1 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what does Singapore consider the key priorities for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in its relations with the United States (US) under the new Trump administration, bearing in mind the US President's absence from ASEAN summits during his first term as President; and (b) what messages will Singapore convey to its US counterparts during the ASEAN country dialogues and at the East Asia Summit under the chairmanship of Malaysia.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, the short answer to Mr Neil Parekh's question is economics – trade, investment, energy.
The United States (US) remains a critical partner for Singapore and for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The US' presence in our region has in fact underpinned our peace, stability and prosperity in Southeast Asia for many decades. The US is, by a significant margin, the largest foreign investor in ASEAN. And the US is also ASEAN's second largest trading partner.
The US has been an active supporter of ASEAN and this includes strengthening collaboration in new growth areas, for instance artificial intelligence (AI), cyber security and energy transition.
The omni-directional engagement on the part of ASEAN towards the US, to China, to the EU, to India, to Australia and indeed all the middle powers, and our emerging links with Africa and South America, is an essential element of ASEAN's vision for an open, inclusive and rules-based regional architecture in our region. We believe this is the way to secure peace and prosperity, and also based on the appreciation of the fact that in contrast to many parts of the world, Southeast Asia remains at peace and has good prospects for significant growth in the decades to come.
In this respect, the US' commitment to the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific, which they have expressed on previous occasions, is reaffirmation of this point.
We will keep emphasising the mutually beneficial nature of ASEAN's interactions and engagement with the US. This engagement will continue to contribute in fact for mutual benefit of both ASEAN and America, and create an area in this part of the world which is safer, stronger and more prosperous.
It is worth reminding this House that in fact if you add, cumulatively, all the economies of the members of ASEAN, we already constitute the world's fifth largest economy and we expect to be on track to become the fourth largest economy by 2030. The trade and investments from the US into our region support hundreds and thousands of jobs in Southeast Asia but similarly, it also supports over 600,000 jobs in America itself. So, the point here is that this is a mutually beneficial relationship.
ASEAN's rapidly developing economies present significant opportunities for American companies including areas like critical minerals, energy, manufacturing, technology, including digital and AI.
Another point worth emphasising is that one-third of global trade passes through the critical maritime shipping lanes in Southeast Asia, including the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, and beyond that, into the South China Sea. The US' presence in the region, both economically and therefore also having interests to protect from a defence perspective, has been crucial to maintaining stability and opportunities in our part of the world. From an ASEAN perspective, the primacy of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), which sets out maritime entitlements, and avenues for peaceful resolutions of disputes, and sets out as a right freedom of navigation and overflight, is crucial for ASEAN, both from a stability point of view as well as economic prospects for the future.
So, Mr Speaker, we will continue to work with our partners in ASEAN to seek opportunities for high-level engagement with the new US administration on this basis.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
\tMr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response as well as the comprehensive discussions during the Committee of Supply with all the other political officeholders.
My question is related to Ukraine. Does the Minister and envisage a role for ASEAN or Singapore in the peace negotiations that hopefully will get underway very soon, similar, to the way we made an effort to bring the US and North Korea together a few years ago?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: The short answer is no. There are far more proximate partners and stakeholders in the dispute, in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, than Southeast Asia. So, the short answer is no.
Having said that, let me give a Southeast Asian perspective. If you look at the votes of the 10 ASEAN member states, you will find that all of us, in our votes and in our explanation of votes at the UN, have emphasised the importance of the UN Charter and the principles of sovereign equality, political independence and territorial integrity.
ASEAN, perhaps also because of our past experience in the Cold War, has absolutely no intention of allowing ourselves to be a future arena for proxy wars and we will certainly have no intention to allow ourselves to be caught in the strategic contestations between superpowers in the future.
So, bear in mind ASEAN's history. Bear in mind, ASEAN's prospects for the future. Bear in mind, our adherence to international law in the UN Charter. And just as importantly, bear in mind, our prospects for the future.
And that is why I began my answer to you just now that the short answer is no. And if I may add, I had I had an introductory telephone conversation with the Secretary of State Mr Marco Rubio last night. Both of us emphasised economics – so trade, investments, energy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cause of Kranji Crescent Warehouse Fire on 19 February and Exposure of Pollutants to Nearby Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether NEA has information on what types of waste materials are stored at the warehouse at 11 Kranji Crescent that caught fire on 19 February 2025; (b) whether the four-day fire at the warehouse has exposed residents nearby to toxic pollutants; and (c) if so, what pollutants have residents been exposed to as a result of the fire.
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): The site that caught fire on 19 February is occupied by a General Waste Disposal Facility. It is licensed to receive industrial and commercial waste for sorting prior to recycling and disposal. The facility contained materials such as paper, plastics, glass, scrap metal, wood waste and e-waste, but it is not licensed to store toxic industrial waste or hazardous substances. Investigations by the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) are ongoing to ascertain whether the facility had adhered to the relevant licensing and fire safety requirements.
The facility is around two kilometres away from the nearest residences. Based on NEA's ambient air quality monitoring network, the air quality in the West region remained within the normal range throughout the four-day duration of the fire.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I think the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Does NEA keep track of what materials are stored by recycling companies in their warehouses and whether they rectify any fire safety violations to reduce reoccurrence of such a happening?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, NEA does conduct inspections of these premises from time to time. For this particular premises, they actually did six inspections since 2021. They also regularly send out advisories to these waste recycling facilities to remind them of the need to be cognisant of fire safety risk, to continuously review their fire safety measures to make sure that they are relevant and adequate.
NEA works together with SCDF. SCDF itself also conducts scheduled and regular inspections of these premises. And I understand that SCDF also conducted 10 inspections between 2018 and 2024 for this premises. Where there are non-compliance, these would be issued out. So, for this premises, I think they issued four Fire Hazard Abatement Notices, which is actually a warning to ask them to rectify some non-compliance issues like obstruction of fire exit door or fire extinguisher or faulty fire exit sign. There were three Notices of Offence. Again, this is for non-compliance, for instance, if there is unauthorised fire safety construction. But all these were actually rectified.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updates to Pandemic Preparedness Plan for Large-scale Influenza Outbreaks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can elaborate on how our pandemic preparedness plan has been updated to include large-scale influenza outbreaks; (b) specifically, what measures are in place to handle a sudden spike in infections; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure sufficient healthcare capacity during such surges.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, large-scale influenza outbreaks are not new and will hit us from time to time. The best way to protect ourselves is for the public, especially those who are medically vulnerable, to take preventive measures. These include having updated vaccinations, practising good personal hygiene and when unwell, wearing face masks, limiting social contacts and seeking medical attention promptly when needed.
If there is a spike in influenza infections, we may have to release our stockpile of antivirals to reduce the risk of infection and severe outcomes, or to secure more supply of new vaccines.
Our public hospitals treat high patient volumes on a daily basis. In surges, they have to tap on alternative care models such as Mobile Inpatient Care at Home for suitable patients and Transitional Care Facilities for medically stable patients.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. In light of recent influenza outbreaks in regional countries, such as Thailand, what steps is the Ministry taking to enhance influenza vaccination coverage amongst the high-risk populations in Singapore? For instance, in Yio Chu Kang, we work with donors and clinics to provide free flu vaccinations for seniors. And how are these strategies informed by lessons learnt from COVID-19 vaccination roll-outs?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Yip for his question and for the work that he is doing in his constituency to enhance vaccine coverage. Indeed, we have to increase the awareness of the importance of vaccine coverage for high-risk populations. And high-risk populations for influenza are particularly the seniors that he mentioned, anyone over the age of 65, anyone with chronic medical conditions and people who are vulnerable either because of a condition that causes low immunity or increased risk of acquiring an illness such as influenza.
This is something that we have to think about on an ongoing basis. It is not a illness where it comes once and then it is gone. This is illness that is endemic and it is seasonal – the virus changes, every season. And it is also not an illness where you can be vaccinated once and then are protected for life. You have to update your vaccinations on a regular basis. And so, issues to do with awareness and education, we need to continue on an ongoing basis. And we do so at the medical facilities, or if general practitioners, family physicians are seeing someone over the age of 65 for other routine care, they often do and should ask about when the last influenza vaccination was and offer it, if appropriate.
Similarly, this is something that anyone who is in regular contact with seniors as a result of the service that they are offering, such as the examples that Mr Yip provided in his constituency, can and should ask seniors. Even on a personal level for family members, children can very often play an important role in reminding their parents. So, for me, for example, for many years, I have had the habit of using my parents' wedding anniversary as a marker in my calendar to nag them, gently nudge them. And then, as they have now become a little bit older, I take on the responsibility of making the appointment for them to then go and receive their influenza vaccinations.
So, from an organisational, a social and a personal level, we can often find ways to constantly remind the seniors amongst us above the age of 65 that a regular influenza vaccination would be a very important part of protecting themselves. In parallel, the good social habits, the personal hygiene that I mentioned in my original Parliamentary Question answer also need to continue to be reinforced.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stopping Illegal Practice of Carpooling Arrangements Set Up via Online Chatgroups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) what measures are taken to stop the illegal practice of carpooling arrangements set up via online chatgroups; and (b) whether the Ministry will embark on a public education campaign on allowable forms of carpooling in Singapore.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts enforcement actions against drivers who are found to have provided illegal car-pooling services. An individual who provides an illegal car-pooling service may face a fine of up to $3,000, up to six months' imprisonment, or both. Those who provide an illegal car-pool matching service may face a fine of up to $10,000, up to six months' imprisonment, or both. Members of the public who come across individuals providing illegal car-pooling services may write to LTA or notify LTA through the OneMotoring portal.
For safety, we strongly encourage commuters who wish to book point-to-point transport (P2P) services, including commercial car-pooling, to do so via licensed business platforms.
I want to thank the Member for her suggestion for a campaign to improve public awareness of the allowable forms of car-pooling. LTA will work with the taxi and private hire vehicle drivers' associations on this.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Speaker. I declare that I am the advisor to the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, an affiliate association to the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).
The illegal practice of carpooling arrangement set up via online chatgroups continues to be an issue, creating safety concerns for passengers and affecting the professional reputation of licensed P2P drivers. A quick search on Telegram last week using SGHitch already yields five different active chatgroups, the largest, having a member base of 49,115, and the smallest with a base of 3,000. Almost every minute, in these chats, there is an offer to or from a driver to carpool and offer from a passenger to hitch a ride.
In Singapore, it is only legal to carpool for a fee via licensed business platforms. Given that serious safety issues can come with the use of such unlicensed services – from the outrage of modesty to the most recent case of death where the driver did not even have a Class 3 licence – what more can the Ministry do to educate the public on the use of such services? And would the Ministry consider also disallowing paid carpooling amongst strangers, even in matching platforms for the safety of all commuters?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I want to thank the Member for her supplementary questions. As she has noted, currently, we only allow carpooling services if it is through a licensed carpooling operator or through a permitted licence-exempt operator, which is one that has got a fleet of less than 800 cars. These operators are able to record the driver as well as the trip, check on the validity of the driver's licence and also enforce on the maximum two trips per day requirement. This really is to protect the commuters or passengers' safety, provide the commuter with some safeguards.
Carpooling services acquired through informal channels like Telegram, SGHitch that are non-business entities are not allowed. They are banned.
There is some value in providing or allowing some of these carpooling services. Because it optimises vehicle road capacity, the use of the vehicle, as well as, of course, reduce carbon footprint. Totally banning carpooling services will not necessarily remove the problem. In fact, it may exacerbate the problem. If you look at the informal channels, as the Member has rightly pointed out, there is demand. So, when there is demand, there is supply.
And therefore I agree with the Member that besides enforcement actions through enforcement operations that we will continue to do, it is good to intensify our public education efforts to raise awareness among the public that their safety is not protected if they go through these informal channels, and that if they require such carpooling services, they should do it through the licensed or licence-exempt permitted operators. We will work with the associations to look at such a campaign.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Streamline Social Service Offices' Processes to Ensure Timelier Renewals for ComCare Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the challenges faced by some single parents and individuals with disabilities in renewing their financial assistance under ComCare schemes (a) whether the Ministry can provide details on the efforts to streamline the Social Service Offices' processes to ensure timelier responses for such renewal applications; and (b) whether there are plans to implement an automatic renewal system for cases with chronic or permanent medical conditions.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Sir, through digitalisation, we have made ComCare applications simpler and more convenient especially for those who cannot easily leave their homes to apply for help. Applications for ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance can be made online on the SupportGoWhere portal. Applicants who need help with their online application can call our hotline and our call agents will walk them through the application. Our officers can make home visits to assist those who still cannot apply online despite the guidance and are home-bound, such as the elderly or people with disabilities.
The Social Service Officers would have to speak to applicants to find out more about their financial situations and needs. This can be done through phone calls, video conferencing calls or a home visit, if an applicant is unable to meet face-to-face at our office. For persons who are permanently unable to work and have little or no financial means or family support, we can provide ComCare Long Term Assistance where the period between each renewal is longer. The renewal process is still important as it serves as important touchpoints for our officers to check on our clients' wellbeing and identify any new needs.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. Considering the recurring nature of chronic or permanent medical conditions, what are the Ministry's views on implementing an automatic renewal system for ComCare assistance in such cases? And what potential benefits or challenges have been identified in adopting this approach? And how might it improve the quality of life for some of these affected Singaporeans?
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank Mr Yip for his supplementary question. I think there is a need to strike a balance here: a balance between ensuring accountability because it is public money that we are dealing with, but perhaps a more important point is the need for us to check in on a regular basis with these clients. Because we do want to make sure that circumstances within the family have not quite deteriorated and if they have or if they have improved, what are the additional things that we can do to better support these clients.
So, considering the two, I think there is a need for us to still ensure that this renewal process is in place. But for cases where, based on their own merits, we can extend the interval for which each of this renewal is being carried out.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dealing with Offenders who Have Been Repeatedly Issued Notices for Severe Breaches of Fire Safety Regulations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the Singapore Civil Defence Force's policy for dealing with offenders who have been repeatedly issued notices of offence for severe breaches of fire safety regulations.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) adopts an escalatory approach in enforcing against breaches of fire safety regulations.
It issues abatement notices or impose composition fines for minor cases of non-compliance. Higher fines are imposed for repeated instances, and prosecution in court may follow if the errant party fails to rectify the non-compliance. An example of a minor non-compliance would be undertaking minor partition works that affect the fire safety design of a space without seeking approval from SCDF.
For more serious breaches and repeated offences of serious breaches, SCDF will consider prosecution. An example of a serious breach is erection of illegal structures that would seriously compromise escape in the event of a fire.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister of State for his reply. In view of the recent fire at the Kranji warehouse, does the Ministry feel that there is a need to adopt a tougher position against repeat offenders?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we have always taken, like what I shared earlier, an escalatory enforcement approach. In cases like the one that the Member referred to, and also as shared by my colleague Dr Amy Khor, whereby the SCDF went to inspect 10 times during the said period. And all the non-compliance issues were rectified.
So, we work with with the owners, and like what I shared in my answer, if there are serious breaches, we will take them to task. We will look at the setting, the context and at the same time, we will not hesitate, not only in taking action but will continue to do inspections, making sure that they are safe.
I think at the end of the day, every case is unique and we not only take an escalatory approach, we are very serious about this, because fires not only cause damages, lives may be lost. We are very serious and we will continue to ensure that fire safety is well adhered to by owners.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister of State for serious cases of persistent reoffending, would the Ministry consider, if necessary, working with other agencies or Ministries to consider imposing a business suspension to deter reoffending?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we do work with our agencies and partners. What is key, like what I said earlier, is an escalatory approach. While we can use our levers, we also have our other agencies who can use their levers. At the end of the day, fire safety is critical. We do not compromise because what is key is that we want to make sure that while they are able to continue their business, lives are not at risk.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending GST Voucher Scheme to Middle-income Households and Reviewing Assessable Income Threshold for GST-related Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry will consider introducing an extension of the GST Voucher scheme to assist more middle-income households in view of rising living costs and household expenses; (b) whether the Ministry will review the assessable income threshold to qualify for GST-related assistance; and (c) whether there are plans to offer additional support for families with children who fall within the qualifying income threshold.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, the Goods and Services Tax Voucher (GSTV) scheme helps lower- and middle-income households offset their GST expenses. We last updated the Assessable Income threshold for the GSTV scheme in 2022 and will continue to review this to ensure support is targeted at those who need it more.
The Government has also introduced Cost-of-Living (COL) measures to help Singaporean households cope with their living expenses. As announced at Budget 2025, the Government will be providing additional Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers to all Singaporean households and providing additional U-Save such that eligible HDB households will receive double the regular U-Save, or up to $760, this financial year.
On top of these, the families that meet the eligibility criteria will receive additional support as announced at Budget 2025 in the form of $500 Child LifeSG Credits for each Singaporean child aged 12 and below this year, and $500 top-ups to the Edusave account or Post-Secondary Education Account for Singaporeans aged 13 to 20 years this year.
We have also introduced structural enhancements to better support families. These include a further reduction in the monthly full-day childcare fee caps in Government-supported preschools, and the opening of nearly 40,000 new infant and childcare places by Anchor Operators over the next few years.
We have also rolled out the Large Families Scheme, which includes $1,000 in Large Family LifeSG Credits disbursed annually to families for each of their third and subsequent child during the years that the child turns one to six. These will help to defray a wide range of household expenses for families with children.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[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":"Proceedings on Ministerial Statement","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I move, \"That, notwithstanding Standing Order 91(2), the Ministerial Statement on Review into the Public Disclosure of Full NRIC Numbers on Bizfile People Search be taken before the resumption of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2025/2026 at this day's Sitting\".
Supply business ordinarily takes precedence over Ministerial Statements. However, the Ministerial Statement is on a matter of some importance and it would be more efficient for the disposal of Parliamentary Business for the Ministerial Statement to be taken before the resumption of the debate on the Committee of Supply. Members will have sufficient time to seek clarifications from Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, who will deliver the Ministerial Statement.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That, notwithstanding Standing Order 91(2), the Ministerial Statement on \"Review into the Public Disclosure of Full NRIC Numbers on Bizfile People Search\" be taken before the resumption of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2025/2026 at this day's Sitting. – [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":"Review into Public Disclosure of Full NRIC Numbers on Bizfile People Search","subTitle":"Statement by Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Ministerial Statement. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I request the Clerks to distribute a handout to Members, which I will refer to during my Statement? Members may also access the handout through the MP@SGPARL App.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, on 9 December last year, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) launched its new Bizfile portal to replace its existing system. Like its predecessor, the new portal included a People Search function. This function allowed users to search for and select the individuals associated with registered business entities whose information they wished to access through the purchase of a People Profile. So, there is a People Search function and the People Profile function. The People Search function is generally available to everyone, anyone. The People Profile function sits behind a paywall.
But unlike the old Bizfile portal, which showed partial National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) numbers in the People Search results, the new Bizfile portal displayed full NRIC numbers. This caused public anxiety about how easily full NRIC numbers could be searched for and accessed. Therefore, the People Search function was disabled on the night of 13 December 2024.
The Minister for Digital Development and Information, Mrs Josephine Teo, and the Second Minister for Finance, Ms Indranee Rajah, held a media conference on 19 December 2024, during which they apologised for the anxiety caused. They explained what had happened and the Government's intent to change the existing practice of using partial NRIC numbers. Ministers Josephine Teo and Indranee Rajah also made Ministerial Statements to this House on 8 January 2025 and responded to requests for clarifications from Members.
To thoroughly review the matter, the Prime Minister directed the Head of the Civil Service to set up a Panel to review the Government's policy on the responsible use of NRIC numbers where it pertained to the Bizfile portal; second, to determine what led to the Bizfile incident; and to identify learning points so that similar incidents do not recur.
The Panel also reviewed the design and implementation of the People Search function and the response to the incident by ACRA and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), from the time public concerns arose on 12 December 2024 until the People Search function was disabled on 13 December 2024.
The Panel submitted its report to me on 25 February 2025. I reviewed the report and reported to the Prime Minister that I had accepted its findings and recommendations. After studying the report carefully, the Prime Minister agreed with its findings, its assessment of the shortcomings and the learning points identified. He said that the Government would take the lessons to heart to improve its processes and strive to do better. He directed that the report be released to the public and for the matter to be deliberated in Parliament. ACRA and MDDI have also accepted the findings and released separate media statements on their follow-up actions.
Hon Members would have had the opportunity to study the report, which was made public on 3 March 2025.
Sir, before we turn to the Panel's findings, I will briefly summarise the issues regarding the use of full and partial NRIC numbers. This is set out on the first page of the handout, which is the Annex to the Panel's report. Minister Josephine Teo had addressed these issues in her Ministerial Statement on 8 January 2025 to this House. So, allow me to recap these issues briefly.
The NRIC number allows the individual to be referred to uniquely and definitively. It is important to definitively refer to an individual by using the full NRIC number when required by law and for other purposes, such as for medical procedures and business transactions.
However, the NRIC number had also become used by some organisations, not just to definitively refer to the individual, but also based just on the NRIC number, to carry out important and sensitive actions. The use of the NRIC number in this way is unsafe, because the person's NRIC number is likely to be already known to other persons or organisations.
Some organisations and people had also come to assume that the use of partial NRIC numbers means that the full NRIC number is thereby concealed and protected. Sir, with the availability of online algorithms, it is now easier and faster to work out full NRIC numbers from the partial NRIC numbers.
The use of partial NRIC numbers, therefore, neither meets the need to have a definitive way of referring uniquely to an individual, nor does it offer effective protection from the full NRIC number becoming known.
To address these issues, the former Smart Nation and Digital Government Office (SNDGO), now part of MDDI, commenced a policy review in 2022. The review determined that we should take steps to stop the incorrect use of NRIC numbers for authentication and also move organisations away from the use of partial NRIC numbers. This would allow NRIC numbers to be returned to their proper use as unique identifiers.
The Ministers overseeing SNDGO were responsible for deciding the policy direction on the use of NRIC numbers. The Ministers endorsed the policy intent of returning NRIC numbers to their proper use as unique identifiers and the broad implementation approach to do so.
The Permanent Secretaries of SNDGO, and subsequently MDDI, had overall responsibility for the implementation plans in accordance with the guidance from the Ministers. SNDGO, and subsequently MDDI, knew the transition would take time and planned for the public sector to take the lead on both: (a) stopping the use of NRIC numbers for authentication; and (b) moving away from the use of partial NRIC numbers. It also started developing plans for public education and private sector engagements on the proper use of NRIC numbers and the risks of using partial NRIC numbers.
So, with that background, I refer Members to the second page of the handout, which is on the timeline of key events. The full listing is in the table in the report. Briefly, the key facts are as follows.
SNDGO had planned for the public sector to move first in a phased approach. On 5 July 2024, MDDI issued a Circular Minute (CM) to public agencies to stop the use of NRIC numbers for authentication and to start moving away from the use of partial NRIC numbers. MDDI conducted a briefing on 16 July 2024 for agencies, including ACRA, on the CM, and answered their questions on it. The video recording of the briefing and MDDI's responses to agencies' Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) were disseminated to agencies the next day. ACRA subsequently sought clarifications via email from MDDI on how the CM applied to the display of NRIC numbers in the search results of People Search in the new Bizfile portal.
However, communications between the two sides were not clear. ACRA misunderstood MDDI's instruction in the July 2024 CM for agencies to \"immediately cease any planned use of masked NRIC numbers, for example, in new business processes or digital products\". ACRA interpreted this as a requirement to \"unmask\" or disclose NRIC numbers in full in the People Search function on the new Bizfile portal.
However, MDDI had intended that agencies could continue to use partial NRIC numbers for their existing external-facing use cases, but were not to introduce new use cases of partial NRIC numbers. To MDDI, ACRA's Bizfile People Search function was considered an existing use case because it was a service that was already existing in the old portal.
MDDI had also assumed that when agencies stopped using partial NRIC numbers, they would consider if NRIC numbers even remained necessary for those use cases. This would be in line with existing requirements under the Government's Instruction Manual on Information Communications Technology and Smart Systems Management (IM8).
Based on ACRA's interpretation of the July 2024 CM, ACRA then instructed its IT vendor on 17 August 2024 to make the requisite system changes to display NRIC numbers in full in the People Search function on the new Bizfile portal, which was then launched on 9 December 2024.
Sir, I will now move on to the Panel's findings, which are summarised in the third page of the handout. The Panel found that a confluence of several shortcomings on the part of both MDDI and ACRA, and how they had interacted with each other on this issue, led to the incident.
First, the Panel found that MDDI should have been clearer in its policy communications in its July 2024 CM. MDDI and ACRA staff did not realise that ACRA had misunderstood how the July 2024 CM applied to the new Bizfile portal. Specifically, MDDI should have explained key terms and phrases in the CM more clearly.
Although MDDI did make efforts to brief agencies on the requirements of the July 2024 CM and disseminated the video recording of the briefing as well as the FAQs to them, the relevant documents were not appended to the CM. So, if one referred to the CM, one would not have seen the other clarifications arising from the session that MDDI had with the agencies.
Second, there were internal shortcomings within ACRA in sharing and acting on the information from MDDI on the July 2024 CM. The FAQs mentioned earlier were not properly disseminated within ACRA by the officers who had attended the briefing and the officers who had received the video and the email of what had happened. And this contributed to ACRA's continued misinterpretation of the July 2024 CM and resulted in them making decisions based on incomplete information. These FAQs would, for example, have alerted ACRA that stopping the use of partial NRIC numbers did not mean showing full NRIC numbers in every case, and agencies could decide to drop the use of NRIC numbers altogether.
Third, the Panel found that MDDI should have paid more attention to the implementation plan for new use cases of partial NRIC numbers that were more complex, such as public registries. The Panel found that, in directing agencies to stop new use cases of partial NRIC numbers, MDDI did not differentiate between simpler use cases, like one-to-one correspondence between public agencies and members of the public, and more complex use cases, like public registries, which could potentially disclose a large amount of data to third parties performing searches.
ACRA, as the national business registry of Singapore, is one such public registry. One of ACRA's functions is to provide public access to certain information in the registry, so as to maintain corporate transparency. The standard approach for public registries is to have safeguards, such as a paywall, so that, as far as possible, access to the needed information from the registry is available only to users for whom the service is intended. But there is also often a search function for the registry, before these safeguards, which is open to everyone to narrow down the information in the registry which the user wishes to access, and agencies have to determine how much to reveal when someone performs a search without having to go through safeguards, such as a paywall, for the information. For such complex use cases, additional guidance from MDDI would have helped agencies decide whether disclosing full NRIC numbers was necessary, and if so, determine what safeguards should be put in place.
Fourth, in deciding to disclose full NRIC numbers in People Search, ACRA did not first assess the proper balance between sharing full NRIC numbers and ensuring that they were not too readily accessible on the People Search function. This contravened the Government's internal rules on data management, namely, IM8, which ACRA was required to comply with under the Public Sector (Governance) Act (or PSGA).
Sir, ACRA's frame of mind when interpreting the July 2024 CM was influenced by its discussions with MDDI five months earlier in February 2024. In February 2024, five months earlier, ACRA had planned a change to its People Profile – the part after the paywall – to only provide partial NRIC numbers instead of the full NRIC numbers, which it had all along been providing. At that time, SNDGO had advised ACRA on the wider move towards stopping public agencies from using partial NRIC numbers. So, this was in February. Bizfile users had also given feedback to ACRA that full NRIC numbers were needed for corporate transparency. So, in view of this feedback and ACRA's exchange with SNDGO, ACRA decided to continue providing the full NRIC numbers in the People Profile function instead of making its proposed changes to partial NRIC numbers. So, this is the People Profile function, which is after the paywall, and these were events and discussions in February, five months before the events that occurred.
So, this exchange with SNDGO in February gave ACRA the impression that the policy intent was to \"unmask\" all partial NRIC numbers, which was not the case. But that was ACRA's frame of mind when interpreting how the July 2024 CM should be applied to the People Search function in the new Bizfile portal, specifically whether to continue providing partial NRIC numbers or to change to providing full NRIC numbers instead to the part before the paywall.
Nonetheless, even if ACRA was under the mistaken impression that the July 2024 CM required them to disclose full NRIC numbers in People Search, ACRA ought to still have, as required by IM8, assessed the proper balance between the public interest in sharing full NRIC numbers, which was to promote corporate transparency, and the competing public interest in ensuring that full NRIC numbers were not too readily accessible.
The Panel found that the design of the People Search function of the new Bizfile portal made individuals' NRIC numbers too easily available to those who were improperly using the People Search function in a way that went beyond its intended purpose.
Fifth, the review found that certain security features for the People Search function were not adequately implemented for the new Bizfile portal. ACRA had required its IT vendor to implement various security features in the People Search function of the new Bizfile portal to protect against unintended uses by, for instance, limiting the extent of searches allowed.
However, certain security features were not adequately implemented when the new Bizfile portal was launched on 9 December 2024. After disabling the People Search function, ACRA requested that the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) review the security features of the People Search function. So, this was after the fact, after the People Search function had already been launched.
The review found that some security features, including the CAPTCHA functionality, were not adequately implemented, allowing potential data retrieval using scripts from 9 to 13 December 2024.
These security issues were rectified by the vendor in the revised People Search function before it resumed service on 28 December 2024. ACRA is following up with the vendor and considering all its available options. Without prejudice to any such options, the Panel noted that ACRA remains ultimately accountable for the implementation of the People Search function, even though it had contracted this to its vendor.
The sixth and last finding of the Panel was that the incident management after public concerns on the Bizfile portal surfaced on 12 December 2024 should have been better. Upon receiving the public feedback, ACRA and MDDI should have ascertained more quickly the key facts of how the Bizfile incident happened and ACRA should have disabled the People Search function sooner. Doing so would have addressed public concerns in a more timely manner.
The public communications and response to public concerns should also have been better coordinated and clearer. And in hindsight, the Government should have made clear to the public at the outset that moving away from the use of partial NRIC numbers did not automatically mean using full NRIC numbers in every case or disclosing them on a large scale.
The Panel noted that the incident took place before MDDI had begun public education and engagement on the proper use of NRIC numbers as a unique identifier. If you recall, the implementation of this was in the public sector and the engagement of the private sector had not begun yet. So, this exacerbated public concerns when full NRIC numbers were easily searchable and accessible in the People Search function, since many members of the public would not have been familiar with the issues associated with the use of NRIC numbers. The Panel was of the view that it would have been better for MDDI to have embarked on public education and engagement earlier than what it had planned.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the details of the Panel's findings are in the report. Having reviewed it, I agree with the findings. I would like to thank the Panel for their thorough work on this matter. As I had stated earlier, ACRA and MDDI have both accepted the Panel's findings and are following up to address the issues identified, as set out in their respective media statements.
Beyond the agencies involved, this incident offers valuable and important lessons for the wider Public Service. To meet changing circumstances and new challenges, the Public Service will need to continually update its policies and practices. Some of these changes will not be straightforward. How we communicate and implement them will be critical. The Bizfile incident demonstrates that close coordination and careful attention to detail are required. Sometimes, it is a single issue, but at other times, it can be a confluence of factors that can lead to such incidents. The lessons that the Panel has identified will be disseminated across the whole of the Public Service. Agencies are expected to take them on board and apply them to their work to avoid similar incidents from recurring.
Sir, beyond learning lessons, accountability is important as well. The political office holders overseeing ACRA as well as the Smart Nation work in MDDI have overall responsibility for the organisations under their charge. And this is regardless of whether they had specific or direct responsibility for the actions that led to the shortcomings that occurred. So, this distinction between an overall responsibility that political office holders have for the organisations under their charge and the specific or direct responsibility for the actions that led to the shortcomings that occurred.
Both Ministers Josephine Teo and Indranee Rajah have publicly accepted this overall responsibility and also apologised for what has happened.
At the Public Service level, the Permanent Secretaries of SNDGO, and subsequently MDDI, were responsible for implementing the policy. The Chief Executive of ACRA was responsible for the new Bizfile portal's design and implementation. While the Panel did not find any evidence of deliberate wrongdoing or wilful inaction by the ACRA and MDDI officers involved in this incident, the shortcomings identified, including ACRA's contravention of IM8, should have been avoided.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I should make clear that this review panel was not a disciplinary process. While the Panel's report serves as a reference, any disciplinary action, if warranted in relation to individual officers, will need to be conducted in accordance with the applicable frameworks and processes in the respective public agencies involved, and this is only proper.
The Public Service Division, MDDI and ACRA have taken into account the findings of the Panel and have thus reviewed the roles, responsibilities and actions of the relevant officers involved in the shortcomings highlighted in the report. These officers include those whose actions contributed directly to the shortcomings, as well as senior management who were responsible for providing oversight and guidance to the officers and are responsible for the proper functioning of their organisations.
The agencies have assessed that while there was no malicious or wilful wrongdoing by the officers, there were inadequacies in their judgement and actions, and appropriate measures are being taken against them. These measures range from counselling to retraining to reductions in performance grade, which will carry financial consequences, such as a reduction in their performance-based payments.
As for ACRA's contravention of IM8, PSGA does not prescribe financial penalties for public agencies that contravene IM8, and there is a good reason for that. The cost of any financial penalties would ultimately have to be borne by the public purse if we impose a financial penalty on a public agency. And therefore, such penalties would not be meaningful. Instead, as I have stated, the necessary actions will be taken against the officers responsible. The PSGA is designed with that in mind.
The Ministers overseeing ACRA as well as the Smart Nation work in MDDI had overall responsibility for the organisations under their charge and the Prime Minister will take into account this incident in his evaluation of the Ministers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Service holds its officers to a high standard of conduct and excellence. Singaporeans deserve and expect this. Given the range and complexity of public services, from time to time, mistakes will be made. If there is misconduct or malicious intent, we will deal with it severely and those involved will be punished. Where there had been no malicious or wilful wrongdoing, due consideration should be given to whether the officers had acted in good faith when we decide on what actions to take.
And most importantly, the lessons arising from the incident must be learnt and internalised, not only by the officers involved or their agencies, but by the Public Service as a whole, so that they are not repeated.
Mr Speaker, Sir, trust in the Public Service is essential. Maintaining that trust is, therefore, central to how we operate. When things go wrong, we are upfront with Singaporeans on where we have fallen short. We conduct thorough reviews and make improvements to our systems and processes to serve Singaporeans better while remaining fair to our officers.
Sir, this recent incident, while regrettable, demonstrates the Government's commitment to continuous improvement, to uphold the trust that Singaporeans have placed in the Government and the Public Service.
Sir, I will be happy to take any clarifications.
Mr Speaker: Order. We will now have clarifications on the Ministerial Statement. I can see that there are many Members wanting to seek clarifications. So, I would like to take this opportunity to remind Members that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarifications on the Ministerial Statement, but no debate should be allowed.
Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions. If any preamble is required and if it takes too long, I will interject and ask you to get straight to asking your clarifications. So, I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise. I will ask the same of the Senior Minister in his responses.
Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister. The questions are follow-ups from my Parliamentary Question filed for the 7 January 2025 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Explanation and Impact of Policy Change on Full NRIC Number and Further Measures on Public Education and Protection of Sensitive Identifiable Information\", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
The first pertains to the CM of 5 July and this is found at pages 20 and 21 of the report. It is not clear from the report whether ACRA provided a list of all existing communication and correspondence with members of the public that used masked NRIC numbers. Did ACRA send this list to MDDI? When did they send it and what was MDDI's response? This is vis-à-vis paragraph 9 of CM.
The second question is on ACRA's conversation with MDDI. It started in February 2024 and it concerned the People Profile function, not the People Search function. At page 15 of the report, it states that from 5 July – that was the point in time when the CM was distributed – to early August, ACRA had, \"sought clarification from MDDI on how the July CM should apply to ACRA's new Bizfile portal,\" which was the one launched on 9 December.
It begs the question: what clarification was sought by ACRA and what was MDDI's response? In the report, I note at paragraph 48, it states that on 30 July, an ACRA officer, who had not gone for the MDDI briefing and did not see the FAQ document that MDDI had emailed; and this officer asked MDDI if ACRA needed to cater system enhancements to remove the masking of NRIC numbers in the People Search function. So, it would appear that the new Bizfile portal already was going to continue what the old Bizfile portal was providing to the public: masked NRIC numbers in the People Search function.
So, it would be helpful to understand what clarifications were sought, because at this point it seems like MDDI confirming to ACRA that it can continue to display masked NRIC numbers in the People Search function \"for now\", but that it should be prepared for eventual unmasking at a point when MDDI was going to issue future guidance. So, at that point, 30 July, it would seem everybody is ad idem on the way forward. So, this I think is the point which begs further questions – what went wrong after this point?
Once again, there is emphasis in the report on paragraph 7 of the CM and the confusion, and Senior Minister has explained how new business processes were misunderstood by ACRA. But paragraph 9, as I alluded to, makes it quite clear that ACRA, in this case, was supposed to provide MDDI a list of their existing correspondence with members of the public using masked NRIC numbers. So, that really is the subject of my question: when was that done?
The final question is, at what point did the senior leadership of ACRA fully reviewed the new Bizfile portal before it went public? Was there any independent assessment done about the full unmasking of NRIC numbers on the People Search function? I ask this question because in the conclusion of the report, it states that ACRA did not first assess the proper balance between sharing full NRIC numbers and ensuring that they were not too readily accessible. So, did they assess this balance at any point in time?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, first, I would like to thank Mr Pritam Singh for having read the report in such detail. That is very useful and he should also understand the conclusions that were arrived at in the report and what I had just said. In fact, he has identified all the misunderstandings in the communication between the two agencies which led to this unfortunate incident. In fact, this is described in the report as well as in my speech just now.
The two were communicating with each other but they had different frames of mind and therefore, they went away with different understandings of what the CM said and also different understandings of the communications and emails that they had with each other. In fact, that is really what was identified as one of the shortcomings in the report and in my Statement just now.
So, indeed that is the case. There was a gap in understanding between the two agencies. In spite of the fact that they had communicated with each other, each went away thinking that they had put their point across clearly and each went away thinking that the other understood what was to be done and what was meant. But that was not the case.
Did ACRA send all the instances and so forth? I am sure they have, but the relevant point is that they were communicating on this particular instance and had a gap in understanding between the two.
Did ACRA make an assessment? They probably did, but as I pointed out, and as the Panel pointed out, they did not make a proper assessment of the balance between their function of making such a registry available and conveniently so to users, and the need to manage the access to information in such a search function. So, that was a shortcoming on the part of ACRA.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, while the report did not indicate that there was any malicious intent or wilful action, the findings of the review panel did indicate that the Government's internal rules on data management policies were contravened, and Senior Minister Teo touched on the point of public trust.
As Government agencies store, access and handle personal information of Singaporeans in engagements and provision of various Government services and with digitisation, what assurances can be given to Singaporeans on the proper handling of personal data by Government agencies? Because it is not just about policies, it is not just about rules; it is about that balance.
I actually worry that it may come to the point of everyone being so afraid to move forward because of that. But it is a difficult challenge. Given this incident and the learning from this instance, it may lead to everyone being overly cautious. I need to understand what will be done across the Government to help our officers move forward and be able to make that right judgement call. It is not an easy problem to address.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, perhaps this is an opportunity to explain the process for ensuring data privacy and making sure that data is properly dealt with in the public sector versus the structure for the private sector.
In the private sector, there is the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (or PDPA) and in the public sector there is the PSGA. And they largely mirror each other. In fact, some of the things that are in PDPA today, were originally already in the public sector's rules for data governance in IM8, even before PDPA was announced. And some of the things that were eventually enacted in PDPA and the guidance provided by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) were also adopted in the public sector. So, the two mirror each other.
But there are a couple of important differences between the two and I will take this opportunity to explain what they are.
First of all, there is no expectation within the private sector that different private sector corporations interact with one another and share data with one another, purportedly to serve the customer better. In fact, private sector agencies are quite protective of the data that they have because they see that as a competitive advantage, and we also do not allow private sector organisations to sell their data to others for profit. So, by and large, they do not share with others.
In the public sector, there is an expectation that to serve citizens better, there is some sharing between the two. We sometimes hear, in Parliament also, \"You already know this. Why do you keep on asking me for it?\" So, in order to serve residents better, we do share data and this is allowed in the PSGA.
For example, you apply for a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat, access your Central Provident Fund (CPF) account and all those kind of things, it is shared and available. If someone applies for social service support, that information is available so that the person in a distressed situation already does not have to keep on providing the same information again.
So, that is an expectation and it is different between the private sector and the public sector.
There is another important difference, which is what the financial penalties are. First of all, in the PDPA, the financial penalties are directed against the organisation; whereas in the PSGA, as I explained, if you direct the financial penalties against a Government agency, it is actually not very meaningful, because they all come, eventually, from the public purse. So, the financial penalties arise from actions taken against individual officers.
In the PDPA, originally, there were no specified penalties against individuals. Eventually, in 2020, the PDPA took some of the provisions in the PSGA and imported them into the PDPA, so that in some circumstances, the PDPA can be used to take action against individuals.
So, there is always a mirroring between the two and there are differences between the two.
First of all, the public sector does have a very strong and robust system for the management of data and the sharing of data, and for taking action against persons who contravene them. So, that is the start point.
Should this cause persons to become overly careful? I think that it is always a possibility whenever an incident such as this arises. But that is why it is important to identify the shortcomings clearly. Do not go in with a big bazooka and flatten everybody, but differentiate between the responsibilities of the individuals. Individuals who are responsible, they have to be held to account, but we must do so in a well-balanced and fair way to the individuals. This is the approach that we take and which we will continue to.
Mr Speaker: There are 14 hands that I counted. If the answer is already given by the Minister, please do not repeat the clarification. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I refer to paragraph 48, which is about the exchanges between MDDI and ACRA. I read in that paragraph, where in the reply from MDDI to ACRA, it states that \"ACRA can continue to display masked NRIC numbers in the People Search function for now\". And it continues to say that it should be prepared for the \"eventual unmasking of the NRIC number\".
Can I ask the Senior Minister whether that remains the policy position – the eventual unmasking of the NRIC number? And in the case of the People Search function, what is the direction ahead? Would ACRA eventually stop displaying the masked NRIC number? Would the full NRIC number be shown in some way, with some controls or with some safeguards?
My second clarification is related to page 16 for the chronology of key events. The report mentioned that ACRA did have internal deliberations about the risk of showing full NRIC numbers in the People Search function. It shows that ACRA did have concerns, at least, at the working level, but they went ahead because they misunderstood the instructions from the July 2024 CM. Can I ask if there is a deeper issue here, where an agency felt compelled to just go ahead with the launch even though internally, they have some serious concerns or reservations on the public implications? And whether does the Public Service have the mechanism where officers at the working level who may have spotted a potential high-risk situation, for example, in the upcoming implementation, are able to flag out these concerns and get attention from the management?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: If I may just say what has happened to the People Search function, the part before the paywall. ACRA has resumed service on that function, but without NRIC numbers, whether full or partial. Because they have done an assessment now and have come to the conclusion that it is possible to serve the intended users without having to use full or partial NRIC numbers, and that is what they have done. So, that is the situation.
Mr Liang has also read the report very, very carefully – and I am glad that he has done so – and identified certain places where there were gaps. Indeed, they communicated with each other and in the communication that Mr Liang cited, that showed how the two of them misunderstood each other – what is new, what is existing, there was a gap in understanding. Was the new Bizfile portal new? Or was it an existing use case? So, there was a gap there.
Also, what does stopping the use of partial NRIC numbers mean? Does it mean that where you had partial NRIC numbers before, you just go and use full NRIC numbers? So, there was a gap there in communication between the two agencies.
The question that Mr Liang asked is, is there a process for making sure that agencies can communicate and do this? In fact, they did. MDDI conducted a briefing, engaged the agencies, answered the questions and disseminated them the next day.
Within ACRA, there were some shortcomings. There was a shortcoming that was identified by the Panel where they did not fully communicate internally what the position was. And therefore, when ACRA and the senior management were making decisions on this, they were doing so without the benefit of the additional information that had come out of MDDI's briefings and interactions with the agencies. I think that describes how they had a difference of understanding.
But as Mr Liang indicated, there is a more important aspect here, which is that officers, especially at the senior level, need to understand the intent behind what the policy is – and certainly, officers at the senior level should be able to do so – and not implement things which are just going by the letter. And if there is a problem and there is an issue, they should engage with each other and thrash that out thoroughly. And I think that is one of the important lessons that we have learnt from this case.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications for the Senior Minister.
First, I found what he said about the overall accountability of Ministers very interesting. He mentioned that the two Ministers involved would have this incident taken into account by the Prime Minister in his assessment of their overall performance. But the fact is the Prime Minister is the Minister for Finance and ACRA is a Statutory Board within the Ministry of Finance. So, how does that work as far as the Prime Minister is concerned? Because he is also overall responsible for ACRA, in that sense.
The second clarification is about the report's shortcoming number six, which talks about shortcomings in incident management after the public concerns were raised on 12 December. I am personally aware that it is a reality in the Civil Service, and probably private sector, that in December, there are many staff that are on annual leave, we expect them to clear their leave. And December is usually a time when there are less staff around.
So, I would like to ask him whether this aspect of key decision-makers not being so readily available, did it feature at all in causing any delays in the incident response? And does he think that this could be a potential issue, even if it is not an issue in this case?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: The second point first, Mr Speaker. Certainly, it could have been a factor. But to the Panel which reviewed the thing, it was not an acceptable excuse or reason. The agencies still have to be responsible for what they are doing, whatever season of the year it is. So, that was not something which the Panel took into account – and I think rightly so.
On the point of the Prime Minister's responsibility, well, the Prime Minister is responsible for everything. But he has to delegate his responsibilities to Ministers who are responsible for Ministries, agencies and functions. That is part of the Prime Minister's role. If the Prime Minister tried to be responsible for everything, he would not be able to function at all. One of the responsibilities of the Prime Minister is to know when he should delegate and when he should intervene. I hope that Ms Sylvia Lim appreciates that.
I am also glad to note that Ms Sylvia Lim takes accountability, especially accountability of leaders of organisations, as something which is very serious, and which should be accepted when mistakes are made.
Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Three questions for the Senior Minister. First, on the incident management. I think there have been useful lessons drawn. In this case, it was shared in the report that the lessons will be disseminated to the broader Public Service. I would like to ask who may be coordinating this for this particular incident. Also, looking ahead, should there be similar incidents or other crisis-type of incidents happening, who will be coordinating the response and making sure that investigations and responses are being done in a timely manner?
Because in this case, I think there was a time gap at the beginning, so it allowed a lot of doubts and questions from the public to foment. With digitalisation, information and speculations got worse as a result of that; it did not quite help with that sense of public anxiety. So, I wanted to ask if there would be someone or some body to coordinate this going forward, arising from this incident.
Second is that I think quite clearly from the report as well as the questions to and fro so far, there has been no malicious intent, no deliberate wilful inaction or action. It was really everyone trying their best to do what they think is right. As Government business gets more complex, there are so many issues at hand. How do we strike the balance?
On the one hand, ensuring that discipline is taken for errors being done and continuing to strengthen public trust, but on the other hand, continuing to encourage public officers to take calculated risks when necessary so that innovations can still happen, so that things can still move forward, and not to always be worried about what ifs and do not do anything at all. I do not think that will serve us well as well. So, how do we balance that? Because from the report, I feel a bit worried – are we going to hammer them too much? Because that may not be sending the right signal to the broader Public Service as well.
Lastly, which pertains to a question that I had asked as a supplementary question during the previous Sitting. Given that there are still enterprises using the NRIC number as authentication, what is the progress of the Government's effort in getting them to rectify this? If this is not the right platform for me to ask this, I will file a question separately.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I would like to thank Ms Tin. She has also read the report very thoroughly. I am glad to see that.
There is an existing process within the Government for actually coordinating across. And certainly, in the Public Service. There is the Committee of Permanent Secretaries, which meets regularly. They discuss issues of importance and issues where coordination between Ministries and agencies should take place.
But apart from that, although the digital world, as Ms Tin correctly points out, spins faster, we also use digital means very often in communicating with each other. I am sure that among the Permanent Secretaries, they will communicate with each other. They probably have their own address group, where things which are important, which have to be acted on quickly, are communicated with each other. In fact, because in this day and age, people also travel a lot, so wherever they are in the world, they will also know what is happening. It is a faster process as well in disseminating information and also making sure that things are understood.
I should say that by and large, the Public Service actually works very well and coordinates very well. Instances like this do take place, but they are, fortunately, few and far between. But they do take place. So, how do we deal with instances like this and the officers who have come short in their performance?
I think Ms Tin, and Ms Jessica Tan also, pointed out quite importantly, we should not come down like a tonne of bricks on officers for issues like this, even if they have become public and have caused public anxiety. We should deal with them fairly and in accordance with the Public Sector's disciplinary processes.
This is something which I think will give assurance to our officers that just because the thing has become publicly known and caused some anxiety, that we will come down on them in an unfair way. We have to evaluate what they did, what they did not do, what they should have done, what was the intent behind it and then decide on the appropriate action to be taken.
And that is the way that we should continue to deal with the Public Service so that our Public Service will continue to do all the things that they need to do for us, including taking calculated risks, if they need to, but not take risks dangerously.
So, these are things which we should continue to be able to do with our public officers.
On the enterprises' use of NRIC as authentication, the Public Service has stopped this practice within the Public Service. There is appropriate guidance going out to private sector organisations to also cease this practice because it is quite unsafe. This is something which is ongoing. If there are private sector organisations which do not realise that they should stop using NRICs for authentication, I think they probably have not been paying any attention to the media on this issue at all.
But I should explain what is the difference between authentication and using an identifier because there is still a little bit of confusion.
Let me give an example, say, email. All of us have an email address and quite often we even use our own name as the email address. We want the people whom we interact with to know our email address so that they can contact us. So, the email address is an identifier of one form and in fact, it is unique because the email service provider has to have the unique names, otherwise it will go to the wrong person. So, you actually make your email address available to others.
But for authentication purposes, it is quite different. You do not tell your password to others. That is something which you keep for yourself and your email service provider knows. So, there is a difference between an identifier and an authentication.
This is an example in which most people will understand that, yes, you can use your name as your email address. That is not insecure, and it is very often convenient and expected. But please do not use your name as your password or your NRIC as your password because, a good number of people know it. So, that is the difference between the two.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister for the Ministerial Statement. I have asked two Parliamentary Questions on the same topic in January. My clarifications will fall into two buckets. The first on mindsets and instincts. The second on IT security.
Sir, firstly, on mindsets and instincts, can I ask, in hindsight, could there have been earlier involvement of agencies with a specific security mindset when the new Bizfile portal was being designed and implemented? In particular, does the Senior Minister agree that in the modern era, we must assume that any database with a search function will attract cyber troublemakers trying to download and scrap as much of the information as possible? And as such, how can we further strengthen the instincts or even the sixth sense within agencies and officers to be more sensitised to these dangers, especially for databases that contain NRICs, because the NRIC number is unique and cannot be changed? Once it is being harvested, that bell cannot be unrung.
Secondly, on IT security, can I ask the Senior Minister is there room to strengthen the red team capability and the use of red teams within the Government to look at the security of online portals that might provide access to personal data even through a search function, especially for projects where there is a greater risk if there is a security glitch? For example, and I have read the report, it mentions that ACRA outsourced the portal security to the portal vendor. The vendor then outsourced security penetration tests to a security reviewer. And yet, when GovTech came in, they discovered that the security features were not adequately implemented. In this vein, do we know if the same portal vendor and the same security reviewer are providing services to any other Government portals or Government organisations?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, hindsight is a marvelous thing. I use it very often myself too. But in any situation, each organisation and each leader has to make the decision based on the information that he has and is able to obtain.
Specifically on IT security, yes, indeed, it is important that when organisations implement an IT system or change an IT system, that they take security into account. In fact, that is one of the requirements of IM8 and which organisations often find a little bit too prescriptive and overbearing. But that is a necessity and for the reasons that Dr Tan has pointed out. So, we do do that.
And I should say that the Government does not try to build every IT system itself. There are very reputable IT companies and vendors out there which the Government should make use of. And there are also very reputable IT security companies out there, some of them are at the leading edge of IT security, which the Government should also make use of. So, we should not and do not need to try to do everything ourselves. This is the approach that we take. And in the evaluation of whom to assign or whom to award the tenders to, these are taken into account.
But, of course, just as the Government can make mistakes sometimes, the IT vendors too, are not perfect, as we know. Even IT security companies or companies which sell IT security as their main product have made mistakes and been penetrated in an embarrassing way before. So, we need to keep on being vigilant.
I should say, without going into too many details, because we do not want to give away exactly what we do in maintaining IT security, we do have a system of red teaming, which is quite rigorous. And we also invite the public to help us. We actually have a bug bounty system, one which is evergreen. That means, if you do find a bug or you do find a way in which you can penetrate a Government system, you let us know, and there is a bounty for it. And this is evergreen.
But we also do, from time to time, have a hunting season. So, for certain of our systems, we invite white hatters to attack those systems. And then, we also have a bounty system for that. So, indeed, we have a system for that.
But for our process for choosing vendors, both IT vendors, as well as security vendors, I should say that if a vendor has been found to not have fulfilled his responsibilities properly, we take that into account in future awarding of tenders, because then, how can you be sure, as Dr Tan has pointed out.
And I am very careful with what I am saying, because as I pointed out, ACRA is keeping all its options open with regard to the IT vendor. But ultimately, the organisation which owns the system, which is ACRA, has ultimate responsibility for it. And ACRA accepts that responsibility.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister. Paragraphs 76 and 77 of the report tells us that the vendor was the one who appointed the independent security reviewer, not ACRA. And the report was not submitted to ACRA directly from the reviewer, but it was, in fact, the vendor who submitted the report on the test on its own product.
It appears to me as if this process has huge potential for abuse. Is there no concern over this procedure? Does it meet with the governance standards for the public sector? That is my first clarification.
My second clarification is: it is obvious from the report that ACRA did realise that there is a conflict between its understanding of the July CM with its obligations under IM8 and PSGA. Why did ACRA prioritise compliance with the July CM over compliance with IM8 and PSGA? And will there be instruction or guidelines given to organisations how they are to deal with such situations when they find them themselves in apparent positions of conflict? For example, it would appear from the report that ACRA sought clarification primarily over emails. Would it not be better to have a conversation or a meeting over this to sort out any misunderstandings? That is my second clarification.
My final clarification is: in paragraph 26 of the report, the Committee noted that we cannot just look at the incident itself but also go upstream. But think the Committee did not go upstream enough. We need to go back and look at the decision to restrict the collection and the use of full NRIC number, which actually led to the creation of masked NRIC numbers, which then created a false sense of security and led to NRICs being used as authenticators even in the public sector. So, have we reviewed that policy decision to find out what are the learning points and if so, what are they?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Perhaps, the last point first. I would commend Annex A of the report to Ms Hazel Poa. And indeed, the issues and the problems of using full NRIC and partial NRIC numbers are explained there. That is why we want to shift and make sure that we do not use NRIC numbers as authenticators and with regard to partial NRIC numbers, we should move away from that.
As I said, there is an issue with that because it is not sufficient to identify a person or to definitively refer to a person when that need is there. And the belief that using partial NRIC numbers, you can be more relaxed with it, because it is a partial NRIC number, it is not a full NRIC number. But you cannot be more relaxed with that because, in fact, the full NRIC number is easily discoverable. So, these are problems and issues which arose over time.
I do not think it is because of the rules with regard to collection, use and disclosure of full NRIC numbers that led to this. It may have contributed to this. Those rules on the collection, use and disclosure of full NRIC numbers I think still make sense. That particular guidance also pointed to people using NRIC numbers for things like lucky draws and so on – it was quite unnecessary – and also whether or not you should collect and retain a person's NRIC card, not just his NRIC number. So, there was some guidance on that. I think those still remain relevant.
And it could have led to the practice of people using partial NRIC numbers. And that is also a practice which has serious downsides.
So, yes, I would commend Annex A to Ms Hazel Poa.
On the balance in ACRA, I would not say it is a conflict, but you have to strike the right balance between the functions that ACRA is meant to provide, which is to have a registry which promotes corporate transparency, and you have to balance that against how you protect personal data. And that is something which ACRA should have considered to strike the right balance. They did to some extent but, I think, the full appreciation was not there.
Is it better to have conversations? Yes, it is, but, you know, nowadays with digital ability to communicate with each other in email, you can do so quite quickly as well. Setting up a meeting can take more time. You can use all modalities. But I do not think that was the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue was they both went away thinking that they understood what that was all about, but they had a difference in interpretation that was not resolved, resulting in this incident.
So, I think I have answered all of Ms Poa's questions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister for his explanation.
Section 4 of the report highlighted that MDDI's July 2024 CM lacked clarity, leading to misunderstanding in implementation by ACRA. So, could Senior Minister elaborate on the steps taken to enhance clarity in future communications to prevent similar incidents?
And secondly, how do we strengthen the clearance and approval processes within the Ministry to prevent similar issues from happening in the future, especially of such a misunderstanding, especially when it pertains to issues across different agencies? I think this is quite important because, as we move forward, the issues that the Government is dealing with is going to be more complex and it involves much more agencies coming together to solve similar issues.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I thank Mr Yip Hon Weng. Indeed, the issues that Government has to deal with have become more complex and particularly, in the digital age where things are moving so fast. So, things which were adequate two years ago for the digital age may not be adequate today, or you anticipate that they would not be adequate in a year or two.
Some of the security features that we had were adequate in the past but may not be adequate today and in the future, and we have to keep on evolving and changing; and therefore, when we make such changes, there is always a potential for misunderstanding between agencies. It is important to communicate and this is, indeed, one of the lessons that we have learnt here – to be aware of whether what you are saying is understood in the same way by the person who is receiving it; and the person who is receiving it, should be aware that what he has received may not be what the person who communicated it intended.
This is not just a function of the digital age or email or anything, I mean, we are all familiar with the old games that we play telephone or whatever it is, you pass the message and then by the time it reaches the 10th person, it is completely garbled. So, we are all familiar with that. It is not a function of the digital age. It is a function of making sure that we communicate with each other clearly.
In this case, there were two specific uses of terms which the two did not understand in the same way.
What was new? So, MDDI thought that the Bizfile portal, the search function was not a new use case whereas ACRA thought that, well, it is a new use case. Then, what do you do when you stop using partial? Or have I to stop using partial now? That depends on whether it was new or not new. And if I stop using partial NRIC numbers, what should I do with them? And MDDI said, the intent was, you do not have to unmask the full NRIC number in every case; whereas ACRA's leadership thought that that was the direction to go. So, there are gaps in understanding and we just have to keep on working at them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, moving forward, will the Public Service move towards less collection and use of NRIC numbers when they are not necessary? For example, will Members who submit appeals to the Government on behalf of their constituents still be expected to submit their full NRIC numbers even when there is clearly no need for it, for instance, an appeal to the Land Transport Authority to construct lifts on a pedestrian overhead bridge?
Second, over 500,000 queries were made on the Bizfile portals' People Search between 9 and 13 December 2024, and this is far exceeding the usual daily traffic of 2,000 to 3,000. Has MDDI been monitoring, including on the dark web, for the sale of NRIC numbers, potentially exfiltrated during this period? And if leaked NRIC numbers are found, will MDDI notify affected individuals and help them to mitigate risks, such as identity theft or fraud, for example, by offering affected individuals identity monitoring services, credit monitoring or fraud alerts to prevent misuse?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Perhaps, I will address the second point first and also, Dr Tan Wu Meng alluded to that because he talked about the collection and use of data, especially NRIC numbers.
I should point out, if the Member read Annex A, that you must expect your NRIC number to be known to quite a few people. In fact, I can still remember the NRIC number of some of my classmates and my National Service (NS) colleagues, because we used it all the time. So, I can still remember them. And so, you must expect your NRIC number to be known to others. While it is private, you must expect that it is not secret. So, that is the status and how you should treat NRIC numbers.
So, I think the most important impact to assess on this case is what is the impact on the individual. In this case, when an individual incorporates a company, starts a business, he has to register with ACRA. And in his registration with ACRA, he knows that the details of himself and his company must be searchable and accessible for corporate transparency reasons. So, he knows that his NRIC number may be searchable and may be known to any number of people who want to find out about what his business associations are with various companies and what his associations with previous companies have been as well. And this is to promote corporate transparency. So, he knows that.
And so, the fact that his NRIC number has now become known is not in itself something which the individual should find unexpected or surprising. The important thing for the individual is that he must not use his NRIC number in an inappropriate way, such as using it as an authenticator or as a password. And if he does that, he is quite secure.
Mr Giam asked whether or not we have looked at the dark web and so on, whether people are selling NRIC numbers. Yes, we do. In fact, we monitor the dark web for a variety of things, including this, and we have not seen any sale of NRIC numbers as such.
On the question of collection and use of NRIC numbers, actually, in the communication with the Government agencies, I think it is important to know who you are communicating with. You are not communicating with an anonymous person. You are communicating with a person who is your resident, who has a specific concern and therefore, should be prepared to identify himself and so on. So, I think that is quite proper and quite legitimate, especially if the person is making a request or has an appeal to be made. I think that is quite proper and appropriate, and should continue.
Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Senior Minister, but I want to first thank the Panel for making such a thorough investigation in a relatively short time. I want to respect the two Ministers for taking the courage to assume responsibility and make public apologies very shortly after the incident broke. And I also want to empathise with the Public Service officers who have been involved. I can imagine the guilt and stress that they must have gone through on discovering the mistakes and making right the processes for a live portal and the lessons learned. I also want to appreciate Senior Minister Teo for explaining rather complex issues and investigations in a very simple way for us to understand.
My first question is, does Senior Minister Teo find that the Inter-Ministry Policy Coordination and Implementation in this case weak?
A follow-up question is that I have my IT-trained husband to thank for understanding the difference between an identifier and an authenticator in the use of NRIC number. But in my conversations with many people from my constituency who have discussed about this whole incident, it actually takes some time for people to understand the difference because there is technicality involved. And I am increasingly concerned about emerging issues in the related issues of personal data protection and privacy, cybersecurity and cybercrimes. The coordination, there needs to be — inter-Ministry and inter-agency coordination in the Government is emerging to be a difficult topic and a very technical one, and I take lessons from how we are dealing with climate change and sustainability.
Mr Speaker: Ms Ng, you may want to get to your clarifications.
Ms Ng Ling Ling: My clarification is that, for important issues, like climate change and also earlier, the ageing population, we have Senior Minister-level and Deputy Prime Minister-level coordination, whether this whole class of issues on PDPA, PSGA, cybersecurity, cybercrimes should coordination be taken at a more senior level, at Deputy Prime Minister or Senior Minister level?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Well, first, I want to thank Ms Ng Ling Ling for her comments on our officers and also on the Ministers. I think they will appreciate your understanding and empathy with what they are going through right now. I have spoken to some of the officers myself and told them and assured them that if there is a shortcoming, we have to deal with it. And I have assured them that we will deal with it fairly.
On inter-Ministry coordination, there are a number of different levels. We do have inter-Ministry committees and coordination mechanisms. Sometimes we are accused of having too many, but we do have quite a few of these. These also have to operate at the appropriate level.
At the Senior Minister or Deputy Prime Minister level, they tend to deal more with policy and not implementation on a day-to-day or immediate basis, because if you try and do that kind of thing at the Senior Minister or Deputy Prime Minister level, you will end up not being successful.
It is the same answer as I gave with regard to the Prime Minister. I mean he is responsible for everything, but if you refer everything to him, he will become the bottleneck and nothing will get done and things will get delayed. So, similarly, with coordination at the Deputy Prime Minister or Senior Minister level. At that level, what we try and do is to make sure that we set up a system in which the relevant agencies work with each other properly.
So, you will see that for scams, we were not very well-coordinated initially, but we did have an inter-Ministerial committee helmed by the Ministry of Home Affairs' political office holders, which brought all the different agencies together, including the banks and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), and engaged the platform companies. And as Minister of State Sun Xueling has recounted, we actually have achieved a certain amount of success in getting the different agencies together at the implementation level.
And so, you have to get things done at the correct level; so now, we are able to actually swing into action much faster. In fact, I think it was The Economist which commended us on being able to do this where other countries have not.
But if you try to do that kind of coordination and day-to-day action at the Deputy Prime Minister or Senior Minister level, I think you will end up with a very, very major bottleneck and it will not work properly. So, you have to do it at the correct level and we do that for cybercrime, we do that for cybersecurity as well, and we have similar structures.
The Member had a question on identifier versus authenticator. In fact, that is one of the misunderstandings that we have, which has led to this issue, because people began to use their NRIC numbers as authenticators, thinking that it is secure and secret. And therefore, since they were using the NRIC number as an authenticator they came to believe that the NRIC number should be kept secret.
So, if you ask me for my NRIC number, I would not tell you. But actually, you have to tell the person, because that is the way in which you can be definitively referred to. Otherwise, how do you refer to yourself definitively? So, there was a contradiction in the individuals' minds as to what the NRIC number is. And when some organisations and people started to use the NRIC number as an authenticator, they began to say, \"Well, then I should keep it secret\". But that is not the original purpose of the NRIC number. The NRIC number is meant to refer to you definitively.
As I said, we used to use it all the time. I still remember the NRIC numbers of my classmates and my NS colleagues. So, that is the proper use of the NRIC and it should be sensitive, but you must assume that it is not secret.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai, you were not here when Senior Minister Teo started his address and you would also not have heard my comments earlier. No mini speeches, please.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had heard your comments.
Mr Speaker: Yes, but when the Senior Minister was addressing the House, you were not in the Chamber, when we started.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: And I have read the report very thoroughly.
Mr Speaker: Alright, good. Go ahead.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I thank the Senior Minister for his Statement and the Government for releasing the results of this investigation, so that we can understand the whole incident better.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a total of six clarifications to make. The report shows that this NRIC number incident is a communication disaster of the Government, both internally and externally. For such a major change in policy which pertains to —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, if you have six clarifications, by all means, ask all six. But if preambles are needed, you heard me earlier and you said you heard me, there is no need to make too much preamble. If the clarifications can be just asked, that will be appreciated and that is required. Thank you.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: In paragraph 40 of the report, it was stated that this July 2024 CM was also emailed to senior Public Service Leaders, including those with key responsibilities in IT and data matters within their agencies. Can I ask the Senior Minister whether any of these senior leaders have voiced concerns over the CM?
And when did the political office holders first get involved in the inter-agency response to the feedback and media queries on Bizfile?
Was there any direction provided by the political office holders over the inter-agency response and the decision to disable the People Search function in Bizfile?
To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government —
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, can I ask him to identify the clarification which he is asking?
Mr Speaker: Yes, that would be helpful.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I have counted three already.
Mr Speaker: Yes, I have also counted three. Yes.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Thank you, Sir.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: And I have three more. To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government that NRIC numbers, full or masked, should not be used as authentication, and that must be impressed on Singaporeans. Next question, why is there a need to do away with the masked NRIC policy? Given that it is still an added security measure, as an identifier, and is already an established practice?
Next question, has the Government considered that this policy reversal could be very confusing for Singaporeans, especially those that are not digitally-literate?
Okay, my last question. Many Singaporeans have raised concerns over whether our full NRIC numbers have been so compromised that there is no need to mask them anymore. So, my last question is, can Senior Minister confirm, whether there is any evidence to show that our full NRIC numbers have been compromised on a large scale already?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I will answer the last one first. It is the same question that Mr Giam had asked me and I think I have given the reply. No, we do not and have not seen anything, say, on the dark web, and so on.
And this idea that full NRIC numbers are compromised, I think it starts from the wrong basis, which I have tried very hard to explain. Which is that the fact that somebody knows your NRIC number, does not mean that it is compromised. Your NRIC number is supposed to be known by those people who need to know it and so you must expect that your NRIC number is known to quite a few others. And that is why it should not be used as an authenticator.
Which leads me to partially answer Mr Leong's question, which is that it is precisely because those who are not so digitally-savvy have this mistaken impression that they can use the NRIC number as an authenticator, that partial NRIC numbers provide security, that we have to do this, because if we do not, then they will go away with this mistaken belief and continue to do so.
And it is, in fact, not easy to communicate this. That is why we have to do this in a very careful process and in part, it is partially the reason why we have this misunderstanding and gap in communication, even within the Public Service.
So, indeed, it is complicated. But I think it is something which should be done, particularly to protect those who are not digitally-savvy, who go away with the idea that, \"Yes, my NRIC number is secret. Therefore, I can use it as a password. And partial NRIC number is very good, because it hides my real NRIC number, which should be secret.\" So, we should move away from that, especially to protect those who are not digitally-savvy, because they may not fully appreciate the unsafe nature and the dangers of doing that.
Then, he asked when the political office holders got involved in the public communications on the Bizfile portal issue. They got involved, I think, almost as soon as it became apparent that there was public anxiety.
Next question about paragraph 40 and the email to senior officers, yes, the July 2024 CM was emailed to officers. Did the officers voice any concerns? Well, in the process of putting in new directives or new circular memos, and so on, there is a process in which the agencies who put this out and who are responsible for that domain area, communicate with the agencies which may be impacted, implementing agencies and so on; and MDDI did do so. So, there was a process for that.
I think I have answered all of Mr Leong's questions.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Sir. Could I just quickly confirm that it is the official position of the Government that it will, going forward, be actively working to discourage or dissuade the private sector's use of NRIC numbers in all authentication use cases, including the protection of confidential, but not necessarily secret information, such as, for example, health reports or bank statements?
