as having a universal land pricing model. This is simply untrue.
Our framework is already differentiated. Land is priced differently at fair market value based on its intended use, which could be residential, commercial, industrial, community, educational or religious. We can debate whether there is sufficient flexibility in the current framework and whether there could be or should be further differentiation. But that is quite different from suggesting that the current framework is fundamentally flawed. On the contrary, our clear and transparent framework ensures responsible stewardship of our limited land resources.
I want to emphasise that the People's Action Party Government's economic strategy has always been built around Singaporeans, whether as workers, professionals, investors, entrepreneurs or business owners. Our people, not companies, are at the centre of everything we do. Economic growth has never been an end in itself. It is a means to an end to create better jobs, higher incomes and better lives for Singaporeans. And by that measure, Singapore's economic model has delivered for generation after generation of Singaporeans.
The WP's view appears to be that MNCs and local firms are competing for a fixed pie. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested that the Government is not supporting our own SMEs as much as we do for MNCs and that we must pivot away from MNCs to SMEs. But as my colleague, Mr Edward Chia, has already pointed out, this is a false choice. For our economy to thrive, we need both MNCs and SMEs in Singapore to succeed.
In a more difficult global environment, we have to compete harder for foreign investments. We must also work harder to support our local companies.
We are not in a zero-sum situation. In fact, the growth of our local companies and our MNCs mutually reinforce each other. SMEs are critical to our economy. They employ the majority of our workforce. Many enterprising Singaporeans start their own businesses to forge their own paths and strive for their hopes and dreams.
Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling, has spoken in detail about the robust support ecosystem for SMEs. And the Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash, shared how we have built up our startup ecosystem over the years. I will not repeat what they have already covered.
But very few countries support local companies like we do here in Singapore. Every year, the Government provides nearly $2 billion dollars in direct grants and loans for our local SMEs to build stronger capabilities, embark on new projects and compete successfully in global markets.
Not all of these schemes are fully utilised today. We can do more to help our companies make fuller use of the support available. And if demand for these schemes grows because more companies are stepping up and making use of them, let me state for the record that the Ministry of Finance stands ready in support with more resources.
Of course, if this was just about spending more money, we would already have many more world-class companies. But many of us understand that building a company is very hard. Mr Mark Lee and Mr Azhar Othman have spoken passionately about their experience as business leaders themselves and also in their roles now supporting SMEs. Building a business requires many factors: stronger leadership, deep technological capabilities, access to capital and talent, and the confidence to venture overseas.
That is why in 2018, we re-organised agencies in MTI to form Enterprise Singapore – a new Statutory Board with a clear mission to support our local companies end-to-end: capability building, innovation, financing, talent, internationalisation.
I had the privilege to serve as the first Managing Director of Enterprise Singapore. My colleagues and I were deeply motivated by our mission. We made it a point to use Singapore-made products in the office – locally made coffee and tea; chairs and cushions; even the snacks in our vending machines – as a small reminder every day that our mission was to support and champion our local enterprises.
Every success by a Singapore company – a new product, a new market, a new investment – was a success that we celebrated together. Our officers worked hand-in-hand with SMEs. Our companies know that we walked this journey with them side by side. Because when Singapore enterprises thrive, they create more jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. We all have a stake in their success.
In a more fragmented global economy, it has indeed become more difficult for SMEs to venture overseas. Tariffs have gone up. Industrial policies are now back in fashion. The path from local company to global enterprise seems much steeper than before.
But that does not mean that we should turn inward. The WP asserts that if external markets become more uncertain, we should retreat and rely more on domestic demand. This is unrealistic. Our domestic market is simply too small. Mr Mark Lee, who leads the SBF, pointed out that domestic demand cannot be our primary engine for growth, and I cannot agree more.
The answer is not to turn inward. It is the reverse: to strengthen our companies to compete more effectively in more overseas markets with greater resilience.
This is why following the US Liberation Day tariffs last year, we set up the Singapore Economic Resilience Task Force, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, to help our businesses adapt. Many companies have benefited from our efforts. For example, Castlery, an online furniture company with 70% of its revenue from the US, has diversified its manufacturing base with Enterprise Singapore's support. In fact, Castlery has pivoted so well that it has recently opened up its first brick and mortar store in New York City, which I hope to visit soon.
Even as we redouble our efforts to support our local companies, we must not forget that MNCs remain important to our economy. MNCs are attracted to Singapore not just because of the incentives we give, but because of our entire ecosystem – our capabilities, our workers, our SMEs.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat spoke in detail about how, in turn, MNCs generate positive spillovers for the economy. When global companies set up deep capability here – a research centre, a regional headquarters, an advanced manufacturing line – they do not simply occupy space that local companies might otherwise have filled. But they bring in resources, capabilities and technology we do not yet have, and this includes AI capabilities which would take us years to develop on our own.
Many of our local companies grow and succeed because of their relationships with MNCs, not in spite of them. For example, Sunningdale Tech is a Singapore precision engineering company which started off as a small-scale manufacturer of plastic products, and it has grown to be a large company, alongside its blue-chip clients like HP, Illumina and Dyson. When I attended a major industrial trade fair last year, I was proud to see many more local manufacturers, smaller than Sunningdale, but ready to grow, showcasing their innovations and products to a global audience.
Just as importantly, global companies create good jobs – high-skilled, high-paying jobs. More than two-thirds of senior management positions in MNCs in Singapore today are held by Singaporeans. These often have regional or even global responsibilities, which means Singapore can have a greater influence in economic decisions beyond our small size and population.
Many jobs are generated for young Singaporeans too. I visited Applied Materials last year. Applied is an American company producing high-end equipment for semiconductor manufacturers, such as TSMC, Samsung and Micron. Mr Saktiandi mentioned that Applied Materials had invested recently in building a second campus at Tampines; they told me about it with great excitement when I visited their first facility at Upper Changi.
At Upper Changi, I met Ms Chua Khai Shuen. Khai Shuen had interned at Applied while studying mechanical engineering at the NUS. She was very happy to be hired upon her graduation, so she could continue with the projects that she started. Her biggest achievement, so far, unfortunately, is that she can put on her PPE faster than her colleagues. I tried competing with her and I naturally lost out.
But Khai Shuen's story, as a young graduate, is not unique. There are many like her, building their budding careers in global companies based in Singapore. During our house visits, I am sure many of us would have met parents who proudly tell us their sons and daughters are working in Google or Microsoft, BlackRock or JP Morgan, Micron or GlobalFoundries, Boeing or Rolls Royce. It would be much harder for a Singaporean to work in any of these companies, if the companies were not based here in Singapore.
The support we provide to attract foreign investment and the support we provide to local enterprises are complementary and mutually reinforcing. The resources we commit to attracting investments do not come at the expense of supporting local enterprises. The converse is also true. If we reduce the resources that we commit to supporting this ecosystem, then only do we risk MNCs leaving Singapore, even local companies will think about operating in other jurisdictions.
So, at a time when countries are spending more than ever to attract and reshore strategic investments, our response surely cannot be to do less. Giving up these investments would mean fewer higher quality jobs and fewer opportunities for Singaporeans – and this cannot be our approach.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. The ESR began with a simple but urgent premise. The world is changing and Singapore must reinvent ourselves. But as we do so, we should be clear about what needs to change and what should stay the same.
Our task is not to discard what has made Singapore successful, but to renew and strengthen our formula for a changed world. We are not choosing between SMEs and MNCs. We need both. We are not choosing between domestic demand and external markets. We need both. This is why I fully support the amendments to the Motion as proposed by Mr Edward Chia, which reflect our economic strategy holistically and accurately.
Mr Speaker, our enterprises have ambitions that extend far beyond our shores, further than perhaps what the WP thinks they are capable of. Our job is to help our companies realise their ambitions and not hold them back.
Ultimately, the ESR is not going to be judged by the number of schemes we create, or the amount of money we spend. It will be judged by its outcomes: better jobs, higher incomes, more social mobility and greater resilience, and whether Singaporeans have the confidence that they can build better lives for themselves and for their children.
This is why it is important that the ESR is a whole-of-society effort, led by a new generation of business, union, society and Government leaders, who will collectively own these outcomes.
Mr Speaker, throughout our history, whenever the world has changed, Singapore has adapted. We have stayed open, we have continued to build our capabilities, and we have always invested in our people. This is how we have earned our place in the world and this is how we will continue creating opportunities for ourselves. Mr Speaker, I support the amended Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee, do you have a clarification to ask of the Member?
Mr Mark Lee: Mr Speaker. I would like to pose a point of clarification to Minister of State Dinesh. While we discuss the mandatory retrenchment benefits for workers, has MOM also examined the potential impact on employers, specifically whether mandatory retrenchment benefits could create unintended cost or behavioural changes in hiring, particularly for SMEs and firms?
Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash: Mr Speaker, it is not the first time that we are raising issues of legislation of retrenchment benefits. We have considered it in the past. It was not very appropriate then. We studied it periodically. As the Member knows, with the Tripartite Guidelines, at least nine and 10 workers are compensated, as was highlighted. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Manpower\", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Correction By Written Statement section.]
However, the circumstances have changed. We are looking at it, because we have highlighted that both in the speech and as well as the ESR has recommended for stronger support to our workers. This is something that we are looking at. Whether or not we can go above 90% is something that we are looking at as well.
We are not at this point wedded on whether or not it is to be legislated. As in all things that the Government does, we will consult Singapore National Employers Federation, we will consult the unions and make a considered decision after our consults.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, do you have a clarification to make? Go ahead.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank Minister Siow for the opportunity for me to clarify some positions for the WP.
I think when I and my colleagues called for a rebalance, we were neither suggesting that SMEs and MNCs are competing for the same pie. Nor are we suggesting that greater support for local SMEs must somehow either come at the expense of existing MNCs or punish these golden geese. Indeed, I believe I was very careful to emphasise in the closing of my speech that we must not sideline our MNCs and GLCs, nor should we shut off foreign capital.
What Mr Siow attributes to the WP, I am afraid is a false dichotomy that we did not draw. It is a convenient strawman argument, perhaps to win – had we actually made it.
Similarly, we are not blind to how domestic demand alone is insufficient to drive our economic engine. But saying that we want healthy domestic demand is not equivalent to saying that we do not need foreign ones. Rather, what we want to urge is the growth of consumer demand that historically has been weaker here than in other advanced economies of our level of development.
So, my question then to the Minister is whether he believes that the state of our SME ecosystem is currently sufficiently strong to compete in regional economies as they internationalise and if he thinks that our current domestic demand is sufficiently healthy, that there is no need to push this up as we try to restructure and reform our global economy for the 21st century?
Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank the hon Member for his clarification. We had this impression, I had this impression largely because of the language that is used in the Motion, where there was no mention of global enterprises and the global economy. And Mr Edward Chia had to specifically amend the Motion.
In Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech, he specifically said that we should pivot towards SMEs. So, when we say pivot, I am assuming there is an impression of a zero-sum arrangement that he had in mind.
But if I was mistaken, I am very happy that he has clarified that the WP is certainly aligned with our economic strategy, that he sees that both MNCs and SMEs are important, and that we should strive to strengthen our strategies on both sides.
Specifically, to his question on whether the state of our SME ecosystem is sufficiently strong, or whether local demand is sufficient, I do not think there will be a threshold where we say today, we are ready and okay. I think it is a continual process. The colleagues at Enterprise Singapore and MTI are working very hard, continually strengthening our SMEs, continually making them globally competitive, continually creating opportunities and supporting them to grow. And that is the spirit in which we see this, and we will continue to do this and endeavour to help our SMEs to succeed.
Mr Speaker: Minister Dr Tan See Leng.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me first thank Mr Kenneth Tiong and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for bringing this Motion before the House, and all Members who have contributed to a thoughtful as well as a constructive debate.
With that point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim raised earlier on to Minister Jeffrey Siow, perhaps, the Member would consider supporting and voting for the amended Motion.
We have all heard different views, diagnoses and prescriptions, but also substantial common ground. We all want fulfilling careers. We want good outcomes for our fellow Singaporeans. We all want entrepreneurs who are confident and willing to try, to innovate and to grow. We all want more Singapore enterprises that are globally successful. And we want Singaporeans to be able to face the future with confidence, even as technology and global competition reshape our economy.
Mr Kenneth Tiong said that, if he could sum up this Motion in one question, it would be: \"How does an ordinary Singaporean get a lasting share of our country’s success?\" It is a fair and it is an important question. Let me try. Let me offer my answer.
A Singaporean gets a lasting share of that success by meaningfully participating in our economy, through good jobs, sustained real wages growth and finding fulfilment through work; by acquiring and building skills and skillsets that remain relevant as technology evolves and changes; and after any setbacks, by taking up the opportunity to learn, and the support to recover and build again.
Some Singaporeans will be able to do much more, such as by starting or growing a successful business; by turning an idea into a product or service; or by leading a regional or global team from Singapore. Our people shape the economy. But they are, in turn, shaped by the economy itself.
Singaporeans are not mere passive beneficiaries of economic growth. They never have been that. We would never have gotten here if our people had been inert digits. Our people have always been active participants, contributors, builders and owners of this island-nation. And this has always been at the heart of Singapore's economic strategy.
The ultimate purpose of our economic strategy has never been growth for growth's sake. It is about whether that growth pervades and percolates through the broader economy, that it improves people's lives through good jobs, rising incomes, social mobility and the resilience to withstand setbacks.
By these measures, the Singapore model has delivered over successive generations. Our responsibility now is to ensure that it continues to deliver in a very different, changed world.
The ESR is guided by three imperatives: sharpen Singapore's value proposition; enhance the agility and adaptability of our firms, workers and institutions; and build resilience alongside efficiency.
These are not abstract concepts. They are about widening practical pathways to success. Can someone with an idea – whether a research breakthrough, a new service, an F&B concept or even a franchise opportunity – find the mentorship, the first customer and the capital to build a viable enterprise? Can an SME adopt technology and scale? Can a professional gain the international exposure needed to lead a global business? Can a worker acquire relevant skills before being displaced or find a credible path back into meaningful work after losing a job?
The ESR is about strengthening these pathways. Not everyone will follow the same path.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh made a useful distinction: fairness, rather than equality alone, should guide policy. It means preventing disadvantage from becoming entrenched while calibrating opportunities and support for different needs and for different circumstances.
Mr Speaker, allow me to speak and share about my own personal journey before I was elected as a Member of Parliament in 2020.
I began my own entrepreneurial journey when I was around 27. Together with a few partners, I started Healthway Medical Group with one clinic in Yishun. I have to declare I do not have any shares in Healthway, so I am not making a pitch.
We were all young. We had limited capital. We had zero experience in starting a business. Nor did we have the wide range of support schemes which startups today can draw on. There was no certainty that our venture would succeed. We were doctors, and I can tell you our medical training did not include courses on how to build a business organisation. We had to learn on the go – operations, finance, people management and quality control. In time we also had to learn how to build an institution that could endure beyond ourselves.
Some of the earliest companies that gave us a chance were MNCs like Sony, Aiwa, Shimano, Asahi TV Glass, Hewlett-Packard and Procter & Gamble. In fact, a few of them no longer exist in Singapore.
They were large at that time; they were established global companies. We were a young Singapore startup enterprise who found a relatively white space in the HDB and industrial estates, when the concept of a corporate group practice providing healthcare in those areas was still nascent. The trust of these MNCs gave us that foothold and enabled us to build a track record.
We had to constantly measure up. We had to meet their demanding standards. But once we showed that we could deliver, it became easier to win the confidence of the next customer.
Therefore, I have never regarded global enterprises and local enterprises as opposites. In my own experience, established global companies helped a homegrown Singapore enterprise to start, establish credibility and grow. They did not crowd us out. They gave us an opportunity to grow and to compete. And I know this is the experience of many other SMEs in Singapore.
Opportunity alone was not enough. We still had to deliver. We had to improve our service, we had to look after our people, we had to manage our costs, we had to earn our customers' trust again and again.
Over time, the organisation grew. It transformed, it diversified, it achieved sustainable scale and all of us successfully divested.
Later, I built, I transformed and I scaled organisations at a much larger and more international level. Starting a clinic did not equip me automatically to manage a network, let alone lead a healthcare group of tertiary hospitals with global operations, with more than 55,000 staff operating across Europe and Asia. I had to keep learning, moving beyond medicine into management, finance, technology and organisational leadership, and working with people and most importantly, mentors who knew far more than what I knew in so many areas outside my own training.
I graduated from business school only after turning 40, and hence, I am a believer in lifelong learning. Even now, I am still learning from all of you here.
I did not do it alone. Healthway was built with a few founders who shared that same vision – perhaps foolishly, they listened to me, they took risks alongside, with me – and staff who committed themselves to the organisation, customers who trusted us and partners who helped us develop.
That experience also taught me what the Government can and what the Government cannot do. Mr Mark Lee put it so aptly: the Government must build the runway, but entrepreneurs and workers must still run on it and take off.
The Government should maintain sound institutions, open markets and clear rules. It must and should always reduce avoidable friction, reduce volatilities in policies, connect businesses to knowledge and markets, and share selected risks where there is wider economic benefit.
And I was taught by a very famous accountant during that period. In Singapore, we have knowledge, but know-how, better. So, knowledge is good, know-how is better. But when you go overseas, know-who is the best.
So, the Government cannot find the customers for us. It cannot build the business team, it cannot make commercial decisions or persevere on the entrepreneur's behalf. Government support should be a springboard for enterprise. It cannot be the business model.
But that does not mean leaving entrepreneurs and SMEs to fend for themselves. Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling has set out comprehensively how we help enterprises manage immediate pressures, adopt technology, strengthen operations and venture overseas. These schemes are aimed at helping viable firms become more productive, more competitive and more resilient.
To be clear, not every idea or startup will bear fruit. However, this does not mean that these assistance schemes are futile or that the entrepreneur has failed. Every closure can instead mean avoiding years of opportunity costs. The efforts, capital and time saved can then be re-channelled to other more promising ideas or opportunities.
If you talk to enough successful entrepreneurs, where they eventually arrive – the destination, the final destination – often differs from where they intended to go at the start. But that is the resilience, the tenacity and the perseverance of an entrepreneur.
Some of you are old enough, alongside with me, to remember the series \"Rocky\". Mr Pritam Singh is smiling. I presume he would have known who Rocky, the character is about. \"Rocky\" is like an entrepreneur. An entrepreneur, the exhortation is that, he is not someone who can throw the punches, but it is the person who can take the punches, get back up and keep moving forward. That is how entrepreneurs win.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has built a credible base for entrepreneurship. Singapore ranked fourth in StartupBlink's Global Startup Ecosystem Index 2025 – this has jumped, up from 16th position in 2020. Today, we have more than 4,500 tech startups, with around 220 incubators, accelerators and venture builders, and more than 500 venture capital firms.
Our ambition cannot be measured only by how many companies are formed. It has to be measured by how many good ideas become viable businesses, how many viable businesses can scale, and how many anchor capabilities, intellectual property and good jobs in Singapore.
Entrepreneurs must cross several difficult gaps. I want to say that this is not exhaustive, but generally, the entire journey involves five difficult crossings: from aspiration to the first venture; from an idea or research breakthrough to innovation and enterprise; from a product or service to a first customer; from early traction to sustained scale; and from a strong base in Singapore to markets around the world.
Government policy can undoubtedly help at each stage, but what it cannot do is make the journey risk-free.
Let me explain. The first gap is between aspiration and the first venture. To address this, Startup SG Founder provides startup capital to first-time entrepreneurs, alongside mentorship and communities to help founders learn, build the confidence, and navigate different stages of growth. Dedicated spaces such as LaunchPad@one-north give founders a place to collaborate, learn from one another, meet investors, develop the know-who, the networks – and develop their ideas.
The aim is not to make everyone an entrepreneur. It is to give serious ideas a fair chance to be tested.
The second gap is between research and something that creates value in the market. Many of tomorrow's founders may not begin in a clinic, in a shop or office, but in a laboratory. Their initial asset may be a scientific discovery, a medical device, a new material, software or intellectual property developed through years of research.
As a medical doctor, I know that a good scientific result is not yet a treatment. A promising prototype is not yet a product. And a good product is not yet a sustainable company. Research creates knowledge. Innovation applies it. Entrepreneurship takes it to market. Scale allows it to create wider economic and social impact.
Our long-term investments in the research, innovation and enterprise, RIE space are producing results. Government spending has catalysed greater private sector R&D. Industry R&D employment has grown to over 30,000, with locals filling more than 70% of these roles. Over the past five years, technologies from A*STAR and our universities have spun off more than 300 companies.
But creating knowledge is only part of the journey. The harder task is how do we translate research into products, into businesses and economic value. We are strengthening this translation in several ways.
Through the Technology for Enterprise Capability Upgrading (T-UP) programme, A*STAR research scientists and engineers can be seconded to support local SMEs' R&D projects for up to two years. We have also established translational platforms that bridge research and commercialisation. Through platforms such as MedTech Catapult and our semiconductor innovation facilities, companies can prototype, they can test, they can commercialise new technologies without bearing the full cost themselves.
Translation also takes place when our public researchers work with leading global companies and local suppliers.
The Smart Manufacturing Joint Lab, which is established by Rolls-Royce, Singapore Aero Engine Services (SAESL) and A*STAR, is one example. The collaboration has developed new technologies that improve fan blade manufacturing and aircraft engine maintenance, repair and overhaul. It has also enabled local SMEs to qualify as suppliers to global aerospace companies.
This is how we anchor investments deeply in Singapore. We do not simply host production. We connect global companies with our researchers and our local suppliers. That is how knowledge is translated into industrial capability and local companies gain pathways into global supply chains.
Under RIE2030, we have upped the ambition, we will strengthen these connections even further. We will commit $37 billion over the next five years, supporting both fundamental research and stronger translation in areas such as semiconductors, transport, healthy longevity and decarbonisation.
Our objective is to ensure that more research becomes useful technology; more useful technology becomes commercial capability; and more capability becomes enterprises, jobs and value anchored in Singapore.
Not every programme will produce a breakthrough. Earlier on, Dr Neo Kok Beng and Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh both argued that innovation and entrepreneurship require room for risk-taking and responsible failure. I am a custodian; we are all custodians of our Budgets. I am not sure whether I can go to that extent of his support in terms of risk-taking and failure.
But we will work within a responsible means of making sure that successes can be sustained. So, we will fund only ideas whose outcomes are already more certain. But we also cannot afford to only fund those outcomes that are already certain – because if we just do that alone, we will miss many of the breakthroughs that could define the future.
This risk-taking, therefore, must be and will be matched by discipline. The Government must invest in areas where Singapore can build meaningful advantages. We call this our right to play.
Researchers must remain rigorous. Our investors must exercise commercial judgement. And entrepreneurs must solve problems that customers are willing to pay for because even the best technology cannot be scaled unless someone is prepared to use it and pay for it.
This brings me to the third gap – how do we bring the product to the first customer. Mr Ng Shi Xuan highlighted why a first customer matters. It allows a company to test and demonstrate its solution, build a track record and show that it can meet demanding standards, making it easier to win the next customer or investor. That was true when I started at Healthway. And it remains true for startups today.
This is why EDB and Enterprise Singapore work to connect MNCs with local startups and SMEs through PACT. I will not go through that because Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling already expounded on it earlier on.
Our public sector can also be an early customer. Under the Innovative Procurement Partnership, startups can participate in tenders and propose innovative solutions for pilot testing. If a trial is successful, agencies have the option to continue working with the same firm to scale and deploy the solution.
This is the wider ecosystem we are trying to build: established companies, startups, research institutions and the public sector all coming and working together; and firms gaining the chance to prove themselves; and good solutions moving more quickly from pilot to scale.
The fourth gap is from early traction to sustained scale. This is where many promising firms struggle.
Different stages require different forms of capital: modest funding for a first venture; patient equity for deep-tech development; venture debt or private credit for growth; and then, public markets and credible exits for mature companies. So, the entire financing journey as I have just shared, we have therefore strengthened all that support.
We have topped up $1 billion to Startup SG Equity, and this will catalyse private investment in early- and growth-stage deep-tech companies. The ESR also recommends developing venture debt and private credit alongside venture capital. For mature companies, the Equities Market Review and a second $1.5 billion tranche of the Anchor Fund will support stronger public markets and higher-quality listings.
All these successful exits, they recycle capital, expertise and confidence, and trust, and reputation into new ventures. But let us not just focus on finance alone. Because finance alone does not build great companies. Public capital should crowd in commercial capital and expertise, not replace them. The risk must still be properly understood and borne. Governments cannot and do not create champions just by simply writing larger cheques.
Firms also need experienced leadership, specialised talent, sound governance and the ability to manage a much larger business. And Enterprise Singapore’s Scale-Up programme addresses this wider capability challenge. Eighty companies in its first seven cohorts generated a combined $2.5 billion in additional revenue within three years; and $1 billion came from overseas expansion.
This is the journey we must strengthen: from the courage to start, to the capability to innovate; from a first customer, to the financing and leadership needed to scale; and eventually to markets much, much larger than our own.
Healthy domestic demand matters because it reflects confidence, it supports domestic-facing businesses and it gives firms a first market to test products and build brands.
My second foray after divesting Healthway was joining and building the hospital business under Parkway. Parkway Holdings itself began in Singapore as a Singapore company. It owned, at that time, the three hospitals named Gleneagles, Mount Elizabeth Hospital and East Shore Hospital.
But Singapore’s domestic market alone cannot provide the scale required for ambitious firms or advanced industries. It is a good platform to build your credibility, to build trust, to build your reputation, to establish a viable proof of concept, build that trusted brand and operating model; then, leveraging it as a platform, a springboard to expand into the region and eventually, globally.
Internationalisation is hard. Let me tell you it is hard, it is very difficult. And I believe it is getting even harder. A company entering another market must understand different customers, regulations, cultures and partners. A more fragmented world that we live in today makes diversification and good in-market support even more important. As Mr Azhar Othman said, Singapore must remain a bridge of trade and not become a barrier to it.
The answer is not to withdraw into our domestic market. It is to do more to help Singapore firms enter more markets, find credible partners and compete more effectively. So, we are strengthening these practical pathways.
Since its inception, we have put up the Global Innovation Alliance (GIA). It has supported close to 1,200 companies to enter new markets and co-innovate with overseas partners. More than 240 startups have achieved commercial or funding traction abroad.
And we will, under GIA2030, launch programmes to help firms test product-market fit and find even earlier customers.
Not every Singapore business can or must become global. A neighbourhood service provider or heritage restaurant that serves the local community plays an equally important role in our society. They create jobs. They directly meet the needs of Singapore and Singaporeans. But for companies that aspire to become regional or global champions, they cannot be confined by the size of our home market. We want to help them grow abroad. But we want the headquarters, the strategic decisions, the R&D, the brains of the company, the intellectual property, the finance, the product management, the regional leadership, the good jobs anchored here. And that has always been what we worked towards.
So, to put simply, we help firms go abroad to grow. But as they grow, the stronger capabilities and opportunities will continue to be anchored firmly in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, most Singaporeans will experience the economy most directly through work. Not everyone will start a company. That does not make their stake in Singapore's success any less direct or lasting. A good job provides income today. But it should also enable a person to build skills, experience and confidence over time.
I have considered this consistently as a doctor, entrepreneur, employer and when I was Manpower Minister, and of course, today, I consider it even more.
As an employer, I learnt that an organisation can grow sustainably only if its people can grow alongside with it. A company that introduces technology without redesigning work and without developing its people will create anxiety and limit ultimately its own capabilities. I have come to realise very early on that at the end of the day, we are all in the business of developing, growing and maximising our human capital.
As Manpower Minister, I met workers for whom disruption was not abstract. A job loss raises fears about income; whether years of experience still count; whether one is too old to begin again; and whether the next job will use one’s experience and abilities.
These concerns are real. We should not answer them merely by pointing to aggregate statistics or the number of courses available. A course completed is not yet a successful transition. Dr Wan Rizal put it well: effort without direction creates frustration; effort with direction builds confidence. And Assoc Prof Terence Ho added that the gains from training and reskilling will not be fully realised until workers have opportunities to apply what they have learnt at work.
So, support will therefore have to begin earlier and connect to real opportunities.
The ESR proposes “career bridges” linking workers in at-risk roles to more resilient occupations through training, guidance and job matching. The new SWDA will integrate these services.
Employers must treat workforce transformation – redesigning jobs, training workers and translating productivity gains – into better work and progression.
Workers, on the other hand, must take ownership too. The Government can make training accessible, employers can create opportunities and unions, the Labour Movement's brothers and sister, can support workers. But no institution can learn on a person’s behalf.
I had to keep learning as the organisations I led became more and more complex. Singaporeans will increasingly have to do the same – deepening expertise, moving into hybrid roles that combine AI with sector knowledge, making mid-career transitions or becoming entrepreneurs later in life.
Entrepreneurship is not confined to the young. Mr Morris Chang founded TSMC, one of the world's most successful semiconductor companies, at age 55, after 25 years at Texas Instruments. This shows how accumulated knowledge and judgement can underpin reinvention later in life.
Our careers will become less linear. But they need not become less meaningful.
Financial support during unemployment or retraining gives individuals and families breathing space. But it must be connected to a pathway forward. Our objective must be to help each person return confidently to sustainable work – not merely to make unemployment more bearable.
We will not be able to promise that every job will remain unchanged – I do not think we can or should we even try to do that – hold back technology merely to freeze roles in place. But what we will do, what we promise to do and what we will endeavour and give our best efforts to do is to help every single worker prepare earlier, acquire relevant capabilities, find credible next steps and navigate change without being left alone. Because every worker matters. [Applause.]