I say this fully appreciating the distinction between identification and authentication, but nevertheless, caution against going overboard in pursuing best practice security. Because after all, it is not complicated for IT personnel to happily code up password hashes, but the consequences for the rest of us could be a much diminished user experience – needing to cross reference one-time passwords each time we wish to do something simple like retrieving our bank statement.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Could I make a clarification that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is suggesting that the Public Service should not adopt best practice security processes?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: No, I am asking, with regard to how the Government will now recommend private sector action. So, in terms of how it will dissuade the private sector from using these kinds of authentication method.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I think Assoc Prof Lim did not answer my question. I thought I heard him say that we should not be adopting best practices. I want to confirm whether he thinks we should be adopting best practices or not.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Of course, we should be adopting best practices. Let me be clear about that, yes.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his clarification, because if he starts from a different start point that I start from, then we will be having quite a different set of answers to his questions.
I think the Government does want the private sector to adopt best practices in authentication. And I am glad that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim agrees with that. That is an important start point.
And the idea that you can use your NRIC as your password is unsafe, and we want to discourage that and we hope that the private sector will stop that; we will see how we can reinforce that in a much clearer way for the private sector.
Mr Speaker: One final clarification. Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Speaker. I got one final clarification for the Senior Minister. I still want to ask whether it is a better communication strategy and also maybe a better strategy in getting Singaporeans to not use their NRIC number, whether full or masked, for authentication, by just educating them on not using it for authentication. Rather than introducing one more factor, and say that, \"Oh, we should discontinue the masked NRIC also\". Because there are some advantages to the use of the masked NRIC.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, what is your clarification?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I am asking, is it a better communication strategy and also implementation strategy, by just concentrating on telling Singaporeans that, \"Do not use your NRIC for authentication\", and not to confuse them with, \"We are now not using the masked NRIC also\"? You get what I mean? Because now you are introducing two things.
Mr Speaker: I think, Mr Leong, yes, you have asked your clarification.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, well, first of all, I take it that Mr Leong has no disagreement on what I have described as the dangers of using full NRIC as authentication. And I hope that in his ability to communicate with the public that he will also stress that. And that is an important message which all of us should take to the public, including Mr Leong.
But I also hope that he has read the Annex A and listened to my explanations as to why the use of partial NRIC numbers, in the belief that they provide adequate definitive identification, or that they are safe because it protects your NRIC number, which people mistakenly believe that it should be secret and cannot be revealed to anybody, that this is also the wrong belief.
So, I understand that the second part is indeed more difficult to explain. So, in the implementation, when we do this communication, I think I do agree with him – the more urgent and important thing is to tell people, \"Do not use your NRIC number for authentication or as your password\". I think that is the most important thing.
And then, we will have to shift people away from the idea that if you use the partial NRIC number, it is enough to identify you. It is not, uniquely. And the idea that if you use your partial NRIC number, it somehow keeps your NRIC number \"secret\", which is not so. So, that part, I think it will have to be a follow-up on the first part.
Sir, if there are no more clarifications, may I seek your permission just to make some remarks to round up?
Mr Speaker: Go ahead.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for seeking clarifications and the many useful points that they have made.
The Government has conducted a thorough review over two months on what had happened, why they happened and how we can improve. A report has been released publicly and has been thoroughly discussed today in this House. I thank Members for seeking these clarifications because it helps to communicate to the public also why we are doing what we are doing.
Sir, taking reference from the shortcomings identified by the Panel, the Public Service Division, MDDI and ACRA have followed up to review the actions and responsibilities of the officers involved in relation to the Bizfile incident – and this includes both senior officers and leaders of organisations, as well as officers who are directly responsible. But as I said, and I thank Members for their support, that we will deal with them fairly.
The lessons learned that the Panel has identified are also being disseminated across the whole of the Public Service, so that agencies can take these on board and ensure that similar incidents do not recur.
Mr Speaker, Sir, even though the process and findings of the review may cause the Government discomfort and even some embarrassment, we have gone about this openly and transparently, and I am glad that Members on both sides of this House agree with that. This is so that the Government can account to the public and demonstrate its commitment to rectify shortcomings and serve the people better.
This has been and will continue to be the Government's approach when mistakes are made or shortcomings are identified from time to time. It is an approach which this Government is determined to continue, and it is a key pillar of good governance and for the good of Singapore and our people. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Order. We have completed the Ministerial Statement. We will now go back into the Committee of Supply to debate the Estimates.
I have revised the commencement time of the Committee of Supply to start immediately. With the change in commencement time, the revised guillotine time for Head V, Ministry of Trade and Industry, is 2.25 pm. Hon Members will be notified of the revised conclusion times for the subsequent Heads of Expenditure.
The Clerk will now read the Order of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head V (Ministry of Trade and Industry)","subTitle":"An open and resilient economy, with diverse pathways and opportunities for all","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Head V (cont) – (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [5 March 2025], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\" – [Mr Liang Eng Hwa]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry Gan Kim Yong.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Chairman, let me first thank Members for their very constructive comments and suggestions. The year 2024 has been a relatively good year. The gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 4.4%, compared to 1.8% in 2023. Core inflation came down from 4.2% in 2023 to 2.7% in 2024.
This year, we celebrate SG60. We have come a long way in building a strong, innovative and vibrant economy. We have created good opportunities for Singaporeans and improved their lives. Our economic success did not happen by chance. It was the result of a combination of factors: careful long-term planning; sustained investments in infrastructure; keeping a pro-business environment; and, most important of all, investing in lifelong education and training, together with staying open to talent, trade and investment.
Generations of Singaporeans have worked together to build a strong foundation for our economy. But Members are well aware that we are now entering a new chapter in our economic journey with new challenges and opportunities unlike those we have seen before.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the potential headwinds arising from geopolitical contestation.
Sir, the multilateral free trade system has been under tremendous stress in recent years and is at risk of being fractured. Members would have heard United States (US) President Donald Trump's new tariffs and his plans for more, including reciprocal tariffs on trading partners to match the duties on US' exports. China and Canada have also responded with their own tariffs. This may lead to an escalating, tit-for-tat cycle for tariffs, or worse, a global trade war. This could upend the global rules-based economic order that Singapore, as a small and open economy, is dependent on.
Given that we do not impose tariffs on any American imports and the US has a trade surplus with us, we may not be significantly affected by the reciprocal tariffs directly. However, rising tariffs and trade wars could cause disruptions to supply chains, slow down global trade and drive up business costs, and therefore, affect businesses and consumers. In the longer term, it will also affect confidence and investment flows and slow down the global economy.
Instead of seeking win-win opportunities with their partners, many countries are now competing aggressively against each other for investments and protecting their domestic sectors. This will lead to a more challenging external environment for us.
Domestically, we will also need to tackle tighter constraints, especially in land, labour and carbon I spoke about last year. Our local workforce growth is expected to continue to slow in the coming years. With limited land, we will need to find new ways to maximise our space utilisation. To do our part on climate change, we will need to reduce our carbon footprint while accommodating the growing energy demand as we expand our industries.
Nevertheless, it is not all doom and gloom. Amidst these challenges, there are still opportunities for us. Asia's economy will continue to grow and Southeast Asia is expected to become the fourth largest economy in the world by 2030. Artificial intelligence (AI), digitalisation and the low-carbon transition will also present new opportunities in the digital and green economy. Singapore can also capitalise on the shifts in production and supply chains to attract new investments and strengthen our position as a key node in the reconfigured trade flows.
On balance, we can be cautiously confident. We expect our economy to expand by about 1% to 3% this year and inflation to stay moderated, with core inflation at about 1% to 2%, barring major disruptions.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if we can grow faster. We will certainly try to do so and we hope we can grow faster than what we have projected.
Last year, I spoke about four strategies to allow us to grow, namely, grow our economy; unlock our resource potential; transform our businesses; and connect internationally. These strategies remain relevant. I will speak about how we will grow our economy while my colleagues will elaborate on the other strategies.
Sir, we will grow our economy in four ways: (a) strengthen our connectivity to the region and the world; (b) grow strong enterprises through innovation; (c) foster a pro-enterprise environment; and (d) invest in our people.
I will start with connectivity.
Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how Singapore can strengthen regional trade relations.
As a business hub, our success depends on staying well-connected to the region and to the world. Firstly, we have made progress in deepening integration and collaboration with our immediate neighbours. This year, we signed the Agreement on the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) with Malaysia. This will benefit our firms here by allowing them to tap on the resources available in Johor to expand and grow. JS-SEZ will also allow Singapore and Malaysia to draw in investments, by offering a more compelling value proposition by combining our complementary strengths.
We have seen strong commercial interest in JS-SEZ. The Singapore Business Federation's business mission to Johor Bahru last month drew 230 delegates from over 180 Singapore businesses. We will also continue to build on our existing cooperation with Indonesia, particularly in Batam, Bintan and Karimun, as well as explore new areas of cooperation.
Second, we will continue to enhance digital trade and improve market access for our companies operating in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). We are making progress to substantially conclude our negotiations on the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement (DEFA) this year. This will accelerate the growth of the digital economy within ASEAN.
We also plan to conclude negotiations and sign the upgrade to the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) this year, which will boost intra-ASEAN trade and strengthen supply chain connectivity within our region, to tap on the growth of Asia's economy.
Even as we deepen our connections, we want to nurture Singapore enterprises to become regional or global leaders. We also seek to anchor global industry leaders here to enhance our industry ecosystems, which will benefit local companies and provide good jobs.
As Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Neil Parekh have noted, innovation is at the heart of economic growth. For example, over the past decades, we have successfully built up a strong and competitive semi-conductor ecosystem that has cemented Singapore as a critical node in the global semi-conductor supply chain. But to remain a semi-conductor powerhouse, we must invest in research and development (R&D) to drive innovation within the industry, not just among the big players but also among the small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
Semi-conductor manufacturing facilities typically involve substantial upfront investments. Companies, especially the smaller ones, may face challenges accessing semi-conductor infrastructure and expertise in their R&D and pilot production. To support them, we established the National Semiconductor Translation and Innovation Centre (NSTIC) last April, at the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).
NSTIC provides companies and researchers in the fields of flat optics and silicon photonics with access to semi-conductor R&D infrastructure. Companies may also tap NSTIC's capabilities for prototyping and small volume manufacturing to accelerate the speed to market and scaling up.
To build on this, A*STAR will broaden NSTIC to cover more semi-conductor technologies and increase the capacity. We will invest about $500 million to establish the NSTIC (R&D Fab), a new national semi-conductor R&D fabrication facility at JTC nanoSpace @ Tampines.
The NSTIC (R&D Fab) will have an initial focus on advanced packaging, which is a key growth area in the semi-conductor industry. It will offer state-of-the-art cleanroom infrastructure and industry-grade tools, as well as translational research and fabrication expertise. This will support the scaling and translation of R&D.
Major global semi-conductor players as well as SMEs and startups can tap on its capabilities and even foster new partnerships. One example is NexGen Wafer Systems, a local SME which supplies wet etching and cleaning equipment to chipmakers worldwide. They had started their R&D efforts overseas to better access tools and facilities that were not available in Singapore then. By leveraging A*STAR's R&D capabilities and facilities, NexGen has developed new semi-conductor equipment features and applications in Singapore to fabricate different types of chips. They have therefore found value in bringing a part of their R&D activities back to Singapore.
The NSTIC (R&D Fab) will scale up our capacity to enable similar SMEs and the broader semi-conductor industry here to build new capabilities, develop and commercialise globally-competitive technologies and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
Our R&D efforts have also enabled us to develop a strong pipeline of promising and innovative startups. One example is Lucence, an A*STAR spin-off and homegrown startup. Lucence focuses on precision oncology and partners the National Cancer Centre to develop the LiquidHALLMARK test to guide therapy selection for tumours. With support from Enterprise Singapore, Lucence automated its Singapore laboratory to serve customers in Singapore, Hong Kong and Southeast Asia. It partnered Mayo Clinic Laboratories this year, to drive adoption and commercialisation of its technology in US.
Today, Singapore also hosts many Deep Tech companies. Among them is Entropica Labs, a startup from the Centre for Quantum Technologies. Entropica Labs has been working with global leaders in quantum computing hardware and infrastructure providers, such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Xanadu, to bring quantum technologies to the market.
We want to do more through the Global Innovation Alliance (GIA) nodes in key innovation hubs. We help our companies tap into the innovation networks and market opportunities overseas. Carecam, a digital health startup focusing on transitional care and advanced screening, participated in the GIA San Francisco Acceleration Programme and connected with a US-based corporate to integrate their solutions into new business entities. This will support the company's expansion into the US healthcare sector.
We want to support more startups like Carecam to accelerate their speed to market and facilitate their product commercialisation. We will enhance the GIA to support startups in various growth stages. The GIA Discovery will support startups to familiarise themselves with the market and evaluate product-market fit, in order to shape their market strategy. Thereafter, startups can pilot their technologies in these new markets, with the support from GIA Proof of Concept to validate their products and gain market credibility.
The GIA+ initiative will support startups participating in global acceleration programmes, such as those run by Y Combinator, MassRobotics and MassChallenge in the US, to gain access to mentorship, resources and networks to realise their overseas expansion plans. To expand our startup ecosystem, we also want experienced founders to be anchored here and build their new ventures that have the potential to become globally leading businesses. To do so, the Economic Development Board (EDB) will launch a Global Founder Programme (GFP) later this year.
Let me give Members a preview. This is a targeted programme aimed at supporting the new ventures of experienced founders from around the world as well as in Singapore. Founders are individuals who have built highly successful startups or who have developed major new products and business lines in global companies, or who have made significant scientific or engineering achievements, such as in AI or Deep Tech. The GFP signals our belief in the power of openness. We want to bring the best from around the world to Singapore to add to the strength of our own. We want to support firms which are able and willing to innovate and grow. We will foster a vibrant innovation ecosystem that will help our companies stay competitive and create high-value job opportunities for Singaporeans.
Manufacturing is a key pillar of our economy, comprising close to 20% of our GDP and is one of the largest contributors to productivity growth. It also supports the growth of the financial and professional services sectors.
I would like to reassure Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Mark Lee, Ms Jessica Tan, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Saktiandi Supaat that we will continue to encourage leading manufacturers here to invest in innovation and also attract new, high performing companies to grow in Singapore.
Last October, I attended KLA's groundbreaking ceremony for a new manufacturing facility in Singapore, for some of their most advanced wafer geometry and defect inspection tools. KLA's new facility is expected to create at least 400 jobs, in areas, such as mechanical design, materials and product testing. It will also create opportunities for enterprises here to collaborate with KLA on niche areas, such as precision cleaning and manufacturing of metal parts used in optics assemblies.
For example, local SME Alantac Industrial Services and KLA co-developed precision cleaning solutions for defect inspection tools that meet stringent cleaning requirements. By supporting our high-performing firms in Singapore, we hope to uplift the capacity and capabilities of our entire industry ecosystem, including our local SMEs.
Mr Mark Lee and Mr Edward Chia asked how the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) intends to support the financing needs of businesses as they expand globally. The Government had allocated over $1.8 billion in the past five years in equity investment funds to support enterprise growth; but there is room for us to enhance our equity and debt financing toolkit to better support our enterprises' diverse growth strategies.
First, we will introduce the Long-Term Investment Fund and deploy more than $200 million of Government capital over a longer time horizon, beyond the typical three- to seven-year timescale. This caters to enterprises with longer and more complex growth trajectories that will require more time to fully realise their potential.
Second, we will launch a $1 billion Private Credit Growth Fund (PCGF). Unlike traditional debt, private credit has the flexibility to meet the specific needs of companies looking to scale up quickly. And unlike equity, private credit allows companies and founders to retain business ownership and control. The PCGF is targeted at local enterprises with strong growth potential to become leaders in their respective industry domain. Some of them will require tailored financing solutions to support their unique growth strategy, such as international merger and acquisitions (M&As) or large overseas capital investments. These solutions may not be readily available in Asia, through the traditional financing today.
Beyond the $1 billion seeded by the Government, we hope to catalyse more commercial funding as more fund managers and investors gain familiarity and confidence in this space.
I spoke earlier about the importance of our pro-enterprise environment. At last year's National Day Rally, the Prime Minister also spoke about the need for us to ensure a business-friendly environment and to keep regulatory burden to a minimum. We had set up the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review last year that I chair to look into our rules and streamline our regulations, to enable our businesses to move fast to seize the opportunities that come our way.
Since then, my fellow Ministers and I have engaged more than 140 business leaders across 14 sectors. Let me thank all the stakeholders for their support and their feedback. Business leaders have cited approval timelines, frequency of licence renewals and duplicative processes as key areas for improvement. The Committee has studied the feedback carefully. While we will tackle specific feedback from the industry, and Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling will elaborate later, the Government will set three Statements of Commitment to guide our whole-of-Government efforts to increase regulatory agility and reduce compliance burden for our businesses.
First, all relevant agencies will publish service standards for the processing of business regulatory applications to provide greater clarity for companies. We will endeavour to streamline service standards to 30 working days or less, where feasible.
Second, we will increase the validity period of regular business licences to a minimum of three years where possible and aim towards five years. This will provide greater certainty for businesses, especially for those undertaking longer-term growth plans.
Third, the Government will continue to streamline regulatory processes to facilitate concurrent rather than sequential approvals where possible. We will also streamline information requests across agencies. We have made good progress in the Built Environment sector, by developing CORENET X as a one-stop digital platform for building works approvals across agencies. We should learn from this experience and apply the same approach in other domains.
Lastly, we are investing more in our people. Ultimately, we pursue economic growth so that future generations of Singaporeans can continue to build better lives for themselves. So, this growth must translate into real opportunities for Singaporeans to advance their careers and develop their potential to the fullest.
Lifelong learning is critical for workers to upgrade themselves and take up higher wage roles. For example, we have partnered the Singapore Institute of Technology on a continuing education and training (CET) degree, to upskill in-employment diploma holders in manufacturing.
This will also help businesses develop and retain their local manufacturing talent pipeline and enhance business continuity. Minister Tan See Leng will share more. We will also strengthen initiatives to groom more Singaporean Global Leaders. Last year, we launched the Global Business Leaders Programme. We also launched the Singapore Leaders Network (SGLN) Fellowship to equip managers with the ambition to assume regional and global leadership roles.
One of 60 fellows from the pioneer batch is Ms Camy Loh. Camy joined Royal Vopak, a leading independent tank storage company, as a sales manager in Singapore in 2014. Today, Camy is now the Deputy Managing Director of Royal Vopak's Thai Tank Terminal, co-leading a team of over 120 employees at one of the largest maritime logistics terminals near Bangkok. It was a big step for her professionally as well as personally. Through the SGLN, Camy gained skills and knowledge to allow her to thrive in this role in Bangkok.
We are proud that Camy is flying the Singapore flag high. We are enhancing SGLN to better support more Singaporeans like Camy. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will elaborate further on this.
These education and training initiatives take time to bear fruit, and I encourage companies to start early and proactively plan to nurture Singaporean talent and benefit from a strong pipeline of talent and leadership.
Chairman, we are, indeed, entering uncharted waters. In fact, I think I should say that we are already in uncharted waters. We will face economic uncertainties and disruptions in the months and years to come. There will be challenges, but there will also be opportunities. We can look ahead to the next bound of our economic development with confidence, by remaining open to trade, talent and investments, as well as maintaining a pro-business environment.
We must further strengthen our competitive edge through innovation, deepen our integration with the region and with the world, and investing in building strong enterprises and a skilled workforce. This is how we will earn our living and standing in an increasingly uncertain and unfavourable external environment.
By doing so, we will keep our economy going, keep our economy strong, vibrant and resilient, and create better jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans and a better future for Singapore for the next 60 years and more. [Applause.]
The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Chairman, Singapore faces increasing growth pressures. Our population is ageing rapidly amidst intensifying competition for talent. We face fiercer rivalry for investments as we navigate land and carbon constraints.
To address these challenges, we will expand our resource potential through four strategies. First, decarbonising our energy mix. Second, investing in our workers. Third, sustaining investments in research and innovation and last, but not least, enhancing our land productivity.
I will first update on our decarbonisation efforts. Singapore has committed to achieve net-zero by 2050. As Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean said, Singapore is a climate realist. The timeline for climate action is set by nature, not geopolitical developments. Moreover, our decarbonisation initiatives are an important factor in companies' investment decisions. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to stay the course.
Cross-border electricity trading is crucial to achieving our climate goals. We are working towards progressing the first batch of electricity import projects with Conditional Licences, to reach Final Investment Decisions. These projects are win-win collaborations that lay the groundwork for our shared aspiration of an ASEAN Power Grid within the region. They create jobs. They underpin new investments for the source country. And given the substantive progress that we have made, we have raised our imports ambition from four gigawatts (GWs) to around six GWs by 2035.
Concurrently, we will maximise our domestic solar potential. As Senior Minister Teo has also shared, we achieved our 2025 deployment target of 1.5 gigawatt-peak (GWp) ahead of schedule. This puts us on track to achieving our 2030 target of at least two GWp. Scaling beyond the two GWp is challenging, but we will continue to encourage home owners and building owners to install solar panels and push the boundaries of domestic deployment. For example, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has worked with industry stakeholders, including through the Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Competitiveness, to simplify regulatory processes.
The simplified processes exempt more than half of all solar photovoltaic (PV) installations on metal-roofed buildings from fire separation requirements, allowing eligible building owners to save up to 30% on total construction cost.
Electricity imports and solar energy alone are insufficient to get us to net-zero. We need to explore every possible decarbonisation pathway. Nuclear energy, especially advanced nuclear reactors, is an option that we are seriously studying for potential deployment.
Now, let me address Mr Sharael Taha and Ms Jessica Tan's questions clearly. We have not yet made a decision on deployment. It is, therefore, premature to speak on potential sites, costs and specific plans. But our current priority is to accelerate capability building on nuclear safety and advanced nuclear technologies. We are training more nuclear scientists, such as via postgraduate scholarships in nuclear science and engineering.
We are also stepping up on international partnerships. Last year, we signed a substantive civil nuclear agreement with the United States. This complements our ongoing cooperation with partners, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), France's Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety and the Emirates Nuclear Energy Company.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about our plans for hydrogen. Hydrogen, indeed, has the potential to be a low-carbon fuel for the future, although high adoption costs and technical challenges remain today. In the near-term, our focus is similarly on capability building. By the end of this year, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) aim to identify a lead developer for a pilot project to use ammonia for power generation and maritime bunkering.
We are also exploring complementary solutions to decarbonise the hard-to-abate sectors. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are advancing quickly. We will engage emitters and potential service providers to develop the CCS value chain and partner countries with suitable geological storage sites. We have made progress by signing a Letter of Intent with Indonesia in 2024 and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Malaysia in 2025.
Mr Edward Chia and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked for an update on our carbon markets initiatives. As Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean mentioned, Singapore just signed an Implementation Agreement with Bhutan, in addition to our agreements with Ghana and Papua New Guinea. These Agreements establish the framework for the transfer of Article 6 carbon credits, which is aligned with our environmental integrity criteria. MTI will also be launching a Request for Proposals to procure Article 6-compliant carbon credits later this year.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat pointed out, natural gas will continue to play a crucial role in our energy mix. And that is why we will set up the central gas procurement entity for the power sector this year and complete the development of our second liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal by this decade. These will secure our natural gas needs for the foreseeable future.
We will calibrate our speed of adoption for energy technologies and solutions. For the less mature solutions, we will strengthen research efforts and accelerate commercialisation.
We will commit $62.5 million for the A*STAR to develop a Low-Carbon Technology Translational Testbed (LCT3) that will support companies in scaling up low-carbon solutions closer to commercial development. International and local players, like IHI Corporation from Japan and CRecTech, a local company, have already expressed interest to use LCT3.
For commercially-mature solutions, we will accelerate their deployment.
As Mr Saktiandi Supaat highlighted, this includes making major infrastructural investments for a low-carbon future. To save up for these investments, we are topping-up the Future Energy Fund (FEF) by $5 billion. We have not disbursed monies from the fund, as it is still early days in our infrastructural developmental journey. However, we anticipate significant drawdowns once key technological and commercial thresholds are crossed.
To address Mr Sharael Taha's question, the FEF can also be used to fund studies for the deployment of low-carbon energy infrastructure, including those needed for small modular reactors.
To better inform our decisions as we decarbonise, A*STAR is developing an integrated model to simulate the interdependencies of the possible net-zero mitigation measures.
Members have voiced concerns about the potential impact of decarbonisation on energy costs. Our aim is to strike the right balance between decarbonisation towards net zero, ensuring at the same time our energy security and maintaining cost-competitiveness.
For households, we will continue to provide support through measures, such as U-save rebates. For businesses, we will co-fund investments in energy efficiency through initiatives like the Energy Efficiency Grant. Furthermore, we will fully rechannel carbon tax revenue collected towards decarbonisation efforts. We do not expect, therefore, to derive additional net revenue from the carbon tax in this decade.
Next, on manpower. As we decarbonise, we will continue to upgrade the skillsets of our workforce. This is particularly crucial for workers in energy-intensive sectors, such as the petrochemicals industry, who will be more impacted by the green transition. Many already possess core skillsets that allow them to take on new job opportunities in adjacent growth segments, like specialty chemicals, or those in the sustainability space.
We will also support workers via CET efforts, as well as Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs).
Beyond the green transition, CET will remain a key enabler to deepen Singaporeans' skills in response to digitalisation and AI. In fact, Government spending on CET initiatives in FY2024 is projected to amount to over $1 billion. We will continue to work with companies and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to support workers in upskilling and attaining better wage outcomes.
One prime example is EDB's collaboration with industry and the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) on an Electrical and Electronics Engineering degree for in-employment diploma holders in manufacturing roles. This CET degree follows best practices in adult education by recognising prior learning and work experiences and allowing qualifications to be stacked towards a degree. Learners can also access recorded lessons and online consultations, so that it is easier for them to juggle work and study.
CCPs can also support the reskilling and the redeployment of employees. Mr Mark Lee would be pleased to know that Workforce Singapore's (WSG's) CCPs already support these redeployments of existing employees post-merger. Moreover, since 1 April 2024, WSG increased the monthly salary support cap from $6,000 to $7,500 for eligible workers with up to 90% of salary support.
Now, even as we develop Singaporeans, we must continue to attract global talent that can complement our local workforce. We have concluded agreements with both Indonesia and Vietnam to facilitate the exchange of technology and innovation talent.
The Tech:X pilot with Indonesia was launched in July last year, while the parameters of the Innovation Talent Exchange programme with Vietnam were launched in September 2024. So, Indonesia in July 2024 and Vietnam in September 2024. Nearly 50 companies and 50 Singaporeans have expressed interest across both programmes. Our young leaders will have greater exposure to regional economies and companies will find it easier to access mobile talent.
Collectively, this two-pronged strategy of supporting Singaporeans and attracting global talent will keep our workforce globally competitive. I will elaborate on how our efforts have supported good employment outcomes for Singaporeans later at MOM's Committee of Supply (COS) debate this evening.
Third, on research and innovation. We must continue developing an innovation-led economy, as Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong has shared. This is why Singapore invested $28 billion under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 (RIE2025) plan.
Ms Foo Mee Har asked how we will drive research translation and support the development of our semi-conductors and biotech sectors. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat announced upcoming initiatives, such as the RIE Flagship to advance semi-conductor R&D and the RIE Grand Challenge, focusing on healthy and successful longevity. These complement the existing R&D translation platforms available.
One such platform is A*STAR's MedTech Catapult, which provides infrastructure, expertise and connections to local contract manufacturers looking to further develop frontier medical devices. I attended the launch event last month and was happy to know that more than 10 companies have applied to this initiative.
Besides this, the NSTIC (R&D Fab) for advanced packaging in semi-conductors, which Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong shared earlier, is another R&D translation platform that A*STAR will be rolling out. Such investments enable more firms to produce cutting-edge technologies, create good jobs and maintain Singapore's competitiveness.
The GDP contribution from firms with R&D activities grew from around 15% of GDP to 24% over a 10-year period from 2012 to 2022. The number of R&D jobs increased by 7.6% from 2021 to 2022.
To address Ms Foo Mee Har's question on securing the talent pipeline for our R&D facilities, we are bringing in top talent who contribute to the ecosystem.
During COS 2023, I shared about Prof Watson, an Overseas Networks and Expertise Pass (ONE PASS) holder, who took on the Executive Director role at A*STAR Skin Research Labs and the Skin Research Institute of Singapore. Prof Watson has since strengthened A*STAR's global standing, by partnering the National Skin Centre and Sanofi to trial a first-of-its-kind acne vaccine and deepen understanding of key biological markers that impact the severity of the condition.
These are signs that our efforts are bearing fruit and we will invest further.
The Prime Minister announced during Budget that we are refreshing A*STAR's biomedical research infrastructure by extending it to the greater one-north area. This is an approximately $500 million effort, which will strengthen our biomedical R&D ecosystem in two ways.
First, A*STAR will be located closer to key partners, like the National University Health System's clinical community and venture builders, making it a new attraction point for both industry players and talent. Second, A*STAR will redesign its laboratories and workspaces to promote interdisciplinary collaboration across the different research institutes. It will do so by providing more centrally-managed collaboration spaces that allow for better integration of expertise across teams.
A*STAR will also introduce new biopharma manufacturing programmes with its partners – the Singapore Cell Therapy Advanced Manufacturing Programme 2.0 (STAMP 2.0) and the Process Accelerator for Cell Therapy Manufacturing (PACTMAN).
Cell therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, have transformed treatment for certain blood cancers and they have demonstrated promise for autoimmune diseases, but they remain complex and expensive to manufacture.
Since 2019, STAMP has partnered biotech companies to improve the quality testing of cell therapy assets, conduct CAR-T therapy trials in Singapore and enable licensing and spinoffs of new technologies. STAMP 2.0 will build on this to develop lower-cost manufacturing technologies that can produce higher quality products. For example, it aims to reduce the time taken for cell extraction, modification and infusion into patients, what we call the vein-to-vein time.
Meanwhile, PACTMAN will develop scalable processes to accelerate the translation of cell therapies, including those developed through STAMP, from laboratory to clinic. Taken together, these efforts will deepen our R&D capabilities and drive innovation-led growth.
Lastly, on land polices. We support businesses to intensify land use and to be more productive.
We will extend and enhance the Land Intensification Allowance (LIA) scheme to unlock new industrial space. Companies receiving the LIA approval during the next five years will continue to enjoy tax allowance on the full qualifying costs over 15 years. From 2026, we will make it easier for companies to qualify for LIA so that they can optimise space and they can integrate operations with related businesses. Building users and LIA recipients can be considered related if they own more than 50% shareholding of each other. This is down from the current threshold of at least 75%.
JTC will also introduce four initiatives to provide greater flexibility for companies. These initiatives support the recommendations from the AfA on Business Competitiveness and the work under the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review.
First, companies with new leases on greenfield industrial land will be offered additional three years of lease tenure to cover the development and building period. This will allow companies to enjoy the full duration of the lease with their completed development.
Second, high-performing companies will have more flexibility to extend their leases in shorter periods for incremental business investments. JTC will introduce a new five-year Flexible Lease Extension Initiative (FLEXI) to give eligible companies on JTC's 20-year leases the option to extend their leases by up to two tranches of five years each.
Third, JTC will bring forward the lease renewal application period from the current six years to ten years before lease expiry.
Finally, JTC will broaden its definition of plant and machinery investments, which is a key criteria for lease renewal. We will now recognise auditable investments in innovation, R&D, digital transformation and intellectual property (IP) creation. Mr Chairman, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There is an old saying, \"Wealth does not last beyond three generations.\" However, through the hard work of successive generations, Singapore has successfully entered its fourth generation.
We, as the current generation, should uphold the same spirit and be accountable to future generations of Singaporeans.
The measures that I have announced today will lay the foundations for the future of Singapore's economy.
(In English): Chairman, as we conclude, let us reflect on the enduring Singapore spirit.
For 60 years, we have thrived not despite our challenges but because of them. We have always been tight on resources, but we are never short on resourcefulness. Our resource constraints have compelled us to be innovative and brought us to where we are today. For the next 60 years and beyond, I am confident that this same innovative spirit, as reflected in the bold steps we are taking today, will drive our continued growth and it will secure a vibrant future for generations of Singaporeans. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling.
The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling): Mr Chairman, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong shared that the next chapter of our economic journey will bring new challenges and opportunities. We have what it takes to stay anchored amid the waves.
Over the years, our enterprises have acquired the skills to adapt, innovate and change to emerge stronger. Together, we can transform to achieve growth and stay ahead of the game.
The Government is strongly committed to supporting our enterprises every step of the way. To enable their business transformation and growth, we will: one, support the overseas expansion of our enterprises; two, empower our enterprises to transform and benefit from artificial intelligence; and three, enhance Singapore's pro-enterprise business environment and reduce red tape.
We will also boost our heartlands and support our heartland enterprises.
Chairman, Singapore's economic success is built on our ability to connect with the world, as Mr Mark Lee has noted. For Singapore enterprises to grow, they must expand beyond our hinterland to overseas markets for fresh revenue streams.
I want to reassure Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Keith Chua that Enterprise Singapore is committed to providing comprehensive and holistic support for Singapore enterprises.
In 2024, Enterprise\tSingapore supported more than 2,300 companies, helping them boost their projected annual revenue by $14.5 billion through transformative projects in productivity, that is $8.2 billion; internationalisation, that is $5.5 billion; as well as innovation, that is $0.8 billion, all totalling up to the $14.5 billion I highlighted earlier.
Companies that undertook internationalisation projects saw a projected increase in annual revenue of $8.8 million per company compared to $7.7 million in 2023. I am glad to announce that moving forward, we will further enhance our support in this area.
First, we will permanently double the maximum loan quantum for the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Trade Loan (EFS-TL) from $5 million to $10 million. We have considered feedback from the business community, including the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and PricewaterhouseCoopers, and would like to meet this need for financing.
Second, we will extend the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation (DTDi) for the next five years. Enterprises with expansion plans can continue to benefit from a 200% tax deduction on eligible expenses for overseas market expansion and investment development activities.
Third, we will extend the $100,000 Market Readiness Assistance (MRA) Grant cap by one more year to 31 March 2026, because this is in response to industry feedback that many companies, many businesses have spent the last two to three years getting back on their feet after COVID-19. They are restarting their expansion plans and need more time to execute their global market outreach.
Besides our grant, tax and financing schemes, Enterprise Singapore and its partners operate a wide network of Overseas Centres where Singapore SMEs can receive support to enter regional markets.
Besides helping enterprises grow their overseas markets, I want to reassure Mr Mark Lee that the Government will enhance support for enterprises pursuing inorganic growth via M&A.