That is how a worker obtains a lasting share of economic success. Not only through compensation after disruption, but through the enduring ability to contribute, earn, adapt and progress.
Mr Speaker, let me just return to Mr Kenneth Tiong’s question – how does an ordinary Singaporean get a lasting share of our country’s success?
When a young Singaporean turns a scientific idea into a company. When a local firm wins its first major customer and enters a global value chain. When a technician progresses into a higher-skilled role. When a displaced PMET can build on years of experience rather than start from zero. When a Singapore enterprise grows abroad while strengthening its R&D and leadership functions here. When a Singaporean in a global company develops the capabilities and networks to lead across the region – or even later starts a venture of his or her own. And when someone who suffers a business or career setback can recover, learn, try and succeed again. That is a lasting share. It is not only a transfer received after value has been created. It is the opportunity to take part in crafting, in creating, in shaping and sustaining that value. And that is how Singaporeans can win. That is how winning is done.
The amended Motion, Mr Speaker, captures the full combination that Singapore needs: an equal and inclusive economy with opportunities for entrepreneurs, households, businesses and workers, and ideas and innovation to flourish; and an economy powered by dynamic local companies and global enterprises, healthy domestic and external demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad.
All of these are mutually reinforcing parts of one united economic strategy.
There is a famous Chinese saying that says: \"tian shi di li ren he\" (天时地利人和) – right timing and opportunity, right place, right people. These are the elements often cited as requirements for success.
The Government will play its part: maintaining a trusted, open economy; investing for the long term; addressing genuine capability, financing and market-access gaps; and helping workers prepare for change. This is \"di li\" (地利). (In English): Right place.
Others have to play their parts. Businesses must transform. They must invest in people; workers must keep learning; investors take informed risks; and entrepreneurs build, compete, persevere and accept the responsibility. That is \"ren he\" (人和). (In English): Right people.
We cannot guarantee that every venture will succeed, every job will remain the same or every transition will be painless. That in itself is \"tian shi\" (天时) (In English): Right timing and opportunity.
Because we cannot provide the timing and the opportunity, that is the most crucial part that the entrepreneur and the business founder would have to decide. But what we can always do is to ensure that Singapore remains a place where every person has a fair chance to try, a pathway to progress and the support to recover from setbacks.
Our beloved Singapore's success has never been guaranteed. Every generation had to build it by staying open, learning faster, taking calculated risks and pulling together when circumstances become difficult. The next chapter will demand that same spirit. The economy of the future will not be powered by one type of company, one source of demand or one Government programme. It will be powered by all fellow Singaporeans who can build, lead, own, innovate, adapt and grow.
That is how we secure the best future for Singapore. And that is how we will ensure that Singapore's future economy truly works for all Singaporeans.
With that Mr Speaker, I support the amendments and the Motion as amended. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Minister Dr Tan, you took a road less travelled and you have certainly come a long way. On a lighter note, we both come from the same era and, like you, I, too, enjoyed watching Sylvester Stallone and must admit I watched the movie Rocky quite a few times.
I would now like to call on Mr Tiong — Oh, sorry, there is a clarification? Mr Azhar Othman.
Mr Azhar Othman: Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his sharing of experience. In the context of just sharing mine as well in doing business, we know it is very difficult, but the reward is very sweet.
My point of clarification is this: we compete in a global scale now. What we compete before, purely on company to company; and now we compete against China, against US, against everybody. And my point is that in the context of Singapore's unique strategy, the competition can be made easier with the help of what our company has grown.
We have the support of Enterprise Singapore, SBF, we have the support of MTI and so forth.
And I just want to clarify that I hope this support continues and hope this support strengthens even further because this is the unique story of Singapore. How our company grows, not through the competition of what others sees from their government as a restriction, but we see our Government as a conduit to help fellow entrepreneurs, fellow companies to grow globally, irrespective of any country that we are going to go to.
Mr Speaker: Minister Dr Tan, would you like to respond?
Dr Tan See Leng: We certainly will do our best to support all of our Singapore homegrown enterprise. In fact, if you look at the renaming and the most recent Cabinet reshuffling, the Ministry of Trade and Industry will be renamed as Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry with effect from 1 October 2026.
Our Prime Minister is enlightened, he has seen how potentially all of the disruptions, the expanse of the opportunities that are available. And therefore, given the size and the scope of what we all have to do, Deputy Prime Minister Gan in his experience, overseeing trade and the macroeconomic strategy; and I will look at energy and industry, and I will actively engage the trade associations and chambers. We do not have the monopoly of knowledge or information. We will look to as many expert guidance and also invite possible openings for us to see how we can better support our Singaporean enterprises and our fellow Singaporeans. But of course, with one main outcome – and that is they have to anchor themselves here in our beloved homeland.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Speaker, I thank every Member who spoke on both sides of this House.
We filed this Motion to provide answers to the economic worries top-of-mind for every Singaporean: whether there is a job and whether it lasts; whether the young person who has done everything asked of them can find work that goes somewhere; whether a flat is within reach; whether a small shop can survive its rent; whether the course a worker is sent on leads to a job; whether the growth we announced is felt in a wage; whether a Singaporean who wants to build something can afford to do it in spite of the high cost structure here. It is our structured view across the factors of production, land, labour, capital, productivity.
In this Motion, we have addressed nine of those questions and answered them systematically. I will recap them again.
First, how do we foster a dynamic innovation ecosystem that can overcome and maximise value in spite of high business cost and physical constraints?
I proposed a special zone around NTU, where state land is charged at development cost rather than market scarcity value. Take a different tack from the lack of flexibility, once shown to NUS and the One-North area. A zone authority that is able to make fast decisions on visas, space and procurement within weeks, with its own investment body to provide growth capital and take equity stakes in emerging enterprises. It is an investment in our young and Singapore's future.
I thank Mr Azhar Othman, who asked for wider R&D tax incentives and industry academia co-funding pools.
I thank Dr Neo Kok Beng for his observation of how A*STAR and our universities are still not adequately integrated with our SMEs and his suggestion to encourage lab sharing during off hours. While we agree with his call for high-failure, high-impact state funding, we believe such public R&D spending must be paired with sovereign return mechanisms.
And I thank Mr Ng Shi Xuan for his relaying of the \"5Cs\" approach to the startup lifecycle.
I thank the Minister Jeffrey Siow for making my point on land pricing. Fair market value is already a function of the interest granted and not a number attached to a plot. So, our state land and our rental policies should exercise maximum flexibility for our young and our young companies. Wherever land is priced, market scarcity value remains the default benchmark. We propose one zone where the benchmark is developmental cost and not scarcity and welcome what we perceive to be the Minister's posture of being more flexible.
Second, dynamic local firms. How can we create a business climate where dynamic local firms can emerge as drivers of innovation and become future cornerstones of the economy?
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, proposed turning the machinery from push to pull. Support offered to firms automatically – grants paid upfront, rather than on reimbursement, because small firms' binding constraint is cash and time, and not the existence of a scheme. He proposed widening qualifying research spending and seconding experts into SMEs, because domestic enterprises carry one dollar in five of this economy's business research spending, and that gap does not close by a company deciding to try harder. And he proposed tying Catalist listing to state co-investment because the capital that is missing is pre-initial public offering.
I thank Mr Mark Lee, who mentioned his belief that the bridge between headline growth and lived business reality is a tripartite process. We appreciate his support for our core aspirations of a more inclusive economy.
I thank Mr Edward Chia, who advanced his belief that the existing toolkit was the answer. Progressive wages, Workfare, SkillsFuture, Forward Singapore. We agree at least on the vital goal of building a vibrant local ecosystem.
I thank Mr Azhar Othman for his speech. We share his concern for the ground pressures facing micro businesses, particularly rising rents and labour costs that mid-career workers face today.
I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat, who asked us to move beyond identifying these challenges to naming concrete policy choices. We gently note that we have already laid out these specific choices, including our positions on labour, rent and structural support throughout our speeches on this debate. Indeed, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether our transmission mechanisms are strong enough to reach smaller firms and did not really answer his own question. So, if I may just ask him, what policy choices of transmission mechanisms to create upward convergence of smaller firms should we make?
Third, the roof over the household. How do we shed our rentier mindset by assuring that attractive affordable housing is available for every Singaporean household?
Mr Louis Chua proposed that land revenue maximisation stops being the primary aim of land policy. Because rent is not just one cost, it is already inside all of the others. He proposed concept and price tenders as the default for strategic sites, because a system where the highest bidder wins, the reserve price is unpublished and unawarded sites simply can wait, can only ratchet upward. And he proposed an \"HDB model for compute\", because we take some $20 billion a year in land sales and set aside only about $150 million for a one-year compute programme.
Fourth, the start of a working life. How do we ensure our tertiary students and young workers find meaningful opportunities and good jobs in a challenging economy?
Mr Andre Low proposed a Fair Start Promise, a national commitment to work towards a simple goal that young Singaporeans under 30, making the transition from education or NS into working life will get a fair start through stable employment or a proper paid career-building pathway. He proposed to make entry-level hiring genuinely skills-based using verified skills evidence and practical assessments to match capable beginners to existing labour market demand.
He also advocated expanding the supply of properly paid apprenticeships, creating a national market, coordinating employers and shared training capacity, especially for SMEs with paid employment, CPF, structured learning and portable competence. He proposed creating genuinely net new job opportunities via the use of targeted temporary risk-sharing arrangements and giving appropriate credit in suitable Government tenders for additional employee jobs and apprenticeships.
Minister of State Dinesh broadly agreed with Mr Andre Low's proposals and acknowledged that he shared our aspiration of giving every young Singaporean a fair start. In particular, he agreed on the importance of expanding and strengthening work-based pathways, including apprenticeships.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh suggested a one-time course correction allowance, so, a first-year university course transfer does not depend on family means. He suggested one or two subsidised semesters could be disregarded. I thank him for championing the very inclusivity our Motion seeks to entrench for all Singaporeans.
Fifth, pathways to a middle-class livelihood. How can we create accessible pathways for tradespersons to earn a decent middle-class livelihood?
Mr Gerald Giam proposed a practitioner-led guild, with chambers grown out of the trade societies we already have, because an employer federation cannot impartially certify a worker's competence against his own members' interest in keeping him. He proposed task-specific endorsements on a digital skills ledger, verified by practical assessment and he proposed licensing built into ITE curricula with an independent panel, an apprentice can appeal to.
We thank Assoc Prof Terence Ho for his valuable insights on the Career and Skills Passport and the importance of valuing workplace learning, acknowledging the gaps requiring enhancement to truly promote skills-first hiring as my colleague Mr Andre Low pointed out.
Sixth, displacement and re-entry. Does our system of continuing education actually work? The journey, the destination and the proof.
Mr Fadli Fawzi proposed a universal redundancy insurance scheme, employer and employee together combining one-tenth of 1% of monthly salary, paying 40% of last drawn pay, capped at 40% of median, up to six months, with no application to make, because a worker who must apply and may be refused cannot plan.
We thank Minister of State Dinesh for mentioning that our positions are not very far. We hope this means that we will soon have universal redundancy support for all workers rather than just the Jobseeker Support Scheme for the 60%.
Mr Fadli also proposed mandatory retrenchment benefits because they are discretionary today and can lawfully be zero and a worker who has given years of service should not depend on goodwill. He proposed interest free postgraduate loans, CPF for Master's programmes and outcomes published by course and by provider because deep reskilling is where the money runs out and we need to know which courses work.
Mr Azhar Othman asked for stronger monthly income support during retraining. We agree with the principle. We also could not agree more with Dr Wan Rizal when he says that effort without direction builds frustration. We need to give more direction to our people.
Seventh, the worker who is let go. What does the Singaporean worker actually receive when the retrenchment comes?
Our Party Leader Mr Pritam Singh asked what a retrenched worker in Singapore is entitled to and answered it. As a matter of law, currently, there is nothing. He proposed legislating a statutory floor for retrenchment benefits at a tripartite norm of two weeks' salary for each year of service. He also proposed subsidiary legislation directing higher payouts for larger firms, up to the union norm of a month's salary a year and he proposed doing it now because the Courts have confirmed a gap.
This year, the Employment Claims Tribunals held that section 45 of the Employment Act creates no entitlement, and the tripartite guidelines create no legal basis, for one. Every developed economy around us – China, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines – legislates for this, but we do not.
We thank Mr Patrick Tay for his valuable contribution to the debate. We find shared ground in our conviction that workers must never be treated as collateral damage during economic transitions and that we must proactively protect our PMEs from the displacement risk of AI. However, we respectfully frame our Motion as providing some of the legal force for the very protections NTUC has long lobbied for. So, we invite the Labour Movement to support legislative mandates for retrenchment benefits.
Eighth, what our accounts do not count. What parts of our economy do our national statistics fail to capture.
Ms He Ting Ru proposed a formalised wage ladder for care work, because a registered nurse, a social worker and a preschool teacher all earn below the national median in the very sectors that the ESR calls resilient. A wage floor was not built currently to reach them. She proposed compensation for family caregivers, expanded respite care and regular official time use studies, because informal caregiving for seniors was valued at $1.28 billion a year and appears in no national account. We have not measured what it costs to the people who provide it. She proposed an environmental dashboard tracking the environmental outcomes of our policies.
Ninth, venturing abroad. How do we empower Singaporeans to seize the opportunities in the region and abroad?
Ms Eileen Chong proposed funding the OMIP to the person rather than through the employer on the French model, where a state agency holds the contract, because tying a placement to a sponsoring employer's growth plan caps it at that employer's ambition. She proposed scaling the places rather than only widening the gate, because the SG Youth Plan drops the two-year eligibility rule without committing to send anyone more.
And she proposed publishing outcomes at two years and at five because the 2018 scheme came with targets and no published outcome, and we still do not know whether going out pays you when you come home. She proposed tearing down the walls on coming home, around BTO queues, CPF and schooling re-entry for children.
We thank Mr Azhar Othman, who made policy suggestions for warehousing abroad, deal-making officers and tax incentives for reinvesting overseas profits back into R&D and capacity building.
I would like to address some points raised in relation to the WP's policies.
Ms Mariam Jaafar said, create before you capture. The sentiment is real but the diagnosis is wrong. Capability is what makes ownership possible, rather than the other way around. If we make rebalancing the organising principle of our strategy, we may not end up with more of these companies, we may end up with fewer. Target ownership without capability and competitiveness and we do not own more of the pie, we own more of a smaller one.
Of course, we have to have capability. We do not disagree. But let us use the PSA example from her speech. PSA did not acquire terminals because it had a data advantage. It got the data advantage because it owned the terminals. Ownership came first and capability compounded from it. Ownership without capability is a dead end, but capability without ownership does not build resilience in a fracturing world. Our position is that both are necessary.
While we agree on the goal of building globally competitive Singaporean companies, we see ownership not as a premature target, but an essential next chapter. After 60 years of successfully creating values through MNCs, our Motion seeks to ensure that Singaporeans move through value creation to capturing and owning more of that value today.
I believe Minister of State Dinesh was making some suggestions that some people were saying that Singapore's economic model is failing. May I gently suggest that he may have misheard because I did not hear anyone making this point.
Minister Jeffrey Siow, I believe, mischaracterised our policies as saying we want to rely on the domestic market as a primary source. That is of course a non-starter to anyone who spends more than two seconds thinking about it. What we are saying is that domestic demand is necessary. We are not saying that domestic demand is sufficient.
I thank Minister Tan See Leng for making our point, about the domestic market being the platform for Parkway to enter foreign markets.
Onto the amendments. The hon Member Edward Chia moved four amendments.
On Amendment No 1, to delete \"notwithstanding\" and insert \"in line with\", the WP cannot accept this amendment. This amendment does not simply remove a word. It turns the sentence around. Our Motion says this House believes in these things. The amendment says these things will follow from adopting the review. Ours commits the House to ends, but this amendment commits it to a document. A standard that is stated separately can test any plan, the Government and ours.
Let me be clear what the word is set against – \"notwithstanding\". It is not the Review's recommendations. Many of the diagnoses we shared are set against the risks that one Government document comes to be treated as the whole of the House's thinking on the economy. \"Notwithstanding\" says only that our commitments are neither exhausted by that document nor derived from it.
That is how the word \"notwithstanding\" is used in our Constitution. Article 148A of the Constitution allows the President to assent to a Supply Bill, notwithstanding his opinion that it is likely to draw on past reserves. If he does, that opinion must be stated in writing to the Speaker and published in the Gazette.
So, the word \"notwithstanding\" does not overrule the President, it does not say his opinion is wrong, it just requires that the opinion be genuinely held, that it stands on the record and it does not settle the outcome. And that is three things at once. That is our use precisely. The ESR proceeds, our belief stands on the record, and neither one decides the other.
We have no issues accepting Amendment Nos 2 and No 4. We had some reservations accepting Amendment No 3. The reason is because it is not a matter of simply including \"global enterprises\" into the text of the Motion. Had the amendment been \"an economy powered by dynamic local enterprises supported by global enterprises\", we would have less of an issue with the change.
We are not choosing between being global and local. That is a false dichotomy. The WP believes categorically in an open economy. As my hon friend Jamus Lim has said, we are \"not calling for a wholesale overhaul of our GLC-heavy, MNC-led and foreign capital-reliant model.\"
We must acknowledge the long history of how our domestic firms have not felt sufficiently supported by the state in their effort to grow their companies and compete in their home economy and beyond. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If this model has succeeded historically in delivering for so many domestic firms, then why and wherefore the history of these concerns? I ask all Members and especially Members opposite to honestly reflect upon these questions.
At this point, it is worth underscoring, as my hon friend Assoc Prof Jamus Lim pointed out at the end of his speech, that we are not seeking to undermine the contribution of MNCs to our economy, nor to stem access to foreign capital. Rather, we are calling for an evolution of how dominant MNCs and GLCs have been in our economy and to re-orient it towards the younger local companies and SMEs as they are more inherently rooted and can be a source of disruptive innovation. To be clear, we are not pitting foreign versus local. Both are necessary. Suggesting otherwise is a false binary and it is a convenient strawman, but it is not an argument that we are making.
However, we will not nitpick on the semantics of Amendment No 3 and hence, will accept this amendment.
Back to Amendment No 1. Can the ESR carry the standing that is placed on it? There is much to like about the ESR. It is diligently put together, has consulted widely and it outlines real challenges. But it is incremental and it sits within a tradition of reports that say the same thing. This is not about the ESR in itself, this is about the whole continuity of reports since 2010.
The ESR is the fourth national economic blueprint since 2010. The 2010 Economic Strategies Committee, the 2017 Committee on the Future Economy, the 2021 Emerging Stronger Taskforce, and now this 2026 Review, with the same ambitions recurring in near identical language across all four: move up the value chain; grow homegrown champions; internationalise; reskill.
What is new in this report is AI. But that is a new exogenous factor that all countries must react to. Adding new chapters and footnotes to an existing playbook does not make a new playbook.
Have we arrived at those past reports' medium- to long-term targets or not? It is hard to tell with the decreasing level of tracking with each report.
The 2010 Economic Strategies Committee set two targets.
One on productivity – to \"achieve productivity growth of 2% to 3% per year over the next 10 years.\" This goal was met.
One on enterprises – \"We can raise this number significantly to reach 1,000 such enterprises over the next 10 years.\" Local companies with revenue over $100 million. This goal of 1,000 local companies with revenue over $100 million was not tracked after 2017, when the report recorded about 800 such companies. So, we do not know whether it was met.
The 2017 Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) set two targets.
One on growth – 2% to 3% per year – which was met. Again, a topline figure, necessary but insufficient by itself as a goal.
One on manufacturing – \"The CFE recommends building a globally competitive manufacturing sector at about 20% of GDP over the medium term\". This was not met. Manufacturing was 17.4% of GDP in 2016 and remains 17.4% in 2025.
From the 2021 Emerging Stronger Taskforce, I could find no macroeconomic targets at all. A pivot away from target setting altogether.
And in this 2026 ESR, the only target-shaped sentence, appearing twice, reads: \"we should set an ambitious target to significantly increase the number of Singapore headquartered companies with more than $1 billion in revenue\".
In 2010, the target was 1,000 local companies by 2020. In 2026, it is a recommendation that a target be set, and the companies counted have shifted from local to Singapore headquartered.
This strikes me as a government that maybe has become a little bit averse to being measured.
In May 2017, MTI wrote that every Industry Transformation Map has \"tangible indicators and targets to measure the effectiveness of its strategies\". In July 2024, its own retrospective told readers that sector outcomes should not be compared against these initial projections.
Targets are watered down to projections, goals into aspirations. We are getting a bit familiar with this. The food policy \"30 by 30\" was dropped last November for narrower targets, five years later. An unambiguous goal became a bit more of a challenging aspiration.
I have not understood from this Government what is the next level of economic target detailed beyond topline growth targets, such as the type of growth or its distribution that it will hold itself to. The Government wants us to know it will react swiftly once the monitoring alarms are triggered. The Review says so itself: on AI and workers, it recommends monitoring the impact closely and adjusting policies when needed.
Mr Speaker, reacting swiftly is the basic expectation of any government. What matters far more is which structural and falsifiable targets it will set itself between now and 2030. After all, what is the vision and what would tell us whether we had reached it?
Here is what we would hold ourselves accountable to beyond top-line growth: the indigenous share of national income rising, real wages in line with productivity growth and a widening range of what an ordinary wage can afford.
I have read the Review and in my view, it is short of report cards and targets. Nor has a consolidated report card for any of the four blueprints been published.
Our Party Leader, Mr Pritam Singh, asked for one in February. Separate the rhetoric about promises kept, from measurable outcomes. Untracked, consistency is indistinguishable from repetition. Surely, in spite of the uncertainties, there are macroeconomic targets beyond top-line growth that we can commit to.
So, let me put the question plainly. A Member who supports the Review because he wants a more equal and inclusive economy and an engine driven by dynamic local companies already believes (a) and (b). These are the ends the Review is meant to serve. Voting for the Motion says that and nothing more. It does not criticise the Review and binds no one to our proposals.
Our Motion asks this House to commit to principles, the amendments ask it to commit to one set of operational plans. So, I would like to ask Members of the House, especially Members opposite, to let the word stand and accept the Motion as originally worded.
Sir, in closing, we want to show Singaporeans a future, in which they see themselves thriving in a global environment that is increasingly challenging. Singaporeans deserve a country that is prepared to try what is necessary to give them that strongest shot of success.
Our Motion is thus written: opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment because the ground and the capital to try are priced for incumbents; households and businesses to succeed because high land prices working their way through the economy make it structurally challenging; workers to thrive because the ladder above the wage floor must work; and for the wider swath of society, workers need room to experiment, pathways to succeed and a financial cushion to recover or pivot if retrenched; ideas and innovation to flourish because we need our R&D spending to lead to meaningful commercial outcomes; and an economic engine driven by dynamic local companies, healthy domestic demand and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad because Singaporeans need to understand that there is a system that encourages their economic flourishing and their dreams of tomorrow.
Singaporeans do not lack drive, ambition or imagination. What we need is to be further empowered and supported to achieve our next successes in a different global context. We will leave no stone unturned in trying to better secure Singaporeans in uncertain times.
Mr Speaker, I thank this House for debating the future structural direction of our economy and I commend the Motion as originally worded to this House. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications? Minister Siow.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Mr Kenneth Tiong for clarifying that the WP supports three of the four amendments that were proposed by Mr Edward Chia. I am very grateful that he has clarified that he and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim support the idea that we are not in a zero-sum situation, that we are not arguing for a zero-sum pivot; both SMEs and global companies are important, and that a comprehensive economic strategy must have both.
So, that accounts for three of the four amendments. We regret that we are not able to achieve consensus on the amended Motion today, that the disagreement has founded on the term \"notwithstanding\", as opposed to what we are proposing, which is in line with the ESR.
The ESR, relative to what the WP has proposed, I see a lot of commonality, although Mr Tiong has characterised it as incremental. Actually, in today's speeches, I have also not heard a \"great big idea\" that would replace the ESR. In fact, I see very much as the WP building on what the ESR has recommended. In fact, I think that Mr Tiong himself, I think during a press briefing, said that they were filling the gaps of what the ESR has set out.
So, without a replacement or a big idea for us to be able to put side by side, I venture to say that a lot of what we discussed today are towards the same goals, moving towards the same objectives, perhaps differences in the details, differences in some of the parameters – but we are all trying to achieve the same thing.
Most importantly, we are in a very difficult world, a world where external competition has become stiffer. I think it is better for us to see if we can look for areas of commonality, areas where we are aligned, areas where this House can present a common front to Singaporeans. Better for us to be able to push together, rather than look for differences that perhaps do not exist and find a wedge to drive into gaps where we do not see.
So, on this note, I would really lament that it is not possible for us to achieve common ground today. I hope the WP, at a future situation, can reconsider whether or not to try to come together and support what I think is a comprehensive, complete and forward-looking economic strategy that will serve Singapore and Singaporeans well into the future.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong, would you like to respond? It is alright? Anyone else have clarifications? Minister of State Dinesh.
Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash: Mr Speaker, I would just like to clarify, on record, the point that was made by Mr Tiong on the Jobseeker Support Scheme and unemployment insurance. What I said was that our outcomes might be the same and that workers should be protected, supported, especially when they go through an exercise of retrenchment. But I did not say about the fact that the insurance is the only way forward. It is really about the design, the funding approach, which may not be the same. What I also said was that our approach was always to support re-employment and not only unemployment.
So, I just wanted to state that clarification on that over-simplification of what I have highlighted.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong, would you like to respond? Or is it alright? Okay. Any other clarifications? Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar: Sir, I would like to make a clarification regarding Mr Tiong's comment on my PSA anecdote, which he says suggests that ownership actually comes before capability.
Let us look at the sequence. PSA was, for years, a domestic operator. It built world-class port operating capabilities and then, it used that capability to go out and acquire other ports. It did not set out a target from the beginning, to say \"I want to own for ports in 45 countries\". It built the capability first and then, it went out.
Then, he referenced the data advantage. The data advantage does not just come from ownership. The data advantage comes from the capability in digital technology, AI and automation, without which, you do not have competitive advantage.
So, I stand by my statement that in this case, capability came and ownership followed. But actually I do not want to belabour the sequence, as much as was in my speech. Probably, capability and ownership are mutually reinforcing. As we always say we want both. But if I had to choose any day, what is going to make a company globally successful, it is capability. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong, would you like to respond? No? Alright. Any other clarifications? Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank hon Member Kenneth Tiong for agreeing with me that tripartite and public-private partnerships remain important. And because this is an important issue, when we talk about retrenchment benefits and making it mandatory, the views of businesses should be taken into consideration. And I believe that some clarifications are needed to some of the points and proposals that has been put forth by the WP.
First, companies retrench under very different circumstances. The current norm actually ranges between two weeks and one month salary per year of service, but the Member has proposed at least one month for larger companies. This is a significant increase. And for those they are facing serious cash flow issues, if such payments are mandatory, would the Member not agree that this push might weaken firms into deeper distress and potentially putting remaining jobs at risk?
Second, would higher retrenchment cost make employers more cautious about hiring permanent staff? Could companies rely more on short-term contracts or outsourcing, or in the worst case, hire fewer people, particularly inexperienced workers and career switchers who require longer training runway?
Third, if we legislate a minimum, what assurance is there that outcomes could improve? Could the statutory minimum instead become the standard, with firms that are currently paying more choosing to pay only the prescribed amount, leaving less room for negotiation, even in unionised companies?
So, for the above clarifications mentioned, is legislation necessarily the best solution? And I hope that the WP would hear from businesses on the ground. Because ultimately, the best security for a retrenched worker is not only a payout, but the ability to find the next good job.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong? Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe the comments by hon Member Mr Mark Lee were directed at my speech. The three issues that he highlighted, in terms of what difficulties businesses could have, I think I was conciliatory enough in my speech to say that businesses will have their challenges, I accept that.
I do not think it is a question of not taking them into account. The issue here is the workers and the scenario painted by the ESR of the world they are coming into, of the Singapore they are coming into. We will have our different points of view.
The three questions, the three particular points he raised were the same points that I believe then-Senior Minister of State Mr Koh Poh Koon raised when we had an exchange at this table. I responded to all three of them in my speech, so I would invite the hon Member to consider how I responded, vis-à-vis those three points that both he and the then-Senior Minister of State Koh had raised earlier. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong? No? Alright. Any other clarifications for Mr Tiong?
We have now come to the conclusion of the debate and I shall put forth the questions to the House for a decision. We have four amendments proposed by Mr Edward Chia. We will deal with the amendments first.
Amendment No 1 is, \"In line 1, to delete 'not withstanding' and insert 'in line with'.\" The Question is, “That Amendment No 1 be made”. Those who agree, say \"Aye\".
Hon Members: Aye.
Mr Speaker: Those who disagree, say \"No\".
Some hon Members: No.
Mr Speaker: I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. Yes, Mr Singh, would you like your dissent to be recorded?
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Sir, the WP would like to record their dissent on the first —
Mr Speaker: If I may, those who would like their dissent to be recorded, could you please rise?
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong and Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat rose for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Alright. You may sit. Thank you.