We will expand the scope of the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Mergers and Acquisitions (EFS-M&A) to also cover targeted asset acquisitions, such as intellectual properties and contracts, without a corresponding equity purchase. This will help unlock loan financing for enterprises to acquire specific and complementary assets of a target business that can enhance their growth prospects without having to buy out the target business and, therefore, take on its liabilities. The pilot will last five years, from 1 April this year until 31 March 2030.
Chairman, in addition to providing access to financing, we will continue to support enterprises in adopting new technologies, such as AI, because AI can spur enterprise and workforce transformation. It enables the firm to automate manual business processes and augment workers' skills, raising productivity, driving innovation and further growing business revenue.
The Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) will share the broad progress of our National AI Strategy (NAIS) 2.0 while I will focus on MTI's key industry development efforts.
First, we will support more enterprises in setting up AI centres of excellence to accelerate the development and deployment of AI solutions across our economy. We recognise that enterprises need access to compute infrastructure, software and consultancy services to grow their AI R&D and productisation capabilities
And so, as the Prime Minister announced and mentioned in his Budget Statement, we are introducing the new Enterprise Compute Initiative (ECI) for Singapore-based enterprises with the ambition to anchor AI mandates and grow AI teams here in Singapore. Enterprises which are digitally mature, have a compelling AI use case as well as an implementation roadmap can tap on the ECI.
Mr Mark Lee will be pleased to know that under ECI, participants will have access to cloud compute credits and training programmes from cloud service providers, such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon Web Services. The Government will also provide a grant for ECI participants to access consultancy services offered by system integrators to help them develop and scale their AI solutions.
Secondly, the Government will continue to support the broad base of enterprises that are considering the adoption of AI-enabled solutions.
Ms Jessica Tan will be pleased to know that Enterprise Singapore, in partnership with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), has helped close to 3,000 SMEs adopt AI solutions through the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG). We will continue to enhance our existing digitalisation initiatives, such as the SMEs Go Digital Programme, to accelerate AI adoption. MDDI will elaborate more on this during their COS.
Besides powering up enterprises to use AI, we will help workers to upskill and harness AI to advance their careers.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa will be glad to know that we are indeed deepening our partnerships with the industry and the IHL partners to continue delivering industry-relevant curricula and providing student internships. MOM will share more details on how we will enhance support for businesses as they redesign jobs and upskill workers.
Chairman, Singapore is continuing to innovate and stay agile with AI. The constant energy to do better is part of our Singapore DNA. Deputy Prime Minister Gan spoke about our business-friendly environment, a fundamental quality that has enabled Singapore to stay attractive, to stay competitive. We are not resting on our laurels and we are committed to doing more.
The Government has stepped up our engagements with the industry and sought views on how Singapore can strengthen our competitiveness.
To this end, I co-chaired the AfA on Business Competitiveness with SBF Council Vice Chairman Mr Mark Lee from February to November last year. Mr Neil Parekh will also know and, in fact, he shared that the AfA engaged the businesses, and trade associations and chambers (TACs) extensively last year and released 27 recommendations on manpower, land and regulatory issues.
Our Government agencies have considered the AfA's recommendations seriously. Earlier on, you heard from Second Minister Dr Tan See Leng, JTC will implement the AfA's recommendation on lease tenure and renewals for industrial land.
In April 2024, the Government formed the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review to review our regulatory regime for the next bound. I thank Mr Edward Chia, Ms Jessica Tan, as well as Mr Keith Chua and Mr Mark Lee for their questions on the IMC. As announced by Deputy Prime Minister Gan earlier, he mentioned after extensive reviews and consultations, the Committee has set out three Statements of Commitment to streamline regulatory processes and to reduce the compliance burden on businesses. Our work does not stop there. Let me share more about the three-pronged commitment to enhancing our ecosystem and supporting businesses as they navigate Government regulations.
First is the SME Pro-Enterprise Office (SME PEO). Following the AfA's recommendation, I announced last September that this new office will be set up under Enterprise Singapore to help businesses navigate regulatory matters. I am pleased to announce that the SME PEO will be fully operational from 26 March this year, in 20 days' time. Working with the Pro-Enterprise Panel and respective regulatory agencies, SME PEO will be the Government's key coordination unit to aggregate business feedback and to improve regulations at the systems level. We seek continued strong support from our key partners, including the SBF and all TACs, to be our ears on the ground as well as champions for SMEs. Let us work closely with SME PEO to reduce red tape and to streamline processes to support our SMEs.
Second, we will enhance our SME Centres to offer a wider range of business advisory services and programmes. Today, there are 10 SME Centres across Singapore, helmed by TACs. The Business Advisors at these Centres will be armed with new toolkits to provide enhanced one-to-one business advisory services, workshops as well as group-based upgrading projects where multiple businesses facing similar pain points can adopt a common solution. This complements the work of the SME PEO so that our businesses can receive advisory support for their growth needs, including regulatory issues. We will continue to partner closely with our TACs to enhance SME Centres' offerings and to extend our reach to more businesses.
Third, we will continue investing in and improving our digital platforms, such as the GoBusiness portal and the Enterprise Singapore's Business Grants Portal. We will not only streamline licensing and regulatory transactions, but we will also improve, in terms of the grant applications, to better serve businesses.
Enterprise Singapore continues to enhance its grant processing efficiency through automation and centralised processing. For instance, the processing time for PSG applications has been shortened by 80%, from the previous almost three months to the current two weeks. These enhancements to our grant application and approval processes for local enterprises will not stop. We will continue to look at how we can improve and shorten the processing time by leveraging automation and centralised processing.
Taken together, the three pillars – the SME PEO, SME Centres and digitalisation – will continue to drive our efforts in supporting business transformation and growth for our SMEs and our enterprises.
Chairman, while easing regulatory burdens for businesses, the Government is also mindful that for markets to function properly, consumers' trust in merchants and markets must be upheld. I thank Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Melvin Yong for their questions.
On Mr Dennis Tan's suggestion, while right-to-repair has its benefits to the environment and to consumers, there are also potential downsides, such as data security concerns. I want to assure him that we will monitor and assess the need for such legislation in Singapore.
I also want to assure Ms Sylvia Lim that there is a whole-of-Government approach today to deal with scams which are criminal in nature, led by MHA and coordinated by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Scams.
MTI and the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) regularly review our consumer protection regime to ensure that consumers' interests are protected. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (or CPFTA) provides general remedies for consumers who encounter unfair trade practices when transacting with businesses. In addition, sector regulators have established more specific standards relevant to the sectors they oversee.
An effective consumer protection regime also requires the strong support of our key partners and businesses. MTI works closely with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to raise consumer awareness and champion their needs and rights. I agree with Mr Melvin Yong that more can be done, especially in the e-commerce space, where unfair practices can take on new and less-obvious forms.
The Government welcomes and encourages businesses to take the lead in industry-led initiatives, to ensure a fair and safe marketplace for our consumers. We have commenced consulting with the industry and will announce more details on our upcoming initiatives in the coming weeks.
Last but not least, let me speak on something closer to home – heartland shops. Many of us have very close ties to the heartlands, where we live, work and share good memories. They form part of our collective identity as Singaporeans, and our heartland shops are really part and parcel of our daily lives and social fabric.
I reassure Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Keith Chua that we are sparing no efforts to rejuvenate our heartlands. We have made progress in the past few years and we will strive to do more.
To recap, in 2022, we launched the $50 million Our Heartlands 2025 programme to revitalise our heartlands and to enhance the capabilities of heartland shops, helping them transform, stay relevant and continue serving residents. In fact, earlier in October 2020, we laid the foundation for transformation with the Heartlands Go Digital Programme. Since then, more than 17,000 heartland shops have adopted e-payment solutions. In 2022 and 2023, we further expanded the Heartlands Go Digital Programme to cover wider areas, such as service excellence, digital marketing and human resources.
We have also helped heartland shops rejuvenate their premises with the Visual Merchandising Programme that was launched in 2021. As a result of this programme, the heartland shops that participated shared that they have seen their footfall and their sales increase by generally about 20%.
Our heartland shops in Singapore have also benefited from the launch of Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers since the scheme started slightly more than three years ago. To date, Singaporeans have spent more than $1 billion at about 23,000 heartland shops and hawker stalls. In fact, the new round of CDC Vouchers as well as the SG60 Vouchers this year will again boost the visibility, footfall as well as business for our heartland shops.
For many of our heartland shops, getting that additional visibility and awareness can really make a vital difference to their business. That is why, last year, we launched the Heartland Enterprise Placemaking Grant (HEPG) to encourage our heartland merchants to organise innovative placemaking activities involving community engagement, public art installations, workshops, and thematic festivals. Many heartland shops have applied successfully for the HEPG.
One such shop is Quan Shui Wet Market, which started in Ang Mo Kio in 1968. The fresh pork stall owned by Uncle Oh Quan Shui has grown to eight and is now an omni-channel retail operation with a flagship store at Upper Thomson. Quan Shui participated in the Digital Practitioner Programme (DPP). In fact, under the charge of Uncle Oh's grandson, Neo Jun He, the store has refreshed its brand and pivoted online with a website and marketing a wider range of product range that went beyond just pork. Within just five months, Quan Shui attracted a growing pool of keen visitors and potential customers.
And like what Mr Desmond Choo mentioned during his cut yesterday, Quan Shui tapped into the HEPG to improve its product visibility. They participated in Easty Breezy, which is a seaside-inspired marketplace last September in Marine Parade, as well as a Chinese New Year Bazaar this year. Both events led to higher revenue, footfall and brand loyalty.
In fact, with its refreshed brand, expanded online presence and growing product range, Quan Shui's revenue increased by 25% from 2021 to 2024, and the company is projecting a 20% growth year-on-year.
Today, we would like to invite all Members to have a taste of Quan Shui's success. MTI has arranged for bento boxes with Quan Shui's siew mai, har gao as well as the chicken and mushroom dumplings to be served in the Members' Room later during tea break, and we have also made special arrangements for our Muslim Members. We have set aside four of their very, very popular halal otah buns in each bento set for each of our Muslim Members when they break fast later. We hope that Members will enjoy this at the end of the day. These handmade local dim sums are really based on the 60-year-old family recipe from the founder, Uncle Oh.
So, companies like Quan Shui, have shown that Government support and schemes helped them to transform and boost their businesses. We want to encourage our enterprises to approach any of our 10 SME Centres for assistance and to embark on a journey of transformation and growth.
Given the success of these initiatives, we will continue strengthening Our Heartlands 2025 Programme with fresh initiatives and energise our heartlands \"inside out\".
Starting from the \"inside\" of our heartland shops, we will launch the Enhanced Visual Merchandising Programme to help our heartland shops refresh their stores and gain visual appeal to attract more customers. This enhanced programme will offer the heartland shops support in training, consultancy as well as makeover of their shopfronts. We are increasing the total qualifying cost by five times, from $12,000 previously to $60,000 now. In addition, the project scope for the shopfront makeover can be more customised and more training topics will be added.
From \"inside\" to \"outside\", besides revitalising the interiors of heartland shops, we will also rejuvenate what takes place in our heartlands' neighbourhood. We will launch a new Vibrant Heartlands Programme for Merchants' Associations to support their placemaking activities and events. They can conduct bite-sized and pre-scoped activities under a recommended standard option or explore holding larger-scale, customised placemaking events. Bite-sized and pre-scoped activities would receive grant support on qualifying costs of $3,000 per application, while larger-scale customisable placemaking events would receive grant support on qualifying costs of up to $200,000 per application.
Mr Chairman, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Chairman, fellow Members of Parliament, the global and regional economies are facing unprecedented situations, and all Singapore businesses must actively innovate and transform. The Government will support businesses in their transformation and growth in these areas.
First, supporting internationalisation. Second, helping businesses leverage AI for transformation. Third, increasing regulatory flexibility to create a business-friendly environment.
In recent years, we have continuously work to revitalise our heartland economy and promote the development of heartland enterprises. Firstly, the Government has distributed several rounds of CDC Vouchers, encouraging Singaporeans to spend at approximately 23,000 participating heartland shops and hawker stalls, with total spending exceeding $1 billion. Through the new round of CDC Vouchers and the SG60 Vouchers this year, we will continue to help heartland shops and hawkers increase their revenue.
Our heartland communities are our emotional connection points. For Singaporeans, the familiar heartland shops and hawker stalls play an irreplaceable role in deepening our collective memories and national identity. Like the handmade snacks you will enjoy later, our heartland communities have that familiar flavour and human touch.
Therefore, we will further upgrade Our Heartlands 2025 Programme to let communities shine from inside out, injecting vitality throughout our heartland communities. These include launching an enhanced Visual Merchandising Scheme, increasing the total qualifying cost five-fold from $12,000 to $60,000, while expanding shop renovation scope and adding training topics.
Additionally, we will launch the Vibrant Heartlands Programme for Merchants' Association. This programme has two parts. Firstly, for shorter pre-set activities, the qualifying cost is $3,000 per event. Secondly, Merchants' Association planning larger community building activities can apply for subsidies, on qualifying costs of up to $200,000.
We hope more heartland businesses will make good use of existing schemes for innovation and transformation.
(In English): Chairman, the Government is standing together with our Singapore enterprises, with our SMEs. We will support and empower our enterprises as they transform and grow be it an SME hoping to expand abroad or an SME embarking on AI or heartland shops and stalls seeking more customers. We will spare no effort to support them every step of the way.
As we forge ahead together, we invite all Singaporeans to join us in energising our heartlands. Let us show them our support during this SG60 year, by patronising our heartland shops and participating in their placemaking activities. Let us enjoy and celebrate our vibrant and beloved heartlands. As we do so, we affirm our Singaporean identity with pride and joy.
The Chairman: Minister of State Tan.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Chairman, the global trading system is coming under severe strain. We are entering uncharted waters, as Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong said, marked by heightened geopolitical tensions, rise of economic nationalism and supply chain disruptions.
Historically, Singapore has been the gateway to global trade, symbolised by our Singapore River, just outside this chamber. It has shaped our nation's identity – open, connected and adaptable to shifting global tides.
Our rivers thrive when its waters flow freely, so too must we keep our economic pathways flowing. We can do that by connecting Singapore to the world and connecting the world to Singapore.
We must always connect the world to Singapore, and flow people, businesses and trade through our shores. Last year, we welcomed 16.5 million international visitors and our tourism receipts for the first three quarters of 2024 soared to a historic high of $22.4 billion. They were drawn by the new and refreshed experiences we curated.
Our live entertainment scene sparkled last year, as we hosted international A-listers like Taylor Swift, Coldplay and Jay Chou. This year, we already have a few top acts, including Seventeen in January and G.E.M. over the weekend. We have a flow of exciting performances lined up this year as well, including our very own Stefanie Sun, KISS OF LIFE, BTS' j-hope's first solo concert and BABYMONSTER.
We also saw strong flow on our Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (MICE) front. Events like Singapore Airshow, Asia Pacific Maritime, and Food & Hotel Asia – Food & Beverage, all drew record numbers. I also hosted young leaders at last year's World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders Annual Summit.
And true to our positioning as the World's Best MICE City, we have been Asia Pacific's Top Meeting City for an incredible 21 consecutive years. For the first time ever, Singapore also ranked second in the International Congress and Convention Association's worldwide city rankings in 2023 .
We also partnered global world-class intellectual properties (IPs) to curate innovative experiences. For example, ArtScience Museum hosted The World of Studio Ghibli; and at Resorts World Sentosa, Harry Potter: Visions of Magic. We also lent support to the Louis Vuitton X Murakami pop-up in Joo Chiat.
Building on these flows, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has been working with tourism and lifestyle enterprises on new and fresh opportunities. As Mr Neil Parekh highlighted, our vision for the Tourism 2040 (T2040) roadmap will drive the next chapter of our quality tourism journey. STB will share more about T2040 in the coming months.
We also have a good flow of events and attractions lined up this year. In fact, this year we expect international visitor arrivals to reach between 17.0 and 18.5 million, bringing in approximately $29.0 to $30.5 billion in tourism receipts.
Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling, as Parliament's heartland guide, spoke about injecting vibrancy into our heartlands. As Parliament's tourist guide, let me take you through some of the new and rejuvenated offerings around Singapore.
Mr Chairman, our flow of MICE events remains vibrant, reflecting strong business confidence from organisers and delegates. This year, we will host inaugural events like the Business Aviation Asia Forum and Expo. Bloomberg's New Economy Forum will also return to Singapore in November for the fifth time.
Mr Edward Chia asked how we are working with local arts practitioners to create authentic tourism content. In January, Singapore Art Week (SAW) 2025 aggregated over 160 art events and featured many local artists. And for the third time, ART SG returned to Singapore as part of SAW, with 105 galleries from 30 countries and territories around the world.
To Ms Usha Chandradas' question, signature lifestyle events, including music festivals, increases our appeal to global talent and visitors and this boosts tourism and economic spillovers. They also provide a stage for our local creatives to showcase their talent, like Kin Leonn and Iman Fandi. STB will continue working with stakeholders, including our National Arts Council (NAC) to create more opportunities for our local music ecosystem. We will continue to support these events, through financial and non-financial means, to build a diverse pipeline. And we welcome compelling music festival proposals that bring strong economic benefits to Singapore.
For sports fans, we will host the National Basketball Association (NBA) Rising Stars Invitational in June, which will be the first regional youth basketball event in Asia. This comes after we hosted the Singapore Tennis Open and Singapore Smash just last month.
Our Integrated Resorts will also unveil world-class tourism offerings as part of their ambitious expansion plans. When completed in 2029, Marina Bay Sands' upcoming fourth tower will redefine our iconic skyline.
Over at Resorts World Sentosa, I broke ground for its new waterfront lifestyle development in November 2024, which will feature an exciting new promenade with entertainment, retail and dining experiences. I also opened Illumination's Minion Land just in time for the March school holidays and, later this year, we will open the Singapore Oceanarium, which will be three times the size of our current SEA Aquarium.
In a few years, we will also open Super Nintendo World at Universal Studios Singapore.
Let us now go from the South of Singapore to the North of Singapore in Mandai. Following the opening of Bird Paradise in 2023, new features in Mandai await all of us this year. I launched the public Mandai Boardwalk in January 2025, which offers breathtaking views of Upper Seletar Reservoir and the Central Catchment Nature Reserve.
We are also opening Rainforest Wild ASIA, Singapore's fifth zoological park. It will be home to 29 iconic animal species. I visited a few weeks ago for a preview and Minister Grace Fu will officially open it next Wednesday. Then there is also Mandai Rainforest Resort by Banyan Tree, which opens next month. It blends architecture with nature, offering rooms, including tree houses, nestled in lush greenery. Next year, we look forward to opening the Rainforest Wild Africa.
Mr Chairman, this flow of new offerings marks our 60th year of Independence and our tourism sector has come a long way since. I spend plenty of time with our tourism sector – our workers and our visitors. The amazing tourism offerings we enjoy today is testament to their work over the past 60 years.
That is why I am happy to announce that our attractions are rolling out several deals in celebration of SG60. We are working with the Association of Singapore Attractions (ASA) and our tourism businesses to curate SG60 promotions, including family-friendly bundles and discounts.
For instance, Gardens by the Bay will launch an exclusive SG60 Wonder Blooms Pass for citizens and residents to enjoy over 60% discounts on unlimited visits to six stunning upcoming floral displays in our Flower Dome. Mandai Wildlife Reserve will also offer exclusive deals across its parks from May to August. We will launch these deals on our SG60 website today, so please book and visit our attractions and enjoy these amazing offers.
Then let us also go on a cruise! Like on Disney Adventure cruise ship in Singapore, which is starting in December. It is the first-ever Disney Cruise Line ship to homeport in Asia. Many new cruise ships will also be calling in Singapore, including Resorts World Cruises' Star Voyager and the Ritz-Carlton Yacht Collection's Luminara.
As cruise lead coordinator for ASEAN, we are working with our neighbours on new sailing itineraries, tapping the fast-growing potential of cruise tourism to attract even more visitors to visit Southeast Asia from Singapore. I discussed this with tourism ministers in Johor just in January 2025.
Mr Chairman, I shared how we are connecting the world to Singapore through our robust flow of tourism and attraction offerings. Equally important is to connect Singapore to the world.
That is why we are deepening our relationship with our trade partners globally.
Ms Tin Pei Ling asked how we are strengthening our trade links. Our approach is simple: we are working with our trade partners to harness complementary strengths, improve market access and also to drive mutual growth. This will unlock more opportunities for businesses, talent and capital to flow efficiently across economies.
First, let me speak about ASEAN. We are doubling down on regional economic integration with our ASEAN partners to create an ecosystem where trade, investments, resources and innovation flow seamlessly, making our region jointly more competitive.
Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong shared about our progress on the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework and the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) to enhance regional trade networks. Beyond these, we also substantially concluded the second upgrade of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area last year and aim to fully conclude the upgrade this year.
Second, we are strengthening bilateral economic ties with key partners, such as US, China, India, Vietnam and Malaysia. We commemorated the 20th Anniversary of the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement last year. It is a cornerstone agreement which remains one of our most actively used Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). We have built upon this foundation in new areas such as the digital economy, AI, supply chain resilience and energy, as Minister Tan See Leng mentioned.
With China, our China-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Further Upgrade Protocol entered into force on 31 December 2024. It introduces more liberal and transparent trade rules, so Singapore investors and suppliers can enjoy better market access to China and greater confidence when doing businesses there.
In India, annual bilateral trade has grown over 2.5 times since 2005, from $20 billion to $52.3 billion in 2023. During Prime Minister Narendra Modi's official visit in September 2024, Singapore and India agreed to elevate our relationship to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Then in January 2025, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam's State visit to India commemorated 60 years of diplomatic tides. During the visit, Singapore companies signed MOUs with the Odisha government, including one signed between Surbana Jurong Group and Odisha on sustainable urban planning.
In Vietnam, today, Singapore is among Vietnam's top investors and we are unlocking new investment opportunities for our businesses there. These span renewable energy and carbon credits. They will form an integral part of our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership upgrade with Vietnam. Enterprise Singapore and Vietnam's Foreign Investment Agency have also established the Singapore Unit, which is a single point of contact to provide support for Singapore companies investing in Vietnam.
On Malaysia, Ms Usha Chandradas asked about our arts plans for the JS-SEZ. We will discuss with Malaysia how the arts sector can complement our priority areas in the SEZ.
We are also ensuring that our businesses can make the full use and the most of the FTAs that we have signed, so that they can gain better access to global markets and benefit from greater efficiency and lower business costs when trading with our FTA partners. So, we worked with SBF to conduct 11 FTA outreach events last year, attended by over 911 companies.
I attended some of these together with Mr Mark Lee. These sessions allow us to provide customised advisory support for Singapore companies to use FTAs for exports and internationalisation. For instance, SGProtein Pte Ltd, which is a plant-based protein food manufacturer, enhanced its competitiveness in the Korean market with 8% saved in tariffs by using the ASEAN-Korea FTA and the Korea-Singapore FTA.
Sir, even as we deepen our relationship with key partners, we must also broaden our horizons. Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how we are diversifying our trade. Today, we have 27 FTAs and 43 Bilateral Investment Treaties. These are all in force across the globe and we are doing more.
First, we are securing partnerships with regions a little bit further away from us, to help us stay relevant amid global uncertainties and shifting tides. And that is to enable our businesses to improve supply chain resilience and unlock new market opportunities.
Sir, I visited Latin America with my colleagues many times to work on two trade deals. In 2022, we signed the Pacific Alliance-Singapore FTA; and the Pacific Alliance, which comprises Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, collectively forms the eighth largest economy in the world. I am pleased to share that the FTA is very close to coming into effect.
We also recently signed the MERCOSUR-Singapore FTA with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, and we are in the process of working very hard to get it ratified as well. As the first FTA between MERCOSUR and a Southeast Asian country, this FTA will pave the way for greater economic cooperation between both our regions.
We are also doing exciting work in the Middle East. In 2023, we established our first Strategic Partnership with a Middle East country, Saudi Arabia. At the fourth Saudi Arabia-Singapore Joint Committee meeting last month, we discussed collaboration in connectivity, energy, digital economy and innovation. We also announced new collaborations in logistics and port automation, and started negotiations to update our existing Bilateral Investment Treaty, which entered into force in 2007.
Mr Chairman, we are also strengthening ties with Africa, a vast, young and rapidly growing region with vast potential. I have visited Africa many times too. In fact, I was just in Rwanda last week to advance discussions on Article 6 carbon credits cooperation, digital and AI, and fintech. I have also met many Singapore-based companies who are venturing into Africa, including GenZero, an investment firm exploring carbon credit projects in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa. This year, we will host the Africa Singapore Business Forum, a biennial platform that has connected over 5,000 business leaders from Africa and Asia since 2016. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Trade and Industry\", Official Report, 6 March 2025, Vol 95, Issue 159, Correction By Written Statement section.]
We will also continue to broaden our trade partnerships in the digital and green economies. We are expanding our networks of Digital Economy Agreements (DEAs). DEAs help us integrate into the global digital economy and enhance digital trade flows. Through DEAs, we work with other countries to establish rules and standards around issues like personal data and online consumer protection. They enable our businesses to capitalise on cross-border digital services.
We have four DEAs in force, and are expanding the network. Last year, we concluded the European Union-Singapore Digital Trade Agreement and are negotiating a DEA with the European Free Trade Association.
Sir, recent global developments have underscored the importance of plurilateral initiatives to address emerging issues like digital trade. As a founding member of the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) alongside Chile and New Zealand, we continue to champion DEPA's expansion. And many countries are keen to join DEPA. Last year, the Republic of Korea joined DEPA and Costa Rica's accession is nearly finalised. Accession negotiations with Canada, China and Peru are also ongoing. And other economies, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), El Salvador and Ukraine, have also applied to join.
On the multilateral front, Singapore co-convenes the World Trade Organization (WTO) Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce with Australia and Japan. This helps establish global rules in digital trade. And after five years of negotiations, we reached an agreement on the text last year, supported by around 70 members. We are working to incorporate the agreement into the WTO and expand its membership.
We are also advancing our Green Economy Agreements (GEAs) to catalyse collaborations in green innovation and trade flows in sustainable products, and ultimately accelerate our low-carbon transition.
Under our GEA with Australia, we established a co-innovation programme for SMEs. We call this the Go Green Co-Innovation Programme (GGCIP) to incentivise partnerships between Australian and Singapore enterprises. The programme has supported five projects, including the joint venture between Singapore-based ESGpedia and Australia's FootprintLab, to develop an AI-powered sustainability reporting tool to help businesses with climate disclosure and sustainable supply chain management.
In November, we also launched a joint working group on trade and the green economy with New Zealand and Chile, with plans to enhance cross-border trade and investment in green growth areas.
Mr Chairman, our iconic Singapore River is a symbol of our nation's success story – a dynamic hub that facilitates the seamless flow of people, trade and capital through our shores and as a gateway for the world. Our success as a nation depends on us continuing to be open and connected.
And therefore, to stay competitive, we must sharpen our edge by fostering innovation, building strong enterprises and investing in our people. Government will support our businesses as they navigate the ever-changing currents of the global economy. By building upon our strong foundations, we will enhance connectivity, expand opportunities and strengthen Singapore's role as a gateway for people, trade and capital flow.
Together, we will grow our economy, unlock new potential, transform enterprises and connect Singapore to the world, ensuring our collective success as we chart a bold course forward.
The Chairman: Clarifications. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. Deputy Prime Minister Gan, in his speech and in response to my query, mentioned that the worst case scenario for Singapore amidst an ongoing US-China contestation could be a global trade war. So, I would like to further ask the Deputy Prime Minister what Singapore is doing to mitigate that potential impact.
And also, if I can ask the Deputy Prime Minister to share how he sees our relationship with US and with China, whether in the event of a global trade war, would that put us in a better position to manage the downsides?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: First, I must say that I wish a global trade war will not happen, but we must always be prepared because the external environment, as I said, will become increasingly difficult and challenging for us. But what Singapore should do is to continue to deepen our value proposition for businesses and for our trading partners. We must continue to be a reliable, consistent partner with other countries so that we will continue to be a valued player in the global economy. I think that is the fundamental.
Secondly, we must also continue to find opportunities to deepen our collaboration within the region, with different parties, with like-minded countries and economies. This way, we can then continue to expand and grow our economic space in the global economy. ASEAN is one area. As I mentioned, it is a fast-growing area and I think we will continue to work with the ASEAN partners to see how we can deepen our integration within ASEAN so that we have more opportunities for us.
But at the same time, as I mentioned in my speech, we continue to expand our collaboration with our neighbours particularly, and see how we can leverage on each other's strengths so that when we combine together, we have a a better value proposition for our trading partners and our business partners globally.
But also it is important for us to explore new areas of growth and opportunities for collaboration. For example, I mentioned about digital economy, which is a new platform. It is not the same as traditional FTAs. It is not just about tariffs and imports or exports, but it is about collaboration and interoperability in developing the digital capability to strengthen our own enterprises, giving them the better opportunity to expand in the region. So, I think this is something that we will continue to do.
The Member talked about US-China relationship and how Singapore can play a role. I think it is not easy. We are a very small economy. We hope to be able to continue to play a constructive role between the two countries. And we have to continue to remain nimble and to monitor the development. And I am sure every Member, and nowadays, when you wake up in the morning, open the newspaper, the first thing you see is what are the major news. And every time, you are shocked into waking up with the news. And now, without reading the newspaper, you can read it on your mobile phone, and these are news alerts. And I think you just have to take it when it comes and always be nimble, be prepared to move very quickly. This also speaks to the strength of Singapore as a small economy. We are able to a very compact economy. We are able to move very quickly, we are able to respond very fast.
So, it is important for us to work closely with the enterprises and with our businesses through the various trade associations and organisations to see how we can bring our businesses along. Keep them informed on the developments around the world, enable them and equip them so that they are able to adjust their supply chains, their production lines and their export markets quite quickly.
At the same time, it is important for us to continue to invest in our people so that they acquire new skills and new capabilities because as the global economy changes, new opportunities will emerge. But we must have the skills to be able to tap into these opportunities. So, I think getting our industries and enterprises to be nimble and move fast, investing in training of our people, these are fundamentals to keep Singapore's economy resilient and continue to grow.
The Chairman: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Chairman. My clarification relates to supporting SMEs in terms of internationalising, and it is for Minister of State Tan. He shared on SGProtein and how it has enhanced its competitiveness in the Korean market by tapping the FTAs, and he has also shared on the many FTAs that we are working on. Can more be shared on how the Government and SBF are working together to support our SMEs in terms of better tapping these FTAs and getting access to new markets?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Ms Jessica Tan for her question. In fact, it is not just enough for us to expand our FTAs and sign these FTAs even in far flung countries, it is also important for us to work very closely with our business associations, like SBF and others, to take them there and show them what the business opportunities are. And also, while they are in Singapore, to give them the tools and the support for them to take up these advantages as they look at how to lower their costs and increase their business efficiency.
There are a few things maybe I want to just share with Ms Jessica Tan. The first is we have a tariff finder tool now. That was developed by Enterprise Singapore, and the example that I gave earlier, SGProtein, can access, through this tariff finder tool, crucial information on import duties and formalities, FTA preferential duties and rules of origin for potential export market. So, it helps them to navigate this and then test how much they would have to pay, for example, or how they can increase their efficiency.
SBF has been working very closely with us to provide companies like SGProtein with on-site guidance on, for example, how even to produce and prepare a manufacturing cost statement application. And this is a very crucial step because it helps to demonstrate local content and to qualify for FTA benefits.
I also wanted to highlight that MTI and Enterprise Singapore also, again working with SBF, has launched a new Centre for Future of Trade and Investment (CFOTI) just last year. CFOTI helps businesses address issues related to trade compliance and also expands the capacity to benefit on trade agreements. There are also bespoke advisory support through this, for our SMEs to make the best use of FTAs. So, I encourage our SMEs to work closely with us, Enterprise Singapore, as well as our trade associations, like SBF, to fully utilise these FTAs.
The Chairman: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling, Second Minister Tan See Leng, Deputy Prime Minister Gan and those who were involved in the AfA.
I think from the announcements today, it truly shows that when there are constructive comments, the Government is not tone deaf but is actually tuned in to make sure that Singapore remains agile and business-friendly.
For this AFA, I would like to ask for the Government to consider continuing this platform from time to time, so as to reinforce the strong partnership between the Government and the business community. That is my first clarification.
The second clarification is in regard to the establishment of the $1 billion Private Credit Growth Fund. This is definitely a good opportunity and an important source of alternative financing. There are currently already many private credit fund providers, mainly catering to larger MNEs and large local corporates, and often leave their local enterprises underserved. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, to ensure targeted support for local enterprises, will the cost of funds provided to the Private Credit Growth Fund's fund managers be set at a preferential and competitive rate, so that it ensures that local enterprises benefit directly from the lower borrowing cost?
Ms Low Yen Ling: I would like to represent the whole MTI family – not just MTI, but also Enterprise Singapore, EDB and all our economic agencies – to thank SBF and Mr Mark Lee for co-chairing the AfA on Business Competitiveness, and also to Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Neil Parekh for being part of the AfA as well.
We also want to thank the 13 TACs that joined us in this journey from February to November last year. It was very intense. We consulted many of the businesses, not just sectoral but also the industry and trade associations and so on. That really is the usual engagement, and we must continue to sustain this momentum.
That is why earlier, during Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong's speech, you heard him mentioning that he helms the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review. In the last few months, I joined him as well as Minister Shanmugam, Minister Tan See Leng, Minister Desmond Lee and Minister Chee Hong Tat in hosting discussions with more than 140 chief executive officers and chief experience officers of SMEs to continue to understand, sector by sector, if there are any pain points or any areas that we can look at to further improve the whole-of-Government regulatory agility.
I want to reassure Mr Mark Lee and in fact, the business community that MTI and not just MTI, now that we have set up the SME PEO from 26 March onwards as a key coordination unit to galvanise the whole-of-Government to lean forward, to continue to work with the business sector to improve the regulatory agility, to better support our businesses to seize opportunities overseas.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There is a second part of the question that maybe I can address – the suggestion about the Private Credit Growth Fund.
This is a scheme that is designed to fill the gap in the financing framework. We have equity financing, we have the normal commercial loans, but some of these high-growth companies are in a very niche area and they are not able to find financing so easily available. And the owners, the entrepreneurs, are also not keen to be diluted. They want to retain control of their businesses. Therefore, equity investment may not be suitable for them. They are looking for alternative financing. This private credit allows more flexibility for the structure of the financing to be designed to suit the needs of the specific companies.
So, it is not meant to be a subsidy. It is not meant to be for businesses that are having difficulties or need subsidies or support for overseas expansion. We have other schemes. Enterprise Singapore has a host of schemes. I have mentioned some of them, like GIA and so on. These are other schemes that will support businesses going overseas, expanding their regional presence, even including R&D funds and efforts and so on.
So, there are different schemes designed for different purposes. For this particular private credit scheme, it is really meant to fill a gap in the financing framework. So, I hope Mr Lee understands that.