[(proc text) Question, \"That Amendment No 1 be made\", agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Amendment No 2 is, \"In line 5, to delete 'economic engine driven' and insert 'economy powered'.\"
[(proc text) Question, \"That Amendment No 2 be made\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Amendment No 3, \"In line 5, after the words 'local companies', to insert 'global enterprises,'.\"
[(proc text) Question, \"That Amendment No 3 be made\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Amendment No 4, \"In line 5, after the words 'healthy domestic', to insert 'and external'.\"
[(proc text) Question is, \"That Amendment No 4 be made\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The amendments have been agreed to. The Original Motion as amended is now before the House.
The question is, \"That this House, in line with the suggestions in the Economic Strategy Review on the future Singapore economy, believes: (a) in a more equal and inclusive economy, with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive, and ideas and innovation to flourish; and (b) in an economy powered by dynamic local companies, global enterprises, healthy domestic and external demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad.\"
Those who agree say \"Aye\".
Hon Members: Aye.
Mr Speaker: Those who disagree say \"No\".
Some hon Members: No.
Mr Speaker: I think the \"Ayes\" have it. Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, the WP Members of Parliament wish to record our dissent. I would appreciate if you record it.
Mr Speaker: Could I ask who wish their dissent to be recorded, to please rise again.
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong and Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat rose for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: You may sit, thank you. The Ayes have it.
[(proc text) Original Motion, as amended, agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this House, in line with the suggestions in the Economic Strategy Review on the future Singapore economy, believes: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) in a more equal and inclusive economy, with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive, and ideas and innovation to flourish; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) in an economy powered by dynamic local companies, global enterprises, healthy domestic and external demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: 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 at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Structuring Singapore for Flourishing Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, recently, I have been going around asking every couple I meet a question, \"What would encourage you to have one more child?\" Those who are parents smile knowingly. Then, some reply, \"Nothing. Nothing would make me consider having one more child.\"
The Government has tried many financial incentives, but what we need is something money cannot buy – time.
Over the weekend, I visited residents and one had a doormat which read \"Tired Adults Club\". I jokingly said that I am from the same club. I think many of us here are also from the same club. But the more I thought about it, the less funny it seemed. Young Singaporeans have little breathing space to socialise, to build a community, to find life partners. How will they have babies?
Young couples try the Build-To-Order (BTO) again and again to no avail. Mothers are regarded as risky hires because maternity leave is seen by some employers as a problem to be managed, rather than a milestone to be supported. Infant care waitlists are measured in months, not weeks, and children are too often tolerated rather treasured, seen as noise in public places, inconveniences to career progression and financial burdens rather than the precious gift they are.
We have built world-class infrastructure for economic productivity and ingrained in ourselves a hardworking work culture. But we may not have built the equivalent infrastructure, nor inculcated the same priorities for family life. We must question whether a successful career and a successful home are mutually exclusive.
We need a fundamental rethink across four pillars: time, care, work and housing.
The first pillar is time and breathing space. We cannot build strong families if our young people and parents are running on empty and feel they do not have space to breathe. Work can be all consuming if left to our own devices. We need to provide for employers to be able to play their part.
Presently, the statutory minimum annual leave under section 88A of the Employment Act is seven days, increasing by one each year, up to a cap of 14 years. [Please refer to clarification later in the debate.]
With the ongoing review of the Employment Act, now is the time to increase the minimum annual leave. Seven days of annual leave is really too short. Let us structurally mandate breathing space for our young people to socialise and date, and for people to spend quality time with their families.
We need to structurally mandate \"breathing space\" for our young people to socialise and date, and for people to spend quality time with their families.
Furthermore, we must recognise the reality of caregiving in our childcare and sick leave policies. I propose that the Government consider allowing employees to utilise their own sick leave based on the Medical Certificates of their dependants, such as young children or elderly parents.
Additionally, we should increase Government-paid childcare leave. Children frequently require checkups and may experience extended bouts of illness. Childcare leave is currently only six days for those aged 0-7, and many times, these are just sufficient to cover preschool closure days. Childcare leave drops to two days for those aged 8-12. If just one child catches hand, foot and mouth disease, how will families cope?
On this, I note that my fellow Members David Hoe and Charlene Chen had raised related Parliamentary Questions last year and they were told that the Government is committed to supporting working parents in caring for heir children and that the Ministry will be reviewing the leave provisions. Will the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) to give an update on the review of the leave policies?
The second pillar is strengthening the structures of care. To care for children well, childcare must make sense. We therefore need to relook our policies on childcare, childminding, postpartum care and transport-related friction for care journeys.
First, childcare subsidies should be the same for everyone. Currently, the higher tier of basic infant care and childcare subsidies are available only to a \"working main applicant\", that is a mother or a single father for divorced, separated or widowed parents, who works at least 56 hours per month. Non-working mothers receive significantly less subsidy than working mothers.
This penalises mothers who choose to be stay-at-home caregivers to their second or subsequent newborn children, or those with modern work arrangements. For example, a mother working as a freelancer may not accumulate enough formal hours to qualify for the working mother subsidy.
Childcare is an essential form of early childhood education and care. Such basic subsidies should be universal for all children, regardless of the mother's employment status.
As a mother shared with me at a People's Action Party Women's Wing Listening Session two weeks ago: \"Why s unpaid caregiving at home less valuable than the contributions of a working mom?\"
Second, we must increase the accessibility of childcare centres. There are parts of Singapore where parents face long waitlists for nearby Ministry of Education Kindergartens (MK), anchor-operator (AOP) or partner-operator (POP) childcare centres. On the other hand, some centres in older neighbourhoods may have lower take-up.
To address this spatial mismatch, we could provide a limited subsidy to such underutilised operators to fund shuttle services, regardless of whether they are MK, AOP or POP, much like the school bus system our primary school children enjoy. This helps reduce geographic friction, improves spatial mobility and achieves better allocative efficiency for childcare services.
I also propose that, beyond AOP and POP, the Government extends site tender access to all operators, including mid-tier operators, to scale centres to neighbourhoods with high demand. This helps alleviate the high demand with a higher and more diverse supply of options for parents, and not only the Government-supported centres.
Third, we must scale and improve access to flexible childminding options. Families with children often need extra caregiver help. If there is no grandparent or domestic help, parents need additional childminding options.
At the piloted infant childminding services with three operators since December 2024, I would like to ask: what are the preliminary observations from the pilot. What is the take-up of these services? Are there plans to expand the pilot or increase publicity for the pilot? And will the pilot be made permanent and scaled up? If so, what is the timeline for that?
In addition to such professional childminding services, I hope to see neighbourly childminding normalised in Singapore. In Bishan, some playground mummies organise playdates and take turns to look after one another's children. How can we facilitate more of these and build a stronger communal parenting culture? As families in the same estate become friends, they may feel more assured in leaving their children to be minded by one another's families when needs or extenuating circumstances arise. We can suggest guidelines for the respective families to adopt in such informal childminding in the neighbourhood.
Fourth, we also need strong postpartum care. If new parents are well supported in this regard, they will feel more confident in subsequently having more children. As I have previously raised in this House, I propose comprehensive home visitation postpartum support. The Netherlands' \"kraamzorg\" entitles every mother to 80 hours of trained maternity nurse home care. Taiwan launched government-funded postpartum healthcare checkups in May 2025, providing structured check-ups, including health and postnatal depression screening.
While we currently have follow-up healthcare after delivery, we should enhance this with structured in-home postpartum visits in the first year. Trained maternity nurses could provide guidance on newborn care, breastfeeding, physiotherapy and mental health screening. They could also identify signs of family stress, social isolation or financial difficulty, and coordinate follow-up support with health and social services so families can receive timely counselling and financial assistance.
In all of this, we should not overlook fathers. Many fathers want to be more hands-on. Yet, fathers often feel like bystanders, unsure how to help and anxious about a wife recovering from birth and a baby they do not yet know how to hold.
If postpartum support is to strengthen the whole family, it must include fathers too. I therefore propose that the structured in-home postpartum visits deliberately engage fathers, offering practical guidance on newborn care, on supporting a spouse's physical and emotional recovery, and on recognising the signs of postnatal depression in their spouses, and in themselves. Let us equip fathers to be confident co-parents rather than well-meaning \"helpers\", so we can build the equal parenting that I hope will one day be the norm in every Singaporean family.
Fifth, to reduce transport-related friction for care journeys, I propose a transport care credit scheme. This is a targeted, flexible transport support for low to lower-middle-income families in Singapore who face high \"care journey\" transport costs due to family members with specific needs – young children, elderly, persons with permanent or temporary disabilities or medical conditions, where use of public transport is impractical, insufficient, challenging, or burdensome. \"Care journeys\" would be trips to hospitals, polyclinics or therapy centres.
The grant will be in the form of credits, which can be used for a range of transport options, such as public transport fares, taxis, private hire vehicles and car sharing.
The proposed grant will address the \"last mile\" problem for individuals and caregivers who need non-standard public transport options for themselves or frail or young dependents but do not qualify for existing disability-specific work schemes. I note that my fellow Member David Hoe had raised a related Parliamentary Question in February. Will the PMO also be able to give an update on the review of these policies?
The third pillar is empowering women and protecting careers. The \"motherhood penalty\" is real. Women who have children in Singapore experience reductions in earnings and career advancement.
First, we should restructure maternity leave to make business sense for employers so that employers are better able to support career planning for employees who are mothers.
I propose extending maternity leave up to six months, fully Government-paid up to a salary cap, with an optional additional six months at half-pay, also Government-funded up to a cap.
First, hiring maternity cover for a brief 16 weeks is incredibly difficult for employers. By the time they can find the right person and train them, time is over.
Second, mothers feel pressured to rush back to work at the end of the 16 weeks when they may not be ready, in order to keep their jobs. They may end up returning to work but utilising other types of leave or means to provide stepped-down caregiving to their newborn. A six to 12-month window makes it viable for employers to hire contract cover, removing the pressure on mothers to rush back and allowing employers to retain them long-term.
Small employers may face cashflow issues as the Government payment of maternity and other related leave will only be paid on a reimbursement basis, even while the employers may hire additional maternity covers. Will the Government consider a mechanism that could alleviate such cashflow issues for employers?
Second, I propose we introduce a Career Comeback Tax Credit for employers who hire returning stay-at-home parents. This mitigates the parenthood penalty. In this Career Comeback Scheme, companies that hire stay-at-home parent returnees may qualify for a tax deduction on the employee's salary for up to 12 months.
Additionally, we should also encourage employers to redesign certain jobs to offer part-time roles for parents of young children, allowing companies to augment their workforce while keeping parents engaged in the economy so that it will not be a binary choice only between full-time parenting or full-time employment.
Third, we should incentivise and encourage employers to provide flexibility in work schedules and private spaces for mothers to pump breast milk at work. I suggest we introduce a \"Make It Work\" grant for building owners to install self-contained, lockable lactation pods to provide a safe and conducive space for working moms to pump breast milk at work, and it could include refrigerator space to store breast milk.
Fourth, to help women who are marrying later in life still have a chance at having a child, the Government should consider partially subsidising elective egg freezing (EEF) or allowing MediSave to be used for it. We should, of course, caution the public against the potential misperception that EEF would work miracles. Live-birth success rate remains low. Even as we make EEF more accessible, we should also mitigate the potential issue that subsidising EEF might inadvertently encourage couples to intentionally delay marriage and parenthood. However, EEF is increasingly becoming a necessary response to the reality of later marriages, where our fertility will be adversely affected. While take-up rates might be modest initially, preserving fertility offers couples a vital option. Once the biological clock passes, it is past. We should give couples the chance of still having children.
The fourth pillar is housing for family formation. Our housing policies must proactively encourage larger and inter-generational families. If we want families to grow, we must give them the physical space to do so.
I propose allowing large families or two-family units, comprising elderly parents and couples with children, to apply for \"side-by-side\" 3-room or 4-room BTO units, with the structural option to knock down the dividing wall. We should mandate that HDB designs future blocks to make this practically feasible. Additionally, families with two or more young children should be given priority and expanded options to ballot and receive additional grants for 5-room or larger units across BTO and Sales of Balance Flats.
Currently, there is a Third Child Priority Scheme. We should have a \"Second Child Priority Scheme\" also for 5-room BTOs and Sales of Balance Flats. The leap from one to two children is where the spatial crunch hits hardest, often requiring domestic help or a live-in parent. We should thus provide priority earlier.
I also propose a Family Expansion Grant targeted at the HDB resale market. If a family has a second or subsequent child and needs to upgrade to a 5-room flat, they can receive a targeted CPF grant to offset the cost of a larger resale flat. This solves the spatial issue now, without waiting for BTO construction.
Mr Speaker, I am not asking the Government to merely spend more money on financial incentives for people to have children. I am asking the Government to make a wholly different and wholesome kind of commitment, so people feel secure raising a family in Singapore.
Even so, the Government alone cannot solve this. It takes our whole society. So that our society will view parenthood as valuable, beautiful, joyful and not a high stakes competition, so that everyone will play their part in supporting families to flourish. And as a stay-at-home father told me, so that success in Singapore can go beyond the \"5Cs\", but also celebrate our children, the “C” that matters the most for building our nation. Let us start chasing that sixth “C”.
Some people have told me they do not want to bring children into a world of pain and suffering. And I get it. The world is scary. But there is also much joy and beauty that our world still holds. Very often, I see that in the eyes of a young child.
When I see our children, I see the future of Singapore. Joyful, energetic, caring and most precious of all, cute. Like many others, I was delighted when we saw selfies of babies popping up on the official LTA, MCCY, and gov.sg's social media pages. Many others have hopped on that trend. And many of us felt a spark of that childlike wonder and joy. That is the kind of Singapore I hope we will build. Not a tired adults club but a country that actually has the time and space to enjoy our children.
And in that Singapore, if we were to ask couples if they want to have one more child, the answer would be, \"Why not?\" [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee.
The Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Elysa Chen for her Adjournment Motion on this important topic. Indeed, many of her observations are consistent with feedback that we have received regarding marriage and parenthood.
Let me first give a quick update on the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Reset Workgroup. Since the Workgroup was announced, many Singaporeans have come forward to share their suggestions and lived experiences, and we have also conducted many engagements. Across these conversations, what is clear is that Singaporeans do value family, relationships and meaningful connections. However, they also encounter challenges and practical realities in pursuit of their marriage and parenthood aspirations.
Recently released statistics on marriage and parenthood have also sharpened our urgency to act. Last year, there were about 24,700 registered marriages, a 6.2% drop from 2024. Singapore recorded about 26,100 citizen births in 2025, a 10.8% decrease from 29,200 in 2024. Hence, the Workgroup’s focus is to see how we can better support Singaporeans across the whole marriage and parenthood journey. To that end, we are developing a long-term roadmap to strengthen support for marriage and parenthood, mobilise whole-of-society action and support a broader societal reset.
Ms Chen has insightfully identified some of the key issues that influence M&P decisions, which are time, care, work and housing. Let me share how we are approaching these.
First, work-life. Ms Chen called for more leave days to address the scarcity of time and the challenges faced by parents in managing work and caregiving commitments. Other Members in this House, on both sides of the House and members of public have also called for more leave days, such as childcare leave for those with more children or older children to cover school closure days and exigencies.
We recently enhanced our parental leave provisions, such that working parents now have a total of 30 weeks of paid parental leave to care for and bond with their infants. We are actively working on how we can provide more protected time for working parents while managing the impact on business operations. We are engaging tripartite partners on this.
However, providing leave alone is not enough. Workplace culture and norms have a strong impact on how well-supported parents feel at work and whether they are able to utilise their statutory leave provisions. Line managers and supervisors, in particular, can make all the difference as they are the ones who approve such leave. How they do so and whether well-managed covering arrangements are in place can make a big difference.
Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) are a key form of support. We implemented the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests in December 2024 and will continue to work with tripartite partners to foster work-life friendly practices and support employers in implementing them well. While many associate FWAs with working from home, it is also much broader than that. There is also flexi-time and flexi-load.
A recent CNA article found that flexi-time and flexi-load may matter much more for parents, as it gives them the space to manage their work schedules in ways that best meet their responsibilities at work and at home. We will continue to push for these flexible arrangements to support parents better.
To Ms Chen's point on job redesign and part-time work, employers can tap on the Productivity Solutions Grant to offset the costs of adopting FWAs and the SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant (Job Redesign+) to engage consultancy services to support enterprise job redesign. They can also benefit from FWA implementation resources and training by tripartite partners and the Institute of Human Resource Professionals to better implement work-life friendly practices.
Ms Chen also highlighted the challenges parents face in returning to work after parental leave or after taking a temporary career break to focus on caring for their children.
We agree that this is an important area that needs to be tackled. We have been enhancing measures to support career transitions, employment facilitation and reskilling. Examples include, the Skills and Workforce Development Agency's (SWDA's) HerCareer initiative for women jobseekers and career advisory and skills training offered by SWDA and the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute (e2i). Jobseekers can also tap on Career Conversion Programmes and the Mid-Career Pathways Programme to improve their employability and be placed in a new role.
We are exploring how we can better support returning parents beyond these current initiatives.
Employers can also support parents by providing family-friendly infrastructure and amenities. For example, they can support breastfeeding mothers by tapping on NTUC's Better Workplace Programmes to set up proper lactation spaces or the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) Accessibility Fund to retrofit their premises with universal design features, including lactation facilities.
On housing, we agree with Ms Chen that housing is an important determinant in marriage and parenthood. We currently provide larger families a range of housing options to meet their need for more space. For example, multi-generation families may apply for 3Gen flats, which are specifically designed for extended families who wish to live under one roof. Flat owners may also apply to combine two adjoining 3-room or smaller flats under the Conversion of Adjoining Flats Scheme. We also recently enhanced the Third Child Priority Scheme, which gives priority in BTO and SBF exercises to eligible families with three or more children. We are exploring what more we can do and we will study Ms Chen's suggestions as part of the Workgroup.
Ms Chen also mentioned EEF. Today, women can already receive Government subsidies and tap on MediSave for egg freezing done on medical grounds, for example, to preserve fertility before undergoing cancer treatment. The Workgroup will review the Member's suggestion to provide financing support for EEF and consider ways to reduce the cost of fertility tests and treatments. We will also study her suggestions on postpartum support.
Ms Chen also highlighted the importance of enhancing care infrastructure. Over the past decade, the number of full-day infant care places has nearly tripled while the number of full-day childcare places nearly doubled. At the end of last year, we achieved our commitment of ensuring that 80% of preschoolers can have a place in a Government-supported preschool.
We have also enhanced preschool affordability for all. The industry median childcare fee before means-tested subsidies has fallen to $680 last year, compared to $760 in 2021. Applicants who are not working due to extenuating circumstances and need full-day childcare can apply for special approval to receive subsidy support equivalent to what a working applicant can receive. We will do more to support parents in caregiving and will take Ms Chen's suggestions into account.
On Early Childhood Development Agency's (ECDA's) infant childminding pilot, feedback from parents and childminders so far has been positive. The pilot concludes next year. We will review the learnings from the pilot in considering additional moves and will bear Ms Chen's suggestions in mind.
Over and above policy moves, support for marriage and parenthood must be a whole-of-society effort. The Workgroup is looking at how we can bring on board all segments of society to participate in this. I am heartened that various groups will put forth their suggestions to the Workgroup, such as the joint White Paper on fertility and human development by National University of Singapore Medicine and the Population Association of Singapore, and the People's Action Party Women's Wing. We will study the recommendations closely.
In the coming months, we will continue to engage widely across society, with Singaporeans, businesses and community partners. We invite all Singaporeans to be part of this Reset – to contribute their ideas, lend their support and help shape a Singapore where families are not only supported, but can truly flourish.
Mr Speaker: Ms Chen, you have a clarification to make? Go ahead.
Ms Elysa Chen: Yes, Speaker. I misspoke earlier. I said that the statutory minimum annual leave under the Employment Act goes up to a cap of 14 years. I meant to say 14 days.
Mr Speaker: If it was 14 years, it would be mind-boggling.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 9.30 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reduction of Entry-level Roles for Fresh Graduates and Young Jobseekers Attributable to AI Adoption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how much of the decline in job vacancies from December 2025 to March 2026, based on the Ministry's Labour Market Report First Quarter 2026, is attributable to a reduction in entry-level roles for fresh graduates and young job seekers; and (b) whether this decline is linked to AI adoption trends as reported in the same document.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Total job vacancies fell from 77,700 in December 2025 to 73,300 in March 2026. The decline was driven primarily by a decrease in non-Professionals, Managers, Executives, and Technicians (PMET) vacancies. Entry-level PMET job openings increased slightly from 32,500 in December 2025 to 32,800 in March 2026, indicating that the decline did not reflect a reduction in entry-level roles for fresh graduates and young job seekers.
Our survey suggests that the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) so far has been more on job redesign than on broad-based reductions in hiring. Among the three in 10 firms which had adopted AI, only 6% reported reducing headcount and 8% reported lowering hiring activity. By comparison, 19% reported redesigning roles and 14% reported creating AI-related jobs.
The Ministry of Manpower will continue to support fresh graduates and young job seekers through initiatives that help them build industry-relevant skills, gain meaningful work experience and secure good job opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures Beyond Existing Haze Response Plans to be Activated for Public Health Given Recent Outlook Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs' Haze Outlook 2026 report (a) what additional contingency measures, beyond existing haze response plans, will be activated for public health; and (b) whether the Ministry will review and enhance public communication protocols for schools and employers ahead of the expected peak risk period.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The southern ASEAN region has entered the dry season, with conditions this year expected to be drier and warmer than usual due to the development of the El Niño climate phenomenon. These conditions increase the risk of fires and the possibility of transboundary haze affecting Singapore.
On 3 August 2026, the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre (ASMC) activated Alert Level 2 for the Southern ASEAN region, which indicates an increased risk of transboundary haze. Smoke haze has been observed to drift from Kalimantan into Sarawak in recent days. At present, prevailing winds are not directing haze towards Singapore. The Meteorological Service Singapore (MSS) expects dry weather in the region over the next week which could increase the risk of transboundary haze affecting Singapore should burning intensify in Kalimantan and southern Sumatra. We are monitoring the situation closely.
Government agencies which are part of the Haze Task Force, chaired by the National Environment Agency (NEA), stand ready to roll out their respective action plans should air quality be impacted by transboundary haze. Our priority is to protect the health of the public, particularly vulnerable groups, and to ensure that daily life and essential services can continue as normally as possible. We have ensured that national mask stockpiles are sufficient, and that schools, preschools, and residential and care facilities are equipped with air purifiers.
We have also stepped-up public communications efforts in view of the heightened risk of transboundary haze affecting Singapore. Since May 2026, media releases, social media content and educational videos have been rolled out to help the public better understand haze risks and the protective measures available. NEA will continue to work with the media to support timely reporting on air quality and health advisories, so that schools, employers and the wider public can stay well-informed and respond accordingly should air quality be affected. Members of the public may refer to the NEA website, the haze microsite, the myENV app and NEA's social media channels for the latest updates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Existing Safeguards and Enforcement Against Money Laundering and Proliferation Financing Risks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance given Singapore is one of the world’s major virtual asset services provider hubs (a) what assessment the Government has made of the associated money laundering and proliferation financing risks; (b) whether existing safeguards, supervision and enforcement mechanisms are sufficient; and (c) what further measures the Government intends to take to prevent the financial system from being exploited by illicit actors.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): There are significant numbers of Virtual Asset Service Providers \t(VASPs) in key financial and business hubs around the world, including in the US, EU, the UK and Dubai. VASPs are regulated as digital payment token service providers (DPTSPs) in Singapore. Singapore was one of the first countries in the world to bring DPTSPs under financial sector regulation, recognising the inherently higher risks posed by their activities.
Since the regulatory framework for DPTSPs came into force in 2020, persons seeking to conduct or continue regulated activities relating to digital payment tokens have been required to obtain a licence from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). MAS applies stringent licensing criteria and admits only players who demonstrate ability to put in place systems and processes to mitigate the relevant risks, and comply with MAS' regulations.
Post-licensing, MAS maintains close supervision over DPTSPs and have taken regulatory actions against those who fail to meet standards. Out of close to 300 applications for licences, there are currently 37 licensed DPTSPs. Most of the other applications have been rejected or were withdrawn when the applicants realised they could not meet our requirements.
In addition, MAS conducts surveillance of the sector to monitor for emerging money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing threats and engages DPTSPs proactively to raise their risk awareness. Given the fast-changing nature of the sector, MAS reviews our rules regularly to keep pace with the risk landscape and international standards.
We are also active participants in the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) work to drive consistent global implementation of FATF requirements in this sector. In its recent assessment of Singapore's AML/CFT framework earlier this year, the FATF recognised the strength of Singapore's system and MAS' effectiveness in regulating the DPTSPs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of New PMA Rules on Number of Users and Summonses Issued","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport following the implementation of the new Personal Mobility Aid (PMA) rules from 1 June 2026 (a) what has been the reduction in PMA traffic in the heartlands; and (b) what is the number of summonses issued to users who (i) are not eligible to use PMAs (ii) have operated PMAs exceeding allowable specifications and (iii) have exceeded the speed limit.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority does not track the number of Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs) on paths. The intent of the new rules on PMAs is to ensure mobility scooters are used by those who truly need them and to improve path safety.
Since 1 June 2026, enforcement officers have caught three users for riding without a valid Certificate of Medical Need or exemption and five users for speeding on a PMA. They will receive fines or written warnings. No users have yet been caught for operating PMAs that exceed allowable dimensions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accounting for Mobility Needs of Seniors and Persons with Reduced Mobility in Accessibility Planning Metrics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA's accessibility planning metrics sufficiently account for the mobility needs of seniors and persons with reduced mobility; (b) whether user-centred accessibility indicators are being developed alongside distance-based measures; and (c) how these indicators will inform future transport planning.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Our transport system is designed to be inclusive, catering to the needs of seniors and persons with reduced mobility. Over the years, the design parameters have been enhanced, in tandem with prevailing guidelines. Retrofitting of older infrastructure has been on-going to meet latest requirements, barring site and budgetary constraints.
Today, all MRT and LRT stations, and almost all bus stops are barrier free. Lifts have been added at pedestrian overhead bridges near public transport nodes and healthcare institutions, and near areas with more senior residents. At Friendly Streets, features such as longer pedestrian crossing time and raised zebra crossings make walking journeys safer, more convenient and comfortable for all.
LTA regularly engages with different groups, including seniors and persons with reduced mobility, to better understand their commuting needs and experiences, and improve our transport provisions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requiring Businesses to have Physical Instead of Virtual Offices when Opening Corporate Banking Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry has received feedback that some banks require corporate applicants to have actual commercial offices instead of virtual offices or offices with residential addresses when opening corporate banking accounts; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry plans to engage relevant parties to explore viable alternatives that balance risks and startup realities.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has not received feedback on banks requiring corporates applying for bank accounts to maintain physical commercial offices. Customers with virtual or residential addresses have also been able to obtain corporate banking accounts.
When opening corporate banking accounts, banks perform routine customer due diligence to understand and assess the risks posed by the customer relationship. This may involve checking that the customer has genuine business operations and the account will not be used as a mule account. As part of this process, banks may ask customers using a residential or virtual office address for additional information or supporting documents to show that the customer is conducting legitimate business activities. This is a risk-based assessment rather than a blanket requirement for a commercial office address.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Meeting Evolving Needs of Residents across Life Stages in Planning of New Towns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) how HDB assesses whether the planning and design of new towns meet the evolving needs of residents across different life stages; (b) how resident feedback is incorporated into housing design, amenities and community infrastructure in new developments; and (c) what indicators are used to assess whether new towns are achieving their intended outcomes, including residents' quality of life and sense of community.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) conducts a range of qualitative and quantitative studies to understand the lived experiences of residents across different life stages. For instance, HDB conducts post-occupancy surveys about one to two years after residents move into newly-completed BTO projects. The surveys cover residents' satisfaction with design, amenities, construction quality and overall living conditions. HDB also conducts an islandwide Sample Household Survey every five years to gather feedback on public housing, identify changing needs and expectations, and track indicators, such as residents' satisfaction and sense of community.
Feedback from HDB's studies is incorporated into the planning and design of future developments. For example, recognising the importance of having more spaces for communal bonding, HDB introduced 3-Generation playgrounds that bring together children, adults and seniors. In newer precincts, HDB also provides precinct pavilions for larger social functions and community activities. As towns mature and residents' needs evolve, agencies carry out upgrading and improvement programmes, such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, Silver Upgrading Programme, and Friendly Streets initiatives, while Town Councils also implement local improvement works to enhance the living environment and accessibility for residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of MediSave Withdrawal Limit for Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed the adequacy of the $600 annual MediSave withdrawal limit for outpatient Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans; (b) what proportion of patients requiring multiple scans each year fully exhaust this limit; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider increasing the limit or allowing greater flexibility for repeated clinically necessary imaging.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The annual MediSave withdrawal limit for outpatient scans was increased from $300 to $600 on 1 January 2026. The revised limit was sized to cover nine in 10 annual subsidised bills.
As the increase was implemented only recently, the Ministry of Health (MOH) does not yet have sufficient data on the proportion of patients who have exhausted this new annual limit.
MOH regularly reviews MediSave withdrawal limits to ensure that our healthcare services remain affordable for Singaporeans. For subsidised patients who continue to face financial difficulties, additional help may be available through MediFund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Auditing Advertisements on Jobs Portals for Age Distribution of Candidates Invited for Interviews and Offered Placements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry conducts random audits of companies advertising for open positions on jobs portals to determine if the age distribution of interviewees and offered candidates are consistent with that of applicants.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not conduct random audits of companies advertising on jobs portals to compare the age distribution of applicants, interviewees and candidates who receive job offers.