The Chairman: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): I just want to thank the whole MTI team for a very comprehensive analysis and presentation and a very detailed Budget – a very good Budget in my view. I have a couple of clarifications.
The Deputy Prime Minister spoke about the NSTIC (R&D Fab) to drive advanced semi-conductor research and innovation. May I ask why is advanced packaging the initial focus of this facility and will it be expanded to other areas very shortly? What is the immediate benefit to our local semi-conductor system with this NSTIC (R&D Fab)?
The second question is: we have seen newspaper reports recently on NTUC researchers discovering a geothermal reservoir in Yishun. Perhaps MTI can provide an update on its study on the potential of geothermal energy going forward.
Lastly, on private credit, having spent part of my life in the business, I think $1 billion will be too small. Perhaps, the purpose should be to use that as a base to harness external funds and perhaps make that $10 billion or more going forward. So, serving that as $1 billion from MTI, with $9 billion raised from the private sector.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. I will ask Minister Tan See Leng to respond to the geothermal energy source. Let me just focus first on the NSTIC (R&D Fab).
This facility really is an expansion of the existing NSTIC facility run by A*STAR. The idea is to focus first on advanced packaging because advanced packaging is a foundational technology for many of the advanced technologies for semi-conductor, in order to pack more and more components into the chips. The idea is to increase the density and advanced packaging plays a very important role in allowing that to happen. So, it is a key fundamental foundational technology.
We started investing in this technology since 2011 and we have built a significant capability in this area. That is why it is important for us to encourage investment in the R&D in this particular aspect of the technology, particularly, not just the multinational corporations (MNCs), but also the local SMEs.
So, this is a starting point. We will allow the NSTIC (R&D Fab) to focus, first, on advanced packaging. But this is not the only area. We will keep our options open and keep our doors open, and we welcome other emerging technologies which may become important and critical for us. We will also make these facilities available to other companies which have emerging technologies to invest in R&D.
The Member mentioned $1 billion. I presume he is talking about the Private Credit Growth Fund. We will be very happy if we can talk to Mr Neil Parekh to raise the other $9 billion, if he can help us do so. But I must say that, generally, I think this is the seed money the Government has to put in. Hopefully, we can kickstart this process. We will keep our doors open for private credit which wants to come in and to join us in this journey.
As I mentioned in my speech, when fund managers and investors are more familiar in this space of private credit, we may then be able to catalyse more funds from outside. So, I do agree with the Member. We look at this $1 billion as seed money. We hope to be able to raise even more capital in time to come for this fund. But I think this is a good start.
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Neil Parekh for his clarification. I think the Member was referring to Nanyang Technological University's (NTU's) study, not \"NTUC\". I think we will be dealing a lot with NTUC later on in MOM's COS debate. In NTUC, it is – just for the benefit of all my brothers and sisters in NTUC – every worker matters, not every power source matters.
I think we all know Singapore, as a country, we are alternative energy-disadvantaged and I have mentioned many times in the past that we will explore every possible decarbonisation pathway. So, nothing is off the table.
One of the indigenous energy options that we have, that we are investigating is geothermal energy. In 2023, EMA issued a request for proposal for a Singapore-wide non-invasive geophysical study to assess Singapore's deep geothermal resource potential at depths of up to 10 kilometres. This is for the purpose of power generation. So, I want to emphasise, EMA is to assess the deep geothermal resource potential. This is actually quite different from NTU's study, which is conventional geothermal potential.
I am actually pleased to update that this month, we are commencing an airborne survey of our geothermal energy potential. We hope and we aim to complete this study in about a year's time. Again, like I said, in terms of giving a very clear demarcation, NTU's study focuses on establishing the localised potential at areas surveyed up to a depth of about four kilometres. So, it is conventional. Whereas ours is the deep sort of geothermal assessment, which is up to 10 kilometres.
Of course, given the fact that we have an existing Sembawang hot spring, I know that many of my comrades are also concerned about how that would impact Sembawang. The Singapore Government, let me reassure everyone, is not conducting any invasive geophysical studies that could affect the existing hot spring.
The geothermal drillings have been carried out by NTU sites. They were at sites that were 2.5 kilometres and 700 metres away, almost a kilometre away from the Sembawang hot spring. They were already completed in early 2024.
Our EMA's ongoing studies, they are non-invasive because we are conducting airborne and land-based surveys of our entire country's geophysical landscape for a better assessment of the deep geothermal potential. As with every study, every new infrastructural development that we undertake, all of the necessary environmental assessments will be conducted. I hope I have given Members enough reassurance as well as understanding of what we know thus far.
The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Chairman, I have two clarifications for Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling on my cut on scams, which she touched on briefly.
First, she mentioned the whole-of-Government efforts through the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Scams (IMCS). I read that MTI is also represented on that committee. So, I would like to understand a little bit more on what is MTI's interest and contribution so far to the work of the IMCS. That is the first question.
The second question is: of course, underlying my cut is the issue of consumer protection because as far as scams are concerned, we often find that the consumer is actually dealing with service providers like banks, telecommunications companies (telcos) and social media companies, and there is some unequal bargaining power there.
So, I would like to understand whether the CCCS is actually looking into this area. Is it doing anything in the field of online scams to protect consumers or to do some standard setting?
Ms Low Yen Ling: Chairman, I want to thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her two clarifications.
I will address the second one first. I understand where the Member is coming from when she shared her thinking when she delivered her cut yesterday. As shared by Minister of State Sun Xueling during the Ministry of Home Affair's (MHA's) COS debate, a majority of the scams involve self-effected transfers of money to scammers as well as cryptocurrency scams.
These are, one, criminal in nature and two, often carried out by highly sophisticated criminal networks. The third point really is that a lot of these are really based out of Singapore. So, such scams are, hence, more appropriately handled by our law enforcement authorities.
But I want to assure her that to ensure a collective effort in tackling scams, the Singapore Government works closely not just mounting a whole-of-Government approach, but also with the private sector. Members have heard from Minister of State Sun Xueling, with the various tech companies and so on, as well as community partners, to tackle scams, go upstream, not just engaging the seniors, but it can affect people of all ages and all backgrounds.
So, the anti-scam efforts are coordinated by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Scams, which comprises representatives from MHA, Singapore Police Force, MDDI, IMDA, MAS and other public agencies. MTI sits in, and if there are relevant cases that are relevant to our economic agency, that is where we will bridge the communications.
Notwithstanding that, I want to assure the Member that where there are unfair practices by, say, suppliers being involved, CCCS can certainly take them to task under our CPFTA. This really forms part of the whole-of-Government approach, where agencies can work together to safeguard consumer interest.
The Chairman: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Chairman, I have two questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. The first one is relating to R&D. The Deputy Prime Minister spoke about R&D infrastructure in Singapore and how it is important as part of our economic growth. I spoke about this during my COS cut where I said that equally important is R&D being commercialised.
So, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how specifically local enterprises will benefit with all the R&D spent, how are we going to encourage them to take this up, how are we going to encourage and support them to really take this R&D and commercialise it into applications? That is one.
The second one I just like to weigh in to hon Member Neil Parekh's comment. I probably take the other end of conservatism. He talked to balance the ambition; I think private credit is quite a science, related to a lot of risk management as well, if Government is going to go into this. Traditionally, when we co-fund, the bank comes in and you risk-share. But I would very much like to know that given that it is not small sum, $1 billion that the Government is going into, how is this going to be underwritten, in terms of risk management? How are you going to pick which company you are going to back pick? Because $1 billion will not go very far and we want to make sure that this is a good experience and that we can bag more companies? So, which agency is going to administer this and the partnerships?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: With regard to the R&D and the commercialisation of the R&D efforts and outcomes, the NSTIC (R&D Fab) I mentioned is one such example that has facilities to help companies to do their R&D and to commercialise the R&D. Because the facilities are very costly and very expensive; the SMEs will not be able to have access to these facilities, other than through NSTIC. Therefore, that is one area that we do. A*STAR does the same for many other domains in the industry.
So, we partner our private sector to allow them to have access R&D facilities. But it is not just the hardware facilities, because NSTIC and A*STAR also provide consultancy advice on how to do their R&D from a technical point but, at the same time, how to commercialise their products. Because A*STAR, meaning the research centre, has a lot of experience in commercialising some of their research outcomes. That will play a very important role.
We also have IPI that is set up under Enterprise Singapore that provides advisory on particularly IP rights, whether they are making use of IP that is already available, how to take advantage of the existing IP to commercialise the IP, or to register their own IP that they have developed. IPI will do that part. We also have a collaboration with IHLs through our technology transfer officers to help companies on to how to translate their technology into commercial products. There are many platforms to allow us to work in partnership with our companies to commercialise their R&D efforts.
One other aspect of the at NSTIC, which I mentioned in my speech, is the collaboration between the MNCs and the SMEs. Because they are able to work together, the SMEs will understand the needs of the larger companies to develop their products to be able to serve the MNCs. This also encourages a collaboration between MNCs, which have more resources, and to help the SMEs to also commercialise their R&D products. That is on the R&D side.
The Member also talked about the $1 billion credit. It is not a small sum. I do appreciate that it is limited because it is just $1 billion. We hope the Member can collectively persuade Ministry of Finance to give us a bit more in time to come. But I do agree that we need to progress very carefully and conservatively to make sure that this $1 billion is put to good use.
So, we do intend to go out to look for fund managers with a good track record, to have experience in managing private equity, private credit and managing projects, so that we are able to leverage on the expertise of these fund managers to manage the $1 billion so that we can put it to good use.
The Chairman: We are approaching the end of our guillotine time. I will call on Mr Saktiandi Supaat. You raised your hand earlier? Because you had four cuts, so I will give you the floor.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Chairman, I thought I want to let others have the chance. But I have just one quick clarification for Minister Tan. I had filed a cut on the infrastructure for energy source, in terms of energy infrastructure. The Minister shared earlier about the hydrogen strategy and the ammonia strategy. Can Minister share about what our budgeting plans for power sourcing infrastructure in terms of landing points? I know ammonia and hydrogen and nuclear is still at the research phase and we are still investigating on those. But how are our plans of planning or investing on infrastructure for those, including the landing points for imported energy sources?
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Saktiandi for his clarification. For the renewable energy imports, I have shared that, given the progress that we have had in our negotiations with our neighbours, we have upped the ambition from four gigawatts to six gigawatts. And the interconnectors, for the landing sites, we have preliminarily identified some of the sites, the details of which I am not at liberty to reveal at this point in time.
For the interconnectors, broadly, there are two types – the high voltage direct current, which entails significantly longer distance traversing the subsea distances. And then, you have the relatively less expensive alternating current type of subsea cable. So, depending on the site, the source of the generation of that renewable energy source, the appropriate type of cable would be utilised.
At this particular point in time, the conditional licence that we have issued are for relatively closer source generation sources, namely, coming from the Batam, Bintan and Karimun corridor. The Member would have read in the open-source media that we have also awarded conditional approvals to further up north from Indochina and also, at the same time, potentially from Australia as well. Those would involve higher cost cable, involving high voltage direct current subsea cables. That covers one big part of renewable energy imports.
On the carbon capture storage, we are still studying the model working with the S-Hub. Looking at the aggregation of the hard to abate carbon intensive sectors, this would be quite a fair bit of the petrochemical industry on Jurong Island. Looking at the transportation and, eventually, the storage of the carbon that we have captured, at this point in time, given the amounts that are involved, we are still working with some of the potential partners.
For ammonia and hydrogen, I have also stated earlier on that hydrogen, at this point in time, even though it is a technically feasible pathway, the transportation of hydrogen, by itself, is very costly. So, we are using ammonia as a pilot. We have a pathfinder project where we are going to work with a couple of potential consortia to work out when it comes of scale, whether it would be a feasible and a commercially viable pathway. For the project, because it is very small, it is going to constitute like 0.5% of our overall energy mix. We are looking, as a pilot pathfinder, about between 50 to 60 megawatts. We will provide initial seed funding to assess the viability of that pathway.
The sum of it all is that we have set aside the budget. Today, given the different thresholds that we have not arrived at yet, the drawdown from the FEF is still not there. But we have topped it up because we envisage that in the coming quarters ahead, once we cross certain key thresholds, the drawdown will happen.
The Chairman: I am sorry. We have reached our guillotine time. Can I invite Mr Liang, if you would like to draw your amendment?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Chairman, allow me to thank Deputy Prime Minister Gan, Minister Tan See Ling, Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling and Minister of State Alvin Tan for their very thorough responses to our cuts and clarifications. It leaves me to just wish the MTI family every success in growing our economy, hopefully, once again, to outperform our forecasted range of 1% to 3% growth for 2025. Sir, with that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,638,234,500 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $6,309,880,900 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
The Chairman: We have sat for almost four-and-an-half hours. I propose to take a break now. Order.
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 2.45 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 2.27 pm until 2.45 pm.
Sitting resumed at 2.45 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head K (Ministry of Education)","subTitle":"An open and resilient economy, with diverse pathways and opportunities for all","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head K, Ministry of Education. Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Madam, I move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
In the past 60 years, Singapore has transformed from a developing economy with limited resources into a globally competitive powerhouse. At the heart of this success is our commitment to education. None of this progress would have been possible without the hard work and dedication of our teachers, educators, school staff and our Ministry of Education (MOE) headquarter staff.
As we look ahead, we must continue to strengthen our education system by expanding pathways and adapting curriculum to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. It must be equipped to support all learners, with different learning needs and speeds, at every stage of their life.
In the last two years, I spoke about ironman suits and multivitamins. This year, I will be a bit more in. I will focus my speech on what I call the 3 \"INs\": innovating the continuing education and training (CET) ecosystem; integrating support for the special education (SPED) sector; and inclusiveness in school admission.
First, innovating the CET ecosystem. The year 2025 marks 10 years since the Government launched the national SkillsFuture movement with the aim of promoting CET as a national priority. I submit that it is now timely to conduct a comprehensive review of SkillsFuture to ensure alignment with evolving workforce needs, as well as consolidate efforts and streamline offerings across different arms, such as Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), Workforce Singapore (WSG), SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG), training providers and the various Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) in Singapore, including the various Ministries and sector agencies and associations.
It is commendable that, today, we have a wide range of CET courses. However, some programmes offered by different arms of the CET ecosystem may overlap and the proliferation of choice may leave many learners feeling overwhelmed. This fragmentation can create inefficiencies and duplication in resources. Therefore, there is a need to break down silos and identify gaps and overlaps. In the same vein, a strategic review of the CET ecosystem can support innovation for the next bound of the SkillsFuture movement and align it to the in-demand skills for the future.
For example, a more cohesive CET ecosystem can lead to creating robust frameworks for credit recognition and transferability across institutions and industries, which can encourage a skills-first mindset, instead of the traditional emphasis on formal academic qualifications. Learners can have their acquired skills validated by a unified and credible authority, whether gained through formal education, short-term courses or on-the-job training. This streamlined process of accreditation can be integrated with the MyCareersFuture portal.
The review should also include an evaluation of school-industry partnership initiatives, such as the Institute of Technical Education's (ITE's) Work-Study Diplomas and the Teacher Work Attachment Plus, especially the outcomes for participants in terms of employability and career or wage progression, so as to further explore areas to improve and expand.
Second, integrating support for the SPED sector. It is commendable that MOE has made significant efforts to break down silos between mainstream schools and SPED schools, including increased opportunities for intermingling among children, as well as attachments, rotations and secondments for teachers, such as through the SPED Leadership Development Programme.
However, I believe that more can be done to ensure that SPED teachers, educators and staff are not overlooked in the policy decisions surrounding their well-being, protection and career progression. I submit that the Ministry adopt a more integrated approach that brings together the full spectrum of support across MOE, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and our social service agencies (SSAs). This approach should also be extended to supporting SPED students.
The current SPED landscape is fragmented, which may limit the impact of these support systems on SPED students and their families. There needs to be more \"porosity\" – to borrow an analogy from the Minister for Education – not only between mainstream schools and SPED schools, but also across education, healthcare, manpower and social services. The SPED sector is inherently diverse, comprising a wide range of physical, intellectual, emotional and behavioural needs. A more concerted effort in bringing together professionals and experts across various fields to address these needs via tailored approaches can more holistically and seamlessly support SPED students throughout their education journey.
One area that warrants more attention is workforce transition support for SPED students. I was deeply dismayed by a recent MSF report that showed a decline in positive attitudes and a rise in negative attitudes towards persons with disabilities in Singapore's workforce in 2023 compared to 2019. While great strides have been made through initiatives like the Open Door Programme and the Enabling Employment Credit, more can be done to shift mindsets and reach the Enabling Masterplan 2030 target of 40% employment rate for persons with disabilities by 2030. The Ministry can consider more school-to-work bridging programmes to connect SPED students to internship, apprenticeship and training-and-placement opportunities through stronger collaboration with industries.
The third and final \"In\" is inclusiveness in school admission. We have come a long way in developing diverse and inclusive pathways for our students in mainstream schools. Last year, we fully implemented Subject-Based Banding, replacing the old system of streaming. I am also glad to hear that MOE will review the Direct School Admission (DSA) system.
As we embark on this review, I submit that greater consideration should be given to students from lower-income families, who have less access to enrichment classes and private coaching or even exposure to high-cost non-academic talents in sports or the arts. While it is commendable that MOE and our schools have taken active steps to support students from lower-income families to participate in DSA, such as the Junior Sports Academy, we must acknowledge the inherent disparities that can exist within the DSA process.
Besides expanding the selection process to account for potential in addition to performance, the Ministry can consider offering additional resources and financial support to students from lower-income families to discover and hone their non-academic talents. Schools should also be required to publish clear and transparent selection criteria and rubrics, as well as conflict-of-interest policies.
To conclude, our education system must aim to foster not only academic excellence, but also resilience, adaptability and holistic well-being.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Madam, Singapore's MOE has made remarkable progress in building a future-ready education system for all. No other country has invested so heavily or innovated so rapidly in education. Minister Chan Chun Sing himself has painstakingly championed a broader definition of success and lifelong learning, but three significant barriers could hinder this vision.
Barrier one – on mindset. Despite MOE's efforts, many parents remain fixated on academic excellence or results, particularly excelling in exams, such as the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), to secure spots in what they perceived as, \"better\" schools. Similarly, adults are also under-utilising SkillsFuture programmes.
The greatest challenge lies in shifting mindsets to value diverse pathways to success and prioritise lifelong learning. Minister Chan Chun Sing himself has rightly pointed out that systemic changes alone are not sufficient without cultural shifts. But since MOE has done as much as it deems possible, systemically, what additional plans are there in place to foster a mindset shift? Or is such a shift even possible?
Could removing the PSLE, a high-stake examination, and introducing a 10-year integrated programme from primary to secondary school level help to remove one hotspot or hotpoint, and maybe free time to also work on other important attributes and skills that support our future education model?
I have brought up this topic of removing PSLE and through-train integrated programmes for years now. But I think we need a deeper dive on this. It is no longer a question of removing PSLE or not, through-train or not. May I ask MOE to share what operational obstacles do exist, and are these obstacles insurmountable?
For adults, could every Singaporean gain access to formal skills development planning and coaching, not just those who are job-seeking? Could we also adopt achievable targets, like the 10,000-step health goal, to cultivate a habit of continuous learning? For instance, some multinational corporations (MNCs) I know set self-driven training goals, in terms of hours or programmes for their staff. Could this be explored and also scaled nationally?
Barrier two – on new literacies. A future-ready education must address technological disruptions, especially by artificial intelligence (AI). Nations and companies are already leveraging AI to transform education. So, I seek MOE's clarification on two points. What is the new literacy curriculum for learners in this age of rapid technological advancement? Two, how can we ensure that our learners become originators of ideas, not just consumers or managers of AI outputs and risk undermining development of their own critical and creative thinking skills?
Barrier three – on students with special educational needs (SEN). First, let me talk about SEN students in mainstream schools and IHLs. Over 80% of our students with mild to moderate SEN are in mainstream schools, necessitating robust support systems. Beyond academics, they need life skills to navigate living and working, especially post-school. So, while initiatives like SEN officers and learning support offices are very commendable and I really appreciate it, current support does seem to fall short.
So, may I ask MOE what feedback has been received on the current support model for SEN students in mainstream schools and IHLs? Are there gaps to be addressed? What is MOE's future plan in this space? What does it look like? How can stakeholders like the mainstream schools, IHLs, MOE's own special needs department, special education needs department and disability-focused SSAs and SPED schools even, improve knowledge sharing and best practices to strengthen support?
Let me also talk about SEN students in SPED schools. SPED students often need more time to master foundational skills for living, learning and working. Their need for lifelong learning is critical as technology transforms our world. However, the \"cliff effect\" – where support drops drastically after age 18 – stops progress for many of the adult learners with disabilities. This leads to skills loss, reduced independence, and increased burdens on families and society.
Can the Government commission a study to seriously address – study this \"cliff-effect\" and address the gaps thereof – and even adopt a top-up funding model for SEN adult learners, mirroring what was given before age 18?
Additionally, SPED leaders face overwhelming administrative workloads due to numerous policies and reporting requirements. While I appreciate MOE's increased support over the years, and I really think they are very good people in MOE for this, I urge a review to limit policies and reports to only the essentials and also to streamline processes.
Could SPED schools tap on public-sector systems – the good ones, like Form.gov.sg —
The Chairman: Ms Denise Phua, can you round up please?
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: — GeBiz, or Demand Aggregated Vendor Lists to reduce their administrative burdens and improve efficiency?
So, in conclusion, Madam, Singapore is at the forefront of creating a future-ready education system that empowers every individual. If any nation can turn this vision into reality, I believe, it is Singapore. So, thank you, MOE.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, first, let me declare that I am in the private education business.
Madam, this could be my last Committee of Supply (COS) debate. As such, I beg for your indulgence as I take this opportunity to make yet another call on the Government to implement a 10-year through-train programme in some schools where students can progress from primary levels to secondary levels without going through the PSLE. This is an issue that I personally feel most passionate about.
I assure the Minister for Education that I continue to raise this not because I did not hear his concerns, but because I remain unconvinced that those concerns outweigh the merits of creating this additional educational path as an option for parents and students.
The Minister is concerned about how to cater to students with different learning abilities and needs in the 10-year through-train programme. This can be addressed in two ways: one, reducing class sizes to reduce the range of diverse learning profiles and abilities within each class; two, implementing Subject-Based Banding.
At the class level, we can use these two ways to manage the range of learning profiles. But at the school level, students will still benefit from interacting with a wide range of students and learning to respect and deal with differences. With the end of streaming and introduction of Subject-Based Banding, schools are already catering to diverse learning profiles. The Minister himself said this of Subject-Based Banding: \"the positive outcomes in learning and social mixing give us confidence that this is the right thing to do.\"
If we can do it with Subject-Based Banding, we can do it with a 10-year through-train programme.
The Minister also made the point that PSLE is simply a means to help our children find a suitable learning environment. But PSLE is not the only means. Regular assessments within the school can also do this. This is being done all the time.
It is well-known how stressful PSLE can be not just for students, but for parents as well. Instead of enjoying the time spent building bonds with their children, many parents, instead, spent the time nagging or disciplining their children to study harder and longer to do better in the PSLE, in their anxiety to ensure their children's future. Such stress strains family relationships and adversely affects mental well-being.
It would not be surprising for anyone observing this to conclude that life is much better without children. A stressful education system can be a disincentive for parenthood. Is it a coincidence that regions known to have the most stressful education systems like South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, also have the lowest fertility rates?
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) also calls for class sizes to be reduced. This will provide greater opportunities for differentiated learning and allow teachers to personalise teaching and better support students with different learning profiles. As of 2023, the average class size was 33.6 in primary schools and 32.6 in secondary schools. This is far higher than the average public primary school class in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, which is 21.
With our total fertility rate falling steadily year after year, our student cohorts have been shrinking. By maintaining teacher recruitment levels and keeping schools open even as student cohorts shrink, we can reduce class sizes, without compromising on the quality of teachers.
By making PSLE optional, we may also be able to reduce academic competition and demand for tuition. In such a scenario, MOE could re-employ teachers who have left the Education Service for the private tuition industry to reduce class sizes in schools. There will always be segments of the student population that is difficult for mainstream schools to cater to. So, if a small proportion of students require tuition, that is not worrisome, but if over half require tuition then that cannot be healthy.
In addition, examination preparation calls for memorising and repetition which are not skills that prepare our children well for a society that will soon be greatly changed by AI.
MOE has identified the 21st Century Competencies (21CC), including values, social skills, critical thinking and so on, that are needed to prepare our students for the future. But without systemic changes, wanna bet what will be the outcome of a poll on parents which they consider more important, PSLE or 21CC?
It is survival instinct to adapt our behaviour to that which brings rewards. And right now, our education system rewards efforts in preparing for PSLE more than efforts in building 21CC. Simply exhorting parents to change their mindset is not going to cut it.
In a through-train programme, time freed from PSLE preparations can be channelled towards building such competencies and better prepare our students for the future. As the Minister said, learning is a continuous journey, not just for 15 years, but for 50. It is important to nurture the love of learning in our children. A high-stress, high-stakes examination like the PSLE at such a young age does not help to do that.
Once again, I urge the Minister to consider making PSLE optional by implementing a pilot through-train programme and to reduce class sizes for the benefit of our dwindling number of children.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Madam, empowering educators to be global leaders assists to foster innovation in education, address global challenges, encourage international collaboration and prepare students for a globalised world.
Providing continuous learning opportunities to educators, including collaboration across borders, as well as robust systems to support mental health and work-life balance, will assist educators remain confident and competent in the global environment.
In this context, how is the Ministry supporting educators to adapt to rapidly changing global needs and adequately prepare them for future challenges in the education sector? In what ways is the Ministry facilitating the creation of an environment that fosters and promotes the importance of lifelong learning among educators, and what strategies are being implemented to guide educators towards learning and teaching driven by curiosity and passion?
What initiatives are being introduced to ensure the curriculum for educators remains relevant and forward-thinking, and supports their continuous professional growth? And finally, what measures are being taken to support the mental health and well-being of educators?
The Chairman: Mr Darryl David, please take your four cuts together.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Madam. Before I begin, I would like to declare my position as a chief executive officer of an education institution.
In Singapore, the majority of students' typical pattern of education after completing their \"O\" level is generally a binary one. They either attend a junior college (JC) or a polytechnic. The key distinction between these two routes lies in the type of education they offer, with JCs focusing on academic study that leads to the \"A\" levels and, often, university after that; and polytechnics providing vocational and technical training through a diploma programme, with increasing pathways to university education too.
In the 1970s, the L1R5 system, or the calculation of a student's aggregate score was based on their best language subject (L1) and five relevant academic subjects (R5). This system moved in 1980 to the L1R4 system. The number of relevant subjects for which the aggregate score was counted was reduced from five to four. This shift was aimed at streamlining admissions for increased focus on core subjects and specialised skills. The L1R4 system applied to both polytechnic and JC admissions, but the subjects counted could differ.
There was a return to the L1R5 system for JC admission a few years later. And presently, I believe that there are two systems, L1R4 for polytechnic admission and L1R5 for JC admission.
It might be good, in my humble opinion, to ensure parity between the two systems, especially with students opting for both JCs and polytechnics in their same application form as they make their initial choices. As learning becomes more personalised and catered to students' interests and choices become more diverse, having one aggregate calculation system based on L1R4 would also narrow the JC-polytechnic perceived divide.
Having the same point system for both also allows for recognition of different learning styles and interests, and alignment of entry points would also allow equality of access to higher education for both polytechnic and JC students to university in the future. Could I suggest that MOE review the post \"O\" level criteria for JCs to make it more aligned with that of polytechnics?
Still on JC, on 20 January 1969, National Junior College, the first JC, had its inaugural assembly with 572 students. It offered 40 subject combinations to students who could exercise wide choices in subject options to meet their interests and inclinations. Following that, several JCs opened their doors, with Hwa Chong Junior College the first Government-aided JC in Singapore, opening in 1974; and Catholic Junior College, starting in 1975 to combine pre-university courses offered by Catholic religious schools or orders.
The JC system was created to optimise the use of teachers and laboratory facilities while providing more educational opportunities for pre-university students. It aimed at creating a challenging learning environment and helping students develop their talents academically and non-academically.
Madam, in 2019, MOE announced the merger of eight JCs into four, partly to address declining student numbers owing to falling birth rates. The merged JCs – Anderson Serangoon Junior College (ASRJC), Yishun Innova Junior College, Tampines Meridian Junior College and Jurong Pioneer Junior College (JPJC) – adopted names that combined the full names of the original colleges, with the name of the older JC coming first to reflect its history.
As of November 2024, I believe that three JCs, Temasek Junior College, ASRJC and JPJC have been slated to move into new buildings by January 2028. Could MOE provide an update on the exercise to rejuvenate JCs across the island?
Madam, teachers are one of the most critical resources in the teaching ecosystem. In Singapore, continuous teacher training occurs through a system of different professional development opportunities provided by MOE, including paid professional development courses, staff training opportunities, conferences, mentorship programmes, attachments, leadership development tracks and study programmes for further education.
There are SkillsFuture courses focusing on specific areas of practice to further teachers' professional growth and I believe that all teachers in Singapore are entitled to 100 hours of paid professional development every year. While a good preliminary foundation has been laid to ensure good training by the National Institute of Education (NIE), which also offers various degree courses and professional development programmes, I believe that continuing education is crucial to keep sharpening skillsets and keeping teachers relevant.
The focus on Research-Informed Practices also means that teachers need to update their practice with evidence-based pedagogies and strategies. Also, given the rapid developments in AI, technology and pedagogy and fast-evolving workplace landscape where skills must be practice-oriented, the emphasis must be on ensuring that our teachers improve the quality of their teaching through upskilling and continuous learning for teaching quality excellence throughout their careers.
I had previously made the point in Parliament via Parliamentary Questions relating to the importance of ensuring that our teachers have industry experience and exposure for their own professional growth that will, in turn, enhance the overall teaching and learning of our students. I would now like to ask if MOE can share more on the various programmes that are in place for the professional development of our teachers and if there are any plans to enhance these programmes anytime soon?
Neurodiverse students, including those with conditions like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, autism or other cognitive variations, learn in ways that are different from learning methods and strategies adopted by neurotypical students.
Neurodiverse students' learning styles evolve from their strengths and challenges they face. Each neurodiverse student is different but there are common strategies and approaches can support neurodiverse learners in achieving success. These include, focusing on their strengths, providing assistive technologies, allowing for visual and hands-on learning, and providing extended assessment-time alternative assessments. For students that need social support, there are also strategies for them to overcome anxiety and increase collaboration opportunities with their peers.
Much progress has been made in MOE schools with learning support and I am heartened to say this. The SEN Masterplan, our national framework, aims to enhance the quality and accessibility of SEN education. The Masterplan for Inclusive Education was introduced to ensure that children with SEN are integrated into mainstream schools wherever possible and that schools provide appropriate support.
Funding for SPED schools to create better facilities, resources and teaching staff to support SEN students is a plus, so schools can hire specialised staff and invest in assistive and supportive technologies. There is also mainstreaming of SEN support and services in polytechnics and the ITEs.
Internships are a big part of ITE and polytechnic education, giving students with critical industry exposure and experience to complement their learning. These are significant as they offer hands-on experience, helping these students apply classroom skills into real-world, real-life scenarios. This practical exposure builds confidence and allows students to explore their interests and their strengths, helping with career and eventually, life choices. Internships also augment soft skills such as communication, time management and self-directedness, which are essential ingredients for workplace success.
These experiences help them thrive in professional environments and enhance social interactions with colleagues as well. Additionally, internships promote independence by teaching students task management and handling responsibilities.
I would like to ask what steps are taken to ensure that neurodiverse ITE and polytechnic students going on such internships have their internships calibrated to meet their neurodiversity and differentiated learning needs?
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mdm Chair, I declare my interest as chief executive officer of an education institute serving the finance sector with programmes eligible for SkillsFuture Credit.
A decade ago, Singapore launched SkillsFuture with the foresight that CET must be a cornerstone of our growth strategy. We recognised that industry transformation, technological advancements and global shifts would continuously reshape job roles and skill demands. To future-proof our workforce, SkillsFuture was established to ensure that Singaporeans can adapt, thrive and seize new opportunities in an evolving economy.
Over the years, SkillsFuture has been enhanced to encourage adoption and advance workforce impact. However, despite the strong efforts, training participation rate declined to 40.7% in 2024, the lowest in nine years. Many, both within and outside this House, question whether SkillsFuture is delivering on its full potential.
To further SkillsFuture's impact, we must shift our focus from making training accessible with ensuring that it directly contributes to career outcomes. Switzerland offers valuable insights in this regard. The Swiss Federal Act on Continuing Education and Training establishes a structured framework to ensure high-quality, industry-relevant training. It mandates strict accreditation standards of CET providers, ensuring that courses meet rigorous quality and workforce relevance criteria. Crucially, CET in Switzerland counts towards formal qualifications that are integrated into hiring and career progression, ensuring that training translates into tangible employment outcomes.
Madam, I would like to call on SkillsFuture to focus on enhancing two key areas to strengthen the CET framework, drawing lessons from Switzerland.
One, strengthening Accreditation Standards for CET Providers. Whilst we appreciate that SkillsFuture funds thousands of courses, the current system does not distinguish adequately between high-quality programmes and those with limited workforce impact. Employers and trainees struggle to identify which courses deliver strong job outcomes. Funding is distributed relatively evenly across CET providers. This one-size-fits-all approach weakens SkillsFuture's strategic effectiveness as a workforce development tool and risks diluting its impact.
So, Madam, to address this, Singapore should establish a tiered accreditation system that categorises CET providers based on industry endorsement, their programme quality and workforce outcomes. Government funding should be directly tied to their level of accreditation, ensuring that providers with higher quality standards receive higher levels of support.
Additionally, research funding currently available to Government-funded IHLs should be extended to qualified CET providers. This will support the development of a new generation of world-class CET institutions to develop thought leadership in their respective domains of industry practice. This will enable professionals undergoing CET from these world-class institutions to remain at the forefront of emerging trends, new technologies and evolving global standards. By integrating the latest research into CET programmes, we can equip workers with cutting-edge expertise that strengthens Singapore's workforce effectiveness.
Two, making CET a cumulative pathway to meaningful qualifications. While individuals should have the flexibility to take standalone courses, CET should not be seen as short, unrelated training courses. Instead, it should be structured as a cumulative pathway to enable individuals to continuously learn and develop towards meaningful industry-valued credentials for specific jobs and professions.
Switzerland's, again, work-study CET model provides a strong precedent, where employees undergo continuous training while remaining in the workforce, earning recognised qualifications that offers tangible employment and wage growth. In Singapore, I am encouraged with the recently announced pilot of CET-integrated degree programmes for in-employment diploma holders in advanced manufacturing. So, this offers a structured learning pathway where individuals can train and work concurrently towards a degree qualification.