Workers who feel they have been discriminated against during any stage of the hiring process can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). MOM and TAFEP will look into all complaints and engage employers involved to understand the circumstances. Egregious breaches with clear intent to discriminate will be considered for enforcement action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Freelance Arts and Creative Practitioners in Retirement Planning and Financial Resilience","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry supports freelance arts and creative practitioners in their retirement planning and financial resilience given that they do not receive employer CPF contributions; and (b) if so, how.
Mr David Neo: The Government recognises that self-employed practitioners face unique employment circumstances, such as the lack of employer Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions. To ensure that Self-Employed Persons (SEPs) in the arts can build financial resilience and career sustainability, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) supports arts SEPs through a combination of national schemes and sectoral initiatives.
All SEPs with an annual Net Trade Income exceeding $6,000 are required to make mandatory MediSave contributions. The CPF Board's Contribute-As-You-Earn (CAYE) makes this easier by automatically channelling MediSave contributions when income is received from onboarded agencies and organisations. All government agencies, including the National Arts Council (NAC) and the National Heritage Board, are on CAYE. NAC has also been engaging cultural institutions to come on board the CAYE scheme, extending this benefit to the arts SEPs they work with. Institutions, such as the Esplanade, the Singapore Art Museum and the School of the Arts have come on board, and NAC will continue to engage more institutions to do so.
To complement schemes such as CAYE, NAC supports arts SEPs in building financial resilience and career sustainability through the Arts Resource Hub (ARH). Established in 2019, ARH takes a holistic approach to equipping arts SEPs with resources, career guidance and professional development programmes. ARH offers practical resources on financial wellness, including guides on CPF basics, insurance and tax essentials.
As part of financial planning advice, arts SEPs are encouraged to make additional CPF contributions beyond compulsory MediSave contributions. ARH also regularly brings in experts to speak on topics tailored to creative professionals, such as specialised insurance and long-term financial security. These resources allow SEPs to proactively plan for their financial resilience and retirement.
More holistically, ARH empowers arts SEPs to develop their portfolios and build sustainable, independent careers. The IGNITE Mentorship Programme, for example, pairs early-career practitioners with experienced independent professionals that provide guidance on freelance career development, portfolio careers and entrepreneurship.
MCCY and NAC will continue to work on initiatives to build the arts and culture sector and, in doing so, help arts practitioners build vibrant and viable careers. We will also strengthen support for arts SEPs so that they are better equipped to plan for their own financial futures and sustain careers in the arts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding Allocation for Student Mental Health and Well-being Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether schools receive dedicated funding allocation, separate from per capita operating grant, for student mental health and well-being programmes serving the general student population; (b) if so, what is the average quantum per student; and (c) if not, from which other budgets such programmes are funded.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will address both Parliamentary Questions raised by Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan about funding for student mental health and well-being. I will answer oral Question No 35 and written Question No 39 on today's Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Data on School Programme Expenditure for Student Mental Health and Well-being in Past Five Years\", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The Ministry of Education's (MOE's) approach to supporting student mental health and well-being is spread across a range of school activities and programmes. This includes manpower resourcing, curriculum support and professional training of educators and specialised personnel to create a school environment where students feel safe, connected and supported. Efforts include regular check-ins on students' well-being, early detection, peer support structures and a curriculum that teaches social-emotional learning and mental health education. For example, quarterly surveys are conducted to assess how well students are coping and their support structures. We also invest in digital solutions to make the collection and analysis of such data more efficient and effective.
Beyond this, MOE resources schools with school counsellors and facilitates access to counselling interventions as well as targeted support in the community, such as Response, Early Intervention, Assessment in Community Mental Health (REACH) and the Youth Integrated Teams. The latter two provide mental health assessment and intervention services funded by the Ministry of Health.
Overall, the Ministry's expenditure on student mental health and well-being is included in our manpower resourcing and the operating grants given to schools. As these provisions and efforts are woven into daily school life rather than delivered as standalone programmes, MOE does not track the expenditure on mental health separately. Doing so would not accurately reflect the holistic support for mental health and may create a misleading picture that underrepresents the actual level of resourcing. For this reason, MOE does not publish this as a recurring indicator.
Supporting student mental health is a whole-of-Government effort. The full investment in student mental health extends beyond MOE's budget and any assessment of the Government's commitment should be understood in this larger context.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidence of Residents Delaying or Forgoing Recommended Healthcare Due to Cost","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry tracks the incidence of residents delaying or forgoing recommended healthcare due to cost; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will (i) incorporate measures of cost-related forgone care into national health surveys and (ii) report such trends by income group.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also cover a similar question raised by the Member filed for subsequent Sitting.1 If the Member is satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw the question after the Sitting.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track the data requested by the Member.
Instead, MOH tracks and reports the overall affordability of healthcare through indicators, such as the share of Singaporeans who do not pay any cash out-of-pocket for subsidised inpatient episodes and the out-of-pocket share of current healthcare expenditure. These indicators are published online and in reports, such as the Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review.
At the individual level, what is important is that there are means for patients to access additional help through safety nets, like MediFund, if they still face a significant healthcare cost burden even after subsidies, MediSave and MediShield Life. Our medical social workers will be able to assist these patients.
No Singaporean will lose access to appropriate healthcare due to an inability to pay.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry intends to develop and regularly publish indicators on households that are ineligible for higher healthcare subsidy tiers but continue to experience significant healthcare cost burdens; and (b) how are such households identified for policy evaluation purposes."],"footNoteQuestions":["36"],"questionNo":"36"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Service-level Indicators for Air Cargo Handling at Changi","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) tracks service-level indicators for air cargo handling at Changi, including cargo dwell time, time from flight arrival to cargo release, truck waiting time and cold-chain handling time; (b) whether these indicators have changed over the past two years; and (c) what steps are being taken to reduce bottlenecks in cargo collection and handover processes.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) does track such service performance and user satisfaction indicators for air cargo handling flow at Changi Airport. Where the indicators fall short of desired standards, CAAS actively engages stakeholders to understand the ground situation and coordinates efforts to improve air cargo service performance. Some of the recent initiatives to improve performance include a dedicated facility to handle standardised, ready-to-ship containers and pallets to be loaded onto flights, which can reduce processing time for such shipments by 20%. Another recent solution is the Truck Dock Slot Booking system, an airport-level digital solution for pre-booking of cargo truck slots at Changi's Air Freight Terminals, which has reduced waiting times for truck drivers by up to 25% for export cargo.
SATS is also investing $100 million to upgrade its air cargo facilities at Changi Airport, which can deliver up to a 20% increase in asset and resource utilisation and increase handling capacity from 2.3 to 3 million tonnes per annum.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consolidating Patients' Specialist Care at Single Hospital or Campus","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in respect of patients holding specialist outpatient appointments at public healthcare institutions (a) how many patients are seen at (i) one (ii) two (iii) three or more different institutions, respectively; and (b) what protocols exist to consolidate such patients' specialist care into a single hospital or campus, where clinically appropriate.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In 2025, about 81% of patients with specialist outpatient appointments were seen at one institution, 17% were seen at two institutions, and 2% were seen at three or more institutions.
Patients may have appointments across different institutions for various reasons. For example, certain specialised services are available only at national centres or the patient may have preferred specialists that are at different institutions. Where clinically appropriate, public healthcare institutions (PHI) coordinate and consolidate patients' care by referring them to a PHI that can meet most or all of their clinical needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cross-agency Collaboration on Policies to Address Youths' Aspirations and Needs in Housing, Employment and Family Formation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how the Ministry works with the Ministries of National Development, Manpower and Social and Family Development to develop policies to address Singaporean youths' aspirations and needs in matters like housing, employment and family formation; and (b) how are the views of our youths being systematically incorporated into the development of these policies.
Mr David Neo: The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has been working closely with partners across the public, private and people (3P) sectors to support our youths. A case in point is the SG Youth Plan, which was shaped by engagements with more than 60,000 youths and developed with more than 200 partners, including agencies, such as the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of National Development (MND), and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).
On employment, the SG Youth Plan complements MOM's employability initiatives by going upstream to support youths in their school-to-work transition and career aspirations, through mentoring, job tasters and overseas exposure opportunities.
On housing, MCCY and the National Youth Council (NYC) work closely with MND to engage youths to understand their views on housing-related issues, and amplify MND's housing-related resources to youths. NYC will also be working with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to launch a Youth Advisory Panel on how the flat purchase journey could be enhanced for our youths.
On families, we are working with MSF to develop programmes to equip youths with the skills and support to build strong family bonds. Under the Marriage and Parenthood Reset Workgroup, MCCY and NYC are also engaging youths to better understand their aspirations, experiences and challenges around friendships, dating and relationships.
The SG Youth Plan is a whole-of-society effort to support our youths, and a commitment that we believe in them. MCCY, together with our partners, will continue to engage our youths and ensure that they have a voice in our country.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Students Offered Progression from G1 to G2 and G2 to G3 under Full Subject-Based Banding","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry prescribes common national criteria for students to be offered progression from G1 to G2, or G2 to G3, under Full Subject-Based Banding; and (b) if not, what discretion is given to individual secondary schools in determining the academic thresholds and other criteria for such progression.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under Full Subject-Based Banding, students learn each subject at the level that best caters to their strengths and learning needs. At the start of Secondary 1, students may be offered English Language, the Mother Tongue Languages, Mathematics and Science at a more demanding level based on their PSLE performance in each of these subjects.
Beyond the start of Secondary 1, students may offer subjects at a more demanding level based on a holistic consideration of their performance, interests and readiness. MOE provides schools with guidelines for identifying suitable students, for example, subject-specific academic criteria, and traits and dispositions that schools can consider. Schools have the discretion to make the final decision based on their holistic understanding of each student's interests, aptitude and ability to manage the overall curricular load.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Impact of New 12.5% Tariff Imposed by the US and Measures to Help Affected Exporters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) what assessment has the Ministry made of the impact of the new 12.5% tariff imposed by the US on approximately one-third of Singapore's exports to the US; and (b) whether the Government will introduce additional measures to help affected exporters diversify markets, strengthen supply chain resilience and preserve Singapore's competitiveness.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The USTR has concluded its Section 301 investigation into imports associated with forced labour. It has imposed tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on all 60 economies covered by the investigation. The tariff level depends on whether an economy has introduced a prohibition on imports produced with forced labour or has committed to do so through an Agreement of Reciprocal Trade (ART) with the US.
Singapore was assessed at the 12.5% tariff rate because we do not have a law prohibiting the importation of goods produced with forced labour nor an ART committing us to introduce one. Importantly, none of the 60 economies, including those that already have such prohibitions in force, received a full exemption from the tariff.
About one-third of Singapore's domestic exports to the US, worth about S$9.5 billion annually, are affected. These include optical instruments and chemical products. The tariff does not apply to energy and energy products, certain electronics and certain aerospace products. Products subject to the US' Section 232 tariffs or investigations, such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, are also excluded from the Section 301 tariff. Overall, compared to the earlier Section 122 tariff of 10%, the new measure raises Singapore's overall effective tariff rate by an estimated 0.7 percentage point.
Throughout the investigation, Singapore engaged the USTR actively at both the political and official levels, including during my visit to Washington DC in April this year. We also submitted written comments to the USTR and participated in bilateral government consultations.
In these engagements, we made clear that there is no evidence that Singapore is involved in the trade of goods associated with forced labour, based on data from the US Department of Labour and Customs and Border Protection. We emphasised that our policies do not burden US commerce, as reflected in the longstanding and substantial trade surplus the US continues to enjoy with Singapore. We also explained that Singapore does not condone forced labour and maintains a comprehensive enforcement framework against such practices.
Some Members asked what Singapore can do to negotiate a lower tariff with the US. We will continue engaging the USTR constructively. But we also have to consider carefully what steps, if any, Singapore should take in response. Singapore is a major trading hub, with goods and services trade amounting to around S$2.5 trillion each year, of which S$1.4 trillion is in goods. Any import prohibition would have significant implications. Businesses could face substantial compliance costs arising from supply chain due diligence, documentation and investigations, particularly where production takes place outside Singapore and beyond our jurisdiction. Such measures could also affect our broader trade relationship with other partners. In addition, we have to consider carefully what would be involved in an ART with the US. Based on the agreements that the US has concluded with other economies, such arrangements may involve commitments beyond an import prohibition, including export controls or restrictions relating to third countries. These wider implications have to be assessed carefully before Singapore decides on any course of action.
Our immediate priority is to help businesses and workers adjust. We have therefore been engaging the business community to better understand their concerns. As the Singapore Business Federation noted in its recent statement, any new regulatory requirements should be carefully studied in consultation with industry. We will continue these discussions through the Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce.
The Taskforce is also working closely with our tripartite and industry partners to support businesses and workers who may be affected by this new tariff. In October 2025, we launched the Business Adaptation Grant (BizAdapt) to help eligible enterprises adapt their business operations and strengthen supply chain resilience. At this year's Budget, we announced enhancements to existing schemes, including raising grant support levels from up to 50% to up to 70% for internationalisation-related schemes, such as the Market Readiness Assistance grant. To help businesses manage uncertainty and cost pressures, the Government has also recently introduced a one-off SME Cash Grant of $500 per local employee, up to a cap of $2,500 per company, as well as provided time-limited enhancements to the Enterprise Financing Scheme.
For workers, the Government and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute have expanded career services. The Ministry of Manpower has also launched the Graduate Industry Traineeship programme to help fresh graduates gain industry-relevant experience and transition into full-time employment.
We will continue working closely with businesses and workers, and provide targeted support where necessary. Above all, we will continue to strengthen Singapore's competitiveness and keep our economy resilient in an increasingly uncertain global trading environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Demand for Interim Accommodation Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB has observed an increased demand for interim accommodation support, such as from post-divorce scenarios, or short-term housing gaps due to timing mismatches in sale completion, CPF refunds and access to subsequent housing; (b) whether available transitional housing support is adequate to meet such demand; and (c) whether such support will be strengthened, especially for households with children or caregiving needs.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has not observed an increase in demand for interim housing support due to timing mismatches between buy and sell transactions, or divorce.
To minimise timing mismatches, HDB allows flat owners up to six months to dispose their existing flat after taking possession of their next flat. This provides sufficient time buffer for the vast majority of cases. Households that require the proceeds from the sale of their previous flat to finance their next flat, including CPF refund, can tap on the Enhanced Contra Facility if they are buying a resale flat, or the Contra Payment Facility and Temporary Loan Scheme if they are buying a new flat.
Persons undergoing divorce can apply for an HDB Flat Eligibility letter to buy a HDB flat or apply for a public rental flat after obtaining the Interim Judgement or Decree of Divorce and settling ancillary matters. These arrangements provide divorcees with time and flexibility to secure their next housing before their divorce is finalised.
Nonetheless, HDB recognises that each divorce has its unique circumstances. Those facing extenuating circumstances or financial hardship before obtaining Interim Judgement or Decree of Divorce and settling ancillary matters can approach HDB, who will advise them on the available options. This includes the possibility of assisting them with interim rental housing while their divorce proceedings are still ongoing.
HDB will continue to review our policies regularly, and extend flexibility and support where needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Near-term Risks Posed By Autonomous AI Agents Operating in Financial Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') assessment of the near-term risks posed by increasingly autonomous AI agents operating in financial services; (b) whether MAS intends to move from the current industry-led Safeguards for Agentic Finance at Runtime (SAFR) framework towards mandatory supervisory requirements; and (c) if so, on what timeline.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Given AI's fast-evolving nature, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is taking a principles-based approach to guide safe and responsible AI adoption. This is to support financial institutions (FIs) in proportionately applying risk management practices when using AI.
In November 2025, MAS published a consultation paper on the proposed Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence Risk Management. The Guidelines set out MAS' supervisory expectations for FIs to have robust board and senior management oversight, sound risk management frameworks and processes and sound AI life cycle controls. They apply to all AI use cases by FIs, including agentic AI, and will be finalised soon.
Beyond setting supervisory expectations, MAS has also worked closely with the industry to develop practical implementation resources. Under Project MindForge, the industry has developed an AI Risk Management Toolkit to help FIs implement the Guidelines. The Safeguards for Agentic Finance at Runtime framework sets out a potential approach to how agent actions are authorised, how human oversight is activated and what is recorded at the point of every consequential decision.
As we partner with industry through the Future of Finance Institute to develop these good practices and toolkits, we will also continue to review our supervisory expectations and update them where necessary to support the safe and responsible adoption of AI in the financial sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Middle East Conflict on Singapore's Trade, Investments and Cooperation Initiatives with Regional Countries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) what tangible impact has the Middle East conflict had on Singapore's trade, investment and economic cooperation initiatives with countries in the region since February 2026; (b) whether any agreements, investment missions or projects have been delayed, suspended or cancelled; (c) which sectors of cooperation remain most viable despite the conflict; and (d) how Singapore intends to sustain its longer-term economic engagement with the region.
Dr Tan See Leng: The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has introduced uncertainties, which our companies are factoring into their plans. According to a survey done by the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) in April 20261, firms are actively adapting to the heightened uncertainty, taking measures which include inventory buffers, diversifying suppliers or routes and delaying investment or expansion plans in the region.
Singapore remains confident in the economic potential of the Middle East and are maintaining the momentum of our government engagements. For example, we are continuing our negotiations to upgrade our Bilateral Investment Treaty with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and are exploring collaboration in the built environment and connectivity sectors. We are cooperating with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) across areas, such as water sustainability, genomics and space collaboration. We are also engaging our partners in the Middle East on ways we can support each other's energy resilience.
Singapore companies are also identifying new opportunities in sectors, such as infrastructure and logistics. We will continue to support Singapore businesses through Enterprise Singapore's overseas centres in Riyadh and Dubai, and SBF's Singapore Enterprise Centre in Dubai.
Beyond bilateral cooperation, Singapore and the UAE are working to advance plurilateral trade and investment initiatives. Both are members of the Future of Investment and Trade Partnership (FITP), which recently expanded to 19 economies. The UAE will host the next FITP Ministerial Meeting in early 2027. Singapore is also engaging the UAE as it seeks accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : SBF- IndSights Business Dipstick Report, April 2026 (https://www.sbf.org.sg/newsroom/media/press-releases/detail/two-in-three-businesses-hit-by-middle-east-conflict--smes-feel-strain-most)"],"footNoteQuestions":["44"],"questionNo":"44"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rules Governing Use of Premium Cabin Flights for Political Office Holders and Permanent Secretaries on Official Duty","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the rules governing the use of premium cabin flights for political office holders and Permanent Secretaries while on official duty; (b) when were these rules last reviewed; (c) how do these rules compare with those for senior private sector leaders; (d) whether there is a need to review these rules; and (e) if not, why not.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Singapore relies primarily on commercial flights, rather than dedicated Government aircraft, for official overseas travel. The guidelines governing the class of travel for Political Office Holders (POHs) and public officers are designed to ensure that travel arrangements are appropriate while making responsible use of public resources. They take into account several factors, including the seniority of the person travelling, the duration of the flight as well as the purpose and requirements of the trip. The objective is to ensure that officials are able to perform their duties effectively upon arrival and represent Singapore appropriately in their official engagements.
These guidelines are reviewed periodically and updated when necessary to keep pace with changes in travel practices and operating needs. They are also broadly consistent with prevailing practices for senior leaders in the private sector.
The Member also asked for statistics on class of travel for flights taken by POHs in the current term of Government under the written Parliamentary Question 1680. [Please refer to \"Breakdown on First Class Flights Taken by Political Office Holders on Official Duty at Public Expense by Quantity, Duration and Cost\", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Agencies individually manage air travel for their POHs and public officers, and we do not collect aggregate data on this. All Ministries and agencies are expected to adhere to the established guidelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Continuum of Care for Residents Displaced by Revocations of Nursing Home Licences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding residents displaced due to nursing home licence revocations (a) what support is provided to residents and families during the relocation process in terms of psychological support, and transport arrangements; and (b) what protocols are in place to ensure that interim care providers maintain the same standard of care as required by the Ministry.\n\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The safety and welfare of residents are our utmost priority. To ensure a safe and smooth transition when a nursing home licence is revoked, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) engages residents and families to explain the relocation process, understand their care needs and support them in identifying suitable alternative nursing homes. AIC also provides reassurance to affected residents and families during the transition process and will refer them to relevant partners for additional support where necessary. The transferring nursing home is responsible for making the necessary relocation arrangements with the receiving nursing home. This includes bearing the costs of transportation and any required medical assessments, as well as handing over relevant medical information.
To ensure continuity and quality of care, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has appointed Vanguard Healthcare Pte Ltd, an entity under MOH Holdings, as the interim care provider to care for affected residents before they are transferred to their new nursing homes. Like all licenced nursing homes, Vanguard Healthcare is required to comply with the regulatory standards under the Healthcare Services Act. MOH works closely with Vanguard Healthcare to monitor the residents' care during the interim period, oversee the transfer process and ensure that any identified issues are promptly addressed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Transitions between Salaried Employment, Unemployment, Self-employment and Business Ownership among Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry tracks transitions between salaried employment, unemployment, self-employment and business ownership among Singaporeans; and (b) whether it studies how AI-enabled self-employment and solo entrepreneurship can support workforce transitions, career resilience and lifelong employability.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) tracks job transitions of residents between different statuses of employment. Information on these transitions can be found in MOM's Labour Force in Singapore and Labour Market Reports, which are published on MOM's website.
We are studying the multidimensional impact of AI on employment and the labour market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for NGOs Setting Up Vocational Schools and Test Centres Given Timor-Leste's Designation as Approved Non-traditional Source Country for Manpower","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Acting Minister for Manpower with respect to Timor-Leste’s designation as an approved non-traditional source country for Timorese employment in construction, marine shipyard and process sectors (a) whether the Government will support or fund Singapore non-governmental organisations (NGOs) setting up vocational schools for these sectors; and (b) whether the relevant Government agencies can partner the NGOs to test and certify workers.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The training and certification requirements for Work Permit Holders in the construction, marine shipyard and process sectors are determined by the respective sector agencies. Sector agencies partner industry associations, professional bodies and training providers to train and certify workers based on industry needs.
There are currently no plans to fund the setting up of vocational schools, including by non-governmental organisations (NGOs). That said, sector agencies remain open to engaging a range of partners, including NGOs, where this aligns with sectoral priorities and standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preparedness of Employers with Workers Performing Prolonged Outdoor Work for Potential Severe Haze Episode","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry has assessed the preparedness of employers in sectors involving prolonged outdoor work for a potential severe haze episode this year, including the availability of appropriate respiratory protective equipment and workplace response plans.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) assesses employers' management of workplace safety and health (WSH) risks, including adherence to the haze guidelines, as part of its regular inspections of work sites. The guidelines set out that employers should review their preparations during a period of heightened haze risk. This includes identifying types of outdoor work to be reduced, conducting mask fit testing for workers undertaking work outdoors and ensuring at least a one-week supply of N95 masks for business continuity. Where there is egregious non-compliance with the guidelines, MOM may take enforcement action under the WSH Act, including stop-work orders and composition fines.
In view of the heightened risk of haze in the second half of the year, MOM has proactively issued an advisory reminding employers to follow the haze guidelines to protect their employees ahead of the haze season.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Assessing Appeals from Families Seeking to Sell HDB Flats before Fulfilling Minimum Occupation Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what criteria HDB applies when assessing appeals from families seeking to sell their flats before fulfilling the Minimum Occupation Period due to changed housing needs following the birth of children; and (b) whether HDB will introduce a facilitated pathway for such families to move to larger flats, subject to safeguards against speculative gains.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) is in place to safeguard heavily-subsidised Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats for households with genuine housing needs and deter speculative purchases.
Flat owners who are unable to fulfil the MOP, including families who wish to move to larger flats, may return their flat to HDB. This ensures fairness to the majority of flat owners, who are required to serve out the MOP before selling their flat.
HDB assesses appeals for MOP waivers on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of the flat owners and their families, the duration of the MOP served and other mitigating factors. This includes larger families whose housing needs have evolved over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Commencement of Higher Education Student Loan Repayments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education whether repayments for the Ministry's Higher Education Student Loan must commence within a year upon graduation or if repayments can wait until after graduates secure employment.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education's (MOE's) Higher Education Student Loan (HESL) is interest-free during the course of study, with interest commencing only upon the student's graduation or leaving the institution.
Students who take up the HESL have up to one year after graduation to commence loan repayment after graduation. This allows time for graduates to find employment and make financial plans to commence their loan repayment. For those facing difficulty in repaying their loans after this one-year period, they can make a request to defer the loan repayment. MOE will assess the appeals on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances of each appeal, and continue to exercise flexibility for these borrowers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Platform Workers Act on Incomes, Protections and Welfare of Platform Drivers and Delivery Riders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the impact of the Platform Workers Act on the incomes, protections and welfare of platform drivers and delivery riders; and (b) how may the lessons drawn from implementing the Act be applied to strengthening protections and support for other self-employed persons, including coaches, instructors and creative professionals.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Since the implementation of the Platform Workers Act in January 2025, platform workers have benefitted from improved housing and retirement adequacy, financial protection in the event of work injury and a formal representation framework.
In 2025, around 90,000 platform workers have benefitted from Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions each month and close to 24,000 lower-income platform workers received cash support through the Platform Workers CPF Transition Support grant. On work injury compensation, more than 1,000 claims have received compensation. To date, 12 platform operators have officially recognised at least one platform work association.
The Ministry has also taken further steps in concert with tripartite partners and platform operators to improve the welfare of platform workers. This includes the Platform Workers Trilateral Group, which addressed concerns on unauthorised activities in the platform sector and advocated for fairer and safer payment and incentive schemes, and the Platform Worker Safety Workgroup, which seeks to strengthen safeguards against work-related injuries among platform workers.
The Ministry will continue to work with tripartite partners to monitor the impact of the Platform Workers Act and study how relevant lessons may be applied to policies to support self-employed persons in other sectors, taking into account the different characteristics of their working arrangements and needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Increases in Electricity Costs on Prices of Goods and Services in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the impact of recent increases in electricity costs on the prices of goods and services; and (b) whether the Ministry has assessed any sector to be more likely to pass on these higher costs to consumers.
Dr Tan See Leng: Singapore's headline inflation picked up from 1.5% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2026 to 1.8% in the second quarter, following the onset of the conflict in the Middle East in end-February.
In the second quarter of 2026, the regulated electricity tariff increased by 2% compared to the first quarter. The tariff increased by another 17% in the third quarter, as the impact of higher oil and gas prices flowed through the system. Overall, the electricity price increase in the second quarter contributed 0.02 percentage-point to the increase in headline inflation in the quarter compared to the first quarter. The impact is likely to pick up in the months ahead given the higher regulated electricity tariff in the third quarter.
Currently, around one-third of households purchase electricity from retailers on longer term fixed-price plans, which are less volatile and may be cheaper than the regulated electricity tariff. Households on regulated tariff can consider switching to fixed-price plans with the retailers to minimise their exposure to the volatility in oil and gas prices.
It is difficult to assess the indirect impact on inflation caused by firms' passthrough of higher electricity costs to consumers, as firms would have also faced other cost increases, such as for raw materials and other operating costs, since the start of the conflict.
The Government recognises the cost pressures faced by businesses and households, and has provided support to help them cope. For instance, in April 2026, the Government expanded the Energy Efficiency Grant to all sectors. The Government has also recently rolled out a second support package, which includes a Cash Grant to help SMEs with elevated business costs, additional U-Save rebates to defray the increase in utility bills for HDB households and a fresh tranche of CDC Vouchers to help households manage the costs of daily necessities.
The Government will continue to closely monitor business costs and consumer prices, and stands ready to provide further support to businesses and households if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Changes in Commuters' Journey Time and Fares Paid When Public Bus Service is Withdrawn, Shortened or Rerouted","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport when a public bus service is withdrawn, shortened or rerouted (a) whether the Ministry conducts a post-implementation review of changes in commuters’ total journey time and fares paid, including for seniors and persons with disabilities; (b) within what timeframe such reviews are completed; and (c) what indicators or feedback thresholds trigger service reinstatements or adjustments to replacement arrangements.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Bus services are adjusted to serve new needs or in response to changes in commuter travel patterns and feedback. The availability of alternative services, as well as the impact on travel times and fares paid by affected commuters, are taken into consideration when routes are amended.
The Land Transport Authority continually monitors ridership and passenger loading on all public bus services, including alternative services plying the same corridor after a route is amended. Where necessary, the frequency and capacity of amended routes and alternative services are improved to ensure that commuters affected by service adjustments continue to have good travel options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suitability of Key Appointment Holders after Revocation of Nursing Homes' Licences and Maintenance of Registry of Lapses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding the recent revocation of two nursing homes' licences (a) what assessments are conducted to determine whether key appointment holders involved may continue in similar roles at other healthcare service providers; and (b) whether the Ministry maintains a publicly accessible register of regulatory actions taken against nursing home licensees, including warnings, suspensions or revocations.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the Healthcare Services Act 2020 (HCSA), licensees are responsible for ensuring that their key personnel are fit and suitable for their respective roles. The Ministry of Health (MOH) assesses whether these individuals meet the statutory requirements, taking into account the responsibilities of the roles they perform.
When a licence is revoked, MOH conducts a thorough review of the role and conduct of the key personnel involved. Where an individual is found to have been responsible for or materially contributed to the lapses that led to the revocation, MOH will assess if he or she remains fit and suitable to hold similar appointments at existing or future HCSA licencees. This assessment will be undertaken for the key personnel involved in Windsor Convalescent Home and LC Nursing Home.