So, I encourage and strongly urge the Government to extend such structured CET pathways to other professionals, such as in finance, where many individuals already hold degrees but require systematic upgrading to deepen their expertise and stay competitive. By investing in a series of stackable, industry-relevant CET courses, finance professionals can enhance their skills in real-world while working. These practice-based courses should be purposefully designed to count as credit toward postgraduate qualifications, such as advanced certifications, postgraduate diplomas and Master's degrees.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Singapore has a skilled worker gap. Remarkably, the recognition that there could be such skilled worker shortages is not new. As far back as the 1980s, observers noted that demographic changes could threaten the viability of economic progress on our island if human resource needs remain unmet. Yet today, we still see reports attesting that as many as four in five companies face workforce talent shortages. This has, we are told, necessitated the continued stream of foreign migrant professionals.
At the same time, many in this House face a seasonal pattern of appeals after examination results are announced. Young residents, as well as their parents, often come to our Meet-the-People Sessions in a desperate effort to appeal for entry for their children into a given tertiary institution or programme of study. Often, this applicant actually possess the necessary scores required for entry. However, the limited number of spaces often mean that these local kids are unable to secure a spot, as spaces are filled by those who obtain grades better than their own.
These two problems, while seemingly unrelated, are actually not. Essentially, almost a half century after the matter of a potential skills shortage was first identified, our local schools seem still unable to fill the nation's tech worker shortfall, despite possessing secondary school students that are sufficiently talented and willing to pursue technically-oriented tertiary education.
One strategy we can consider is to alter the criteria for entry into certain autonomous universities, such as the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), such that they can take in students so long as they meet absolute entry criteria, rather than relative to all applicants for a particular programme.
The proposal is not as pie in the sky as one might imagine. Similar approach to tertiary education is used in other places, such as France, Germany and the state of California in the US. In France, while entry into the private grande école system – and full disclosure, I teach at one such school – is indeed competitive and dependent on relative scores acquired in a national level exam, known as \"concours\", admission into the public university system is actually generally open to all who have passed the Baccalaureate, which is the equivalent of our local \"A\" levels.
German universities also are more forgiving with entrance criteria with certain programmes, even practising free admission. Essentially, all applicants that fulfill basic university and entrance qualifications are let in. Standards are maintained by introducing tougher courses in the earlier stages and having students voluntarily drop out. And in the science, engineering, technology and mathematics (STEM) subjects, this could be as high as nine out of 10 students.
And while the prestigious University of California system only guarantees a spot to high school graduates that fall within the top 9% of the state's high school cohort, admission into the next tier, what is known as the California State University system, is actually much more liberal and low-income residents who are first-generation, under-represented college students may even be assured entry into certain majors, subject to a commitment by the student that they complete their studies within four years.
One instinctive argument against this proposal is that grades serve as a filter for whether the potential student is likely to make it into the desired course of study. But this is precisely why the proposal will retain minimum criteria for entry into programmes to ensure that those who embark on a certain course of study have a realistic chance of completion. The key difference is that students that would otherwise meet this threshold do not get rejected, simply because of their relative underperformance.
Another objection is that system may be brutal and if students were to drop out, they could incur a debt burden with no degree to show for it. Relatedly, this also means that, at least in the earlier years, the system will require more funding to cater to a larger matriculating cohort.
But this is precisely what the threshold criteria are for. Those should be chosen to ensure that any student that meets the minimum requirements should be able to successfully complete the course of study. And perhaps, more importantly, if you believe, as I do, that any Singaporean who qualifies for a local university should have the opportunity to pursue a degree, then we should not shy away from expanding the system and set aside the resources necessary to ensure that this is so. In the long run, this could even pay off economically, since employers would be able to hire workers that they need while reducing the cost of searching for talent from abroad.
The third concern is that this liberal approach may end up churning out too many graduates. But in reality, there is a shortage of certain skilled professionals, especially in tech, and companies often rate skills over degrees. Yet, experts say that skills learned in our tertiary institutions do not necessarily align well with their needs on the job. Relevant skills are instead acquired with certification examinations, but the prerequisites or eligibility criteria for many of these certificates are actually incredibly accessible, often requiring only \"O\" or \"N\" level credits, and are not accompanied by a need for stellar grades. What we need to ensure, therefore, is a better alignment of training and the graduates that we churn out. Loosening the criteria for entry, while simultaneously tightening the conditions for graduation will help keep our tertiary offerings nimble, since we need to worry less about how failing out already small intakes could pre-emptively decimate programmes.
One may finally argue that removing the competitive entry could weaken the quality of our lauded universities, such as the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU). As suggested earlier, more flexible entry requirements do not appear to have undermined the standing of the best French, German and Californian universities. In any case, the suggestion is limited to the applied tier of our AUs, those that were less oriented toward academic accomplishment and research output to begin with.
The Chairman: Dr Wan Rizal, please take your two cuts together.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Madam, in a dynamic uncertain world, we need to prepare our learners to be nimble and adaptable. Task education should be flexible, yet responsive to students' diverse interests and aspirations. The polytechnic common entry programmes (CEPs) have expanded significantly, allowing students to explore different fields before selecting a specialisation.
With one in four polytechnic students now entering to the CEPs, could MOE share insights on how they have benefitted? Have they gained greater clarity in choosing their specialisation and have retention rates improved?
Beyond exploration, how are polytechnics ensuring that such students receive adequate academic and career guidance? Republic Polytechnic will begin offering broad-based diploma options in Academic Year 2025 (AY2025). Could this model be expanded to provide students with an even greater multidisciplinary exposure?
How will MOE continue to enhance CEPs to ensure they remain available pathways for students to build relevant skills for the evolving job market?
Madam, our teachers are at the heart of our education system, but many are burdened with administrative duties, taking their time away from students. Technology can help streamline these processes, allowing teachers to focus on what truly matters to them – nurturing and guiding our students.
The pilot feature on Parents Gateway to digitalise absence submissions is a positive step. Could MOE share the initial feedback from this pilot and how the Ministry plans to ensure a smooth nationwide roll-out? Beyond absence submissions, what other digital solutions are being explored to reduce teachers' workloads?
As flexible work arrangements are implemented across schools, how will MOE ensure that there are sufficient teachers, allied educators and administrative staff to support this transition reasonably? Ultimately, how will MOE ensure that technology is used effectively to support our teachers to reduce burnout and focus on nurturing students?
Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): SEN officers play a crucial role in supporting students with special needs. According to MOE, \"the number of SEN officers in mainstream schools has increased from around 450 in 2017 to about 680 as of July 2024\".
Can the Ministry share if there is a target ideal number of SEN officers in mainstream schools and if so, what this is, and how it plans to continue enhancing the support and development of SEN officers?
Dr Wan Rizal: Madam, in a dynamic economy, lifelong learning is no longer optional. It is essential. Many mid-career Singaporeans want to upskill and stay competitive, but challenges, such as financial constraints and balancing work and family, remain.
Extending the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance to part-time programmes is a welcome move. Could MOE share how these programmes are selected and how they align with emerging industry demands?
With a 24-month lifetime cap on training allowances, how will MOE support mid-career individuals needing further upskilling beyond this period? Will additional pathways or funding options exist for those in industries undergoing transformation?
As we build a culture of continuous learning, what further steps will MOE take to encourage greater participation, especially among lower-income and vulnerable workers?
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Freelancers lack access to training and development opportunities that are typically provided for traditional employees by employers. Given that freelancer-dominated sectors, such as arts and culture, media and design, rank among the world's fastest growing and rapidly transforming sectors, it is pressing and critical for the Government to boost training support for affected freelancers, such as arts educators, creative practitioners and media workers.
Could the Ministry share how freelancers can be supported by the new schemes, such as the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme and the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, for workers studying part-time? Would the Ministry consider a top-up of SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) for freelancers who had utilised 50% or more of their existing SFC?
Freelancers would welcome such boosts in keeping skills relevant and livelihoods viable.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Madam, let me first declare that I am a managing director and senior partner of a firm that does work in the area of skills development.
Budget 2025 continues to reinforce SkillsFuture as a cornerstone of our nation's commitment to lifelong learning and preparing Singaporeans for the opportunities and challenges of tomorrow.
In my conversations with my Woodlands residents, I am heartened that more and more of my residents are becoming aware and increasingly open to going for skills training, even though there are still many sceptics. A big part of it is from their own experiences or experiences of people they know, who have not been able to find a job even after attending multiple skilling programmes.
Madam, landing a job involves more than just attending training. You need to select the right training. The training needs to be effective. You also need to have the skills to search, apply and interview for jobs, network, plan your next career move. All these can be non-trivial.
We also need to build up agency and resilience in our people while we create an enabling environment around removing biases and encouraging companies to hire people with potential and fill in the edges rather than look for a ready-made hire.
With the increased demand for skilling, how will MOE ensure that selected training providers have a good track record of positive employment outcomes? What more can be done to drive positive employment outcomes?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mdm Chair, getting into a school's sports team can be very competitive these days. Schools usually hold trials to select only the best athletes to represent them at the national school games. Many students want to take up sports like badminton, basketball or football as their co-curricular activity (CCA) in school, only to be disappointed that they cannot get a place in the CCA. Some are left with no choice but to join a CAA they have little interest in.
To cater to students who want to play sports for leisure but lack formal training, schools should open up more recreational sports CCAs for popular sports. Many schools already do this, but some still do not.
To manage limited resources, schools could adjust the number of CCA places to match demand. This way, schools can ensure that every student who wants to participate in sports at their skill level has the opportunity to do so.
On the other end of the spectrum, top performing student athletes who have the potential to represent Singapore at international competitions are often still required to train with their school's sports teams. High performance sports training usually takes place outside of school, at training programmes run by National Sports Associations or private academies.
These student athletes should have the option to be excused from school training and competition so as to be able to better focus on becoming world-class athletes who can compete on the world stage and win medals for Singapore. They should still be allowed to earn LEAPS 2.0 points while doing so.
I will discuss the sports aspect of this further in my cut at the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) COS debate.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Chair, in 2022, the National Instructors and Coaches Association (NICA) and MOE established a workgroup to strengthen engagement with MOE instructors, many of whom are freelancers and self-employed. This initiative aimed to enhance collaboration between schools and instructors to improve the quality of CCAs and enrichment programmes for students.
Progress has been made, especially with an inclusive dispute resolution framework set for finalisation in this quarter. However, some issues require further attention.
One key issue is the procurement process for instructors' services. Currently, most schools only procure instructor services at the end of the school year for the next, resulting in a highly compressed and competitive bidding cycle. This process creates several challenges.
First, instructors face job insecurity as they receive little advance notice when their contracts are not renewed. This leaves them with insufficient time to secure alternative employment opportunities.
Second, the lack of a structured handover process between outgoing and incoming instructors disrupts students' learning. Without proper transition planning, students experience interruptions in their training and development.
Third, instructors often bid for multiple contracts to maximise their chances of securing a role. However, some who receive multiple contracts later withdraw their overlapping commitments, leaving schools scrambling to find last-minute replacements. Meanwhile, instructors who do not secure any contracts are left without work until the next bidding cycle.
We need to assess whether GeBIZ is the most suitable procurement process for coaching services. I urge MOE to work with NICA to review the current procurement system and introduce earlier notification of contract renewals or non-renewals, clear handover protocols and a more efficient —
The Chairman: Please round up.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: — matching system between instructors and schools.
Mr Ong Hua Han: Madam, one in three Gen Zs and Millennials do not feel confident in making sound financial decisions in times of economic stress. This was from a survey conducted by Etiqa Insurance in 2023. Many young Singaporeans were also found to have relatively low confidence in investing and building emergency funds.
In our fast-changing financial landscape, young Singaporeans have more to grapple with than previous generations. We must support our youths in navigating these new realities.
To improve financial literacy education in Singapore, I would like to suggest a two-fold approach.
First, I urge MOE to take a targeted and more in-depth approach to incorporating financial literacy education in the school curriculum. Financial literacy should be taught in a way that is both relevant to the students' lives and tailored to Singapore's unique financial ecosystem. Students should not leave school without understanding the Central Provident Fund (CPF), housing loans, taxes and insurance. Financial literacy education must also constantly evolve to reflect new financial trends, such as Buy-Now-Pay-Later schemes and cryptocurrency.
Second, expand partnerships and funding for financial literacy programmes. It is crucial to start financial literacy education as early as possible. A strong foundation means that Singaporeans are equipped with the financial know-how to manage money effectively, setting them up for life.
That being said, I fully recognise the heavy workload that our teachers already shoulder. I am not suggesting that teachers bear this responsibility alone. We can tap on experienced external vendors to complement MOE's efforts.
MoneySense already promotes financial literacy through online resources and ad hoc talks, and then there are other organisations, such as The Volunteer Switchboard, who partners with corporates to conduct workshops for a select group of ITE students. By formalising partnerships with more of such organisations and expanding funding behind this, we can increase outreach, build up quality resources and bring in skilled trainers to complement existing efforts.
Imagine a future where every student graduates with the ability to manage their finances responsibly, a future where young Singaporeans feel confident and empowered to make sound financial decisions. By taking action today, we equip our youths with the knowledge and skills to secure their financial future.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Excessive social media use amongst adolescents has been linked to an increased risk of anxiety and depression. In Singapore, a study by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) found that youths who spend more time – more than three hours daily – on social media are more likely to experience symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress. Addressing this issue requires a multifaceted approach involving families, schools and sustained interventions.
One possible initiative is a disconnect to connect week, where students take a break from social media and engage in meaningful offline activities. While a short break may not change habits, it does encourage reflection on digital consumption and the wisdom to step away from online pressures.
Given these concerns, what steps will the MOE take to promote youth mental health in schools, particularly regarding excessive social media use? Will it consider implementing a disconnect to connect week to support students' well-being?
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mdm Chair, I rise today to call for a shift in the way students are assessed in our education system. While our students excel in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests globally, we must consider whether our current assessment methods create opportunity cost at the expense of future critical skills, such as emotional intelligence, adaptability, creativity and critical thinking.
How are current assessment models aligned with the 21CC that MOE seeks to develop and nurture in our students? Why does Singapore still have an examinations-based system for the \"O\" levels when the United Kingdom has already moved on from it in 1988 into the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) model, which is more coursework-based in assessing students' learning and offers more flexibility in choosing pathways after?
Case in point, how are teachers marking composition and essay papers? Do we still allocate or deduct marks for correct punctuation and spelling? How can we shift the assessment criteria to focus more on the quality or originality of thought, creative expression and the ability to consider diverse perspectives over the accuracy of spelling and sentence structure?
While MOE has been encouraging schools to approach learning differently with several curriculum revamps in recent years, are our assessment models reflecting these changes? Many students still face stress, anxiety and disengagement due to rigid assessment frameworks. Private tuition is now a $1.8 billion industry in Singapore.
We still hear many stories of teachers who teach for tests or of parents who pressure teachers when they do not. We cannot fault parents for being \"kiasu\" when the assessment model remains the way it is.
I quote Minister Chan Chun Sing's recent speech at an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) lecture, \"Beyond just being able to distil information, learning to discern truth, quality and relevance has become more critical.\" How can we evolve our assessment models to capture this new emphasis?
I recommend that MOE revamp the assessment models for the PSLE and \"O\" levels and shift to a higher proportion of classroom participation, portfolio building, project work, discussions and less on-paper examinations. We already have this in tertiary education. Why not bring it forward to primary and secondary schools, too?
We must prioritise participation, engagement, articulation and other relational skills over technical correctness in the ways we assess children to best prepare them for their future. After all, AI can spell better and ensure accurate grammar better, too. Oral examinations can take a higher weightage and allow students to choose topics of their own interest.
AI can play a role in helping us revamp the way we assess students to capture qualities like engagement level, originality of thought, progress in personal vocabulary and articulation, creativity, confidence and other observations. These can make up a larger portion of weightage, taking priority over paper examinations.
These qualities are hard for parents to outsource to tuition centres to train for excellence. Instead, parents will need to engage their children at home and in the community in social interactions and conversations that build their perspectives and help them develop independence of thought.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Madam, on physical wellness education, MOE's Desired Outcomes of Education emphasise healthy habits and physical activity for primary and secondary school students, with post-secondary students expected to \"pursue a healthy lifestyle\". However, many healthy habits formed in school, if at all, do not carry over into adulthood.
Could MOE clarify if there are metrics to measure the success of physical health education? If so, what are these metrics and outcomes? If not, are there plans to strengthen the link between school physical health education and healthy adult lifestyles?
On mental wellness education, over the past years, we have constantly spoken in this House about supporting the mental health of Singaporeans. This is important because we have seen that Singaporeans consistently rank one of the highest in stress levels around the world. Besides families, schools play a part in addressing this issue.
I am concerned that our schools might take a \"medical model\" approach to mental health, in which students' mental health struggles are seen as problems to be fixed quickly rather than fostering lifelong stress management skills, with our varied personalities.
Could MOE provide an update on mental health education in schools? What are the expected outcomes and what future plans are being considered to strengthen mental wellness education to achieve these outcomes?
Dr Wan Rizal: Madam, parents play a crucial role in shaping children's mental well-being and resilience. In today's digital age, where young people face increasing stress and online risks, the Parenting for Wellness (PfW) Initiative is a timely effort to equip parents with practical tools and strategies.
Could MOE share how the PfW Toolbox for Parents is distributed and how its effectiveness is measured? Are there plans to expand outreach, such as partnering with community groups to better engage parents from diverse backgrounds?
Beyond resources, early intervention is key. How will MOE ensure that schools have sufficient support systems and trained personnel to assess mental health risks and intervene effectively? Will there be structured policies to encourage help-seeking while addressing students' concerns about stigma or future repercussions? As we continue to strengthen mental health support for youths, what further steps will MOE take to empower parents to safeguard their children's well-being?
The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Chair, MOE thanks Members for their suggestions, comments and support.
Our education system has achieved much, but much is at stake. Much more needs to be done for us to stay relevant, stay ahead and stay together.
We have built a system that has uplifted our people amidst the challenges and opportunities through the years, and we have fostered a sense of cohesion and unity amongst Singaporeans, despite our diverse heritage and backgrounds.
Our foundations are sound. Our system is functioning well. But we must not be self-congratulatory. We can easily be bypassed if we become irrelevant, overtaken if we become complacent and disrupted if we fail to understand the pivotal forces shaping our world.
Our goals remain unchanged: for Singapore to defy the odds of history to survive and thrive; for our people to be the best versions of themselves; and for us to distinguish ourselves by our ideals of excellence, our unity and our unyielding spirit to overcome challenges.
But our approach, policies and mindsets must continue to evolve with the times. As the global order fragments and geopolitical tensions worsen, we need to hone our ability to bridge divides, connect diverse perspectives and forge partnerships. As economies become increasingly volatile and protectionist, we need to secure our relevance by adapting to new contexts, creating new value propositions and finding answers to tomorrow's questions ahead of time.
As societies fracture amidst rising inequality, heightened insecurities and divisive contestation in the information space, we need to strengthen our identity amidst these divisive forces to stay resilient and united, recognising that the competition is not amongst ourselves, but between Team Singapore and the rest of the world. As technology progresses and challenges convention, we need to master the new while integrating the best of the old to create breakthroughs in how we learn, teach and earn our keep.
Ms Denise Phua asked how we will provide a future-ready education for all. I will focus on two structural shifts we have embarked on to achieve this.
First, we must recognise, respect and embrace a diversity of talents to enable Singaporeans to thrive even amidst the uncertainties and untidiness of the world. We need to shift away from the narrow definitions of success, which may make us proficient in select domains but brittle as a system. We must also avoid \"teaching to the average\", which does not bring out the best in anyone. Instead, we must do better, by empowering Singaporeans to build on their different strengths, pursue excellence in their respective fields and contribute to society in their own ways.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Second, we must learn for life beyond schools and to practise continuous meritocracy. Singapore is no longer playing catch up. We are at the frontier. But to stay at the top of our game, we need to create new value propositions for ourselves and the world, by combining the strong foundation we set for our students in formal education, with the rigour and innovation we see in frontier industries. We cannot afford to be the proverbial frog in the well, or to build a cart behind closed doors, or as the Chinese say, \"闭门造车\".
The school cannot be our world. Instead, the world must be our school. We must remain open to different perspectives and work with people from different backgrounds and nationalities to enrich our thinking and solutions. And we must do this not just in the first 15 years of formal education, but also in the next 50 years of life beyond the formal school system.
I will elaborate on what we have done and what we plan to do in these two areas.
First, we need to embrace our diversity of talents. This reflects our aspiration as a society to recognise every individual's unique strengths and equip every student as best as we can to fulfil their aspirations.
In recent years, we have turned our focus to developing our students holistically. We want to nurture our students' resilience, adaptability and motivation to learn for life, and empower them to take ownership of their own education journey. To achieve this, we are gradually reducing an over-emphasis on academic results and moving towards more holistic development of diverse skills and attributes. We want to \"Learn More, Test Less\".
We removed mid-year examinations across all levels. We replaced the PSLE T-score with Achievement Levels to avoid an overly fine differentiation of examination results. Direct School Admission provides students with an alternative pathway to enter their preferred schools. And we will certainly take into account Mr Patrick Tay's suggestions in our current review. Ms Denise Phua and Ms Hazel Poa asked for a through-train from primary to secondary school. Ms Hazel Poa also asked for smaller class sizes.
Chair, MOE takes all well-intentioned ideas seriously. However, we should be clear what are the ends we are trying to achieve or which problems we are trying to solve, before we jump into our preferred solutions or ways and we should also be cognisant of the means required, trade-offs and unintended consequences of any well-intentioned ideas.
Members can refer to the discussions and considerations shared previously in COS 2023 and 2024, and more recently, in my speech at the MOE x NIE x IPS Lecture to appreciate the associated issues, operational challenges and opportunities.
At the secondary level, Full Subject-Based Banding (Full SBB) has been implemented for more than a year now. This gives our students the flexibility to customise their learning in each subject and at different stages of their learning journeys – reflecting our open, continuous and compassionate meritocracy.
School leaders and teachers have shared with us that their students are taking greater ownership of their learning. Subject classes provide appropriate stretch for each student. Meanwhile, mixed form classes create more opportunities for students from different backgrounds to interact with and learn from one another. These positive outcomes are only possible because of our educators' commitment. It is not an easy task. I would like to thank them for the work that they have put in, to recognise the diversity of our students and maximise their potential.
But, Chair, we are not done. We are judiciously embracing technology, such as AI to complement our teaching capabilities and capacities to move towards the effective class size of one, where we can mass personalise teaching and learning for our students. This will also refocus our educators' time and bandwidth on the higher needs students and hone the higher faculties of our students.
With Full SBB, we also announced adjustments to the admission criteria for polytechnic, to recognise students with more diverse subject level combinations.
For students exploring the pre-university pathway, we want to create more time and space to build on their strengths and develop them holistically. Hence, we will adjust the admission criteria for JC, starting from the 2028 intake.
JC admission scores are currently based on the L1R5. This was introduced in 1989 to specify the subjects counted towards JC admission. Previously, many were not prepared for JC and eventually performed poorly at the \"A\" levels. Since then, passing rates for the \"A\" levels have increased significantly from 65% to over 90%, and student readiness for JC is no longer a major concern.
Mr Darryl David will be glad to know that we will be revising the JC admission criteria from L1R5 to L1R4, by counting one fewer subject. This means that students will be able to take fewer subjects or take some subjects at a less demanding level, depending on their interests and aptitudes. They will thus be able to devote more time and effort to pursue their interests, deepen their communication and collaboration skills through CCAs, and uncover new strengths through school programmes.
Members can be assured that we are not loosening criteria for JC admission. We will retain the requirements for language and three relevant subjects – one in the Humanities, one in Mathematics or Science and the final one in any of these subjects to be included in L1R4. JC-going students will still have the foundation they need for JC.
On the other hand, we are also not tightening the criteria. With one fewer subject counted, students will need a gross aggregate score of 16 points, rather than 20 points, to be eligible for JC. This is a natural recalibration given that five subjects will be counted, rather than six. Based on our simulations, we expect that a similar proportion of students will continue to qualify for JCs. We will monitor their academic outcomes to ensure that students are benefiting from their JC programme.
With one fewer subject included, we will also adjust the cap on bonus points from four to three. Bonus points recognise key aspects of our students' holistic development, such as in CCAs and other language programmes. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang will elaborate more on CCAs and our review.
I will share more about learning of our mother tongues. Bilingualism is a fundamental part of our national identity and our competitive advantage to build bridges in a fragmented world. As announced previously, MOE will be taking additional steps to encourage the learning of mother tongue languages (MTL).
In the preschools, we are focusing on early exposure to MTL. We are piloting this in two MOE Kindergartens (MKs), and will expand this to four more MKs in 2026, and share our approach with other preschool operators. Secondary school students will have more opportunities to offer Higher MTL.
These and other MOE moves will help but they are not a panacea. Ultimately, our families and society must come together with our schools to create a conducive environment for the learning and use of mother tongues. If mother tongues are not used in homes and communities, they become second languages rather than mother tongues. What schools do, our families and society need to reinforce.
We have made policy changes over many years to reduce an over-emphasis on academics. But to make a lasting impact, mindsets and culture must change too. Changing our scoring systems or assessment models as suggested or reducing mid-year examinations will not reduce pressure on students if we, as parents and as a society, compete to the last decimal point and pile on what MOE removes and reduces.
We must all recognise that academic results, while important, are not the sole definition or determinant of success. I invite parents and schools to work together to help our students to identify their own strengths and talents and to realise their potential.
Maybe at this point, Chair, I will just share a short story of an interaction I had with a group of JC students some years back. They told me that they were very stressed. So, I asked them: \"Would it help if I cut your syllabus by half?\"
They all paused and looked at me, wondering if I was pulling their leg. After a long pause, they almost all replied in unison, \"Minister, please don't do that. If you cut our syllabus by half, the stress would be even worse.\"
I asked them, \"Why?\" One brave girl replied, \"Sir, if we are only competing for half of the content, we will literally compete until the third decimal point rather than the second decimal point and we will all be more stressed.\"
Since they thought I was pulling their leg, I thought to counter-propose to them: \"Perhaps then, I should increase your content by two times.\" They all did not know whether to laugh or whether the Minister for Education was being serious or not.
But that was not the end of the story. After a while, I paused and I asked them, \"If you have some free time today, can you tell me something that you will want to learn, that your teacher didn't tell you to and your parents didn't ask you to do so?\"
They took a long time before they gave me any answer. I was rather sad.
I want all my students not to be circumscribed by what is in the syllabus. I hope all my students, each and every one of them, will find something that they are passionate in, go forth and learn regardless of whether it is in the syllabus or not, so that they can each realise their own potential and bring their own unique strengths to the table to make for a more resilient Singapore. Hence, I am under no illusion that while we reduce what is counted for JC admission, if our mindsets do not change, we would not go very far.
Chair, as the Prime Minister announced last year, facilities in all schools will be progressively enhanced to make better use of technology and support collaboration. For JCs, MOE had previously announced the JC Rejuvenation Programme to enhance teaching and learning to cater for future needs.
Under Phase 1, four JC campuses are being redeveloped – Anderson Serangoon, Jurong Pioneer, Temasek and Yishun Innova – to have enhanced facilities, such as seminar rooms and more configurable spaces. This will support more student-centred, experiential and collaborative learning. Staff will also have multi-functional workspaces to promote interactions and professional development. Phase 1 is in progress and all four JCs are expected to operate from their rejuvenated campuses from 2028.
MOE is now developing plans for Phase 2, which will cover four other JCs – Anglo-Chinese, Catholic, National and Victoria. These are our next-oldest JC campuses. MOE is working with JCs on their infrastructure plans, including possibly moving them to new locations. As part of the plans, we are also discussing how the JCs can develop new programmes, work with industries and serve the community around them. We will share more details in due course.
Chair, from embracing our diversity of talents, I will now move on to our second structural shift – learning for life.
Over the years, we have significantly expanded opportunities for Singaporeans to pursue higher education and prepare themselves for the workforce. For example, ITE students can take up diplomas to build on their foundations, gain work-ready skills and get good jobs. Last year, we announced the ITE Progression Award, to help ITE graduates upskill early and boost their savings to support their long-term goals. Second Minister Maliki will provide an update on this.
Most education systems focus on preparing and equipping the young to enter the workforce. But even as we train our younger generation in skills that are in demand today, these skills will ultimately atrophy if they are not used or refreshed throughout life. Skills that are not frequently used or deliberately honed will eventually become obsolete with technology and demand changes. And the older generations, who had fewer opportunities in the past, are at an even higher risk of having outdated skills.
This is why we started SkillsFuture in 2015: to invest in and encourage our people to embrace a culture of lifelong learning and enable workers to develop their skills and stay relevant through their careers. We have enhanced accessibility and affordability of training programmes. We have invested resources to understand how adults learn.
The mindsets of workers and enterprises have also started to shift. Now, about half a million individuals take up training courses every year – 20% of our Singaporean workforce. Our goal is not just quantity, but more importantly, quality and relevance of the courses.
Lifelong learning must continue to be Singapore's competitive advantage and SkillsFuture will be a pillar of our social compact. We recognised this through Forward Singapore by turning SkillsFuture into a key pillar of our social compact. We must partner enterprises and training providers even more closely, to provide learning opportunities and ladders at multiple junctures. And our workers must never be afraid to pivot quickly to seize new opportunities to relearn, un-learn and keep learning.
Mid-career workers are a key focus group. For most, it would have been some years since they were last in school. With advances in technology, their skills may need a refresh. Yet, they may face other competing priorities or challenges in taking time off for the training they need.
To help them overcome these barriers, last year, we announced the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for Singaporeans aged 40 and above. This includes the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance of up to $3,000 per month to help cover some of the income they may lose out on while attending selected full-time courses. Applications for the Training Allowance for full-time training will open on 10 March, for eligible training from 1 April this year.
This year, as the Prime Minister announced in the Budget speech, we are expanding the Training Allowance to cover part-time training as well. Mid-career workers can continue working and drawing their pay when attending part-time training, but they will have learning expenses, such as books and transport. From early next year, we will provide a fixed allowance of $300 per month to defray some of these expenses. This will give workers some flexibility to choose between part-time or full-time training, depending on their specific needs and personal circumstances. Minister of State Gan Siow Huang will share more on SkillsFuture.
To cater to different learners' needs, we established the SUSS as our sixth AU in 2017. SUSS offers programmes that cater to the needs of different learners, including working adults. Many classes are run after working hours. Short courses can be counted towards a qualification or degree. SUSS has enabled more Singaporeans to pursue a subsidised degree, both fresh out of school and at a later stage in life. Since becoming an AU, SUSS has already seen more than 22,000 graduates pass through its doors.
Currently, SUSS is spread across multiple rented premises, including its main location at Clementi. This is not an ideal arrangement. It is time for SUSS to have its own, consolidated campus to accommodate its growing enrolment. As the Prime Minister said in his Budget speech, SUSS' permanent campus will be in the city, easily accessible to learners of all ages. It will be built at the site and vicinity of the former Rochor Centre.
SUSS' new campus will go beyond being just a building. Its design will enable SUSS' staff and students to create new knowledge and new value propositions with and for industry and society. It will allow SUSS to connect with alumni, industry and community partners, across generations, to bridge diverse perspectives and transcend diversity and differences, and it must contribute to society, befitting SUSS' vision to inspire learning for life and impact lives.
SUSS must be a beacon for lifelong learning, continuous, compassionate meritocracy and broader definitions of success. We will start mobilising the ideas and energies of the students, staff and alumni of SUSS to design the campus and bring it into reality by the mid-2030s.
Chair, MOE cannot achieve these ambitions alone. We need the partnership and support of our parents, society and industry.
Mr Darryl David, Dr Wan Rizal and Assoc Prof Razwana asked how we are supporting and developing our teachers. Previously, I announced measures that MOE is taking to set boundaries and expectations for teachers. Our teachers have a duty of care as much as the duty to grow for our students.
Teachers should not be expected to be everywhere, doing everything, at all times, for everyone. Over-provision, over-structuring and over-protection of our students can paradoxically stunt their growth, even if they perform and excel in the immediate term.
Letting students make decisions for themselves, take care of one another, and resolve conflicts amongst themselves are all important lifeskills. We, as adults, parents and educators, should not be too quick to jump in, take over and deprive them of opportunities to learn and grow.
MOE has refreshed the Guidelines for School-Home Partnership to provide clearer guidance on how parents and teachers can work together positively and respectfully. We will stand with our teachers to protect them from unreasonable expectations and conduct.
We will continue to streamline our teachers' administrative duties with technology. A new feature on Parents Gateway allows parents to electronically submit documents for their child's absence, so that teachers do not need to manually track these. This will be rolled out to all schools by the end of this year.
To inspire the best of each generation to teach, we must also develop our educators well, so that, in turn, they are well equipped to bring out the best in future generations. MOE and NIE are reviewing the 16-month Postgraduate Diploma in Education programme to ensure that it remains relevant and meets the evolving needs of new hires – both fresh graduates and mid-career individuals.
Beyond pedagogical skills, teachers will need to build up their skills to nurture the socio-emotional development of our children and to partner with parents. The review is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
The Teacher Work Attachment Plus programme sends teachers on short-term attachments and learning journeys to broaden their perspectives and share the culture of curiosity and lifelong learning with their students. Our schools and IHLs will continue to closely partner industry to tighten the nexus between frontier technology and academia and to create new value propositions; to ensure that our students and workforce are equipped with relevant skills; and to evolve our human resource (HR) practices to respect and reward these skills.
Chair, I have laid out the two structural shifts we must pursue in our next bound, for us to truly sustain a system that can realise our people's potential, embracing our diversity of talents and learning for life. While many may share a similar vision, few are able to achieve this because it is not an easy task. We will only realise our aspirations if we have the right ingredients. I will list what has brought us here so far and what will bring us forward.
First, a stable and consistent Government that enables both policymakers and educators to think long term; second, a society that respects, invests in and inspires its best people to join the ranks of educators for the next generation; third, a teaching force determined to do what is right for our children, nurturing their holistic and lifelong development beyond their immediate grades; fourth, a partnership built on trust, between educators and families, as we instill the right values and shared perspectives with our children; fifth, a robust academic-industry nexus that achieves speed and relevance in our curriculum; sixth, a sense of vigilance to keep watch on global forces, from geostrategic to economic, societal and technology, that impact our survival and success, constantly challenging ourselves to adjust, adapt and stay ahead.
Next, an open mindset that embraces those who are different, leveraging on their diverse capabilities to complement our own and to create new value propositions together; a nation that respects, celebrates and affirms the diversity of talents which makes us resilient; an ethos of continuous and compassionate meritocracy that inspires us to surpass ourselves throughout life and excel together as Team Singapore, rather than surpassing one another in internal zero-sum contests; and finally, a true mettle in our people, which propels us to set our sights ever higher and to turn our constraints into our winning edge.