MOH's regulatory approach is first and foremost to safeguard patient safety and quality of care. Where shortcomings are identified, we work with licensees to rectify the deficiencies and ensure that improvements are sustained. However, where serious lapses persist or patient safety is compromised, MOH will not hesitate to take regulatory action, including licence revocation where warranted.
MOH does not maintain a publicly accessible register of regulatory actions taken against HCSA licensees. This is because regulatory actions vary considerably in nature, severity and duration. Viewed in isolation, they may not accurately reflect the current quality and safety of a provider’s services, particularly where deficiencies have been rectified.
Our priority is to ensure that the public receives information that is accurate, meaningful and supports informed decisions about care. We will study this suggestion carefully and consider how best to provide useful information on the quality of care across HCSA licensees, where ensuring that the information is presented in an appropriate and balanced manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Innovation Laboratories in Singapore Armed Forces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence following the successful setup of RSAF Agile Innovation Digital (a) how many innovation laboratories are set up in the various arms of the Singapore Armed Forces; and (b) whether positions in these innovation laboratories are open to National Service personnel, including full-time and Operationally Ready National Servicemen.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Innovation is central to the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) operational effectiveness. We have systematically built an innovation ecosystem that enables experimentation, rapid development and operational adoption across the force. At the MINDEF-level, Future Systems and Technology Directorate manages the research and technology requirements of MINDEF and the SAF. Across the SAF, innovation entities in all four Services provide resources to experiment, prototype and scale new capabilities. For instance, RSAF Agile Innovation Digital (RAiD) deployed QualiFly, which digitalised the qualification process and cut Air Force Engineers' qualification time from six to four months. Our Defence Technology Community in the Defence Science and Technology Agency and DSO National Laboratories also turns ideas into SAF capabilities, as seen in the swarm drone trial during Exercise WALLABY 2025, which rapidly generated 3D battlefield terrain maps.
Innovation is not confined to these entities. It comes from across the force, with Regulars, Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) and Operationally Ready National Servicemen (NSmen) contributing where they are deployed. MINDEF's IGNITE Innovation Symposium showcases these achievements and recently featured an NSF-led project Operational Resuscitation and Battlefield In-Flight Tool Kit (ORBIT), which improved casualty handover during helicopter evacuation missions.
Deployment of NSFs will continue to be based on the SAF's operational needs. NSmen may be redeployed through the Enhanced Expertise Deployment Scheme, which enables us to tap on their civilian expertise in their contributions to the SAF. This ensures that innovation continues to be shaped by those with operational experience while the SAF's primary mission requirements continue to be met.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Prison Inmates' Families Who Accept Support under Yellow Ribbon or Related Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Victor Lye asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what proportion of inmates' families accept support under the Yellow Ribbon or related schemes; and (b) what are the main reasons for non-participation.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Yellow Ribbon Community Project (YRCP) is a programme offered to all newly-admitted inmates. If inmates join this programme, trained volunteers will reach out to their families and link them to community resources where necessary. Inmates can join the YRCP at any point of their incarceration.
Forty-nine percent of newly-admitted inmates in 2025 joined the YRCP.
For inmates who decline to join the YRCP, they commonly cited that their families were doing well and did not require assistance or that their families were already receiving some form of community assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Resilience of Estimated Time of Arrival System for Public Buses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport following the recent bus Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) system disruptions on 14 July 2026 and earlier this year, what specific plans does the Land Transport Authority have to (i) strengthen system resilience (ii) address hardware and redundancy vulnerabilities and (iii) prevent such recurring data transmission breakdowns before the scheduled cloud platform migration is completed.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: This was addressed in the reply to Question 1733 at the 4 August 2026 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Additional Disruption History of Bus ETA System, Financial Penalties for Vendors and Interim Safeguards Ahead of Cloud-based System Deployment\", Official Report, 4 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 33, 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":"Reviewing Size of Category C COE Quota Given Continued Economic Growth and Major Infrastructure Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government will review the size of the Category C COE quota, given Singapore's continued economic growth, major infrastructure projects and expanding logistics sector, to ensure that the quota remains aligned with the operational needs of businesses.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank the Member for the question. The Member may refer to our reply for Question No 145 at the 4 August 2026 Parliamentary Sitting. [Please refer to \"Reviewing Category C COE Scheme Given Increasing Premiums\", Official Report, 4 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 33, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Divorce Rates Spiking Between Fifth and 10th Years of Marriage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the findings in the Family Trends Report 2026 (a) what are the reasons for divorce rates to spike between the fifth and 10th years of marriage; (b) whether any steps can be taken to support couples in this phase of their marriage.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Marriages may break down for a range of reasons. Data suggest that marriages tend to face heightened vulnerability between the fifth and 10th year. Factors may include differing expectations about family life and parenting, fertility issues and loss of emotional connection. Unresolved conflicts in the early years may surface and place further strain on the marital relationship.
The Government takes a holistic approach to strengthening marriages across life stages. This starts with upstream support to build a strong foundation that will last, such as through marriage preparation programmes before and within the early years. As the marriage evolves, there are marriage enrichment programmes to strengthen spousal relationships and programmes to support parenthood.
Those facing marital stress at any point may make use of online resources through the Family Assist portal and professional marital and family counselling under the Strengthening Families Programme.
The Government is committed to supporting families in building strong and resilient marriages. We encourage couples to invest time in building their marriages and seek help early if challenges arise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Against Beauty and Wellness Businesses under Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act for Pressure Selling or Unfair Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) over the past five years, how many beauty and wellness businesses have been subject to enforcement action under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act for pressure selling or unfair practices involving prepaid packages; and (b) whether the current enforcement regime sufficiently deters repeat offenders.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, it is an unfair practice for businesses to exert undue pressure or influence on a consumer to enter a transaction. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) may investigate and take enforcement actions against businesses that engage in egregious unfair practices and, where appropriate, seek Court declarations and injunctions to stop such practices.
From 2022 to date, the CCS has taken action against 15 businesses in the beauty and wellness sector for engaging in pressure selling or other unfair practices involving prepaid packages. Of these, 13 businesses provided undertakings to CCS to cease the identified unfair practices, implement appropriate remedial actions and cooperate with CCS's monitoring measures. CCS obtained injunctions against the remaining two businesses, whose conduct warranted a stronger regulatory response.
The Government takes a serious view of businesses that engage in unfair practices. In addition to enforcement measures, such as the issuance of undertakings and Court injunctions, businesses that continue to persist in their unfair practices and breach the Court orders can be liable for contempt proceedings.
We are closely monitoring the incidence of cases and effectiveness of these measures as part of our review of the enforcement framework to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and provides sufficient deterrence against egregious businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Family Unit Formation for Single Parents with Children Who Wish to Apply for HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development how is a single parent of children, who has never been married and hence is neither divorced nor widowed, able to form a family unit with them for the purpose of applying for an HDB flat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Member may refer to the Ministry of Social and Family Development's reply to the question asked by Mr Low Wu Yang Andre on 26 September 2025, for the Housing and Development Board's approach to supporting single unwed parents. [Please refer to \"Rationale for Maintaining Distinctions in Support Schemes between Single-parent Unwed Household and Married Couples\", Official Report, 26 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 6, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Rebranding of IMH To Drive Help-seeking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr David Hoe asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has studied if the name, branding and public perception of the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) affect stigma or willingness to seek help; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider rebranding IMH or its public-facing services to better reflect mental well-being, recovery and community-based support.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Yes, the Ministry of Health is studying the need to rebrand Institute of Mental Health in recognition of its status as a key national institution for mental health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Drop in GIC's Annualised Rolling 20-year Real Rate of Return for Year Ended 31 March 2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what are the reasons for the drop in GIC's annualised rolling 20-year real rate of return of 3.4% for the year ended 31 March 2026, from 3.8% the year before.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The decline reflects, in part, GIC's more cautious investment approach in recent years amid heightened market volatility and uncertainty. GIC has prioritised portfolio resilience by diversifying its investments and adopting a lower-risk posture. While this moderated returns, it also strengthened portfolio resilience and provided greater downside protection. This approach is consistent with GIC's mandate to preserve and enhance the international purchasing power of its assets under management over the long term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Procurement Process Vulnerabilities Involving Irregular Quotations and Measures to Recover Overpayments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) what is the total number of procurement contracts issued by the Ministry found to have irregular or non-authentic quotations in each year over the past five years; (b) what specific vulnerabilities in the current procurement system allowed these irregularities to occur; and (c) what measures are being taken to recover any overpayments made.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Defence's (MINDEF's) procurements are subject to a systematic process of independent audits. These audits are conducted both internally by MINDEF's Internal Audit Department and externally by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO).
The audits conducted by MINDEF identified irregularities in 45 cases. To put this in perspective, there were more than 400,000 contracts over the past five years. These irregularities are similar to those found in the 20 identified in the Auditor-General's Report. Altogether, the audits by MINDEF and AGO identified 65 cases with these irregularities.
MINDEF regularly reviews and strengthens our procurement processes, including taking immediate measures to address any audit findings identified internally by MINDEF as well as by AGO. Specific to the irregularities found in the 65 procurement cases, MINDEF has taken efforts in three areas.
First, to better detect possible irregularities, we have expanded the pool of vendors used for quotation assessments so that we can compare across a larger number of vendors and better discern irregularities. To aid in these efforts, we are also developing AI-enabled and digital tools to enhance and automate the detection of anomalies. Finally, as an additional safeguard, we have implemented additional checks on quotations for high-usage and high-value items.
Second, once a possible irregularity is detected, MINDEF will promptly conduct an independent validation of the quoted prices. This includes obtaining fresh quotations from other vendors or benchmarking the quoted prices against historical procurement data and prevailing market prices. This serves to verify if the prices quoted are reasonable and MINDEF has obtained fair market value.
Third, we will be enhancing training for our procurement practitioners, so that they are better equipped to identify possible irregularities and take appropriate follow-up actions. For instance, we have implemented regular training sessions to build their competencies in this area. We will also strengthen knowledge-sharing across MINDEF, such as through procurement workshops and seminars, where past audit observations and lessons learnt are shared to reinforce best practices in procurement.
MINDEF takes these procurement irregularities seriously. When such irregularities are found, MINDEF will take all necessary follow-up actions, including recovering any overpayment and pursuing the appropriate contractual, disciplinary or legal actions where warranted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Lithium Fire Blankets Covering PMD Battery Compartments as Fire Safety Measure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry has conducted any studies on the effectiveness of adopting lithium fire blankets to cover Personal Mobility Devices (PMD) battery compartments to ensure safe charging of PMD batteries.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the Home Team Science and Technology Agency have conducted burn tests and research on the effectiveness of fire blankets in limiting the fire spread for Active Mobility Device (AMD) fires, which tend to burn more intensely due to thermal runaway and may result in more severe consequences, if not promptly contained.
Preliminary results suggest that fire blankets that are certified to the DIN SPEC 91489 standard are effective in containing AMD fires, potentially providing occupants with more time to evacuate safely. However, if one covers the AMD with a fire blanket while charging, it might also result in an unnecessary build-up of heat and may cause the temperature of the battery to rise faster. As such, more rigorous tests across a broader range of scenarios are required to fully understand the implications of using a fire blanket on a charging AMD.
As there are different variants of fire blankets in the market, it is important to ensure that a fire blanket is certified to the appropriate international standard for fire resistance prior to purchasing one. The SCDF advises Personal Mobility Device and other AMD users to only use devices certified to the safety standards mandated by the Land Transport Authority, and to practise safe charging and storage habits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of ONE and Tech.Pass Holders by Sector over Past Three Years, and Effectiveness of Talent Passes in Filling Skills Gaps in Local Workforce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Assoc Prof Terence Ho asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number and breakdown by sector of (i) Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Pass holders and (ii) Tech.Pass holders, respectively, in each of the past three years; and (b) how does the Government assess the effectiveness of these talent passes in attracting global talent to fill key skills gaps while complementing the local workforce.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Since the launch of the Overseas Networks and Expertise Pass (ONE Pass) scheme in 2023, the number of ONE Pass holders has grown from around 3,600 in December 2023, to 6,300 in December 2024 and to 8,500 as of December 2025. About 70% of ONE Pass holders were employed in three sectors, namely financial and insurance services, information and communication, and professional services. Tech.Pass numbers have been stable, averaging around 200 over the last three years. Tech.Pass holders are mainly in the Information and Communication sector.
The steady growth in the number of ONE Pass holders reflects the attractiveness of these passes to global talent. ONE Pass holders complement the local workforce and contribute to the Singapore economy by bringing in key skills and capabilities, leadership experience and global networks which create good jobs and economic growth. They have contributed expertise in areas, such as AI, quantum technologies and biomedical sciences. For example, Dr Anders Jacobsen Skanderup from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research had developed a novel AI-based method to monitor cancer progression, contributing deep scientific expertise to Singapore's biomedical and AI ecosystem. Another example is Mr Oliver Jay, OpenAI's Managing Director of International Strategy and Operations, who brought experience in scaling technology companies, such as Dropbox and Asana, and has mentored local founders of high-growth companies, including Carousell and Glints.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Users Given Exclusion of Two-seater Configuration as Compliant Personal Mobility Aid","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has assessed how the exclusion of two-seater configurations as a compliant Personal Mobility Aid (PMA) affects users who are physically unable to independently operate a single-seat PMA and rely on a caregiver to co-pilot or steer the device; and (b) whether LTA will consider a medical exemption or case-by-case certification scheme for such users.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs), such as mobility scooters, are intended to carry an individual who has difficulty walking, rather than to ferry others. This is why two-seater configurations are not allowed.
Individuals who are unable to independently operate a PMA may consider alternatives, such as attendant-controlled wheelchairs, which allow a caregiver to steer the device for them. Caregivers and users are encouraged to consult an occupational therapist on the appropriate mobility aid for their needs.
For those with more complex needs and extenuating circumstances that cannot be met by alternative mobility options, exemptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. The Ministry of Transport and the Land Transport Authority are working on the Subsidiary Legislation for an exemption regime.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Practice Where Strollers Have to Be Folded to Vacate Space for Wheelchair Users on Buses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Transport given that passengers with strollers are to fold and vacate space for wheelchair users when buses are crowded (a) whether LTA has assessed the safety for a caregiver to do so with a sleeping child, multiple children, or a child with special needs; and (b) how bus captains are trained to manage scenarios where a child cannot be removed from the stroller.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: When a wheelchair user needs the wheelchair bay on buses, bus captains are trained to request for other passengers using the space to give way, including those with children in strollers. Bus captains are trained to assess the situation on board and work with passengers on how to optimise the space, including requesting that passengers fold their strollers, where it is safe and practical to do so. In some cases, caregivers either have genuine difficulty folding up the stroller or are unwilling to do so. For these situations, bus captains are trained to assess the situation and to seek further advice from the operations centre.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is currently conducting a small-scale trial on 10 bus services where the wheelchair bay would be utilised on a first-come, first-served basis by wheelchair users and parents with strollers. During the trial, LTA will continue to gather feedback, engage stakeholders and will consider all views received, including from the community of persons with disabilities, before deciding on the way forward.
Public transport is ultimately a shared space, and we need the understanding and cooperation of commuters to ensure safe and reliable journeys for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Formulation, Implementation and Outcome Monitoring of New Treatment Guidelines for Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in relation to the recent Ministry of Health circular on treatment guidelines for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria (a) what clinical evidence and external organisations were relied upon in formulating the guidelines; (b) how did the Ministry assess the credibility, independence, and consensus standing of these sources; and (c) whether the Ministry will publish the full list of references underlying the guidelines.
74 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given that the Ministry does not track the number of persons with gender dysphoria or the gender-related medical interventions provided locally (a) how does the Ministry intend to monitor and evaluate the clinical and mental health outcomes of new treatment guidelines for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria; and (b) whether the full guidelines are publicly accessible to affected patients and families.
75 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether Treatment Review Panels under the new treatment guidelines for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria have been implemented; (b) if so, how many panels were operational on the date the guidelines took effect; (c) what is the median waiting time for a patient to be assessed by a panel; and (d) what interim arrangements are in place to ensure care continuity.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I will address Questions 73 to 75 together. My response will also address Written Question No 20 raised by Mr Victor Lye in today's Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Impact of Gender Dysphoria Treatment Guidelines on Existing Patient Treatment Plans and Transitional Arrangements for Affected Children and Adolescents\", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Gender Dysphoria (GD) is a psychiatric condition that requires careful and holistic management, particularly for young people who are still undergoing major physiological and psychological changes. Someone diagnosed with GD will require empathy, acceptance and support from their family and the wider community. The person will also need appropriate and effective clinical care.
However, the management of GD in children and adolescents is an area of significant international debate, as the evidence base continues to evolve. Some advocate earlier access to gender-affirming interventions, including puberty blockers, citing the absence of hard evidence-based thresholds on when such treatments should be withheld, and arguing that children can be firm in their resolve to change gender at a young age. Others urge greater caution against such treatments, citing their permanent and potentially irreversible effects on children and adolescents who may not continue to have GD later in adulthood.
The risks are significant both ways. For individuals with GD who remain undiagnosed or who are diagnosed but have treatment withheld, the consequences are severe. Appropriate treatment must therefore be accessible to them. On the other hand, for individuals without GD but given irreversible treatment, the consequences are also very severe. This requires some exercise of precaution.
The purpose of the Treatment Guidelines for Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria (Treatment Guidelines) is to address and minimise these risks. As the new Treatment Guidelines come into force, we need to ensure that existing patients undergo a supportive and empathetic transition process.
In developing the Guidelines, the focus of our clinicians in the Ministry of Health (MOH) is to do what is clinically appropriate, given what we know about the condition and the evidence available. For a complex condition like GD, the diagnosis needs to be robust, and treatment decisions must be based on the best available clinical evidence and the patient's best interests.
Hence, the Treatment Guidelines require a consistent standard of care. Given the clinical complexity of GD and the potentially severe consequences of inappropriate treatment, it should not be managed solely at the primary care level. Some less complex medical conditions, including complications associated with common chronic diseases, already require the primary care physician to refer the patient for specialist assessment and multidisciplinary care. The Treatment Guidelines therefore require GD to be assessed and managed by a multidisciplinary care team. They emphasise psychological support as the first line of treatment. They also provide for a Treatment Review Panel, which includes an independent medical specialist, to review individual cases where clinically appropriate and evidence-based medical intervention should be considered in the patient's best interests.
MOH is working with the public healthcare institutions and private providers managing existing cases to develop treatment pathways in line with the Guidelines. We will need some time to set up Panels, and schedule existing patients for review. While this is being done, existing treatment should continue under the care of the managing clinician to avoid the potential harm of an abrupt interruption. When ready, the Panels will assess patients on an individual basis, and a careful decision will be made on whether to continue or adjust their treatment plan.
In the longer term, this approach gives us greater assurance that each patient receives an appropriate diagnosis and treatment pathway. It enables us to better support young people with GD, while avoiding putting those without on a painful and irreversible path.
In developing the Treatment Guidelines, MOH established multidisciplinary workgroups to review available published evidence and international reviews on the management of GD in children and adolescents. The workgroups considered published studies, international evidence reviews and policy positions from overseas jurisdictions. They assessed the evidence on its merits, taking into account the quality of the available evidence and findings of independent reviews. The Treatment Guidelines were based on expert consensus, clinical considerations and the available evidence, and were subsequently endorsed by the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, before they were issued.
The Treatment Guidelines are aligned with the clinical policy position published by the National Health Service England in March 2024 which drew on the evidence review conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in 2020. The position has been further reinforced by a growing number of independent reviews – in New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland.
Today, MOH could not have complete information on the total number of patients with GD, as some individuals may seek care in the private sector, and it is not a notifiable condition. Given our emphasis on continuity of care, MOH is not yet aware of patients who were unable to continue with their existing treatment.
As the Treatment Guidelines are clinical guidelines intended for registered medical practitioners involved in the care of children and adolescents with GD, they were, like other clinical guidelines, disseminated to all registered medical practitioners as professional guidance and were not intended for a wider audience. Nonetheless, MOH has publicly set out the key principles underpinning the Treatment Guidelines in its response to a Parliamentary Question in May 2026. [Please refer to \"Supporting Youths with Gender Dysphoria\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Active Ageing Centres' Funding Model to Allow Greater Flexibility for Seniors to Attend Centres Outside of Designated Service Boundaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry will review the funding model for Active Ageing Centres to allow greater flexibility for seniors to attend centres outside their designated service boundaries where this would better support their social connections and mental well-being.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: While each Active Ageing Centre (AAC) has a service boundary, AACs are expected to serve seniors staying outside the boundary. This is taken into account in the funding model. That said, on the ground, staff or volunteers at AACs may inadvertently turn away seniors who are not staying in the vicinity. Local community leaders and Grassroots Advisors can play a major role in reminding them and reinforcing the implementation of our policy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Categories A and B COEs Used to Register Vehicles Owned by Car Leasing Companies and by Private Hire Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Transport (a) what proportion of Category A and Category B Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) have been used to register vehicles owned by (i) car leasing companies in 2024 and 2025 and (ii) individuals who lease their vehicles for use as private hire vehicles in each of the last five years; and (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the impact of such vehicles on COE prices.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: In 2024 and 2025, an average of about 10% of Category A and B registrations were for cars owned by car leasing companies, and about 9% were for private-hire cars owned by individuals.
Cars registered by individuals as private cars account for more than three-quarters of registrations. Even if we removed all the bids for car leasing companies and private-hire cars, the clearing price would not be much lower, as the vast majority of successful bids today are already typically within 5% of the eventual clearing price.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appointment and Tenure of Members in Special Select Committee on Nominations for Appointment as NMPs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider introducing constitutional amendments to (i) have the non-partisan Elected President appoint non-partisan Singaporeans to the Special Select Committee (SSC) on Nominations for Appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) and (ii) require that the SSC be constituted immediately upon the close of general elections or at the end of existing NMP terms.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The framework for the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) is set out in Article 39 and the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. The composition of Parliament's Special Select Committee and the process for nominating persons for appointment as NMPs are prescribed under this framework.
The Special Select Committee comprises the Speaker as Chairman and Members of Parliament from both the ruling and opposition parties. While NMPs are independent and non-partisan, they are Members of Parliament who participate in its proceedings. It is therefore appropriate that Parliament, through a Parliamentary committee comprising Members of Parliament, oversees the identification and nomination of suitable NMP candidates.
The Constitution requires the Special Select Committee to have regard to the need for NMPs to reflect as wide a range of independent and non-partisan views as possible, and to invite the general public to submit names for consideration. In practice, the Committee also invites submissions from different sectors of society. As for the timeline, the Constitution requires NMP appointments to be made within six months after Parliament first sits following a General Election.
The current framework has worked well in enabling the orderly and timely appointment of NMPs who reflect a wide range of independent and non-partisan views. The Government has no plans to change it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cybersecurity Criteria in Procurement Process for IHLs' Learning Management Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government is able to share the cybersecurity criteria adopted by IHLs during the procurement process for learning management systems (LMS) developed by third-party vendors; and (b) whether the Government will encourage the IHLs to reassess these criteria in light of the data breach of Instructure's Canvas LMS in April 2026.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) issues guidelines on cybersecurity standards for institutes of higher learning's (IHL's) Information Technology systems, including Learning Management Systems (LMS), which IHLs are required to abide by. These include engaging only LMS vendors that hold industry recognised certifications, such as ISO27001 and ISO27018, for information security management and cloud service providers, and complying with data protection obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act 2012.
MOE will continue to review and update its cybersecurity guidance to IHLs regularly, in light of evolving cybersecurity threats and lessons learnt from incidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of Existing Disability-related Tax Reliefs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Victor Lye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the adequacy of existing disability-related tax reliefs in addressing the recurring long-term costs incurred by persons with severe permanent disabilities and by their caregivers; and (b) whether there are plans to review the current framework.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Disability-related tax reliefs encourage persons with disabilities to remain employed and recognise the efforts of individuals caring for dependants with disabilities. They are part of a broader suite of support measures for persons with disabilities and their caregivers, which include strengthened support for long-term care services, as well as enhanced disability grants. In 2025, the Government enhanced subsidies for long-term care services and grants, such as the Home Caregiving Grant, the Assistive Technology Fund and the Enabling Transport Subsidy.
The Government regularly reviews our disability support measures. The Inter-Agency Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons with Disabilities, led by the Ministry of Social and Family Development, is examining ways to holistically improve support for persons with disabilities and their caregivers across life stages, including affordability of disability services. The Taskforce is expected to announce its recommendations later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Broader Impact of Projects Supported by Enterprise Development Grant Beyond Revenue and Value-add","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) in light of the recent impact evaluation of the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) (a) whether Enterprise Singapore has assessed the broader impact of EDG-supported projects beyond revenue and value-added; and (b) what has been learned from firms that did not show measurable improvements after project completion, including their ability to utilise new capabilities.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) supports businesses to upgrade, innovate, grow and transform. Beyond economic outcomes, such as revenue and value-added, Enterprise Singapore also tracks indicators, such as estimated cost savings from the adoption of new technologies and solutions. In 2025, EDG recipients reported an average annual cost reduction of S$200,000.
There are various reasons why a company may not see measurable improvements soon after project completion. Market volatility, weaker demand and cost pressures may affect overall revenue and productivity growth, as well as firms' adoption of the solutions. Innovation projects may also require a longer gestation period before benefits are realised.
Overall, EDG recipients, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, have seen increases in revenue, value-added and cost savings. The Government will continue to review its suite of enterprise schemes to support our businesses in their growth and transformation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stakeholder Engagements and Environmental Impact Assessments for Proposed Development of Gillman Barracks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development on HDB's proposed development for Gillman Barracks (a) what is the summary of stakeholder engagement over the past years; and (b) which aspects of the proposal remain open to revision under the ongoing feedback exercise.
83 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development given HDB's Environmental Impact Assessment for Gillman Barracks assessed residual impacts on fauna habitat and food source loss as remaining up to \"Major Negative\", with residual ecological connectivity impacts remaining even after mitigation (a) what criteria were used to determine that these residual impacts were acceptable to proceed with redevelopment; and (b) whether any further avoidance or minimisation measures are being considered.
84 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development (a) what lessons from Dover Forest will be applied at Maju Forest to better preserve ecological connectivity and biodiversity; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider enhancing safeguards to minimise harm to native flora and critically endangered fauna at this early stage of planning.
85 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for National Development in view of the announcement on Maju Forest (a) what expert advice informed the shape and boundaries of the preserved lots of Maju Forest; (b) whether alternative sites have been considered; and (c) what measures will be taken to ensure that the remaining forest remains ecologically sustainable in the long term.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: These questions were addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the questions asked by Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Valerie Lee and Mr Low Wu Yang Andre on 4 August 2026. [Please refer to \"Assessments, Consultations and Consideration of Alternative Sites for Housing before Decisions on Clearance of Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest\", Official Report, 4 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 33, 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":"Streamlining Process for Donors to Revoke Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) will consider streamlining the process for donors to revoke their Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), such as by automatically cancelling the existing LPA upon the lodgment of a new LPA instead of having to manually notify OPG presently.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is an important legal instrument, which accords authority on the Donee to make financial and personal welfare decisions on behalf of the Donor, when the Donor has lost mental capacity. Therefore, when Donors register their LPA as well as when they revoke their LPA, we have to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place.
To revoke an LPA, Donors are required to submit a notice of revocation to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), to verify that the decision has been properly considered and the Donees have been notified. This also gives the original Donees an opportunity to raise any concerns about the revocation.
We cannot assume that when a new LPA application is submitted, all parties, including original and new Donees are in agreement and hence, have kept the revocation and application processes separate. Furthermore, there is a mandatory three-weeks waiting period after the LPA is certified and before it is formally registered with OPG.
Notwithstanding the need for safeguards, the OPG recognises the need to continually streamline LPA processes to make it more accessible and convenient for Donors. For example, we have recently allowed Donors to submit a notice of revocation electronically via the OPG Online Portal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Whether Existing Mobile Network Quality of Service Standards Reflect Actual Connectivity Experiences in New HDB Towns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) if IMDA has assessed whether existing mobile network Quality of Service standards adequately reflect the quality and reliability of residents' actual connectivity experiences in new HDB towns such as Tengah, including their common areas and car parks; (b) if so, what were the findings; and (c) whether IMDA will review the standards to better reflect residents' real-world usage. \n
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) are required to meet the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) Quality of Service (QoS) standards. In outdoor areas, they must achieve at least 99% coverage across Singapore. Within buildings, even though it is harder and more costly for mobile signals to be uniformly available, they must achieve at least 85% service coverage.
For new developments, MNOs work closely together with the Housing and Development Board and relevant authorities to facilitate mobile coverage within a few months of a block obtaining a Temporary Occupation Permit. IMDA conducts regular audits, to verify MNOs' compliance with the QoS framework. Where there is public feedback on pockets of poor coverage, MNOs are informed to make enhancements and subject to further checks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Process for Seeking Redress When Patients are Affected by Lapses that Caused Harm","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) in cases when the Ministry's regulatory investigations confirm lapses causing patient harm and regulatory action is taken, what mechanisms ensure affected patients are guided to appropriate avenues for compensation or redress; and (b) whether the Ministry will adopt a more integrated workflow in such cases, to reduce the need for patients to initiate separate processes after investigations conclude.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The question has been addressed in the response to Question No 19 from the Parliament Sitting on 7 July 2026. [Please refer to \"Strengthening Regulatory Regime for Nursing Homes\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, 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":"Requirement for Presentation of Physical Identity Card when Checking into Local Hotels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the reason for requiring Singaporeans to present a physical NRIC card when checking into local hotels; (b) whether the Government can consider removing the need for a physical ID; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr K Shanmugam: All hotel guests, regardless of their nationality, must present a valid identity document when checking in to hotels in Singapore. This ensures that every guest can be properly identified and registered for their stay at the hotel.
In the case of Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, the Government has been moving towards full acceptance of digital National Registration Identity Cards for everyday transactions, including hotel check-ins, and plans to make legislative amendments to effect this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Russia's Temporary Diesel Ban on Singapore's Energy Sufficiency and Cost of Living","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) what is the Government's assessment of the impact that Russia's recent temporary ban on diesel will have on energy sufficiency and cost of living in Singapore, given the escalation of conflict in Iran.
Dr Tan See Leng: Russia's ban on diesel exports will not impact Singapore's energy sufficiency. Almost all of Singapore's electricity generation use natural gas. Diesel is used as a back-up and we have sufficient reserves to meet contingency needs. In addition, Singapore produces diesel for both local consumption and export as we are a major refinery hub in the region.
However, Russia's ban, which took effect on 8 July, has further tightened global diesel supply that was already tight because of the Middle East conflict. This has exacerbated upward pressure on global diesel prices. For instance, Asia Pacific's benchmark wholesale diesel prices rose by around 33% between 7 July and 27 July 2026, bringing prices to around 68% above the levels recorded before the onset of the Middle East conflict.
Higher global diesel prices lead to higher retail diesel prices at the pump. At the same time, higher global diesel prices will raise production and transport costs for a wide range of goods and services that Singapore imports, thus adding to inflationary pressures.
The Government has recently rolled out a second support package in response to the Middle East situation, to help households cope with the rising costs of fuel and other necessities. The package includes additional U-Save rebates to defray the increase in utility bills for Housing and Development Board households, and additional Community Development Council vouchers to help households manage the costs of daily necessities.
The Government will continue to closely monitor developments arising from the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fostering Greater Risk Tolerance and Strengthening Singapore's Early-stage Venture Ecosystem","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) in view of Singapore's conservative startup grant framework as compared to Silicon Valley's higher-risk funding models (a) how will the Ministry address the relocation of promising entrepreneurs overseas for greater early-stage funding opportunities; and (b) what initiatives will the Government implement to foster greater risk tolerance and strengthen Singapore's early-stage venture ecosystem.
Dr Tan See Leng: The role of Government is to foster the development of a vibrant startup ecosystem and a business-friendly environment, so entrepreneurs find it compelling to build and grow their companies here. Today, our startup ecosystem is ranked fourth in StartupBlink's 2026 Global Startup Ecosystem Index. We are also home to more than 4,500 tech startups, 500 venture capital firms and 220 incubators and accelerators.
Under the Government's Startup SG umbrella, first-time entrepreneurs are provided with mentorship and startup capital under our Startup SG Founder Programme. We also provide support for incubators, accelerators and venture builders through our Startup SG Accelerator programme to nurture startups.
In addition, Economic Development Board's and Enterprise Singapore's SG Growth Capital (SGGC) co-invest alongside private investors through the Startup SG Equity (SSGE) scheme to crowd in private sector capital for innovative early-stage deep tech startups. SGGC also partners leading venture capital firms to grow local deep tech venture capital investment capabilities and support the growth of local deep tech startups.
The Committee on Entrepreneurship recently announced key measures to boost our startup ecosystem, under our Economic Strategy Review, to expand access to capital, talent, markets and spaces for our startups. This includes a $1 billion top-up to SSGE and an expansion of the scheme to support growth-stage deep tech startups, a $1.5 billion injection to the Anchor Fund to help startups access public capital markets, new spaces for startups to grow in Kampong AI and Punggol Digital District, expanding our Global Innovation Alliance to open markets for our startups and mentorship and talent programmes to grow our own founders and attract promising ones to Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Requirement in Startup SG Founder Programme for at Least One First-time Founder with No Prior Registered Private Limited Entity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) in respect of the Startup SG Founder programme, whether the Ministry will review the requirements of having at least one first-time founder with no prior private limited entity registered with ACRA and for the private limited entity to be registered in Singapore for less than six months at the time of application.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Startup SG Founder (SSGF) scheme supports first-time founders who may lack the experience, networks and resources to pursue entrepreneurship and start innovative businesses. To achieve this objective, each SSGF application must be submitted by two applicants, of whom the first must not have previously registered a private limited entity with Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. In addition, the private limited entity used for the application must have been registered in Singapore for less than six months at the time of application.
Previously, both applicants from the registered entity had to be first-time founders. Enterprise Singapore refined the criterion in 2024 so that only the first applicant must be a first-time founder. This allows first-time founders to benefit from working with experienced founders and tapping on their expertise and networks. We have continued with this arrangement, as it has helped create a more robust startup ecosystem in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Existing Protection Mechanisms for Migrant Workers Against Employers Who Repeatedly Delay or Default on Wage Payments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will review the effectiveness of existing wage protection mechanisms for migrant workers, including whether salary payment records should be cross-checked against work permit data, to flag employers who repeatedly delay or default on wage payments to their migrant workers.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Member may refer to the reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 21 and No 22 for the Sitting on 7 July 2026. [Please refer to \"Assessing Employment Practices and Financial Health of Related Entities as a Group and Identifying Warning Indicators Preceding Large-scale Unpaid Salary Cases\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Protecting all workers and ensuring they are paid their salaries on time is a priority for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). MOM will continue to review and strengthen our processes and safeguards to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty Remission Framework to Single Singaporeans Purchasing Second Residential Property for Owner-occupation and Sell First Property within Six Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government will consider extending the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty remission framework to single Singaporeans who purchase a second residential property for owner-occupation and sell their first property within six months to align their treatment with the concessions available to married couples and seniors aged 55 and above; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Similar questions were answered in this House in October 2020 and July 2023. [Please refer to \"Extending Remission of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty to Singles Purchasing Second Property vis-a-vis Married Couples\", Official Report, 5 October 2020, Vol 95, Issue 7, Written Answers to Questions section; and \"Remission of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty for Property Buyers who are Singles\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Since then, we introduced the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) remission for single Singaporean seniors in 2024 to better support seniors who wish to right-size their homes in retirement. The Member may wish to refer to the past replies on the rationale for not extending ABSD remission to all single Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applying Model AI Governance Framework and AI Verify to Agentic AI Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Model AI Governance Framework and AI Verify are being extended to cover agentic AI systems that act autonomously without human review of individual decisions; (b) what standard of care applies to deployers of such systems; and (c) whether the Ministry will move from voluntary to mandatory requirements for high-consequence deployments.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Guidance for developers of agentic AI systems may be found in the Model Governance Framework for Agentic AI which the Government released in January 2026.
Human and organisational accountability is central to Singapore's AI governance approach. The Framework makes clear that organisations deploying AI should establish clear governance structures with designated oversight roles. They should also ensure meaningful human accountability, and implement risk management processes and controls, commensurate with the AI system's risks and level of autonomy.
As for whether tighter AI governance requirements may be introduced, the Member may refer to Ministry of Digital Development and Information's reply to Mr Alex Yeo's Parliamentary Question on 7 July 2026, which addressed the regulation of high-risk AI deployments. [Please refer to \"Key Risk Thresholds to Regulate High-risk AI Deployments and Implementing Mandatory Human Oversight for Fully Automated Decisions\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, 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":"Funding Allocated to Cities of Tomorrow R&D Programme and Number of Commercialisations Achieved","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total funding allocated to the Cities of Tomorrow R&D programme since 2017; (b) what key outcomes have resulted; and (c) how many funded projects have produced solutions that are deployed or commercialised.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Cities of Tomorrow (CoT) research and development (R&D) programme is the Ministry of National Development's (MND's) flagship R&D programme under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise's (RIE's) Urban Solutions and Sustainability domain. It aims to develop innovative solutions that address Singapore's urban and infrastructural challenges and establish Singapore as a hub for urban solutions.
Since 2017, the Government has allocated about $258 million to the programme across two RIE tranches – RIE2020 and RIE2025. The programme has supported R&D across a broad range of areas, such as advanced construction, infrastructural resilience and urban planning, as well as projects at different levels of technology readiness, with some requiring longer gestation periods than others.
Of the 43 projects funded under CoT RIE2020, about 40%, or 16, projects have been successfully deployed or commercialised, with more projects on the way. An example is SoftGridInc, a Nanyang Technological University spin-off, which developed an innovative lift monitoring solution that improves fault detection and enables proactive maintenance, halving fault response times in field trials. The solution has been deployed in the Housing and Development Board lifts, as well as private residential and commercial lifts.
Most of the CoT RIE2025 projects are still in the early stages of R&D as they were only awarded early this year.
To further strengthen translation into deployment and commercialisation, we have set up a new translation fund in February 2026 to help local companies turn research prototypes into market-ready solutions and started a pilot Green Lane Procurement Programme to expedite the adoption of research and innovation products by government agencies.
MND will continue to work with our partners and agencies to build research and industry capabilities through the CoT R&D Programme and facilitate the translation of promising research into solutions that can be deployed or commercialised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Capabilities to Detect and Prevent Communications of Real-time Deepfake Impersonations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in light of scams involving deepfake impersonation of Government officials (a) what capabilities are being developed to detect such real-time deepfake communications; and (b) whether the Government will consider secure authentication methods, such as digital signatures or a verified official channel, for high-stakes communications with citizens and businesses.
Mr K Shanmugam: We have imposed several anti-scam measures under the Online Criminal Harms Act to require designated online service providers to detect and remove deepfakes that are used to perpetrate scams. These include user verification requirements and the use of facial recognition technology to identify such deepfakes. We regularly review the adequacy of our anti-scam measures and will impose tighter requirements if necessary.
The Government is also taking steps to improve the identifiability of legitimate Government communications. We will introduce a single recognisable number prefix for all Government agencies to use for their calls with members of the public, which the Singapore Police Force will pilot later this year. We are also considering tagging calls from Government agencies with recognisable caller names, similar to the gov.sg SMS Sender ID.
Ultimately, the best defence against scams is a discerning public. We would like to remind the public that Government officials will never ask you to transfer money, disclose bank log-in details over a phone call or install mobile applications from unofficial app stores. If in doubt of the legitimacy of a call, check with the 24/7 ScamShield Helpline at 1799.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expansion and Upgrade of Paediatric A&E Facilities in Public Hospitals to Support Children and Caregivers during Emergency Visits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether there are any plans to (i) expand dedicated paediatric Accident and Emergency (A&E) facilities in public hospitals and (ii) upgrade existing ones with enhanced child-friendly waiting and treatment areas, family amenities and other comfort features, to better support children and their caregivers during emergency visits.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Paediatric specialty expertise and resources are consolidated at the KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) and the National University Hospital (NUH) to ensure the best outcomes for patients. Nonetheless, all public hospitals are equipped to provide initial resuscitation and stabilisation of paediatric patients. Patients requiring specialised paediatrics care would be transferred to KKH or NUH where required.
The NUH's Children Emergency has completed renovations this year and renovation plans for KKH Children Emergency are underway. Both renovated facilities would be able to better support children and caregivers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of RTS Link on Various Sectors in Singapore and Support Measures for Affected SMEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Ms Poh Li San asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) what measures will be taken to support retail and food and beverage (F&B) SMEs affected by the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link; and (b) whether HDB will reduce the rental fees for heartland malls located in the northern region.
101 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) whether the Ministry has studied the likely impact of the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link on Singapore's retail, food and beverage, healthcare and personal-services sectors; (b) what are the projected effects on consumer spending, business costs, employment and visitor flows in Singapore; and (c) how will the Government assess the overall economic benefits and adjustment costs arising from the Link.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link is an important bilateral project that will strengthen connectivity between Singapore and Johor Bahru. It will deepen economic and people-to-people ties and create win-win opportunities for both sides of the Causeway. The RTS Link will bring net benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans.
The Government recognises that our local businesses are operating in an increasingly competitive environment, shaped by the growth of e-commerce, evolving consumer preferences and rising operating costs. The RTS Link Taskforce, which was set up in March 2025, has engaged a wide range of stakeholders to study the impact of the RTS Link.
Through our engagements, we have heard concerns from businesses in consumer-facing sectors, such as food services and retail. While businesses have expressed concerns, they also recognise the opportunities the RTS Link offers. For example, with less congestion at the Causeway, transport and import costs may fall. In addition, enhanced connectivity will also attract more visitors from Malaysia to Singapore for recreation, entertainment, dining, shopping and other activities, adding to the vibrancy of our heartlands.
To support our small and medium enterprises and heartland enterprises, the Government has in place a range of schemes, such as the Enterprise Development Grant and Productivity Solutions Grant, to help businesses adapt. We also have targeted support, such as the Enhanced Visual Merchandising Programme, for our heartland enterprises and initiatives, such as the Retail Maverick Challenge launched by Enterprise Singapore and CapitaLand Investment, to support local retailers in piloting innovative and experiential retail concepts.
For the Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental shop tenants facing business challenges and financial constraints, HDB will assist them on a case-by-case basis. This includes offering shorter tenancy periods or facilitating business transitions to other locations. Tenants who face difficulties may approach HDB for assistance.
The RTS Link Taskforce will share its findings and recommendations in further detail later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Comparison of Singapore's Carbon Tax Trajectory from 2028 with Recent International Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"102 Mr Mark Lee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government has assessed how Singapore's carbon tax trajectory from 2028 onwards compares with recent international developments; and (b) when businesses can expect greater clarity on the post-2027 carbon tax rate to support investment planning and maintain Singapore's competitiveness.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I speak as Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change which coordinates Singapore's carbon tax policy.
The carbon tax plays an important role as a price signal to support and encourage businesses and consumers to improve energy and carbon efficiency, and to invest in lower-carbon solutions.
We have previously announced a range of $50 to $80 per tonne by 2030. As I mentioned during the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, the Government is reviewing the carbon tax trajectory for 2028 and beyond and will announce future rates in advance. We are taking a pragmatic and calibrated approach. We will consider the progress of decarbonisation technologies, the cost impact on our businesses and international climate developments. We are also tracking closely the progress of other countries in meeting their decarbonisation commitments, and Singapore's own progress towards our internationally committed decarbonisation goals.
We had declared explicitly, when we made these commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, that they were contingent on other countries also doing their part to mitigate climate change. If the global push for climate action slows down significantly, we will need to review the ambition and timing of our decarbonisation targets to ensure that they remain realistic and will not undermine our international competitiveness. That would have an implication for our carbon price trajectory.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policies on Smoking in HDB Pavilions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how do the principles that determine the legality of smoking in void decks within HDB estates affect policies on smoking in HDB pavilions that are not designated for holding functions.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) has progressively extended smoking prohibitions to more public places where members of the public are likely to be exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke. Common property of residential buildings, such as void decks, as well as covered areas intended to be used principally for holding funerals, weddings, gatherings, meetings or other communal or social functions, have been covered under the smoking prohibition regulations since 2013. These are shared spaces where large numbers of people may congregate.
For pavilions that are currently not intended for holding functions, NEA will continue to monitor public feedback, and my Ministry will review the smoking prohibition regulations accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing and Strengthening Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment to Support Displaced PMEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in view of the rising share of professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) and degree holders among those retrenched in 2025 and early 2026, whether the Ministry will review and strengthen the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment, as well as other Government schemes, to support more displaced PMEs.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Ministry of Manpower recognises the concerns around rising professionals, managers and executive (PME) and degree-holder retrenchments. Today, the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment (TAMEM) sets out the relevant norms that guide employers, employees and unions on responsible practices during retrenchments. For instance, TAMEM makes clear that retrenchment should be the last resort only after alternatives, such as redeployment, reskilling and cost-saving measures, have been considered.
When retrenchment takes place, the Government works with tripartite partners to support displaced workers through the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, which reaches out to offer job matching services, coaching and training support. There are also programmes to support displaced PMEs to pivot to a new job role or sector, such as the Skills and Workforce Development Agency's Career Conversion Programmes, the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme and Mid-Career Pathways Programme.
As part of the ongoing review of the Employment Act, tripartite partners are studying ways to strengthen support provided to retrenched workers, including PMEs and degree holders. We will consider whether and how to strengthen TAMEM as part of the review. We will provide an update in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Fees Charged by Public Agencies are Gazetted and Authorised","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"105 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what steps will be taken by the Government to ensure that subsidiary legislation is updated in a timely manner when changes to fees and charges by Ministries and Statutory Boards are made.
106 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether a systemic review has been conducted across all Government agencies following consecutive Auditor-General's Office reports on fees collected without legal authorisation; and (b) what measures are being implemented to ensure all public fees are properly gazetted and authorised prior to collection.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I will take Parliamentary Question Nos 105 and 106 together.
The Member refers to Auditor-General's Office (AGO's) reports of \"fees collected without legal authorisation\". In fact, the Government has previously explained that public agencies have a legal basis to collect fees for services that are rendered to the public. Nonetheless, for avoidance of doubt, some agencies may prescribe fees in legislation to provide greater clarity and certainty.
To be precise, the AGO's observation was that certain fees were not prescribed in legislation and that some fees were under collected. Where AGO has identified such issues, the relevant agencies will review the findings carefully and take the appropriate steps to rectify any gaps and strengthen their processes.
Beyond the agency-specific actions, the Government is also taking the opportunity to review the broader framework for fees and charges. Given the wide range of public services provided, agencies collect many different fees and charges. It would not be practical for every fee or every change to a fee to be prescribed in legislation. We are therefore considering how such fee information can be communicated clearly and transparently to the public, taking into account the nature of the services concerned.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Affordability of Bulky Waste Disposal Options for Private Estate Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) of the average of about 4,500 cases of feedback received per year by NEA for improper disposal of bulky waste, how many are in private estates; (b) whether the Ministry has reviewed the adequacy of affordable bulky-waste disposal options for private estate households; and (c) whether NEA will pilot (i) designated disposal points or (ii) periodic free collection for private estates.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Improper disposal of bulky waste in private estates constitutes about 45%, or about 2,000, of the 4,500 cases of feedback received by the National Environment Agency (NEA).
Residents staying in private estates may contact the appointed Public Waste Collector (PWC) or a licensed General Waste Collector (GWC) for the removal of their bulky items at a fee. Bulky waste removal services are separate from public waste collection contracts, as demand is sporadic and it is more equitable to charge based on usage. This is consistent with the practice in the Housing and Development Board estates, where Town Councils separately contract appointed PWCs or GWCs to offer bulky item collection services to their residents.
NEA will continue to monitor feedback on improper bulky waste disposal and explore further measures as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Considered in Reviewing CPF Annual Salary Ceiling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"108 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government is reviewing the CPF annual salary ceiling; (b) if so, what is the outcome of the review; (c) if not, what factors are being considered before the annual salary ceiling is raised and whether the annual salary ceiling will be raised in tandem with the already-raised monthly salary ceiling; and (d) what is the timeline for doing so.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Government reviews the Central Provident Fund (CPF) wage ceilings periodically. Our reviews consider factors such as the retirement needs of CPF members, resident wage growth as well as the impact of higher CPF contributions on employees and employers. This is to ensure that the broad majority of members have sufficient CPF savings for their housing, healthcare and retirement needs. Any updates may also have to be phased, in order to give employers and employees time to adjust.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Additional Grants be Given to Town Councils to Manage Hawker Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"109 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry can consider providing additional grants to Town Councils that manage hawker centres themselves, such as Whampoa and Bendemeer Hawker Centres, in view of the resources needed by the Town Councils to maintain these hawker centres at similar levels of quality and cleanliness as NEA-managed hawker centres.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The general cleaning and maintenance of hawker centres owned by the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment are managed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) or NEA-appointed operators, while hawker centres owned by the Housing and Development Board are managed and maintained by Town Councils.
There are currently no plans to change the existing management and funding arrangements for hawker centres. Nonetheless, regardless of ownership, hawker centres serve as community dining rooms and the upkeep of their cleanliness is a shared responsibility that requires every stakeholder to play their part. NEA will continue to monitor the cleanliness measures and outcomes, and work with other agencies and stakeholders, including Town Councils, to ensure that hawker centres remain clean and comfortable dining spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Per Capita Value of Household-based Cost-of-living Support Across Households of Different Sizes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"110 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government has studied the per-capita value of household-based cost-of-living support across households of different sizes; (b) whether larger households receive proportionately less support per household member; and (c) whether future CDC vouchers, utilities support or similar schemes can incorporate a household-size component while retaining administrative simplicity.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Government support for cost of living extends beyond immediate household assistance. It includes broader support for childcare, education, employment support, housing and healthcare.
Different schemes are designed differently depending on the nature of the expenses they are intended to support. Household-based schemes, such as the Community Development Council Vouchers and the U-Save rebates, help with household expenses like groceries and utilities. Other schemes are provided on an individual-basis, such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher – Cash, the Assurance Package Cash and the Cost-of-Living Special Payment in this year's Budget. The support under these schemes naturally increases with the number of eligible household members.
Taking all Government support together, larger households do not receive less Government support per household member. In 2025, large households with six or more members received an average of $8,700 in total Government transfers per member, compared to the average of $8,400 per member across all households.
We regularly review our schemes to ensure they remain relevant and effective. For example, in 2025, we increased the Assessable Income threshold for the GST Voucher – Cash from $34,000 to $39,000, to keep pace with rising incomes. We will continue to review our schemes, including their design and eligibility criteria, to ensure that Government support remains effective and responsive to the needs of Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Boundary of JS-SEZ, and Incentives and Distinct Value of SEZ to Singapore Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"111 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) what is the precise land boundary of the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ); (b) in view of Malaysia's revised New Incentive Framework effective 1 March 2026, what incentives do Singapore companies investing in the JS-SEZ receive over and above this federal framework; and (c) whether the JS-SEZ retains distinct value for Singapore firms.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) spans an area of 3,588 square kilometres, which includes the Iskandar Development Region and Pengerang.1 Information on the JS-SEZ's boundaries is publicly available.
Beyond Malaysia's New Incentive Framework, Malaysia had earlier announced initiatives to support companies investing in the JS-SEZ. These include the establishment of the Invest Malaysia Facilitation Centre Johor as a one-stop centre to facilitate investments and provide end-to-end support for companies; and a suite of incentives that provides a special corporate tax rate to firms investing in qualifying manufacturing and services activities.
The Singapore Government supports Singapore companies' internationalisation, including to the JS-SEZ, via the Market Readiness Assistance Grant and the Enterprise Financing Scheme. We have also set up the JS-SEZ Project Office, a joint outfit of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Enterprise Singapore and the Economic Development Board, to support Singapore companies interested in exploring opportunities in the JS-SEZ.
The JS-SEZ enables firms to adopt a twinning model that taps on the combined offerings of Singapore and Johor. For example, Agrocorp, a Singapore agri-commodities and food ingredient company, expanded its downstream capabilities in plant protein extraction by establishing a new plant in Johor with its Japanese partner. The plant will use a protein extraction technology developed by Agrocorp and the Singapore Institute of Technology. Investments like these in Johor have helped our firms grow and generate value for the Singapore economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Malaysian Investment Development Authority."],"footNoteQuestions":["111"],"questionNo":"111"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statutory Protection for Student Interns and Debarment of Companies from IHLs' Internship Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"112 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry is aware if companies barred by one Institute of Higher Learning (IHL) for mistreating student interns are automatically debarred from participating in internship programmes at other IHLs; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a centralised cross-IHL mechanism to prevent such companies from simply moving to another IHL to participate in internship programmes.
113 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Education (a) whether students undergoing school-mandated internships, who are not typically covered by the Employment Act and the Workplace Injury Compensation Act, have any statutory protection against excessive working hours, workplace abuse and injury; and (b) if not, what recourse is available to them.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will address the matters raised by Members in Oral Question Nos 112 and 113, as well as Written Question No 40 in today's Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Extending Workplace Protections to Students on Course-Required Internships Not Covered by Employment Act and Work Injury Compensation Act\", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Internship arrangements can be considered a contract of service or contract for service, depending on the nature of the internship. The Employment Act and Work Injury Compensation Act provide employment protections for all employees, including interns, engaged under a contract of service.
The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) work closely with companies offering mandatory internships to provide a safe learning environment for their students. For example, IHLs set clear expectations for participating companies, including workplace safety, recommended allowance ranges and maximum working hours. Students are also informed of appropriate channels in their IHLs to seek assistance on any concerns faced during the internship. In response to student feedback, IHLs may visit the student on-site and conduct regular check-ins to ensure his or her safety and well-being.
The IHLs also provide insurance coverage for all students on mandatory internships.
The IHLs have barred companies from taking on subsequent student interns for reasons, such as excessive working hours, workplace abuse and unsafe work environments. Some IHLs already share such information with their counterparts. The Ministry of Education will continue to work closely with IHLs to safeguard the well-being of student interns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Enhanced Workflow for Identifying and Resolving Clashes Between Underground Utility Projects to Other Entities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"115 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the enhanced workflow introduced by URA since 2024 to identify and resolve clashes between underground utility projects will be extended to other entities carrying out underground works, such as Town Councils; (b) if so, by when; and (c) whether Town Councils and their contractors will be required to submit and access underground utility data through Singapore Land Authority's planned centralised portal.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) enhanced workflow is intended to improve the upfront coordination process for the planning and implementation of large-scale utility projects, such as major road and rail projects, as well as large transmission utility pipes and underground cables. The Singapore Land Authority's (SLA's) centralised portal is similarly focused on accepting survey submissions for large-scale utility projects. These initiatives help optimise how we use underground spaces for large-scale utility projects, avoid utility alignment conflicts that may cause downstream abortive works and reduce repeated road openings.
While such large-scale utility projects could be within or adjacent to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) estate boundaries, they are typically implemented by Government agencies, such as the Land Transport Authority, HDB, JTC Corporation and the Public Utilities Board, or utility licensees, such as SP PowerGrid and Singtel. In contrast, utility works carried out by Town Councils, such as the maintenance and repair of utilities, are typically localised in nature and smaller in scale. Such works are not within the scope of URA's enhanced workflow and SLA's centralised portal submission requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Findings and Outcomes of Inquiry into Allegations of Workplace Issues at Law Society of Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"116 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry has been informed of the findings and outcomes of the inquiry into allegations made in September 2025 of workplace issues at the Law Society of Singapore; (b) if so, what are they; and (c) what actions does the Ministry intend to take in response.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: On 13 September 2025, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Ministry of Manpower received an anonymous email containing a set of concerning allegations and complaints against certain persons and practices within the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc). This was sent by MinLaw to the then-Council of LawSoc (LawSoc Council), to investigate. LawSoc Council appointed the LawSoc's Audit Committee to investigate the matter and make the appropriate recommendations. The Audit Committee, which comprised both LawSoc members and non-members, conducted the investigation independently of LawSoc Council.
The Audit Committee sent its report to LawSoc Council on 5 June 2026. LawSoc Council sent a copy of the report to MinLaw on 1 July 2026.
The allegations raised in the complaint were serious and wide-ranging, covering matters which occurred at LawSoc in the period 2022 to 2025. They concerned inappropriate workplace conduct, weaknesses in governance and oversight, deficiencies in grievance handling and whistleblowing processes, and shortcomings in internal controls over certain administrative and financial practices. While the audit did not find evidence of deliberate financial impropriety or an intentional cover-up, it nevertheless identified significant failings in leadership, workplace culture and governance during the relevant period.
These failings have no place in an institution such as LawSoc. They undermine confidence within the organisation, affect the well-being of its employees and risk eroding the trust that both the legal profession and the public place in it.
The Ministry notes that the current LawSoc Council has acknowledged the Audit Committee's findings and has begun implementing its recommendations. It is important that the Council now carefully considers the findings in their entirety, assesses whether and if so, what further action is required, and takes firm and decisive steps wherever appropriate to address any shortcomings, strengthen governance, improve accountability, and ensure that similar issues do not arise again. They have also invited members to a closed-door meeting in August to further discuss the findings of the Audit Committee.
LawSoc occupies a unique position as the representative body of Singapore's legal profession. It is entrusted with responsibilities that extend beyond its own members, and is expected to exemplify the values of integrity, professionalism and accountability. It must therefore be held to the highest standards of governance and institutional accountability.
The Ministry looks forward to receiving updates on LawSoc's progress on the above.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Public Service Guidelines on After-hours Communication for Promoting Work-life Harmony and Healthier Workplace Culture","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Public Service has implemented guidelines on after-hours work communication; and (b) if so, what assessment has been made of their effectiveness in promoting healthier workplace norms and work-life harmony in the Public Service.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service is committed to supporting officers' well-being, including promulgating workplace practices and norms that allow public officers to strike a good balance between their work and personal commitments.
Good practices include setting reasonable expectations, such as not having to respond to work email or messages after office hours, unless urgent. Where operational exigencies require officers to work or respond outside of office hours, supervisors are expected to exercise judgement, prioritise work appropriately and minimise disruption to officers' non-work time. Examples of setting such norms include the use of email banners stating that recipients are not expected to respond outside of working hours unless indicated.