Chair, we are here because the Singaporeans before us gave their all to this generation and it is upon our shoulders to do the same for future generations. Let us all – Government, educators, parents, employers and industry – refresh our commitment to pay this forward so that every generation of Singaporeans can aspire to a better future and that every generation of Singaporeans will define our success by how we enable the next generation to do even better than ours. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister Maliki Osman.
The Second Minister for Education (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Mr Chairman, we have continually evolved our education system to meet the diverse and growing needs of all Singaporeans and to ensure that every child in our country has the opportunity to grow, blossom and realise their full potential, regardless of their starting point in life. I will focus on two areas MOE will do more in.
First, we will strengthen support for students with SEN. Second, we will expand and enhance our post-secondary pathways to ensure that students can find different avenues to succeed.
Let me start with our students with SEN. Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Darryl David, Ms Denise Phua and Mr Patrick Tay have asked about our support for students with SEN in their education journey.
Mr Chair, the needs of our students with SEN are varied and multifaceted and require support from the whole of community, including MOE, Government agencies and SSAs, at different stages of their journey. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shared the Government's plans to support persons with disabilities in their work and daily lives as part of this year's Budget. I will focus on our efforts during the schooling years. My MSF colleagues will touch on the support provided in the workplace and the community.
MOE's priority is to provide good education for students with SEN, whether they attend a mainstream or SPED schools. Today, about 30,000 SEN students, or four in five, attend our mainstream schools. That is, 80% of our SEN students attend mainstream schools. The remaining 8,500 – with moderate to severe SEN – receive special support in our SPED schools.
We start by ensuring that these children have a strong start in their education journey, as we do for their peers in our mainstream schools. Well before their primary school years, MOE collaborates with hospitals to guide parents and caregivers on choosing suitable school settings and support to meet their child's needs.
During the preschool years, children with developmental needs can also participate in early intervention programmes. These programmes are specifically designed to provide additional support for children in areas, such as speech and language, social skills and motor skills.
I encourage parents to tap on these avenues and work with relevant healthcare and early childhood professionals. Early engagement between parents and professionals often leads to better outcomes, allowing us to provide the right support at the earliest opportunity. By addressing these needs early, we lay a strong foundation for the future learning journey of these students.
We have put in additional resources for children with less-severe SEN and who can access the national curriculum to make a smoother transition into mainstream schools. One example is the TRANsition Support for Integration (TRANSIT), which we launched in 2021 to support schools in preparing children who may need additional support as they enter Primary 1. As of January 2025, we have implemented TRANSIT in 98% of primary schools. By 2026, we will extend TRANSIT to all primary schools.
In mainstream schools, our teachers undergo training to support our diverse learners in the classroom before they enter the teaching service. There are also around eight teachers with additional training in special needs in every primary and secondary schools.
Beyond teachers, we have grown our number of SEN officers from 450 in 2016 to nearly 750 in 2024. Today, all primary and secondary schools have SEN officers who work closely with teachers, school counsellors and parents to support the students. I want to assure Members that we are continually strengthening our support for our SEN officers by providing access to professional development opportunities to enhance their skills.
For students enrolled in SPED schools, we agree with Mr Patrick Tay on the importance of working closely with partner agencies, SSAs and families to support their diverse needs. Our priority is ensuring that students, teachers and leaders across all SPED schools have access to the same kind of developmental opportunities and support, as do their colleagues in our mainstream schools.
We can only achieve this by moving together, not as 25 separate SPED schools but as one SPED sector, so that we can maximise the potential of the SPED ecosystem and better support our SPED students. This is why we have strengthened our collaborations with the SPED sector over the years to enhance the accessibility and quality of education in our SPED schools.
Let me focus on three enhancements.
First, we will continue to raise the quality of curriculum in our SPED schools. In the past, there was no common curriculum among our SPED schools as each SSA leading their school developed their own curriculum. This resulted in diverse teaching and learning practices as well as schooling experiences for their students.
Between 2020 and 2024, we worked closely with our SPED schools to co-develop and implement seven SPED Teaching and Learning Syllabuses (TLS), giving more detailed guidance to the overarching SPED curriculum framework articulated in 2012. These syllabuses were progressively introduced across diverse domains – from visual arts to social-emotional learning as well as communication and language.
With the completion of TLS in 2024, we now have a national SPED curriculum across all SPED schools to pave the next lap of excellence in teaching and learning.
Having visited several SPED schools, I am personally encouraged by how our SPED practitioners, both educators and allied professionals, have leveraged the curriculum to deliver engaging lessons that meet the wide-ranging students' needs. I thank our educators and partners in the SPED community, who have worked tirelessly with us to develop this national SPED curriculum and encourage the broader SPED fraternity to deepen the use of these resources.
Second, we will partner with schools to better integrate digital tools in our SPED schools. Today, we have a range of technologies and applications to reduce the workload of teachers in our mainstream schools. So, for example, we have applications that facilitate communication between teachers and parents. Some of us who are parents, who are in schools today, we know that teachers will be familiar with using Parents Gateway to liaise with parents.
Our SPED schools, on the other hand, have different systems and processes to manage their administrative work because they are different organisations with different needs. There is room for greater productivity. So, for example, while teachers in mainstream schools can leverage technologies to track their students' progress and learning outcomes, some educators in our SPED schools do so manually today.
We are working with SPED schools and our SSAs to explore possible digital solutions for SPED school processes, including the potential extension of existing MOE systems to our SPED schools. We need to study this carefully though, to account for the diverse needs of our SPED students, parents as well as our SPED teachers.
For example, a parent of a child with SEN will have a significantly different admissions process and experience from a parent with a child in a mainstream school. While the process of applying to a mainstream school can be largely automated, SPED schools will need additional information from parents and professionals to better understand the child's needs. We will explore this collaboration, introduce these digital solutions and will share the outcomes when they are ready.
Third, we will work closely with our partners in the community to strengthen the collective expertise and professional creed among our SPED educators. We have worked with SSAs to progressively set up SPED Communities of Practice (COPs) as a platform for practitioners in schools, educators and SSAs to collaborate professionally. The platform will support SPED educators in keeping up with new practices in the sector and across the many sub-specialisations.
We established the inaugural SPED COP for Multiple Disabilities last October, led by Cerebral Palsy Alliance Singapore, with members from Rainbow Centre and Asian Women's Welfare Association (AWWA). Another SPED COP for Autism will be underway in the second half of 2025.
Mr Chairman, MOE's support for students with SEN does not stop at schools. We also ensure that they transition well into higher education and the workplace. An increasing number of students with SEN progress from our mainstream and SPED schools into our post-secondary education institutions, including our ITEs.
Today, ITE has a strong ecosystem in place to help students with SEN maximise their potential. These include dedicated SEN Support Officers and Education and Career Coaches as well as partners like SG Enable. To strengthen support for students with SEN to transit from classrooms to the workplace, ITE and SG Enable started a programme last year to provide them with further internship and employment support.
This was what Mr Darryl David had asked earlier. Under this programme, students with SEN undergo training in areas, such as personal grooming, resume writing and interview preparation. These students are then placed in suitable internship roles. Members would be pleased to know that ITE and SGE work very closely with participating students and employers to ensure that these internships are calibrated to meet the students' learning needs.
One student, for example, in this programme, is Joseph, a Year 2 student with autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in ITE's Higher Nitec in Retail and Online Business course. ITE helped Joseph secure an internship at the Uniqlo outlet at Waterway Point. Joseph initially had found it difficult to adjust to the work environment with high footfall and busy operations throughout the day.
To support Joseph, a job coach from TOUCH Community Services visited him weekly at the store to train him on work skills, including communication, problem solving and interpersonal skills. Very hands-on. The coaches was assigned personally to attend to students, like Joseph, during the internship experience.
He was also given opportunities by Uniqlo to learn and apply these skills around the store. Two months into the internship, Joseph had grown significantly and was awarded Best Customer Service Award by the store, just within two months of his internship. We are very pleased with that and we hope more students like Joseph will benefit from internship opportunities.
So, ITE and SGE are working closely to scale-up the programme to benefit more students. ITE will expand the internship support provided so that more students with SEN can benefit from such structured job support.
Ms Denise Phua asked about supporting continuing education for persons with disabilities. Mr Chairman, their learning needs are diverse and complex, as we all know. In addition to specialised training opportunities curated by SGE, we have been working with training providers to make mainstream training programmes more accessible to persons with disabilities. This is a work-in-progress.
More importantly, the lifelong learning ecosystem for these individuals must be well-integrated with inclusive employment models and opportunities. This is why we take a whole-of-society approach, with MSF and SGE taking the lead to support their lifelong learning journey.
Joseph's journey illustrates how an ecosystem of educators, employers, dedicated agencies and job coaches can come together to support learning, internship and employment opportunities for SEN individuals. I hope that there will be more of such stories as we work together to build an inclusive society.
Mr Chairman, beyond supporting those in need, we will also provide multiple pathways to meet the diverse aspirations of our students.
For our students at their post-secondary level, we want to equip them with work-ready skills to thrive in the future economy.
For ITE students, we have made good progress in curriculum redesign. Starting with selected courses from AY2022, ITE introduced a new enhanced three-year curricular structure leading directly to a Higher Nitec certification. This curricular redesign streamlined the two-year Nitec plus the two-year Higher Nitec structure, providing a more integrated pathway to equip our ITE students with deeper skills and a robust foundation for future skills upgrading. Around 15,000 students have benefited thus far. The first cohort graduates this July and has enjoyed the rigorous curriculum and extended industry attachments. We hope they will enter the workforce empowered with a renewed sense of confidence. More students can look forward to these experiences, as ITE transitions all remaining courses to the enhanced structure next year.
Our support for ITE students also continues after they graduate. Last year, we introduced the ITE Progression Award (IPA), which provides young ITE graduates with a total of $15,000 to upskill to a diploma earlier in their careers. We recognise that many ITE graduates aspire to upgrade their qualifications with higher level skills and can benefit from financial support to defray education costs and boost their savings. I am pleased to share that by end March, we would have awarded around $90 million to support the upgrading journeys of about 12,000 ITE graduates who enrolled in or completed their diplomas in 2024. I congratulate all of our 12,000 ITE graduates who have benefited from the IPA.
To support our ITE graduates' different upskilling needs, we will extend the IPA to those who are upskilling via diplomas offered under the Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) from 1 June this year. This means that the IPA will be extended to more courses beyond those offered by ITE and the polytechnics.
These WSQ diplomas are aligned to the Skills Framework and allow individuals to acquire skills and credentials to access good jobs. With this expansion, more than 30 diploma programmes will be eligible for the IPA, on top of the 300 eligible programmes that we already have today.
Let me move on now to polytechnic students.
Mr Chairman, for polytechnic students, we piloted new ways of learning, such as flexible curriculum workloads for students and short-term work attachments. Over 1,000 students have participated in these pilots, with nine in 10 reporting that these programmes have helped them. Learning from the pilots, all our polytechnics will allow all students to customise their curriculum load. We will also work with institutions to provide students with a range of industry exposure opportunities earlier.
Beyond these efforts, we will encourage our polytechnic students to explore their interests and develop skills along the way through CEPs. Under the CEP, students can explore different specialisations within a sector through a common semester, before deciding on a diploma of their choice.
Dr Wan Rizal would be happy to know that since its launch in 2017, the number of CEPs has increased over four times to 25 today. They collectively provide access to 75% of all diplomas. While students can still choose specialised diplomas directly, the number of students entering CEPs has also increased to 25% of each polytechnic cohort, up from 10% in 2017.
We will continue to work with our institutions to innovate and provide space for students to broaden their exposure and competencies.
From AY2025, all schools in Republic Polytechnic (RP) will offer a broad-based diploma option for students. They will cater to students who desire to both engage in multidisciplinary learning within their cluster and gain specialised skills through a selected major. For example, rather than specialising in a specific domain of engineering, such as aviation or robotics, students can choose to enter the Diploma in Engineering.
While of the same duration as other diplomas, which is three years, this diploma provides broad-based training in essential skills related to the engineering sector like design, programming and data analysis, allowing students to major in Innovation and Design, Project Management and Sustainable Technology, depending on their interests. After graduating, students will have the flexibility to take on a wider range of jobs across different engineering domains. In this case, students will also have the option to pursue minors to broaden their knowledge or deepen their expertise in their respective disciplines. So, we hope the RP experience will spur other polytechnics to also consider new opportunities for their respective students.
Mr Chairman, allow me to very quickly continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Chairman, after 60 years of Independence, we continue to invest in the education of Singaporeans. We will continue to work hard to support the diverse aspirations of students, strengthen support for students with different needs and enhance post-secondary education pathways. With Singapore's rapidly changing economic landscape, Singaporeans need to be constantly ready to upgrade themselves with new skills to remain relevant in the working world – by embodying lifelong learning in themselves and their lives.
We are deeply concerned and understand the challenges faced by families with children who have special needs. Their journey is difficult, but they remain steadfast in facing the demands of raising their children. We will strengthen our support for students with SEN and their families. We will work closely with the social services agencies and other agencies to enhance curriculum support for students as well as strengthen professional development for educators in SPED schools.
We also recognise the importance of deepening students' interest in their mother tongue languages. With the revised eligibility criteria for Higher Mother Tongue Language in secondary schools, students who excel in Malay Language can take Higher Malay Language, regardless of their overall academic performance. This will also expose them to a variety of literary texts and complex issues, to deepen their appreciation towards Malay culture and expand their worldview. We will continue to provide specialised programmes to strengthen our students’ proficiency of the Malay Language, to develop future stewards of Malay language and culture.
We will also provide multiple pathways to meet the diverse aspirations of our students, and look forward to more students benefiting from the transition of all ITE courses to the newly enhanced three-year ITE curricular structure by Academic Year 2026. To provide opportunities for more ITE graduates to upskill via a diploma, we will extend the IPA to diploma courses offered under the Singapore WSQ. We hope more of our graduates can make skills upgrading a theme in their lifelong learning journey.
(In English): Mr Chairman, to conclude, MOE is committed to ensuring that all children, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to reach their fullest potential, with great care and attention, and in partnership with parents and teachers, and our fellow Singaporeans. We will ensure that the seeds we plant in our education system today grow into a thriving Singapore for generations to come.
The Chairman: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.
The Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Chairman, our nation's SkillsFuture story started in 2015. Our aim was to help Singaporeans develop to their fullest potential throughout life and also to build a fair and inclusive society.
In the same year, we introduced the SkillsFuture Credit Scheme, giving $500 to Singaporeans, to empower adults to continue to learn, upskill and reskill, whether in their early career, mid-career or silver years. Singaporeans use the Credit to improve their employment prospects or simply to pursue their interests and acquire skills to lead more fulfilling lives.
In 2020, we embarked on the Next Bound of SkillsFuture to strengthen enterprise ownership of upskilling. It is challenging but necessary to strengthen the link between individual upskilling, employment outcomes and business competitiveness. We stepped up efforts to support employers in building up workplace learning and capabilities in upskilling their workers. We also pioneered the SkillsFuture Queen Bees.
This marked a key shift to engage industry leaders as queen bees to uplift their sectors with skills advisory and training support for companies. Today, SSG has appointed 37 SkillsFuture Queen Bees in 14 sectors, benefiting 5,300 companies in these sectors. ST Engineering Land Systems Ltd is the latest appointed SkillsFuture Queen Bee, supporting the precision engineering sector. It will work with National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Company Training Committee, allowing companies in precision engineering to also benefit from NTUC's expertise and resources.
This deliberate shift in focus has seen results. The number of employers participating in training supported by SSG has doubled from around 12,000 in 2018 to more than 24,000 in 2024 and the majority are SMEs. In the last three years, SSG disbursed about $440 million annually in course fee subsidies. More than 40% of the subsidies went to trainees who were sponsored by their companies. Companies that sponsored workers for training also saw positive returns in productivity, as seen in a Ministry of Trade and Industry study in 2021.
In line with these efforts, the Government has been stepping up expenditure on CET, from $0.5 billion in 2015, to more than $1 billion in 2024. With the investments, we significantly enhanced our landscape of industry-relevant training programmes, catering to training needs for adults across different ages, professions and sectors, and we have helped more individuals and employers access such training through enhanced subsidies, especially for mid-careerists and SMEs.
While the training participation rate of the resident labour force fell, we saw an increase in the number of employees sponsored by their companies for SSG-supported training programmes. In 2024, more than 550,000 individuals, and that is about one-fifth of our local workforce, took up training with subsidies from SSG, about a 7% increase compared to 2023.
Ms Foo Mee Har suggested that we target funding at programmes with stronger employment outcomes. We fully agree with that. In fact, SSG has already moved in this direction. From this year, the highest level of SSG's funding is given only to courses that deliver strong manpower outcomes, such as the SkillsFuture Work-Study Programmes which combine classroom learning with structured on-the-job training.
Today, SkillsFuture has become one of the key pillars of our refreshed social compact. The success of the SkillsFuture movement must ultimately be measured by whether Singaporeans have the confidence and competence to seize emerging opportunities in life and also whether enterprises can find skilled workers among the local workforce to capture new business opportunities. To this end, we must continue to strengthen the key partnerships between employers, individuals and training providers. They are the cornerstone of the SkillsFuture movement.
Let me highlight the priorities for SkillsFuture going forward.
First, deepening the involvement of employers in skills development and training must remain a key priority. Employers complement the Government in skills investment and create enabling conditions to support workers' upskilling. They help inform individuals' training decisions when they identify their skills needs and articulate them. Employers can also create greater confidence for workers when they recognise the skills and competencies attained.
We will double down on our current suite of support measures in helping employers and enterprises, especially SMEs, take relevant skills action. For example, by providing jobs and skills insights, online resources and tools as well as substantial support to defray training and other workforce development costs such as generous SSG's course fee subsidies at up to 90% for SMEs, a fresh $10,000 SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit from second half of 2026, which will be enhanced to allow out-of-pocket costs to be offset upfront and corporate tax deduction for eligible training that has been enhanced from 100% to 400%, up to $400,000 per year, under the Enterprise Innovation Scheme.
We cannot achieve this alone and will require the partnerships of our sector intermediaries. For example, we are piloting Jobs-Skills Integrators in the precision engineering, retail and wholesale trade sectors that have higher concentrations of SMEs and mature workers. Job-Skills Integrators (JSITs) play a critical role in identifying jobs and skills needs in the sector, connecting employers with appropriate solutions.
Skechers Singapore is a company that has benefited from this pilot. Working with JSIT-Retail, led by the Singapore National Employers Federation, in partnership with the NTUC and WSG, Skechers implemented redesigned job roles and training, to streamline and automate its inventory tracking and goods retrieval system. Skechers successfully achieve a higher productivity operating model and upskilled its workers to take on higher-value roles such as data analysis and route planning.
Encouraging employers to adopt skills-first HR practices will be a key next bound focus. To support that, WSG and SSG have launched Career Health SG, which seeks to equip employers with tools and resources to support skills-first hiring and develop their workforce. More details on the initiative will be progressively rolled out in this year.
Next, maximising individuals' potential. Career Health SG also signals a key shift to bridge careers and skills. Through the initiative, we hope to empower individuals to plan their careers and chart their careers and skills journey. More details on the Career Health SG will be covered in the MOM COS segment today.
To support individuals taking ownership, we have expanded opportunities in upskilling. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked whether entry criteria to certain local universities could be eased to take in all students as long as they meet the absolute entry criteria.
I want to say that since the expansion of the Lifetime Cohort Participation Rate from 2023, we have seen more students admitted to our AUs. This means that more Singaporeans have the opportunity to take up significant training, not just at 18 years old but throughout their lives. Our approach is not to perpetuate a paper chase. Rather, our approach is to support purposeful, timely attainment of relevant knowledge and skills, with the qualification serving to reflect the mastery attained.
We remain committed to providing opportunities to realise the diverse strengths and aspirations of our students, while keeping in mind the needs of our economy and employers' confidence in the quality of our graduates.
We have significantly enhanced training support for mid-career Singaporeans aged 40 and above, who are at higher risk of skills obsolescence. Since launching the SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up of $4,000 in May 2024, I am heartened to see that more than 28,000 Singaporeans have tapped on the $4,000 top-up. To ensure that the Credit utilisation ultimately supports meaningful careers as pointed out by Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Mariam Jaafar, we have curated over 7,000 courses with stronger employability outcomes, including market-recognised full qualifications and their stackable micro-credential constituents offered by the IHLs and SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme (SCTP) courses and so on.
SSG will work with sector agencies, industry and training providers to provide these courses and to refresh them regularly. This is to ensure that the courses are of high quality and can support economic and manpower needs.
Mr Song Wentao who is 56 this year is one beneficiary of the SkillsFuture (Mid-Career) top-up. After 30 years in the defence and maritime industries, Mr Song's role was unfortunately made redundant during the COVID-19 pandemic. He saw the potential to make a meaningful career switch, choosing the healthcare sector. He took up a five-month SCTP in Therapy Support at the HMI Institute. After receiving 90% course fee subsidies, he fully offset the remaining out-of-pocket fees of $1,300 using the $4,000 SkillsFuture (Mid-Career). Mr Song graduated from the course in September last year and is now working as a Therapy Assistant at St Andrew's Community Hospital where he finds meaning in supporting elderly stroke patients in their rehabilitation journey.
From next Monday onwards, mid-career Singaporeans who pursue full-time training like Mr Song can apply for the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance. The training allowance is sized at 50% of their average salary over the latest 12-month period and the payout will range from $300 to $3,000 per month.
From next year, we will further extend the training allowance to selected part-time training, fixed at $300 per month. Eligible part-time programmes will include part-time SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme and part-time full qualifications and the stackable micro-credentials constituents offered by our IHLs. More details will be shared later. Individuals can receive training allowance for a maximum of 24 months, regardless of full-time or part-time training.
On Dr Wan Rizal's question on support for lower-wage workers' training, MOM will enhance the Workfare's Skills Support to provide a similar monthly training allowance to lower-wage workers aged 30 and above who pursue long form full-time or part-time training.
These support measures I have mentioned also apply to freelancers that Ms See Jinli Jean asked about. Freelancers aged 40 and above could use the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit to offset their out-of-pocket training fees and also apply for the training allowance when pursuing training full-time or part-time training.
Finally, SkillsFuture requires the support of the Training and Adult Education sector that provides the crucial last-mile delivery of training to our adult learners.
Mr Patrick Tay suggested consolidating the CET ecosystem to break down programme silos. Today, we have taken a market-driven approach, allowing diverse training providers – IHLs, accredited CET Centres and private training providers – to provide training.\tThis has helped to expand CET capacity and enabled the CET system to be responsive to diverse and evolving needs of different sectors and CET learners.
On the Members' suggestions to streamline programme offerings where needed and strengthen course accreditation, SSG has stepped up its quality assurance framework, to regularly prune the CET system of poorer-performing courses and training providers. We are also continually improving our sign-posting of training opportunities for both individuals and employers, so that they may better navigate the ecosystem.
Just as important, we must push for higher quality and professional standards within the Training and Adult Education sector.
Today, the Institute for Adult Learning supports adult educators through training courses to keep their skills current with industry developments and professional development programmes. Going forward, we will also explore new ways to support adult educators and professionalise the Training and Adult Education sector. These are currently being studied and we hope to share more soon.
Before I conclude, I would like to quote our former Deputy Prime Minister Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who first spoke on SkillsFuture in 2014. He said: \"We must be a place where everyone has the opportunity to build on their strengths, developing the skills that enable them to maximise their potential, earn their own success and contribute to society. It's about respecting the innate dignity of every citizen – the sense of fulfilment that comes from playing their full role and being valued for their contributions to society. It is the way we create a truly inclusive society.\"
Mr Tharman's vision of SkillsFuture remains relevant today. To realise the SkillsFuture vision, we must build strong partnerships with employers, unions, training providers and empower individuals to make informed choices on lifelong learning. The Government will play an enabling and integrator role. Together, we can help every Singaporean realise their potential and enable businesses to thrive, even in an age of disruptions.
The Chairman: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong): Mr Chairman, I thank fellow Members for their passion towards students' development. Ms Denise Phua spoke about students' health habits and Mr Gerald Giam called for sporting opportunities for all. Our students experience diverse sports in Physical Education (PE) lessons, exploring which sport best spurs their passion. This will drive them to pursue it and keep active throughout life. Most schools also work with SportSG to offer the Sports Education Programme to further increase quality sports programmes for our students.
CCAs remain key platforms where students discover their interests and talents and develop strong character. Today, nearly 40% of our students are in sports CCAs. To better cater to student interest, most primary schools do not conduct CCA selection trials.
While schools seek to provide a good range of CCA options to cater to students' varied interests, a lack of critical mass may prevent them from providing more CCAs. For example, Suresh Amirthanathan Tharshika, a Secondary 2 student from Broadrick Secondary School, was talent-spotted by her PE teacher after a school race. However, her school did not offer Athletics CCA.
This is why students like Tharshika welcome the Strategic Partnership CCA (SP-CCA). Since 2019, MOE has partnered with MCCY to pilot centralised, non-school-based CCAs, with Athletics and Water Polo as the first two sports. SP-CCA widens the choice of CCA for students beyond what is offered by their secondary schools. Under the guidance of coaches from the SP-CCA, she will be participating in her first National School Games Track and Field Championships this year.
Micah Choo is a student from Pasir Ris Secondary School. After two years in the SP-CCA Water Polo programme team, he grew in leadership skills and is now one of the CCA leaders. Micah met teammates like John Chia from Bukit View Secondary School and Zacharia Teng from Fairfield Methodist Secondary School. Although from different schools, these boys forged strong friendships beyond the pool. When Micah struggled with Mathematics, John helped him. Micah did the same for John with Humanities. Micah's story highlights how SP-CCA provides opportunities to cultivate values and life skills and promotes friendships with peers from different backgrounds.
I am pleased to share with Members that MOE, together with MCCY, will be expanding the number of sports offered under SP-CCA. We will include canoeing this year and will offer hockey in 2026.
Mr Chairman, providing opportunities is important. Finding the right coaches and instructors for CCA is just as critical. They play a significant role in students' development. Mr Edward Chia raised a point on procurement for coaches. The Government Electronic Business portal (GeBIZ), allows all instructors the opportunity to bid fairly for CCA services. MOE has been working closely with the NICA to address some of the issues raised by the Member and will continue to do so.
Miss Rachel Ong and Ms Denise Phua highlighted their concerns over students' mental health. Today, the impact of excessive and inappropriate social media use on children and adolescents' mental health is a widespread concern. Schools play a key role equipping every child with competencies to grow to be the best version of themselves – be it in their relationships, educational pursuits, or in the digital world.
The Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum has emphasis on Mental Health and Cyber Wellness. For example, students learn self-regulation techniques, interpersonal skills and problem-solving strategies. They learn to maintain a healthy balance of online and offline activities.
For younger students, we encourage tighter screen controls. There are also initiatives, such as the annual Safer Internet Day, to promote screen-free time. Schools appoint dedicated personnel to oversee cyber-related issues. And when the need arises, schools connect students with counselling or mental health professionals.
Parents play a critical role in their child's well-being, complementing efforts in school. But not all parents may be aware of their children's difficulties. The Media Literacy Council and TOUCH Community Services polled parents in 2022 and found that 38% of parents with children aged between seven and 17 struggled to get their child to share about their online activities.
Hence, the Parenting for Wellness Initiative was developed by MOE, MSF and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) under the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy to empower parents to, firstly, build strong parent-child relationships; two, support their child's mental health and emotional resilience; and three, parent effectively in the digital age.
Dr Wan Rizal asked for updates on Parenting for Wellness. To date, there are three different resources catering to parents with different needs. First, the Toolbox for Parents is a digital resource comprising bite-sized, just-in-time actionable strategies. This is suitable for busy parents. Second, parents who prefer more personalised support may log onto the Parenting for Wellness website on Health Hub. Third, the Conversation Card Deck helps parents and their children to have good conversations and deepen their mutual understanding. Copies are available via the schools' Parent Support Groups.
Parents appreciate Parenting for Wellness for its practicality, comprehensiveness and relevance. MOE's Student Welfare Officers also found the Parenting for Wellness resources beneficial. They are keen to use it in their work with families to support needy students. I would like to use this particular opportunity to call on more parents and professionals to join us in using the Parenting for Wellness resources to support our child's well-being and growth.
Collaborations across the Government, community and industry partners are essential to support our children's mental wellness. Miss Rachel Ong would be pleased to know that MOE is also working with Ministry of Digital Development and Information to address excessive social media usage upstream. We are developing a Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media Use which also provides recommendations on mitigating measures.
Students in mainstream and SPED schools learn to appreciate the importance of an active and healthy lifestyle through PE. In January, the Ministry of Health (MOH), MOE and MSF launched Grow Well SG, starting with mainstream primary schools. This is a new national health promotion strategy to enhance preventive care and inculcate healthier lifestyles. This includes cultivating good nutrition, exercise, device use and sleep habits. To Ms Denise Phua, these efforts lay the foundational habits for students to sustain a healthy, active lifestyle after they graduate.
Mr Ong Hua Han raised the issue of financial literacy. MOE has incorporated financial literacy into the school curriculum. Taught through a developmentally-appropriate approach, it includes areas, such as Buy-Now-Pay-Later schemes and CPF. Schools also work with partners, such as MoneySENSE and financial institutions, to offer financial literacy programmes.
Mr Chairman, MOE will continue to work collectively with our partners to provide all our students the opportunities to develop their strengths and talents, catered to their needs, regardless of their start points in life.
The Chairman: Our guillotine time is 5.20 pm. Any clarifications? Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Sir, I have two clarifications: one for Minister Chan Chun Sing and one for Minister of State Gan Siow Huang. Firstly, Minister Chan, there has been numerous feedback. I have met people like Ms Pooja from EveryChild.SG, who has feedback on one key systemic change to have smaller class sizes of 25 or fewer for children in primary school. Has MOE done a study and assess what is the ideal best class size to achieve maximum education outcomes?
The second clarification for Minister of State Gan is in relation to the skills-based hiring. How does MOE as well as SkillsFuture Singapore intend to nudge more employers, especially to implement skills-based hiring and employment practices? Because that is a vicious cycle. You need to get them on board to recognise that.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Chair, it has often been suggested that MOE should reduce class sizes and we take this very seriously. This is often a proposed solution, but I thought it is important for us to bear in mind what problems we are trying to solve first. And what class size should we aim for – 30, 20, 10? And, if so, why? Let us examine the issue more closely.
Is our problem statement the need to improve teacher-student interaction or is our problem statement to reduce teachers' workload, or is it because we believe that smaller is better, regardless of the subject being taught or the teachers' quality?
Chair, I think we all agree. We all want to reduce the workload for our teachers. But with a finite teaching force and a certain number of students, do we mean to ask our teachers to teach smaller classes but more classes? Or do we mean that we should employ more teachers, perhaps doubling our teaching force to halve all class sizes? Is that feasible without affecting quality? Is that the best way to use our teaching resources, even if we assume we can double our recruitment from broadly what is now about 2% of every cohort to 4% of every cohort?
Or do we mean for our teachers to teach less? We have benchmarked our curriculum with other developed countries. We are already teaching just similar amounts, or sometimes less, compared to others. And we often hear calls for MOE to include more in our curriculum, including from many Members today in your speeches, to have more life skills, future skills, soft skills, to prepare our students better for life.
So, Chair, maybe I should explain. Today, we do not have fixed teaching class sizes in all our schools. We allocate our finite teaching resources according to the needs of our students, complemented by technology. Most form classes have two form teachers to guide the socio-emotional development of our children, compared to one in the past when we were in school. Students with higher needs have smaller teaching class size. Classes that benefit from students' interaction have bigger class sizes. For classes that we can use technology to scale, we have even \"bigger class sizes\" in the hundreds and yet achieve mass customisation.
So, Chair, indeed, we want to refocus our teachers' energies to not over protect students or over support training. Instead, we want our students to exercise agency in organising activities and take more responsibilities for their learning. And in this way, they learn more for life.
Chair, we share the goals for more personalised teaching, more personal attention for every student and more focused work for our teachers. I think we can all agree on that. Indeed, I am one for aspiring to organise our teaching resources to achieve the effective class size of one, where we need but not regardless of need. An effective class size of one, where we need, but not regardless of need.
Let us focus the discussion on how we can achieve this through the following ways: (a) the way we focus our teachers' effort in doing what is necessary for our students and not overdoing things; (b) the way we use technology to complement our teachers' capabilities to scale up quality resources at affordable cost; (c) the way we equip our teachers to do their best for our students; (d) the way we teach our students to exercise agency and responsibility in their learning journeys; and (e) the way we partner our teachers to set the right expectations for ourselves and our teachers.
For Members who are interested, Members may also wish to refer to independent studies by OECD on the various factors that are perhaps more important than class size in determining the quality of our teaching and learning.
Ms Gan Siow Huang: Mr Patrick Tay asked how he can nudge more employers to take on skills-based hiring and employment practices. I think we need to understand the \"why\" and the \"how\" for the employers. Why would they want to do it? We know that Singapore has a very tight labour market. It is quite common to hear the feedback that employers are unable to find suitably skilled or the number of workers to fill the jobs' needs.
We are working with the trade associations and also with employers to help them see how, by going for skills-based hiring, by breaking down the skills, analysing the skills that they really need, instead of just broadly stating, \"Oh, I need a university degree. I need a diploma in that\", which are very broad and maybe not very sharp in defining the skills that they really need. By taking on skills-based hiring, employers can better find employees that meet their business needs and make the business more competitive. So, the \"why\" is something that we are working on.
The Career Health SG that I mentioned earlier on, something that WSG and SSG are working on to get more employers on board, is an exciting development. It is not going to be an easy feat. Indeed, a lot of effort needs to be put in to help employers see the benefits of this programme.
The other thing that I want to bring up would be leveraging Queen Bees, for example, and also the skills development partners. An example is the Singapore Computer Society. Singapore Computer Society, together with SSG, launched the skills pathway for cybersecurity last year. And this presented a clearer pathway for individuals to enter the cybersecurity field and also for existing cybersecurity professionals to understand what kind of skills and training that they have to go for if they want to advance further in their careers. And individuals who go for such training are being recognised by employers.
I think this type of collaboration is helpful to get employers to see the benefits of skills-based hiring. Not to forget, of course, HR. HR is another group that we need to develop for them to be able to support the employers and co-workers in understanding the benefits and operationalising skills-based hiring. So, there are lots of work that we need to do in addition to the very long list of things I mentioned in my speech earlier on on how we can support employers to take on skills-based hiring.