We also monitor our officers' workplace experience through employee feedback channels and employee surveys. Agencies regularly review and adjust their workplace practices in response the feedback received.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown on First Class Flights Taken by Political Office Holders on Official Duty at Public Expense by Quantity, Duration and Cost","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in the current term of Government (a) what is the total number of flights in First Class taken by political office holders while on official duty and at the taxpayer's expense; and (b) for each flight, what was the average (i) duration and (ii) cost.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Agencies individually manage air travel for their political office holders and public officers, and we do not collect aggregate data on this. All Ministries and Agencies are expected to adhere to the established guidelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Special Resignation Scheme Departures, Adequacy of Compensation Formula and Future Public Service Employment Eligibility over Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in each of the past five years (a) how many public officers left under the Special Resignation Scheme, with a breakdown by Ministry family and statutory board; (b) whether the 2011 compensation formula has been reviewed and whether ex-gratia top-ups are standard; and (c) whether recipients remain eligible for future public service employment.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Over the last five years, a total of 130 public officers have left the Public Service through the Special Resignation Scheme (SRS).
The Public Service Division regularly reviews the financial support under the SRS to align with tripartite guidelines. Ex-gratia payments are only considered in exceptional circumstances that warrant the Service extending greater support to affected officers on a goodwill basis.
Officers who have left the Service via SRS remain eligible for future employment within the Public Service. They may be required to partially refund the SRS if the gap between their original departure and their re-entry to the Public Service is within a defined period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Approved Family Offices and Assets Under Management by Approval Status and Country of Origin, and Pending Applications by Region and Proposed AUMs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the current number of approved Family Offices (FO) and Assets Under Management (AUM), with a breakdown into its country of origin and amount; and (b) how many FO applications are currently under processing and its proposed AUM, with a breakdown of its region and amount.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): As of end-December 2025, more than 2,000 Single Family Offices (SFOs) receive tax incentives1. These SFOs manage the monies of families originating from a range of countries, predominantly from the Asia Pacific region, followed by Europe and the Americas.
Singapore's broader asset management industry grew 10.1% in 2025 to record total assets under management of $6.7 trillion, with SFOs continuing to grow alongside it. They contribute positively to this growth and increase demand for jobs in asset management as well as in ancillary services, such as in private banking, legal and tax advisory, accounting and fund administration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These are the tax incentive schemes for single family office funds under sections 13O and 13U of the Income Tax Act."],"footNoteQuestions":["4"],"questionNo":"4"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors and Relative Weightings in Recommending Candidates for Appointment as Chief Justice","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what factors are typically weighed in recommending a candidate for appointment as Chief Justice, including the relative weight given to litigation experience, judicial experience and other forms of legal and public service.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (for the Prime Minister): The Constitution requires the Prime Minister to advise the President on the appointment of a Chief Justice; and the President, after consulting the Council of Presidential Advisers, makes an independent assessment before the appointment is made.
In assessing a candidate, a range of factors is considered. These include litigation experience, judicial experience where applicable; leadership and management capabilities, contributions to the development of the law; and other forms of legal and public service. The relative weight given to each factor depends on the individual's overall experience and suitability for the office. No single criterion is determinative.
Ultimately, the person appointed must have impeccable integrity, deep legal expertise, judicial temperament and sound judgement. The individual must also have sufficient stature to command the respect of the Bench and Bar; and the leadership ability to oversee the Judiciary, uphold public confidence in the administration of justice; and engage the legal profession and international counterparts.
This approach has served Singapore well. Successive Chief Justices have strengthened our Judiciary and maintained its reputation for independence, professionalism and excellence. The quality of our Judiciary today reflects the calibre of those who have been prepared to serve and the care taken in making these appointments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Gender-neutral Working Parent's Child Relief to Support Diverse Caregiving Arrangements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider introducing a gender-neutral Working Parent's Child Relief claimable by either working parent, particularly for families where the mother stays home to care for multiple children and the father is the sole breadwinner, so that tax support better reflects different caregiving arrangements.
Ms Indranee Rajah: The objective of the Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR) is to encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children. This objective remains relevant as women are still more likely than men to exit the workforce to care for their children.
To support and encourage parenthood, we also have other measures, such as the Qualifying Child Relief and Parenthood Tax Rebate, which are available to both mothers and fathers.
We will continue to review how to better support Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood journey. The Government has set up a Workgroup to drive a Marriage and Parenthood Reset, which will release its findings in early 2027.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Piloting Behavioural Interventions to Improve Public Vigilance and Reporting Rates under SGSecure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr David Hoe asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the low vigilance and response rates observed in SGSecure social experiments, whether the Ministry will consider piloting behavioural interventions, including gamified, recognition-based or incentive-based approaches, to encourage prompt reporting and reinforce desired public responses.
Mr K Shanmugam: The SGSecure movement has incorporated behavioural interventions into engagement activities and programmes to improve engagement outcomes.
For example, the SGSecure movement leverages gamification activities to enable Singaporeans to put knowledge into practice in a simulated environment. Besides the interactive activities at SGSecure roadshows, there are other initiatives, such as the SGSecure mini-games, within the Singapore Police Force's MATA-verse on Roblox; and inclusion of SGSecure elements, that is, reporting of suspicious incidents, in the Ministry of Defence's Total Defence@Singverse game on Roblox; and the Guardians of the City II card game. To nudge stronger personal commitment to keeping Singapore safe, SGSecure roadshow participants are also encouraged to make digital pledges on a community wall.
To recognise members of the public who have helped others in emergencies, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force also give awards to the most active community responders, who have helped save lives and property. Positive stories involving community responders are also publicised, to encourage more to step up to play a role in this movement.
Lastly, the SGSecure movement also seeks to make vigilance a social norm through peer-led advocacy. For example, student leaders and volunteers are trained as SGSecure advocates to engage and educate their peers at safety and security events on campus. In May, MHA partnered Republic Polytechnic to organise a social media competition, where students created social media content to engage and educate their peers on SGSecure messages.
The SGSecure movement will continue to review and strengthen our outreach efforts to keep the terrorism threat salient to Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Police Reports on Financial Exploitation of Minors Through Social Media Platforms over Past Five Years, and Trends in Online Financial Exploitation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Victor Lye asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each of the past five years, how many police reports involved the financial exploitation of minors originating through social media, livestreaming, or messaging platforms; and (b) whether the Ministry has observed an increase in online channels being used to induce minors to transfer money, purchase gifts or make payments.
Mr K Shanmugam: Not every type of financial exploitation is an offence. Thus, statistics are not collected on financial exploitation per se. That said, one form of such exploitation is scams; the number of scam victims below 18 years of age declined in 2025 compared to 2024, in line with the overall decline in the number of scam cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Safety Measures for Migrant Workers Travelling in Lorries Against Collisions Caused by Drink Driving","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in light of recent cases involving motorists allegedly driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, whether the Ministry will review whether (i) additional measures are needed to better protect migrant workers travelling in lorries from collisions caused by impaired drivers and (ii) existing safety measures remain adequate to minimise casualties.
Mr K Shanmugam: Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs poses a serious risk to all road users, including workers travelling in lorries. The Ministry has introduced the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill for First Reading in July 2026, which proposes legislative amendments to lower the alcohol limits when driving and introduce a new offence for driving with controlled drugs, psychoactive or intoxicating substances present in one's blood. These measures are intended to deter motorists from such dangerous conduct.
Specific to improving the safety of workers travelling on lorries, the Government has also introduced measures in recent years to improve the safety of workers travelling on lorries, including requirements for employers to ensure sufficient rest time for drivers, and for drivers to have a \"vehicle buddy\" when ferrying workers. In addition, we will ban the ferrying of workers in caged lorries from 1 January 2027, and require all lorries with maximum laden weight between 3,501 kilogrammes and 12,000 kilogrammes to install speed limiters by 1 July 2027.
The Government will continue to monitor trends and review our measures to improve road safety as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Singapore Pools App Loophole Enabling Overseas Users to Bet via Roaming Data and Implications for Problem Gambling Regulation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) is aware of reports that users can place bets on the Singapore Pools app while overseas when users connect through the roaming data of Singapore telcos, even though such users are required to be geographically in Singapore; and (b) whether the GRA deems it necessary to close this loophole to combat problem gambling.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) is aware of reports of Singapore Pools app users who placed bets while overseas. GRA is looking into the matter.
That said, when travelling overseas, bettors may have access to a wide range of gambling products and disallowing them access to Singapore Pools may nudge them to gamble with other operators that have fewer safeguards against problem gambling. The issue therefore needs to be studied carefully.
The matter is being investigated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Road Traffic Accidents by Class of Vehicle and Cause of Accident, and Observable Trends Following Expansion of Speed Limiter Regime","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry can provide a half-yearly breakdown of all road traffic accidents from 1 January 2024 to date, by class of vehicle and cause of accident; and (b) whether there is any observable trend in the number of road traffic accidents following the recent expansion of the speed limiter regime.
Mr K Shanmugam: The table below presents an annual breakdown of the number of vehicles involved in road traffic accidents involving death or injury1 in 2024 and 2025 by vehicle type2. The most common causes3 of accidents for 2024 and 2025 are failure to keep a proper lookout (48.8% in 2024, 53.4% in 2025); failure to have proper control of the vehicle (11.8% in 2024, 11.7% in 2025); and changing lanes without due care (10.6% in 2024, 8.4% in 2025).
We are monitoring the trend in the number of road traffic accidents as the expanded speed limiter regime is rolled out and will provide an update at a later date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The Traffic Police does not track traffic accidents that do not involve death or injury.","2 : Data is accurate as of 13 May 2026.","3 : Other causes of road traffic accidents are listed in the Traffic Annual 2025 report at https://www.police.gov.sg/-/media/SPF/Media-Room/Publications/Traffic-Annual-2025/Traffic-Annual-2025.pdf.","4 : \"Others\" includes ambulance, armoured fighting vehicles, bulldozer, compactor, container, crane, car transporter, cement mixer, concrete pump, dumper, excavator, forklift, firefighting vehicle, grader (wheeled), garbage truck, loader, pipe-layer (tracked), platform truck (self-loader), police vehicle, prime mover, recovery vehicle, refrigerated vehicle, road roller, scrapper, skidder, skip loader, sweeper, self-propelled artillery, tank, tanker, tractor, tow truck, twin cabin goods vehicle, and so forth."],"footNoteQuestions":["11"],"questionNo":"11"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternative Language and Oral Assessment Arrangements for Singaporeans Seeking Security Officer Licences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department has considered alternative arrangements for assessments for Singaporeans seeking a security officer licence, such as accepting assessments conducted in official languages other than English including via oral examinations.
Mr K Shanmugam: While on duty, security officers need to be able to communicate effectively with their interlocutors. Otherwise, there could be serious repercussions. For example, security officers will give urgent instructions if an emergency occurs. The interlocutors must be able to understand them. English is the working language in Singapore and is likely to be understood by the most number of interlocutors. If security officers communicate in any other language, the risk is that there will be more of the interlocutors who may not understand them. Training and assessments for security officers are therefore conducted in English.
Assessments for security officers are facilitative and account for varying levels of English proficiency. They are conducted using a mix of oral and written modes. The assessments have been refined over the years, including using simpler English and the addition of pictorial aids. Over the past five years, there have been very few security officers who appealed for assessments to be conducted in languages other than English. On average, the Ministry of Home Affairs receives about three such appeals out of more than 20,000 assessments conducted annually.
Security officers who need assistance in improving their English proficiency may enrol in workplace literacy courses supported by the Skills and Workforce Development Agency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Long-Term Visit Pass Priority Processing for Post-birth Childcare Support in Mixed-Citizen Marriages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs for Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) applications for spouses in mixed-citizen marriages who are about to give birth, as well as for their own parents (a) whether priority is accorded to such applications beyond ICA's usual considerations to assess LTVP applications, to assist with providing immediate post-birth childcare; and (b) if so, whether such priority is weighed against any other considerations.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) assesses each Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) application on its merits.
Singapore citizens with a foreign partner are strongly encouraged to use the Pre-Marriage LTVP Assessment (PMLA) before they get married. That will let them know the likelihood of the foreign partner obtaining long-term stay facilities. This will give them greater transparency on whether their partner can stay in Singapore – even before marriage. Applicants who have completed the PMLA can also benefit from faster processing of six weeks or less for their LTVP application. Foreign spouses who are applying for or renewing their LTVP will also be granted LTVP+ if they qualify, which will make them eligible for healthcare subsidies and longer duration of stay.
Parents of foreign spouses can stay on a Short-Term Visit Pass and apply to extend it if they wish to stay longer to support caregiving for the child. If applicants declare specific caregiving needs or special circumstances which may warrant longer stay, ICA will take this into consideration.
There are a large number of applications for various passes, to stay in Singapore. The different needs for the stay need to be assessed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Systematic Assessment of NSF Technical Qualifications, Vocation Matching Rates and Extending Enhanced Expertise Deployment Scheme to NSFs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) whether MINDEF systematically assesses the technical qualifications or expertise of pre-enlistment Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs); (b) what percentage of NSFs are assigned to vocations leveraging their qualifications or expertise; and (c) whether the Enhanced Expertise Deployment Scheme can be extended to NSFs.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) deploys servicemen primarily according to its operational requirements. Full-time National Service (FTNS) trains Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) for the roles they will perform during full-time service and subsequently during Operationally Ready National Service (ORNS). When assigning NSFs to their initial vocations, the SAF considers relevant qualifications, aptitude and suitability, alongside its manpower needs. For example, in 2025, about half of pre-enlistees with nursing qualifications were posted as NSF Medics, while the remainder were assigned to other roles based on operational requirements and their assessed suitability.
The Enhanced Expertise Deployment Scheme serves a different purpose. It allows suitable Operationally Ready National Servicemen to be considered for redeployment when they acquire specialised civilian expertise after FTNS that meets a specific SAF need. As the scheme is intended to recognise expertise acquired after FTNS, it is not extended to NSFs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Healthcare Pathways for Special Educational Needs Assessment for Children, and Wait Times from Referral to Therapy and Between Therapy Sessions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the pathway for Special Educational Needs assessment under the public healthcare system for children aged seven and above; and (b) what is the 25th percentile, median and 75th percentile wait time (i) from initial referral to formal diagnosis (ii) from formal diagnosis to the commencement of subsidised therapy sessions and (iii) between subsequent therapy sessions respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Where necessary, schools refer children to Response, Early Intervention, Assessment in Community Mental Health teams and/or Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs) at the Public Healthcare Institutions. Parents who are concerned may also seek help at SOCs.
Wait times generally range from one to four months from referral to assessment by a healthcare professional, and from two weeks to three months from assessment to therapy. Wait times between therapy sessions vary based on interventions and are not tracked.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Out-of-pocket Healthcare Expenditure by Income Quintile over Past Five Years and Proportion of Households Exceeding 10% of Household Income Threshold","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the median and 90th percentile annual out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure of resident households by income quintile over the past five years; and (b) whether the Ministry monitors the proportion of households whose out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure exceeds 10% of household income.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on the latest Household Expenditure Survey (HES) in 2023, the annual out-of-pocket (OOP) healthcare expenditure per household member by income quintile is shown in Table 1 below, prior to any assistance through MediFund and/or charity.
The Ministry of Health does not monitor the proportion of households whose OOP healthcare expenditure exceeds 10% of household income. Needy patients may speak to a medical social worker at the institution where they are receiving care, to apply for MediFund assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of 2025 MediShield Life Premium Revisions on Net Premiums Payable by Income Decile, and Quantity of Unsubsidised Policyholders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health following the 2025 MediShield Life premium revisions (a) what has been the median net change in annual premiums payable after subsidies and MediSave top-ups for resident households by income decile; and (b) how many policyholders have received no premium subsidy.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Around 60% of policyholders from lower- and middle-income households as well as Pioneer and Merdeka Generation seniors receive structural premium subsidies. When MediShield Life was enhanced in 2025, the Government provided an additional $4.1 billion in premium support for three years. This comprised $3.4 billion in additional MediSave top-ups and $0.7 billion in additional premium subsidies.
The net change in premiums varies by age, per capita household income and property annual value. Table 1 below shows the median net change in premiums, broken down by the income tiers for means-tested MediShield Life premium subsidies for those in properties with an annual value $21,000 or less. This does not factor in MediSave top-ups. We do not have data by income deciles.
For more than nine in 10 Singaporeans, the net increase in annual premiums over the next three years will be more than offset by the MediSave top-ups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bridging Gap Between Mental Health Awareness and Help-Seeking Behaviours Through Earlier Policy Intervention Approaches","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has studied the gap between mental health awareness and actual help-seeking behaviour among Singaporeans; (b) what factors may explain this gap; and (c) how are mental health policies evolving to support earlier intervention before individuals require more intensive care.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also address the oral question filed by the Member scheduled for a subsequent Sitting.
According to two separate local studies, the proportion of residents able to recognise common mental health conditions has increased from 42% in 2015 to 59% in 2023; the proportion willing to seek help from healthcare professionals increased from 48% to 64% between 2019 and 2024, while those willing to seek help from informal support networks increased from 76% to 82%. The Ministry does not track the duration between onset of mental health awareness and actual help-seeking.
To encourage earlier help-seeking, the Ministry has been launched public education efforts, such as the National Council of Social Service's \"Beyond the Label\" campaign. We have also established the First Stop for Mental Health, such as the national mindline 1771, to identify individuals in distress early, and improve wayfinding to appropriate mental health support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Children with End-Stage Heart Failure and Proposal for National Paediatric Heart Transplant Programme Across NUH, KKH and National Heart Centre Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Victor Lye asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many children with end-stage heart failure is the Government aware of who have, in the past 10 years, died, received mechanical circulatory support or been referred overseas for transplantation; (b) whether the Ministry will establish a national paediatric heart transplant programme involving National University Hospital (NUH), KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) and National Heart Centre Singapore; and (c) if so, by when.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Data from the Public Healthcare Institutions showed that 12 children with end-stage heart failure have received mechanical circulatory support or been referred overseas for heart transplantation in the last 10 years.
The Ministry of Health will study the need and feasibility to establish a national paediatric heart transplant programme, considering patient volume, clinical outcomes, specialised clinical expertise and long-term sustainability of the programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Gender Dysphoria Treatment Guidelines on Existing Patient Treatment Plans and Transitional Arrangements for Affected Children and Adolescents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Victor Lye asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health since the Treatment Guidelines for Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria were introduced (a) how many patients had (i) existing treatment plans changed, deferred or discontinued and (ii) been unable to continue public healthcare treatment; and (b) what, if any, transitional and grandfathering arrangements were adopted to avoid or mitigate treatment disruptions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The question has been addressed in the response to Question Nos 73 to 75 from the Parliament Sitting on 5 August 2026. [Please refer to \"Formulation, Implementation and Outcome Monitoring of New Treatment Guidelines for Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria\", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Temporary Fuel Support Measures Beyond June 2026 to Government-contracted Transport Services and Private Ambulance Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the temporary support measures for Government-contracted transport services which ended in June 2026, will be renewed amid the ongoing fuel price spikes; and (b) whether these support measures will be extended to other private ambulance operators to mitigate the impact of potential fuel price increases on Social Service Agencies and patients in need.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: There are currently no plans to extend the temporary support measures for transport services beyond June 2026. We recognise that transport operators and care providers may have to raise fees if fuel prices remain elevated. The Ministry of Health will continue to ensure care remains affordable for patients through means-tested long-term care subsidies, which MOH recently enhanced from 1 July 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Coordinating Enforcement Actions Against Illegal Cough Mixture Peddling and Measures to Prevent Recidivism","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) which agency leads enforcement at locations where illegal cough-mixture peddling is known to persist; (b) how do the Health Sciences Authority, Singapore Police Force, Central Narcotics Bureau, Singapore Food Agency and other agencies coordinate their respective enforcement efforts; and (c) whether further measures are needed to prevent repeat offenders from resuming illegal peddling at the same locations after enforcement action.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) lead the enforcement efforts against the illegal supply of codeine preparations, through regular intelligence sharing and coordinated joint enforcement operations with the Singapore Police Force, particularly in locations where such activities are known to persist.
Over the years, HSA has also stepped up surveillance and enforcement operations in these locations to detect and deter illegal peddling activities. HSA will continue to take robust enforcement action against offenders, especially repeat offenders, to protect public health.
Under the Health Products Act 2007, a person found to have supplied illegal health products may, upon conviction, be fined up to $50,000 or face imprisonment of up to two years, or both. Repeat offenders may face higher penalties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Littering Trends in Singapore and Strengthening Enforcement Measures and Public Education on Littering","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether Government data indicates that littering in Singapore has increased in recent years; (b) whether existing data is sufficient to assess trends in littering levels; and (c) what further measures are being considered to strengthen enforcement, public education, community stewardship and data collection on littering.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The number of enforcement actions taken by the National Environment Agency (NEA) against ground littering offences has decreased in recent years, from about 18,700 in 2023 to 13,300 in 2025. NEA also uses other data points, such as ground observations and public feedback, to understand trends in public cleanliness and address persistent cleanliness hotspots.
NEA works with partners, such as residents, community leaders, Town Councils and schools to foster collective action and social responsibility for keeping our public spaces clean. This includes outreach by volunteers at mass events and community clean-ups led by NEA's Clean and Green Singapore Ambassadors. The Public Hygiene Council complements these efforts through driving the Keep Singapore Clean movement, campaign and programmes to rally the community and stakeholders to raise public hygiene and cleanliness standards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Long-term Environmental Awareness and Behaviour Changes from Participation in Go Green SG 2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what metrics are used to assess whether participation in Go Green SG 2026 results in sustained changes in environmental awareness or behaviour for corporations and individuals; and (b) what findings have emerged from these assessments to date.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Go Green SG was initiated in 2023 as an annual whole-of-nation sustainability movement to rally citizens, businesses and the community to take collective action towards a more environmentally sustainable and climate-resilient Singapore. The movement is led by the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment alongside partners from the public, private and people (3P) sectors.
We assess Go Green SG's impact through campaign reach, number of partners and activities, as well as individual support for going green.
The fourth edition of Go Green SG this year was held in support of the Year of Climate Adaptation. Some 500 partners organised more than 1,000 activities in support of climate action. This was more than three times the number of activities and partners from the inaugural edition in 2023.
Through Go Green SG campaign surveys, more than 90% of participants also shared that they were willing to lead more sustainable lifestyles and advocate for sustainability after participating in Go Green SG. These reflect a sustained mindshare among individuals, communities and businesses towards environmental sustainability and climate resilience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Recycling and Incineration Rates of National Recycling Programme Blue Bins and Recycling Chutes from 2019 to 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) for each year from 2019 to 2025, what quantities by weight collected through National Recycling Programme blue bins and recycling chutes were (i) sent onward for recycling and (ii) sent for incineration after sorting; and (b) how those quantities were measured.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Recyclables collected in blue recycling bins and chutes under the National Recycling Programme (NRP) are sent to materials recovery facilities, where they are sorted. By weight, around 40% are non-recyclable items that have been incorrectly deposited, or recyclables that have been contaminated by food and liquid residues. These unsuitable materials are disposed of at our waste-to-energy plants, while the remaining items are sent onward for recycling.
From 2019 to 2025, the average tonnage of recyclables collected and sent for recycling under the NRP was approximately 37,000 tonnes per year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Heat Preparedness Measures in Light of El Niño Weather Forecast","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment regarding forecasts of El Niño bringing warmer and drier conditions in the second half of 2026, how will the Heat Resilience Policy Office coordinate measures to strengthen heat preparedness.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Heat Resilience Policy Office (HRPO) coordinates Singapore's heat resilience strategy to address the impact of heat, spanning both shorter-term preparedness and longer-term systemic resilience.
HRPO works with agencies to increase public awareness of heat stress risks. This includes promoting awareness of the Heat Stress Advisory, which provides guidance on managing prolonged outdoor activities based on prevailing heat stress levels. This is complemented by sector-specific operational responses across agencies, such as the Ministry of Manpower's heat stress framework for outdoor work, the Ministry of Education's guidelines for schools to ensure the safety and well-being of students amidst the hot weather, and the Ministry of Health's heatwave response framework for healthcare institutions and eldercare facilities.
HRPO also works with agencies through an inter-agency task force on the national heatwave response plans that each agency would undertake for their respective sectors.
In the longer term, HRPO leads the development of a Heat Resilience Action Plan, which identifies priority areas and develops measures across the infrastructure, health, economic and social domains. This is supported by research through the RIE2030 Heat Resilience Research and Development Programme, to develop infrastructural interventions to mitigate urban heat, and improve understanding and management of the impacts of heat on different segments of society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Predictive Indicators Beyond PSI Levels for Activation of Haze Task Force Response Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the advisory by the Meteorological Service Singapore and the National Environment Agency (NEA) on 29 May 2026 on the risk of transboundary haze affecting Singapore, what other predictive indicators beyond PSI levels will guide the activation of the Haze Task Force's response plans.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Ahead of the annual dry season from June to October, the National Environment Agency (NEA) convened the Haze Task Force (HTF) in April 2026 to standby the response plans across all HTF agencies and sectors. The risk of transboundary haze this year would be higher than in 2025, due to forecasted El Niño conditions which are expected to bring drier than normal weather to Singapore and the surrounding region.
HTF response plans are tiered and activated once relevant 24-hour Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) thresholds are reached.
Besides tracking the PSI levels, the Meteorological Service Singapore and NEA actively monitor regional hotspots and smoke haze from satellite imagery, as well as forecasts of weather conditions, such as prevailing winds and rainfall. Together, these indicators inform assessments of whether transboundary haze is likely to affect Singapore and guide the issuance of timely public advisories.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Impact on Food Resilience Following Removal of Locally Grown Vegetables in Supermarket and Strengthening Market Access for Local Farms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment following the recent removal of locally grown vegetables from the shelves of a large supermarket chain (a) what assessment has been made of the impact on our food resilience; and (b) what measures are being considered to strengthen market access for local farms.\n\n
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The impact on food resilience from FairPrice's delisting of vegetables from certain local farms is limited.
The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) is assisting the affected farms to access a wider and more diverse range of buyers including online platforms, and through the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited.
SFA will continue to work closely with the industry to strengthen demand offtake. This includes promoting local produce through the SG Fresh Produce logos and recognising food businesses in the hotel, restaurant and catering sector that procure local produce through the Farm-to-Table Recognition Programme (FTTRP). Consumers can also do their part by choosing to purchase local produce or dining at food businesses under FTTRP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Application Rates and Outcomes for Enrolment into Preschools under Inclusive Support Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each of the past five years, what is the number of applications submitted for enrolment into preschools under the Inclusive Support Programme (InSP); and (b) what proportion of such applications was successful.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Inclusive Support Programme (InSP) pilot supports children with development needs referred by paediatricians at KK Women's and Children's Hospital and National University Hospital. From 2021 to 2025, about 340 referrals were made to the InSP pilot. Two-thirds, or about 220 of these children, were enrolled.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developing Tender Specifications for Abused Child Reunification Monitoring Technology Through Expert Consultation and International Benchmarking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how the specifications for the recent tender on technology to monitor abused children reunified with their families are derived, including (i) which are the experts and stakeholders consulted and (ii) whether references are made to comparable systems deployed or trialled in other jurisdictions.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As part of strengthening child safety and achieving better protection outcomes, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will explore if technology can be used to improve operational effectiveness. MSF published a tender via the Infocomm Media Development Authority's Open Innovation Platform, to see if the market can provide novel solutions to the defined operational challenge. Considerations of the child's safety and the family's privacy are factors that the solution is expected to address.
We did not prescribe a particular technological solution to allow industry to surface alternative approaches. To the best of our knowledge, no other jurisdiction has developed any comparable solution.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Scope and Timeline of Review on Staff Wages, Qualifications and Quality Accreditation Framework in Student Care Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development regarding the student care sector review announced at Budget 2026 (a) what is its scope and expected timeline; (b) whether it will examine staff wages, qualifications and turnover; and (c) whether it will consider a quality accreditation framework distinct from the existing compliance audit.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The review of the student care sector by the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Social and Family Development is ongoing and more details will be shared when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Equitable Access to Discounts for Seniors and Low-Income Residents Excluded from App-only and Digital Promotions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry has studied the extent to which seniors and low-income residents without smartphones are disadvantaged by app-only discounts, digital coupons and QR code promotions for essential goods and services; and (b) whether guidance will be issued to retailers to ensure equivalent non-digital access to such discounts.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government recognises that digital proficiency is not uniform and some citizens need more support to access digital services. The Member may refer to the Singapore Digital Society report published by the Infocomm Media Development Authority. It outlines the extensive range of support available and improvements in digital inclusion, especially for seniors and lower-income households.
For providers of essential goods and services that serve a broad cross-section of residents, we advocate the approach of \"digital first, but not digital only\". The Government itself ensures that citizens who need in-person support can access Government services at agencies' physical service touchpoints and at ServiceSG Centres.
With regard to retailers, the Government does not intervene in their marketing and promotions decisions. However, we observe that many retailers already provide non-digital ways for discounts, especially if they assess these to be welcomed by key customer segments. For example, leading retailers, like FairPrice, Sheng Siong and Giant, offer discounts to customers presenting physical cards, such as the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Cards, PAssion Silver Concession Card, Community Health Assist Scheme Card, or National Registration Identity Card.
Similarly for Mediacorp's television programme schedule, publishers have the flexibility to decide based on their assessment of their audiences' preferences. We understand Lianhe Zaobao and Berita Harian continue to publish them but the Straits Times has stopped the practice. Viewers who require help may contact Mediacorp's hotline to enquire about television programme schedules or to get help accessing the on-screen programme guide on the mewatch application.
The Government will continue to support seniors and low-income residents in building digital skills and access, and encourage businesses to adopt inclusive practices, so that more Singaporeans can benefit from digitalisation while those who need additional support are not left behind.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Digital Accessibility Requirements for Providers of Essential Consumer Services for Persons with Visual Impairments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Government intends to introduce or strengthen digital accessibility requirements for providers of essential consumer services, such as supermarkets, pharmacies, banks and utilities, to ensure compatibility with screen readers and other assistive technologies for persons with visual impairments.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government has provided tools and resources for organisations, including providers of essential consumer services, to improve digital accessibility.
GovTech has developed and introduced Oobee (formerly known as Purple A11y), a practical open-source web accessibility testing tool that helps any digital service provider identify and address accessibility issues, such as unlabelled buttons and links, which, when corrected, enables persons with visual impairments using screen-readers to independently access digital services without needing assistance.
In addition, GovTech has launched the A11y Playground, a website that equips developers, designers and digital service providers with resources to design more accessible digital services. This includes a technical checklist that guides service providers in incorporating accessibility provisions early in the development process, reducing implementation barriers and saving time.
We will continue to partner with providers of essential consumer services, such as those in healthcare and finance, to embed digital accessibility as a consideration from the outset of the development.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for GovTech Retrenchments, Retraining and Redeployment of Affected Employees and Vacancy Consideration across Public Service before Retrenchment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry has information on (i) the reasons necessitating the retrenchments at GovTech (ii) the number of affected GovTech employees who were successfully retrained or redeployed and (iii) whether all suitable vacancies within GovTech and the wider public service were considered before employees were retrenched; and (b) if so, what are the details thereof.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This question has been addressed in the oral reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 19 to 25 at the 4 August 2026 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"GovTech's Restructuring, Roles Redesign and Retrenchments, and Support for Affected Staff\", Official Report, 4 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 33, 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":"Establishing Frameworks for Under-18 Social Media Access and Design Feature Safeguards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information on under-18 access to social media (a) what must platforms do to retain access for children; (b) who will assess this; (c) what is the timeline before any access restrictions take effect; and (d) whether this framework will address platform design features, such as autoplay, direct messaging and infinite scroll, in addition to content-based harms.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Singapore is studying a tiered access approach to social media for children, where under-13 users are restricted from accessing designated social media services (DSMSs). For users aged between 13 and 18, the DSMSs will be required to provide an age-appropriate experience, which could include appropriate content, interactions and platform features. Platforms that cannot comply with our requirements may be restricted from providing their services to users aged between 13 and 18.
Consultations with the public and DSMSs are ongoing. We will provide more details in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Labelling for AI-generated and Digitally Manipulated Content to Align with Code of Practice for Online Safety and GenAI Transparency Guidelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the case for regulation requiring the indicative labelling of AI-generated or digitally manipulated content shown to Singapore users, similar to the EU AI Act Article 50 transparency obligations; and (b) if so, how this will relate to the Code of Practice for Online Safety and new voluntary GenAI chatbot transparency guidelines.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government regularly assesses our regulations and frameworks to ensure that they remain relevant as technologies evolve.
The Infocomm Media Development Authority's two Codes of Practice for Online Safety require designated social media and app distribution services to put in place systems and processes to mitigate Singapore users' exposure to harmful content, including those generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The Transparency Guidelines for Generative AI Chatbots encourage deployers to clearly explain to users the capabilities, limitations and safeguards of their chatbots.
We will continue to monitor international developments on the labelling of AI-generated or digitally-manipulated content. We will also keep track of the maturity of technical standards, such as watermarking and digital provenance approaches, and assess if they should be mandated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Resilience Against Threats of Growing Cybersecurity Risks Posed by AI","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of recent reports of OpenAI models autonomously carrying out cyber-attacks (a) how is the whole-of-Government assessing the growing cybersecurity risks posed by AI; and (b) what measures are being taken to strengthen Singapore's resilience against such threats.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The question raised by Ms Lee Hui Ying in relation to AI-enabled cybersecurity risks and countermeasures, has been addressed in Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How's oral reply to related PQs at the Parliament sitting on 5 May 2026. The Member may refer to that reply. [Please refer to \"Response to Risks from Frontier AI Models with Potential to Steal Data, Disrupt Critical Infrastructure and Exploit Software Vulnerabilities\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, 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":"Enrolment Rates of Secondary Students in Southeast Asian Third Languages and Expanding Access to Mainstream Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education (a) how many secondary students currently take a Southeast Asian language as a third language; (b) what share of total third-language enrolment they form; (c) whether such languages can be offered within mainstream schools rather than only at the central language centre; and (d) whether access to Southeast Asian languages, such as Vietnamese, Bahasa Indonesia and Thai, will be expanded and made more accessible.
Mr Desmond Lee: Currently, Southeast Asian languages that are offered as Third Language include Bahasa Indonesia (BI) and Malay (Special Programme) (MSP).
A total of about 2,300 secondary students currently offer BI or MSP, making up 36% of third language enrolment. Third languages are mostly offered in the Ministry of Education Language Centres, as the enrolment would be too small to form a class at the school level.
On top of the third languages offered, primary and secondary schools conduct Conversational Chinese and Malay (CCM) programmes as enrichment for students. CCM and Vietnamese online learning packages are also available on the Singapore Student Learning Space for any interested student to learn at their own pace.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on School Programme Expenditure for Student Mental Health and Well-being in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education (a) what proportion of schools' programme expenditure was directed to student mental health and well-being in each of the past five years; and (b) whether the Ministry will publish this data as a recurring indicator.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will address both Parliamentary Questions raised by Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan about funding for student mental health and well-being.
The Ministry of Education's (MOE's) approach to supporting student mental health and well-being is spread across a range of school activities and programmes. This includes manpower resourcing, curriculum support and professional training of educators and specialised personnel to create a school environment where students feel safe, connected and supported. Efforts include regular check-ins on students' well-being, early detection, peer support structures, and a curriculum that teaches social-emotional learning and mental health education. For example, quarterly surveys are conducted to assess how well students are coping and their support structures. We also invest in digital solutions to make the collection and analysis of such data more efficient and effective.
Beyond this, MOE resources schools with school counsellors and facilitates access to counselling interventions, as well as targeted support in the community, such as Response, Early Intervention, Assessment in Community Mental Health and the Youth Integrated Teams. The latter two provide mental health assessment and intervention services funded by the Ministry of Health.
Overall, the Ministry's expenditure on student mental health and well-being is included in our manpower resourcing and the operating grants given to schools. As these provisions and efforts are woven into daily school life rather than delivered as standalone programmes, MOE does not track the expenditure on mental health separately. Doing so would not accurately reflect the holistic support for mental health and may create a misleading picture that underrepresents the actual level of resourcing. For this reason, MOE does not publish this as a recurring indicator.
Supporting student mental health is a whole-of-Government effort. The full investment in student mental health extends beyond MOE's budget and any assessment of the Government's commitment should be understood in this larger context.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Workplace Protections to Students on Course-Required Internships Not Covered by Employment Act and Work Injury Compensation Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Education in respect of students undertaking course-required internships without a contract of service and falling outside the Employment Act and Work Injury Compensation Act, whether the Government will establish minimum protections concerning working hours, rest, harassment, grievance procedures and financial protection for workplace injury.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will address the matters raised by Members in Oral Question Nos 112 and 113, as well as Written Question No 40 in today's Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Statutory Protection for Student Interns and Debarment of Companies from IHLs' Internship Programmes\", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Internship arrangements can be considered a contract of service or contract for service, depending on the nature of the internship. The Employment Act and Work Injury Compensation Act provide employment protections for all employees, including interns, engaged under a contract of service.
The institutes of higher learning (IHLs) work closely with companies offering mandatory internships to provide a safe learning environment for their students. For example, IHLs set clear expectations for participating companies, including workplace safety, recommended allowance ranges and maximum working hours. Students are also informed of appropriate channels in their IHLs to seek assistance on any concerns faced during the internship. In response to student feedback, IHLs may visit the student on-site and conduct regular check-ins to ensure his or her safety and well-being.
IHLs also provide insurance coverage for all students on mandatory internships.
IHLs have barred companies from taking on subsequent student interns for reasons, such as excessive working hours, workplace abuse and unsafe work environments. Some IHLs already share such information with their counterparts. The Ministry of Education will continue to work closely with IHLs to safeguard the wellbeing of student interns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Application Outcomes Received for Startup SG Founder Programme by Age, Gender and Grant Amount","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) in 2025 (a) how many applications were received for the Startup SG Founder (SSGF) programme; (b) how many of these applications were successful; and (c) what is the breakdown of successful applicants by (i) age group (ii) gender and (iii) grant amount received.
Dr Tan See Leng: In 2025, Enterprise Singapore received 65 Startup SG Founder grant applications, of which 55 applications (approximately 85%) were approved. The average grant quantum awarded across the 55 successful applications was approximately $50,000. The founders ranged from 23 to 69 years old, with 67% below 40 years old. Sixty-nine percent of the applicants were male.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Greenfield Biodiversity Site Redevelopment Rationale, Brownfield Assessment and Ecological Profiling Transparency Regarding Maju Forest Redevelopment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for National Development in the context of the Maju forest redevelopment, what are agencies' planning considerations and horizons to explain why new plots of land with biodiversity value are being redeveloped (i) when other plots remain empty or (ii) when other plots with different land uses, such as golf courses, remain undeveloped, given that the Government's population projections remain below earlier estimates.
43 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the assessment of remaining brownfield capacity is conducted at the regional level when a greenfield site is proposed for housing; (b) whether the findings from the Ecological Profiling Exercise form part of the consideration before the site is committed; and (c) whether both assessments are published alongside the environmental impact assessment.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: These questions were addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the questions asked by Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Valerie Lee and Mr Low Wu Yang Andre on 4 August 2026. [Please refer to \"Assessments, Consultations and Consideration of Alternative Sites for Housing before Decisions on Clearance of Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest\", Official Report, 4 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 33, 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":"Assessing Impact of Private Housing on Multiracial Interaction and Proposal to Extend Ethnic Integration Policy to Private Residential Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government has assessed if the share of residents and foreigners living in private housing where the Ethnic Integration Policy does not apply may reduce everyday multiracial and multicultural interaction; and (b) whether it will consider studying if private residential developments should be subject to integration-related guidance or requirements at the planning, sale, tenancy or estate-management stages.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Integration is an important goal to achieve social cohesion. There are however no plans to introduce ethnic integration requirements for private residential developments, as such a move will have major implications for the property market and for all private property owners.
We are facilitating integration through other ways. For example, we are injecting public housing in areas, like the former Bukit Timah Turf City, to achieve a better social mix in precincts with a higher proportion of private estates. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth has also piloted a new Permanent Resident (PR) Journey and Employment Pass (EP) Journey to help new PRs and EP holders settle in and understand local norms and culture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Redevelopment Prospects for Serangoon North Village Near Cross Island Line Station and Role of MRT Connectivity in Site Prioritisation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB has assessed the four-storey mixed-use Serangoon North Village, comprising Blocks 151 to 154 on Serangoon North Avenue 1, for redevelopment given its adjacency to the future Cross Island Line station; (b) what weight new MRT connectivity and surrounding new development carry in prioritising sites for redevelopment; and (c) whether en bloc redevelopment will be considered.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: \tThe redevelopment potential for public housing sites depends on multiple factors, including the potential for land optimisation.
There are currently no plans to redevelop the blocks at Serangoon North Avenue 1, but we keep an open mind in assessing the suitability of this site and other locations.
46 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for National Development in view of the increasing number of HDB blocks above 40 storeys and Singapore's rapidly ageing population, how are fire safety and enforcement measures recalibrated to enable the elderly, especially those with mobility problems, to access and navigate escape routes, such as exit staircases.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply on 5 May 2026 to the question by Assoc Prof Terence Ho. [Please refer to \"Addressing Concerns of High-rise Living Such As Lift Availability and Fire Safety with Increase of 60-storey HDB Blocks\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Response and Escalation Procedures for Top-floor HDB Residents Experiencing Roof Leaks and Ceiling Seepage, and Support and Recourse Available for Affected Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the response standards and escalation procedures for reports by top-floor HDB residents regarding roof leaks or ceiling seepage linked to common property; (b) how does HDB and Town Councils divide responsibility for investigation and repairs after such reports are received; and (c) what support or recourse is available to top-floor HDB residents if repairs are delayed, inadequate or recurring.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The roofs of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks are part of common property under the management of Town Councils (TCs). TCs are responsible for keeping them in good condition by carrying out regular maintenance and repairs where needed.
Residents living on the top floor who encounter seepage issues from rooftops can reach out to their TCs, who will then investigate the cause of the water seepage and engage contractors to carry out repair works to resolve the issue. HDB supports the TCs by conducting joint inspections and providing technical advice should the TCs have difficulty resolving seepage issues and request for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Comparison of Stall Rent Data from Privately-owned Coffee Shops vis-à-vis Data from HDB-leased Coffee Shops","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider collecting stall rent data from privately-owned coffee shops to enable meaningful comparison with data being collected by HDB for HDB-leased coffee shops from January 2026.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board plans to make available relevant rental data which will help potential shop tenants or stallholders make informed business decisions. The collection and publication of rental data for privately-owned coffee shops is under review and we will provide an update when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current Lowest, Highest and Median Monthly Rent for Petrol Station Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for National Development what is the lowest, highest and median monthly rent currently paid for petrol station sites.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Petrol station sites in Singapore are either privately-owned or tendered out by the Government. For sites tendered out by Government, most lessees paid a lump sum land premium upfront. Of the 24 sites that paid a monthly rent, the lowest, highest and median monthly rents are $25.88 per square metre (psm), $345.09 psm and $132.10 psm respectively, depending on their locations across different parts of Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Age-calibrated Sinking Funds for Essential Infrastructure, and Strengthening Inspection Regime in Older Private Condominiums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will mandate age-calibrated minimum sinking funds ring-fenced for essential infrastructure, alongside public financial disclosures for condominiums; and (b) whether the existing inspection regime can be strengthened by requiring remedial or renewal works where inspections identify significant deterioration in essential equipment like fire systems and water tanks in older private condominiums.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As part of the ongoing review of the Building (Strata Management) Act, the Building and Construction Authority is studying how Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs) should plan for and accumulate adequate sinking funds for essential maintenance and upgrading works. These include public financial disclosure requirements to give subsidiary proprietors and prospective buyers better visibility of the financial health of MCSTs.
Existing inspection regimes for key building systems, such as those for fire protection systems and potable water storage tanks, as set out under the Fire Safety Act and the Public Utilities (Water Supply) Regulations respectively, already require building owners to carry out necessary remedial or renewal works where significant deterioration or deficiencies are identified.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Integrated Facilities Management Procurement Contract Outcomes Across Public Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government has assessed the outcomes of Integrated Facilities Management procurement contracts across the public sector, including their impact on productivity, service quality, workforce outcomes and overall cost-effectiveness.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Public sector agencies track the outcomes of their Integrated Facilities Management (IFM) contracts based on their operational needs. Typical indicators monitored by agencies include response time for resolving issues, manpower productivity and user satisfaction.
In general, agencies have observed benefits from their implementation of IFM. For example, JTC's portfolio of IFM contracts has exceeded performance targets, based on indicators, such as response time and user satisfaction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing HDB Public Housing Demand Forecast Accuracy over Past 10 Years and Annual Comparison of Forecasted and Actual Demand","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for National Development (a) what methodology and indicators does HDB use to forecast public housing demand; (b) over what time horizon is such forecast made; and (c) in each of the past 10 years (i) how has the forecasted demand compared against actual demand and (ii) what has the variance been.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) adopts a comprehensive approach in planning new flat supply, taking into account demographic and socio-economic trends, prevailing market conditions, and the supply of resale flats on the open market. These include both long-term demand projections to guide infrastructure preparations and near-term demand projections to determine the supply of Build-to-Order (BTO) flats on a year-to-year basis.
In the last 10 years, HDB's planned supply has been sufficient to meet demand, except when the housing market was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. To meet the stronger-than-expected demand arising from the pandemic, HDB stepped up our supply of BTO flats, including Shorter Waiting Time flats with waiting times of less than three years. New flat application rates have since come down.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhanced Noise Insulation Support for Households Affected by Prolonged Construction Noise from Public Infrastructure Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government will consider introducing enhanced support, such as funding for noise insulation measures, for households experiencing prolonged construction noise from major public infrastructure projects, similar to practices adopted in countries, such as Germany, where noise mitigation measures are provided.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Mitigation of noise from major public infrastructure projects is under the purview of the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE).
Specifically on transport infrastructure projects, the Land Transport Authority's contractors are required to implement noise mitigation measures, such as noise barriers and quieter equipment to comply with MSE's regulations.
Based on feedback, contractors have also provided affected residents with additional support, such as window seals or noise curtains, where appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Transport Fare Concessions for Caregivers Accompanying Commuters with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Transport whether the Public Transport Council will consider introducing a companion concession or other fare arrangements for caregivers accompanying commuters who are unable to travel independently because of disability issues.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Public Transport Council currently has no plans to introduce a companion or caregiver concession scheme. Caregivers who are heavy users of public transport can purchase monthly passes to help manage their public transport expenditure. Caregivers from lower-income households also benefit from other schemes, such as Public Transport Vouchers, when transport fares are adjusted.
The Government also provides support under the Home Caregiving Grant to individuals with permanent moderate disability living in the community. This grant provides cash payouts of up to $600 per month, which can be used to defray the cost of care, including transport expenses for caregivers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Procurement and Deployment of Active Mobility Enforcement Cameras, and Data on Fines Issued under Enhanced Regulations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Transport (a) for the procurement schedule of active mobility enforcement cameras, both mobile and permanent, to support enforcement of the enhanced active mobility regulations; and (b) what is the number of fines that have been issued under the enhanced active mobility regulations since 1 June 2026.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) currently deploys 60 active mobility enforcement cameras islandwide, with plans to expand over the next few years.
Under the enhanced active mobility regulations, LTA has caught 21 users for the offence of keeping a non-UL2272 certified e-scooter and six users for Personal Mobility Aid-related offences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Quantity and Usage of Active Adult Monthly Travel Pass and Senior Citizen Monthly Concession Pass and Targeted Promotion to Eligible Commuters","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many active Adult Monthly Travel Passes and Senior Citizen Monthly Concession Passes are there currently; (b) how many adults and senior citizens spent more than $122 and $55 a month respectively on public transport in April 2026; and (c) whether the Ministry will systematically promote such monthly travel passes to eligible commuters to help them manage transport costs.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: In April 2026, about 23,500 Adult Monthly Travel Passes and 41,800 Senior Citizen Monthly Concession Passes were sold. In the same month, about 56,000 adults and 58,000 seniors who did not have monthly passes each spent more on public transport than what the pass would have cost them.
In 2025, the Public Transport Council (PTC) reduced the prices of monthly passes by about 5% to encourage take up. PTC and SimplyGo also reach out to commuters across various channels, including social media and online platforms, to raise awareness of the monthly passes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Data on Dangerous Riding by Shared-bicycle Users Versus Other Cyclists, and Mandatory In-app Safety Modules for First-time Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether enforcement data on dangerous riding distinguishes shared-bicycle users from other cyclists; (b) if so, what is the number of dangerous riding cases for each category over the last three years; and (c) whether the Ministry is considering any steps to raise awareness of safe riding by shared-bicycle users, such as making in-app safety modules mandatory before first use.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Enforcement data on reckless riding on public paths and roads does not distinguish between shared-bicycle users and other cyclists.
Shared bicycle operators have introduced initiatives to promote safe riding practices, such as in-app safety modules and push notifications on safe riding.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Redevelopment of Mandai Executive Golf Course and Consideration for Alternative Redevelopment Sites or Further Tenancy Extension","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the Government's reasons for designating Mandai Executive Golf Course (MEGC) for redevelopment, given that MEGC's tenancy had previously been extended to keep golfing costs affordable to the public; and (b) whether the Government will consider (i) exploring alternative redevelopment sites, including private golf courses, and (ii) further extending MEGC's tenancy in the meantime.
Mr David Neo: Mandai Executive Golf Course (MEGC) will be redeveloped by the Ministry of Education to an Outdoor Adventure Learning Centre.
The Government's objective is to balance access to golfing facilities by private golf club members and the general public. The Government had worked with Keppel Club to set aside slots at the Sime Golf Course for public use at affordable prices. The Government also announced in July 2025 that the land occupied by Keppel Club (Sime) and Singapore Island Country Club (Bukit) would be reallocated for public golf course use, following the expiry of their leases in December 2030, with a part of the site considered for allocation to the Labour Movement for its members. This is being studied and updates will be provided in due course.
Agencies are reviewing a short-term tenancy extension arising from the MEGC operator's appeal and will update MEGC in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Block-booking of Public Tennis Courts by Singapore Tennis Association, Monitoring of Actual Court Usage and Release of Unutilised Bookings to Public","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Singapore Tennis Association is allowed to block-book public tennis courts; (b) whether Sport Singapore monitors if public tennis court bookings are actually used; (c) if so, whether unutilised bookings can be released to the public for same-day booking; and (d) if not, why not.
Mr David Neo: National Sports Associations are given some priority for the booking of sports facilities to support development programmes, competitions and national team training. This includes the Singapore Tennis Association's (STA's) use of tennis courts at The Kallang and ActiveSG facilities.
The Kallang Group and SportSG monitor the utilisation of these facilities. We have recently reviewed the STA's use of public tennis facilities and have asked the Association to optimise its court bookings so that more courts can be made available to the public.
As a first step, STA is consolidating all national squad training at the Kallang Tennis Hub. It is also streamlining its training schedules to maximise court availability for public use. These measures have already enabled more courts to be released for public booking.
We will continue to monitor utilisation of sports facilities and optimise their use where possible. Our objective is to ensure that these facilities are well-utilised while balancing the needs of high-performance sport, community programmes and recreational users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of SG Culture Pass to Singapore-authored Cookbooks and Culinary Publications Preserving Singapore's Food Heritage and Cultural Identity","subTitle":"Extension of SG Culture Pass to Singapore-authored Cookbooks and Culinary Publications on Singapore’s Food Heritage and Hawker Culture","sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry will consider extending the SG Culture Pass to include Singapore-authored cookbooks and culinary publications that document Singapore's food heritage, traditional recipes and hawker culture, in recognition of their role in preserving and promoting Singapore's cultural identity.
Mr David Neo: The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth recognises that Singapore-authored cookbooks and culinary publications play a meaningful role in documenting our local culinary heritage. The current stage of SG Culture Pass (CP) implementation prioritises Singapore literature books. We do not intend to expand the scope to include culinary publications for now, but will review the scope of CP in future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Associations Registered for Immigrant Integration over Past 20 Years, Government Programmes and Partnerships, and Effectiveness of Integration Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) in the last 20 years, how many associations or societies were registered with the specific purpose of integrating new immigrants; (b) what are the programmes or partnerships that the relevant Government agencies have implemented to engage with them; and (c) what is the effectiveness of such programmes in the integration of new immigrants into the Singapore community.
Mr David Neo: The Government does not track the number of associations or societies that are registered with the specific purpose of integrating immigrants.
We welcome associations or societies to pursue integration efforts and have partnered with some of them in doing so. For example, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) supports the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations in its annual sports festival, which brings together participants from both traditional clan associations and immigrant associations.
MCCY's Community Integration Fund also provides grants to support Singapore-registered organisations, including associations or societies, for ground-up integration initiatives. For example, the Singapore Malayalee Association's SG60 Onam Village festival in 2025 introduced immigrants and non-Indians to Singapore's distinct multicultural heritage and provided opportunities attendees to learn about Singapore Malayalee culture, appreciate Singapore's multicultural heritage and build connections across communities.
As part of the Alliance for Action on Integration of Foreign Professionals, MCCY also works with the Singapore Business Federation to partner Trade Associations and Chambers to foster interactions between local and foreign professionals, to help new professionals better understand our local cultural norms and what it means to work in Singapore's multicultural context.
Integration of new immigrants into the Singapore community is an ongoing process where everyone has a role to play. Singapore's strength lies in our ability to bring together people from different backgrounds to build a shared sense of identity and belonging.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking of Excessive Worker Surveillance and Monitoring Complaints Through TAFEP and Other Channels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"62 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of reports regarding excessive and invasive worker surveillance, tracking, and use of analytics tools including location tracking and keystroke loggers through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) and other channels; and (b) if so, how many such reports have been received to date.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Member may refer to our reply to Parliamentary Question No 38 at the 23 September 2025 Parliament Sitting regarding intrusive employee monitoring practices. [Please refer to \"Complaints against Employee Monitoring beyond Working Hours, and Enforcement Actions and Employee Recourse Available\", Official Report, 23 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 3, 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":"Financial Impact on and Assistance for Platform Workers Ineligible for CPF Transition Support Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"63 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) given the year-on-year increase for their own CPF contribution share, whether the Government has assessed the financial impact on platform workers earning above $3,000 monthly who are ineligible for the Platform Workers CPF Transition Support scheme; and (b) whether there are plans to assist this group of platform workers to adapt to the increase in the CPF contribution share.
Ms Jasmin Lau: While platform workers who are mandated to, or opt in to, make increased Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions will see lower take-home pay, they benefit from additional CPF contributions from platform operators and an increase in total earnings.
To help such platform workers adjust, their increase in CPF contribution rates is phased in over five years, with the year-on-year increase for the platform workers' share being no higher than 2.5 percentage points. For lower-income platform workers who have less disposable income for basic needs, the Platform Workers CPF Transition Support Scheme (PCTS) provides targeted monthly cash support to offset part of the increases. Platform workers earning above $3,000 monthly are assessed to be better placed to manage the transition. Hence, there are currently no plans to expand PCTS to cover them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current Local Qualifying Salary Level and Alignment with Lower-income Worker Wages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"64 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what percentile of the wage distribution of full-time employed resident workers does the current Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) of $1,800 per month correspond to; (b) what is the latest nominal gross monthly income from work, excluding employer CPF contributions, at the 10th percentile; and (c) whether the current LQS remains aligned with lower-income workers' wages.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Based on the latest available data, the current Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) of $1,800 per month corresponds to about the 6th percentile of the income distribution of full-time resident employees. The nominal gross monthly income from employment (excluding employer/platform operator CPF contributions) of full-time employed residents at the 10th percentile was $2,000.
The Government reviews LQS regularly, taking into account wage growth at the lower-end of the wage distribution and business considerations. LQS is part of a broader set of Progressive Wage moves to uplift our lower-wage workers. Following the increase in LQS from $1,600 to $1,800 that took effect on 1 July 2026, up to nine in 10 lower-wage workers benefit from Progressive Wage moves1.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These include the Local Qualifying Salary, the Progressive Wage Model and the Progressive Wage Mark."],"footNoteQuestions":["64"],"questionNo":"64"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures Addressing Platform Worker Safety and Adequacy of Income Support Following Rise in Work-related Traffic Accident Fatalities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"65 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Acting Minister for Manpower regarding the increase in work-related traffic accident fatalities in the first half of 2026 compared with 2025, whether and how the Ministry, together with the Platform Worker Safety Workgroup, will (i) work with platform operators to reduce and prevent such work-related fatalities or injuries and (ii) review the adequacy of income-replacement support for platform workers during recovery from such injuries.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Ministry of Manpower is concerned about the increase in work-related traffic accidents. The Platform Worker Safety Workgroup, comprising the Government, Labour Movement and platform operator representatives, is developing safeguards to better protect platform workers from workplace injuries. The workgroup will take into account the fatal work-related traffic accidents that have occurred in recent months and share its findings and recommendations when ready.
Since January 2025, the Work Injury Compensation Act mandates that platform workers receive work injury compensation at the same level of coverage as employees. This includes reimbursement for medical expenses, as well as income loss compensation for hospitalisation and medical leave, while the injured worker is recovering.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Appeals Received for Silver Support Scheme between 2021 to 2022 and Approval Rates from 2022 to 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"66 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how many appeals on the Silver Support Scheme were received from 2021 to 2022, annually; and (b) how many appeals were approved from 2022 to 2025, annually.
Ms Jasmin Lau: On average, 9,200 Silver Support Scheme appeals were received annually from 2021 to 2025. An average of 5,000, or 60%, of these appeals were approved annually.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Common Grounds for Rejection of Silver Support Scheme Appeals from 2020 to 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"67 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Acting Minister for Manpower for the past five years, what have been the most common reasons for rejecting appeals on the Silver Support Scheme.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Silver Support Scheme is designed for seniors who had lower incomes during their working years and now have little or no family support and resources in retirement. Seniors automatically qualify if they pass the annual eligibility assessment. The most common appeals come from seniors who have experienced changes in circumstances, such as type of residence or per capita household income. Seniors who update the Central Provident Fund Board on their circumstances will have their eligibility reassessed.
The most common reasons for rejecting appeals were because appellants had lifetime wages or per capita household income above the eligibility criteria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for Manpower","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were made in the reply given by the Minister of State for Manpower (Dinesh Vasu Dash) during the debate on the Motion “An Economy of the Future for All” at the Sitting of 5 August 2026: (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash): Mr Speaker, it is not the first time that we are raising issues of legislation of retrenchment benefits. We have considered it in the past. It was not very appropriate then. We studied it periodically. As the Member knows, with the Tripartite Guidelines, at least nine and 10 workers are compensated, as was highlighted. [Please refer to \"An Economy of the Future that Works for All\", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Motions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash circulated with the leave of the Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5). (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual corrections to my reply given at the Sitting of 5 August 2026. My reply should read as follows:
The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash): Mr Speaker, it is not the first time that we are raising issues of legislation of retrenchment benefits. We have considered it in the past. It was not very appropriate then. We studied it periodically. As the Member knows, with the Tripartite Advisory, around nine in 10 workers are compensated, as was highlighted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}