The Chairman: We do not have much time left. Ms Denise Phua, make it short, so that I can squeeze one or two more in, if possible.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Sir, through-train school models from primary to secondary school levels are not new concepts and if run well, can be successful. So, I accept that Singapore's starting point and our culture are different. And I know MOE had mulled over my suggestion. But with due respect to the Minister, what is it about Singapore that a through-train school model, without PSLE – we have such good features like Full Subject-Based Banding and regular assessments already – cannot be adapted or adopted and scaled in Singapore? What is so special about us that we cannot do this so that we can free up more time for the development of the 21st century skills that MOE proposes?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Chair, we thank Ms Denise Phua and various Members for your well-intentioned suggestions. Let me assure Members that MOE is open to considering new ideas. In fact, we constantly challenge ourselves to relook our own assumptions and come up with and consider new ideas, whether they are from our fraternity of educators, Members of this House, members of the public or experiences of other countries. But our approach must first correctly define the problem before we go into solutioning.
The through-train proposal from primary to secondary school idea, as Ms Denise Phua said, is not new. Other countries have variations of it, with varying outcomes depending on their goals. And one can even make the argument that the affiliated schools in Singapore are a variant of this idea.
The question is, what goals do we want to achieve in making this change? Is it to reduce stress? Is it to remove high-stakes examinations for young children? Is it to free up space and time for students to pursue other dimensions of growth as Ms Denise Phua mentioned? Is it inclusiveness, so that our students experience the richness of the Singaporean community? Is it to promote more social mixing in our schools? Or is it all the above and more?
Then, we should ask ourselves: will a through-train achieve all this and what are the more fundamental issues that we have to grapple with?
For example, stress. Are we stressed because we cannot meet the standards we set for ourselves and our children, or are we stressed because we want to keep up with others in a rat race? And will the proposal solve this problem? Would we end up shifting the competition for our preferred secondary school earlier to a preferred primary school through, say, a Primary 1 registration contest or even a preschool leaving examination?
And if we continue to see examinations as a competition for preferred schools instead of right-siting our students for the next segment of their learning journey, then will removing PSLE alone solve the problem or will it concentrate the stakes at a even higher level, at the \"O\" level and \"A\" level stages?
And if we do not post students to schools appropriate for their learning needs, how will we make better use of our finite resources to achieve the best holistic outcomes for different students? And if we remove one major examination but our mindsets do not change, will we gain more time and space for the diverse skill sets that we wish for our children, as I have shared in my story earlier during my speech?
On the other hand, if we can truly change our mindsets to respect and pursue diverse strengths, then do we still need to focus narrowly on having or removing a single examination? In fact, today, we have already assured all of our children that regardless of the outcome in any particular examination, the pathways are porous enough for you to pivot into areas that you find your passion in subsequently in life. This goes even beyond our school system. If our society recognises and reward diverse skill sets, will we still pursue a narrow definition of success indicated by a PSLE or \"O\" level score?
As previously mentioned, the operational issues that we need to step through are not trivial. Who gets to go into a through-train programme? Who gets to decide whether a person can stay in a through-train programme? Who gets to go in, who gets to go out? So, there are things that we need to step through and I thank Members for their support for the Ministry's work.
But let me say this. No system is perfect in meeting everyone's desires and needs, but we try our best to provide every child with education options that meets his or her needs. Today, I would like to share a slogan that is close to my heart, and this is called, \"For every child, a good school. At every age, a good learner.\"
\"For every child, a good school\", means that we do not need to go and chase after what other people desire as a popular school, but instead we put our children at the centre of all that we do and consider our children's needs and what is most appropriate for his or her learning needs. That is why to me, \"For every child, a good school.\"
\"At every age, a good learner\", to go beyond just the first 15 years. This is why we have embarked on multiple pathways of success. This is why we have gone on a porous and continuous meritocracy, where everyone can pivot and pursue different options as they progress in life without being defined by the stakes of one high-stake examination.
This is why we are reducing examination load with \"Learn More, Test Less\". This is why we have just announced what we did for the L1R5 to L1R4. This is also why we group students according to their abilities and interest in different domains at different stages of their learning journey, like Full SBB, so that we do not teach to a child's average ability or a class' average abilities.
This is why we continue to have social mixing to bring together children from different backgrounds in the same class, so that they learn to work with people from different backgrounds. This is also why we have a more open Primary 1 registration process, where we balance the building of a school culture and tradition with the egalitarian ethos and culture of being non-exclusive that we so cherish as Singaporeans.
This is why we are adopting edtech to customise teaching and learning, so that we can transcend \"teaching to the average\" and achieve the effective class size of one, overcoming the conventional public education trilemma of achieving quality, scale and affordability at the same time. And I think we can do that because today, with the science of learning, the technology and the data that we have, we have the best chance in the history of the education profession to break this trilemma.
So, Chair, we appreciate the Members' concerns for and have our children's interest at heart. And we will continue to review our policies and programmes to better equip our students. And I call on Members of this House to join us in this journey to change our mindsets as we evolve our policies and programmes.
I do not believe that we cannot change our mindsets. Read my speech at the MOE x NIE x IPS seminar. Our society's mindset and our culture has evolved. We can do it and we need these two to move in tandem, changing structures and processes with the changing of cultures and mindsets —
The Chairman: Minister Chan, you may want to round up your closing.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Okay, I am done.
The Chairman: Great. I am sorry, Mr Darryl David. I know you raised four cuts. I was going to give you some time but we have run out of time. So, can I invite Mr Patrick Tay, if you would like to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Sir, I would like to thank Minister Chan Chun Sing, Minister Maliki, Minister of State Gan Siow Huang and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang as well as the MOE team, Permanent Secretaries Lim Wan Yong and Augustin Lee, as well as Director-General of Education Liew Wei Li and the entire team, as well as our staff, teachers, educators and our entire training, CET and education ecosystem for helping us navigate through the past many decades and moving forward to the next bound of education. With that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $14,647,939,200 for Head K stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $852,000,000 for Head K stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head S (Ministry of Manpower) ","subTitle":"An open and resilient economy, with diverse pathways and opportunities for all","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head S, the Ministry of Manpower. Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Chairman, I move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head S of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
Over the current term of Government, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has undertaken bold reforms to steer our workforce from crisis to recovery, from downturn to growth.
We introduced the Complementarity Assessment (COMPASS) framework to ensure foreign talent complements and never displaces our Singaporean core. We legislated the world's first Platform Workers Act to protect more than 70,000 workers who have been under-protected for too long. And we championed workplace fairness and flexible work arrangements (FWAs), because a progressive workforce is a competitive workforce. These are, but some of the many policies that the Ministry have introduced to do right by our workers and ensure that #EveryWorkerMatters.
As this Parliamentary term nears its close, can the Minister share: (a) have our policies strengthened retirement adequacy; (b) have they elevated the quality of our workforce; and (c) have they built more inclusive, progressive workplaces?
Next, let me turn to a central problem of this generation and beyond. Singapore's workforce is ageing. The proportion of seniors in our workforce has risen from 12.3% in 2014 to 16.9% in 2024. Our old-age support ratio has worsened from 6:1 in 2014 to 3.5:1 today; and by 2030, it will drop to 2.7:1. These numbers are not just statistics. They tell a story of impending workforce shortages, rising tax burdens on younger Singaporeans and economic stagnation if we do nothing now.
We must act decisively. First, we must tap into the untapped. Senior workforce participation in Singapore stands at 72.6%, trailing behind cities like Stockholm and Tokyo. There is room to grow. If we can raise this figure, we can mitigate the labour shortfall and sustain our economic dynamism.
To do so, first, we must reimagine jobs for seniors. Many leave the workforce not because they want to, but because they can no longer meet physical demands or find suitable alternatives. We need to accelerate job redesign, incorporating assistive technologies, like exoskeletons for labour-intensive roles. There are already healthcare institutions worldwide introducing exoskeletons for healthcare assistants. We must adopt such innovations widely. Singapore can, and should, become a hub for such innovations. We can turn our vulnerability into our strength, as we have done for water.
Second, we must provide tailored support for senior jobseekers. We have done well to develop a robust training and placement capability in Singapore. The next bound of this development would be to have one-stop dedicated training and jobs placement centres for our senior workers. We can establish these centres around the nation and there are good reasons to do so.
Senior workers have quite different priorities. While earning an income is clearly still important, many of them want to balance other life and care needs. Many of them have been in the same jobs or functions for most of their working lives. They might not know how to manoeuvre to adjacent industries. Our colleagues from the Centre for Seniors have also shared that senior jobseekers do need more handholding and dedicated support.
Third, unlike younger workers who very adept at searching for jobs online, seniors need dedicated retraining pathways and placement services. The National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) has already facilitated success stories like Mr Tay, a retrenched chief operations officer, who transitioned into the healthcare sector. We need more of such successes and we need them at scale.
Finally, we must foster age-inclusive workplaces. The newly-announced Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment must tackle not just skills redundancy, but also workplace cultural shifts. Senior-friendly human resource policies should be the norm, not the exception. NTUC will support such important work.
Next, we will also need to do more to improve our female workforce participation rates, if we are to solve our ageing workforce challenge. Already debated extensively in this House, improving our health caregiving support is critical to helping our women workers to stay in or return to the workforce.
Our women still carry the bulk of the caregiving load. Having a good caregiving infrastructure, including more generous childcare leave, is the foundation stone to improve our female labour force participation rates. We have introduced many forms of subsidies but subsidies cannot replace the need for our women workers to care for their children when they are sick and need help.
I believe strongly, too, that having more women in senior and middle ranks would also improve our female labour force participation rates. It would introduce new leadership styles, ample examples for younger women to follow and change our workplaces to play to the strengths of our women workers. It can introduce new ways to think and support women in their careers, especially when we need to change age-old workplace practices, probably set in place by men.
In fact, quite aptly put across by President Obama of the United States (US) in 2019 and delivered in Singapore, and I quote him, \"Now women, I just want you to know, you are not perfect. But what I can say pretty indisputably is that you're better than us men. I'm absolutely confident that for two years, if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything…living standards and outcomes.\"
Over my career, I have had the opportunity to work for many female leaders, all of whom I hold in high regard. From the Singapore Police Force to the private sector and the NTUC, I had worked for female leaders who played an indispensable role in shaping my career. They have different leadership styles, adding to and enriching the prevailing male-dominated leadership models.
Unfortunately, I was somewhat the exception rather than the norm. Many of our counterparts do not have such opportunities to work for that many female bosses. We still have too few women at the senior management levels. The truth is also that Singapore has demonstrated measurable progress in having more women across corporate leadership structures over the past decade.
The share of females in the resident labour force has increased to 47.6% over the past decade. In 2023, the adjusted gender pay gap in Singapore narrowed to 6%. The proportion of residents outside the workforce due to familial obligations dropped to 21.5% in 2024.
As of 2024, women occupy 42% of senior management roles in mid-market businesses. The proportion of women on boards for the top 100 Singapore Exchange-listed firms reached 25.1% by December 2024, surpassing the interim target of 25% set for 2025 by the Council for Board Diversity. This triples the 7.5% recorded in 2013 and exceeds the global average of 23.3%. Our Statutory Boards do even better. They have 34.2% female representation while our Institutions of a Public Character reported 31.5%.
Despite these gains, sectoral imbalances persist. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) industries lag significantly, with women holding only 14.5% of C-suite positions in medium-sized firms. Financial services show stronger performance. One good example is DBS Bank, where women constitute 40% of senior management, nearly double the 2021 industry average of 24.5%. However, in Singapore, at the CEO level, only 9% of Singaporean companies have female CEOs as of 2024, lagging behind even our Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) peers, who clock in at 21%.
Human resources (HR) remains the most gender-balanced function, with 41% of HR director roles held by women, whereas operational and technical leadership roles show slower diversification.
We have clearly made progress but we need to move even faster. Gender equality in our workplaces is no longer a moral imperative, but also an economic imperative in Singapore's case. Empowering our women and ensuring equity in compensation are all vital factors in building a productive and sustainable workforce.
At current growth rates, gender parity in senior management will not materialise before 2050s. Accelerating progress requires a multi-pronged approach from various stakeholders. Could the Ministry share its current initiatives to promote gender equality at the workplace?
I have a few suggestions for the Ministry to consider to improve our female workforce participation rates.
First, it might be worthwhile for us to consider following the Norwegian way – mandating a 40% quota for women on company boards. I have spoken to quite a few female leaders and I understand the misgivings about quotas. Our female counterparts want women to be in those positions due to their own merits. However, having a quota does not mean being appointed is not by merits. I think there are many meritorious women who did not get their chances because companies do not look hard enough. European Union (EU)-mandated 40% female board representation by 2026 has already increased women's share of board seats in France from 22% to 46%. It can work.
Second, we need to address the \"broken rung\". Women are 21% less likely than men to receive their first managerial promotion. This creates a “broken rung” in the leadership pipeline. To address this, we need to have companies to audit promotion metrics to identify and remedy disparities in promotion rates between the genders. Today, this is not widely practised.
Third, we need to seed and incentivise companies to introduce returnship programmes. Many women leave the workforce for caregiving needs and never return because of skills and experience gaps. We need to normalise career breaks through targeted recruitment messaging that values lived experience over linear career paths. For example, Goldman Sachs' returnship programme explicitly welcomes applicants with more than two years away from work, reframing gaps as periods of skill diversification.
The Government can provide incentives for returnships for companies that meet their diversity quota.
Fourth, we need to complement mentorship with sponsorship. While mentorship focuses on skill building and career advice, sponsorship centres on power dynamics and advocacy. Senior leaders, often C-suite executives, and especially men need to actively champion women for promotions, high visibility projects and leadership roles. This is especially important for men to lean in because they occupy the lion's share of senior positions now.
Fifth, as a labour Member of Parliament, I would also like to encourage people to support union membership. Unions can help to advocate for better wages, training and benefits. At least data from the US shows that a woman with a union behind her on average makes 22% more than a woman fending for herself.
Sustained progress demands moving beyond voluntary targets to structural reforms that address caregiving inequities, redefine leadership paradigms and institutionalise accountability mechanisms across all sectors. I am hopeful that the day shall come when we no longer ask about men and women leaders. There would only be leaders. But until that day comes, we shall have to ceaselessly strive for gender equality for our workers. And when we can improve the senior workers and female workforce participation rates, we can have a reasonable chance at starving the silver tsunami and give rise to a new dawn of continued economic growth.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Sir, the human capital function and fraternity is vital in the future of work, workforce and workplaces in Singapore. I submit that it is therefore crucial to further uplift and enhance our human resource and human capital capability and leadership in Singapore. I propose three suggestions to achieve this goal.
One is to further improve our HR standards nationally. This can be done through mandating certification such as the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) certification as well as a mutual recognition of this certification with internationally recognised HR certifications. This will then allow us to take another step closer to benchmark with global HR standards.
Two, we can better support the HR profession by providing greater opportunities for continuing education and training (CET), professional network and development to create and catalyse progression possibilities for the profession to take on bigger roles in their organsations and industry locally and globally.
The third is to support firms and businesses, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to build their human capital function and capabilities, especially since the person managing HR may well be the administrative or finance person.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Chairman, workforce transformation is critical to our economic future. But for employers, navigating the current support landscape may feel overwhelming. We need a more integrated, holistic approach, one that focuses on three key areas.
First, job redesign and skills upgrading. I have raised concerns before about vulnerable workers, especially older and lower-skilled individuals, from the risk of automation. While initiatives like Jobs Transformation Maps help, we must be more proactive. How many companies have actually benefited from job redesign support under the Productivity Solutions Grant? What more can we do to help businesses create higher-value jobs and accessible training pathways?
Second, strong HR standards. With workplace fairness legislation coming, good HR practices matter more than ever. A litigious workplace helps no one. Mediation should be the first line of resolution, something I have long championed. But as I highlighted in the workplace fairness debate, some employees do not feel safe approaching HR and small businesses may not even have formal HR departments. How do we equip SMEs with the right HR support to mediate disputes and foster inclusive workplaces?
Third, empowering HR professionals. HR plays a strategic role in workforce transformation. But to maximise their impact, we must invest in their professional development. How is the Government strengthening the HR ecosystem to drive workforce transformation effectively? By simplifying the support system and focusing on these areas, we help businesses embrace change, boost productivity and build a resilient workforce.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, over this term of Parliament, I have constantly urged this Government to rebalance its manpower policy, because we have heard from many Singaporeans that they are facing great difficulties in finding good jobs and holding on to those jobs.
It appears that underemployment is a real problem for Singaporeans, especially as they age and their wages go higher. But there are signs that this problem is spreading from the older workers to the younger workers too.
At last month's Parliamentary debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill, Minister Tan See Leng accused me of consistently looking for a smoking gun and asked me to consider there may be something that I am looking for does not exist. I would like to believe the Minister, but as underemployment concerns the livelihoods of Singaporeans, I cannot take it lightly. To convince Singaporeans, the Minister must provide conclusive evidence and statistics to prove his point.
The Minister has cited the low unemployment rate and increasing share of residents in professional, managerial and executive (PME) jobs to prove his point. Respectfully, these two statistics do not necessarily support his point that underemployment is not a growing problem among Singaporeans.
As I majored in economic statistics and econometrics in university, I know quite well that each economic statistic has its limitations and must be applied carefully to draw conclusions. Statistics can also be misused to paint a wrong narrative.
Firstly, on why the low unemployment rate can be misleading. This is because under the definition of our employment statistics, a worker is considered employed even if he has worked for only one hour per week. If it is not by choice, such a worker is obviously underemployed, but he does not contribute to the unemployment numbers.
A professional may also be underemployed when he is over qualified for the job, based on his training and education. For example, a former senior vice president of a bank who is forced to work as a Grab driver after being retrenched is seriously underemployed. This is skill-related underemployment.
Last month, the Minister said that professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) now make up 64% of all employed residents, which matches the proportion of residents with tertiary education in the workforce. But again, this does not conclusively show that there is no serious skill-related underemployment in Singapore.
The Government has said before that even though the MOM is interested in tracking skill-related underemployment, there is no internationally accepted way of doing this. But I would like to reiterate the Progress Singapore Party's (PSP's) view that this problem needs to be tracked and solved.
For example, we can track over time how many Singaporeans have earned lower wages, no longer have the same seniority in their jobs and have been involuntarily employed as part-time or contract workers.
Secondly, on how immigration skews the resident employment, unemployment and PME ratio statistics. Most labour statistics in Singapore are reported at the resident level. The resident classification includes Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs). These statistics can therefore be distorted when the residency status of workers changes from Work Pass holder to PR.
For example, hypothetically, if the number of resident PMEs have increased by 200,000 from 2005 to 2020, it does not necessarily mean that Singapore residents have gained PME jobs. If there were more than 300,000 non-resident PMEs becoming PRs at the same time, 100,000 existing residents would have lost their PME jobs during that period.
In my last four years in Parliament, I have asked repeatedly for the Government to provide a breakdown of the Singaporean and PR employment data so that we can monitor the effect of changes in workers' residency status with the data.
Most recently, when I asked the Minister in May 2024 what percentage of the increase in resident employment by 4,900 in 2023 is due to non-residents becoming residents in Singapore, the Minister replied, \"This line of questioning is not productive and undermines social cohesion in Singapore.\" He also added that MOM does not collect data on the net change in resident employment by workers' prior residency status in its labour market survey.
However, without tracking the resident labour force based on the workers' prior residency status, I wonder how the Minister can conclude that there is no significant underemployment in Singapore and that I am looking for a smoking gun.
I urge the Government to start collecting data on changes in resident employment and the resident labour force based on the worker's prior residency status. This will help us get a better understanding of issues around resident employment. I do not believe that it xenophobic or nativist to ask for such statistics. I am also not seeking to divide Singaporeans by asking for these statistics. I am representing Singaporeans who want to know more.
I deeply respect the contributions of new citizens, PRs and foreign workers to Singapore. Many foreign workers make the choice to uproot themselves to build a new life here in Singapore. Some of them have chosen to sink their roots more deeply and take up PR or citizenship. From the bottom of my heart, I acknowledge the contribution they have made to Singapore.
I have said before in this House that PSP is for an open economy and society, and we recognise the need for foreign talent to complement our Singaporean core. This has never changed. And in speaking up for Singaporeans, we are also speaking up for the existing PRs who are really our economic citizens. Even as we welcome new foreign workers to Singapore, we must make sure that this does not affect the interests of existing citizens and PRs in Singapore. Not everyone has the resources, ability or desire to seek a better life elsewhere. For many existing citizens and PRs in Singapore, Singapore is their only home.
By being more transparent with the data, the Government can actually calm anti-foreigner sentiments and assure Singaporeans that immigration does not harm their economic interest. It will help the Government get more buy-in for its immigration policies. Without the data, Singaporeans will always wonder, at the back of their head, whether immigration is really benefiting them. So, I hope that the officeholders will stop labelling me as a xenophobe or a racist so that we can have a rational and reasoned discussion on the impact of immigration on Singaporean workers and their wages.
By some measures, the Singaporean worker is worse off today than he was 20 years ago. During his Budget speech, the Prime Minister said, in the past, tertiary graduates had fewer job options to choose from, with career paths revolving around a few traditional areas. These days, the job landscape is far more diverse. Tertiary graduates these days may have more diverse job options, but they may not be financially better off than tertiary graduates of the past.
In 1979, the median starting salary of a university graduate was $957 per month. The median starting salary of an NTC-3 graduate from the Vocational and Industrial Training Board (VITB), the predecessor of today's Institute of Technical Education (ITE), was $633 per month. How did these starting salaries compare with housing prices?
In July 1979, after a 15% price increase by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the price of a new 4-room flat sold by the HDB in new towns was $27,100. This is equivalent to about 28 times the median starting salary of a university graduate, or 43 times the median starting salary of a VITB graduate. Today, the median starting salary of a university graduate is $4,500 per month as of 2024. In the October 2024 Built-To-Order (BTO) launch exercise, the cheapest 4-room flats launched, excluding grants, cost $290,000, or 64 times the median starting salary of a university graduate, while the cheapest 5-room flats cost $427,000, or 95 times the median graduate starting salary.
Based on housing affordability, the median university graduate today is worse off than the median ITE graduate in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Those years were truly the golden age for the Singaporean worker with high starting salaries, plentiful jobs and high Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution rates of up to 50%.
Our students are spending more time and money to get educated and learn skills at university today. But even after this education arms race, our university graduates are achieving salaries that allow them to buy smaller and more expensive flats than what an ITE graduate could have bought 45 years ago. For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career.
Mr Chairman, let me conclude. Singaporeans are highly skilled and educated, and they can be competitive if there is a level playing field and a government that helps them to upgrade while they are on their jobs, and not after they have lost their jobs.
We want a first-world Singapore, where the Government uses its power to create incentives for businesses to keep and create good jobs for Singaporeans. We want a first-world Singapore where workers earn a fair wage for their work, where the elderly are looked after in retirement and where younger Singaporeans feel comfortable and confident enough in the future to have children. This is the first-world Singapore we should aspire to create this SG60. This is the first-world Singapore that PSP will fight for.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore's continued economic success depends on our ability to transform our workforce, enhancing productivity, fostering inclusivity and equipping businesses for the future of work. Achieving this requires a holistic and integrated approach where employers take the lead in job redesign, worker training and HR transformation to build a resilient and future-ready workforce.
Workforce transformation extends beyond automation and restructuring. It is about creating high-value, meaningful jobs that drive long-term economic growth. Employee training should not be seen as an expense but as an investment. To maximise its impact, HR professionals must play a strategic role in workforce planning.
With this in mind, how is the Government supporting HR professionals in upskilling and workforce strategy? The recent revamp of the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit is a welcome move, but its rollout is only scheduled for end-2026. Given the urgency of job redesign, can the MOM consider accelerating its implementation? A delayed rollout could result in businesses deferring critical transformation projects while they wait for funding.
Beyond training, HR professionals have raised concerns about flexible workplace arrangements, particularly regarding management resistance, productivity measurement challenges, and the need for clearer policies to ensure fairness and efficiency. How can MOM better support businesses by sharing best practices and data-driven insights to facilitate smoother adoption?
HR professionals have also noticed an increasing trend of corporate functions, such as accounting and HR functions being offshored due to cost pressures in Singapore. The increasing offshoring of HR functions raises concerns about its long-term impact on Singapore's tripartite framework, which relies on close collaboration between employers, employees and the Government. As HR functions become outsourced, we risk losing local expertise and influence over workforce strategies.
To sustain HR's strategic role, professionals must upskill and demonstrate value. Certification ensures competitiveness, and bodies like Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) must continually refine frameworks to stay relevant and globally aligned.
One way to reinforce HR's credibility is to make HR certification a standard requirement for practitioners. This would elevate professional standards and ensure that HR remains a core driver of organisational transformation. However, for certification to be truly impactful, it must be valued and recognised by multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in Singapore.
Singapore is believed to be the only country in Southeast Asia with an HR certification scheme. If so, we have a first-mover advantage. How can we build on this to further professionalise the HR sector, strengthen certification standards and position HR as a key enabler of workforce transformation?
Recently, I had a dialogue with senior HR professionals organised by IHRP. Notably and surprisingly, the initiative they were most excited about is the Enterprise Compute Initiative. Artificial intelligence (AI) presents vast opportunities beyond hiring, including workforce analytics, personalised training, employee engagement and mental health support. How will the Government support AI adoption in HR to drive skills-based hiring while also enhancing workforce planning, skills development and well-being?
HR professionals are also seeking clarity on the MOM's Career Health Framework and how it aligns with employers' organisational skills needs. How will enterprise learning objectives be harmonised with employees' career health, so that upskilling efforts benefit both businesses and workers? Moreover, how will existing diagnostic tools, like the Human Capital Diagnostic Tool (HCDT) and iWorkHealth, be integrated to create a cohesive strategy, one that supports both organisational workforce planning and individual career health?
Workplace mental wellness must be a priority, with strong literacy across all jobs to foster a culture of support and resilience. Employers, supervisors and managers set the tone. How will MOM ensure they are equipped with the right competencies to drive meaningful and effective mental wellness interventions?
Beyond individual companies, Singapore must cultivate a strong pipeline of corporate leaders capable of driving innovation and thriving in the global economy. MOM currently offers training programmes for overseas expansion, and Prime Minister Wong highlighted in his Budget speech that feedback on these initiatives has been positive. Can MOM share insights on the impact of these leadership programmes and plans to scale them further?
Additionally, how is the Government engaging Singaporeans working abroad to leverage their global experience in leadership pathways? Are there successful international models that we can adopt and learn from?
Workforce transformation must be inclusive. Uplifting lower-wage workers in a sustainable way is essential. While the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is a great step forward, wage growth must be driven by productivity gains and not just Government support. How are policies ensuring that wage increases are matched by productivity improvements? What additional measures can help firms and workers enhance efficiency, so wage growth remains sustainable?
Workforce transformation is not just about policies. It requires partnerships between the Government, businesses and workers. By integrating job redesign, skills development, inclusivity and mental well-being, we can build a resilient, competitive and sustainable workforce for Singapore's next phase of growth. I look forward to MOM's insights on these issues.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, as many employers in Singapore need access to foreign manpower, this is a carrot we can use to incentivise desired human resource policies and practices.
It is likely that new policies will be implemented to meet the desires of younger Singaporeans for better work-life balance. Policy changes will also be needed to deal with our plunging fertility rate. Such changes will likely impact the manpower situation for companies.
For example, parents with more children have called for more days of childcare leave. While this may create manpower constraints, PSP supports such a proposal, as it is only fair. Parents with more children would naturally require more days of childcare leave. There will be more days when the children fall sick. Parents will need more days for commitments, such as attending parent-teacher meetings and their child's first day at school.
As we introduce new policies to suit new times, we cannot disregard the impact on other stakeholders. For example, many employers expressed concerns over the impact on their manpower when the additional 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave was announced.
If too much of the burden of our social objectives are laid on employers, there will be pushback.
As the Chinese saying goes, \"上有政策下有对策\"。Would this inadvertently make employers even more reluctant to employ married women? Even if we have laws against discriminations, we know that discrimination still exists.
A more reliable way is to align the interest of employers to that of society. For example, if employers know that an employee taking 30 days of parental leave would allow them to have access to an additional foreign personnel for 60 weeks, would this not make them more welcoming of their employees taking parental leave? Would this not incentivise family-friendly practices so that their employees have more time to find their life partners and raise families?
At the national level, we can continue to limit the supply of foreign manpower coming into Singapore, but re-allocate the quota towards employers with desired HR practices from other employers. The re-allocation can be based on the following factors.
One, the recruitment and employment of senior citizens, ex-offenders, persons with disabilities, pregnant women and those seeking to return to the workforce after a long break. These are groups facing difficulties when seeking employment.
Two, the utilisation of parental leave, childcare leave, caregiving leave and other family-friendly leave. Companies that offer additional family-friendly leave on top of statutory requirements should be rewarded further. And the best thing is, this incentive does not cost the Government a dime! It merely requires a review of the criteria for quotas and COMPASS points. Whereas the employment credit schemes to encourage the employment of senior citizens, ex-offenders and persons with disabilities have to be paid for with tax revenue.
As the Government has said, raising our total fertility rate needs a whole-of-society approach and employers are a key component. Let the arrival of babies be a cause for celebration for employers too.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): To reinforce workforce transformation alongside business transformation, would MOM work with economic agencies to guide companies seeking Government grants to also commit to workforce outcomes such as job redesign to raise job worth, training for lower-skilled workforce and programmes to develop Singaporean talent?
For sectors with high churn such as food and beverages (F&B), how is MOM working with economic agencies to ensure that new and incumbent F&B operators are able and motivated to comply with the PWM and to adopt fair practices such as the tripartite guidelines on managing excess manpower and responsible retrenchment and other relevant tripartite guidelines and standards?
I observe that the experience is uneven on ground. As workforce demographics and needs evolve, would the MOM consider stepping up to lead a whole-of-Government integrated approach to business and workforce transformation? Doing so would optimise business outcomes while maximising workers' potential.
The Chairman: Mr Sharael Taha, you can take your two cuts together.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Chairman. The call for workforce transformation is not new to Singapore. We have been actively pursuing it with various schemes, encouraging employers to transform their workforce. Every year we call on employers to transform their workforce.
However, how successful have we been in this endeavour? Have we moved the needle in workforce transformation to drive new business models, improve our global competitiveness, drive higher productivity and most importantly, drive better wages for our workers?
How effective has the Workforce Transformation Map been in guiding companies and how do we measure the success of these support schemes?
Despite the numerous schemes supporting workforce transformation and job redesign, the landscape of support measures can be complex. What more can be done to offer a more integrated and holistic approach, while simultaneously streamlining our process? Additionally, many SMEs may lack the personnel and capabilities necessary to lead the transformation of their organisations. How can we provide targeted support to guide these companies through their transformation journey?
Many MNEs have established operations, regional headquarters and even global headquarters in Singapore. To effectively support their regional and global functions, corporate leaders must be adept at managing diverse teams and navigating cultural nuances. How is the Government supporting the development of a strong pipeline of local leaders who can take on key leadership roles in these MNEs from Singapore?
The Chairman: Prof Razwana Begum, please take your two cuts together.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir. As AI continues to transform the workplace, it is important to understand its impact on job redesign.
In this context, how is the Ministry addressing the impact of AI on job redesign and what support is the Ministry providing to employees affected by AI and job redesign? How is the Ministry supporting SMEs to overcome the unique challenges they face in implementing job redesign and upskilling initiatives, especially in the context of integrating AI technologies? How can tertiary educational institutions collaborate with employers to support the development of employees who are future-ready, particularly in the context of job redesign and upskilling programmes?
In today's ever-changing world, lifelong learning is not just a choice, it is a necessity. To thrive, we must embrace skills-based career development as a cornerstone of our workforce strategy.
In this context, what strategies are in place to promote skills-based career development, and to encourage employers to recognise and reward skills and competency? How are these strategies being effectively communicated and implemented? How is the Ministry collaborating with employers to support the development of future-ready employees through structured work-study programmes, industrial attachment and experiential learning?
What incentives or supports are being offered to employers to encourage them to provide time and resources for their employees to engage in lifelong learning? What strategies are being developed to ensure that lifelong learning and upskilling efforts lead to tangible career advancement opportunities for employees?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Workforce Singapore (WSG) oversees job support and works with partners such as e2i, private career matching providers, SG Enable and Yellow Ribbon Singapore to help jobseekers. These service providers offer a range of assistance, including career coaching, job matching services and self-help tools like resume building platforms and MyCareersFuture job alerts.
Career coaching is meant to bridge gaps. Are career coaches actively connecting jobseekers with employers or do they mainly review resumes and point job seekers to existing digital resources? While digital tools are useful, many jobseekers, especially those who are not tech savvy or fluent in English may struggle to use them effectively. How does WSG tailor its help to these jobseekers?
Career coaches need industry knowledge and hiring experience to effectively guide jobseekers toward the right opportunities. Does WSG require career coaches to meet these criteria?
Singaporeans are willing to upskill and adapt but they need clear pathways to jobs. What key performance indicators (KPIs) are in place to ensure that career coaching and job matching services lead to actual hires, and what are the results?
Budget 2025 Statement announced that localised job matching will now be done by Community Development Councils (CDCs). Will it result in more personalised assistance, or will jobseekers still rely on the same digital platforms and career coaching models?
I hope jobseekers who have faced challenges with the existing services will experience meaningful improvements, not just an administrative change in responsibilities or structure. This transition must lead to better outcomes. How is MOM going to work with WSG, its partners and the CDCs to ensure jobseekers receive effective support that helps them secure employment?
The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay, take your two cuts together.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Sir, I cannot emphasise more the importance of strengthening the Singaporean Core and to better watch the backs of our local PMEs, especially the mature PMEs.
There have been a series of measures the past decade such as the Fair Consideration Framework, a National Jobs Bank called the MyCareersFuture portal as well as the formation of Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) and Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) to look into better supporting PMEs in Singapore. These as well as Employment Pass (EP) salary threshold and COMPASS all aim to better the level of playing field for our local PMEs. I hope MOM can provide an update on all these schemes that have been rolled out and whether we have achieved the desired outcomes of these policies, programmes and penal and punitive actions on egregious employers.
I support and applaud the passing of the Workplace Fairness Act which will go some way when implemented to eradicate discriminatory practices in the workplaces. I also welcome the introduction of the Jobseeker Support Scheme, something I have lobbied in and outside of this House for more than a decade. I hope to hear fuller details on the scheme, including the active labour market policy terms, the process, mechanism and mechanics of the scheme since it will be introduced next month.
I urge MOM to continue to monitor and review all these schemes to ensure its efficacy and to further augment and refine the various tripartite standards, advisories and guidelines so that we can continue our treadmill journey to level the playing field for our local PMEs and strengthen the Singaporean Core.
Sir, I am particularly concerned about structural unemployment in Singapore. This is often fueled by mismatch in jobs, skills and expectations of jobseekers, both young and not so young. There may be occasions where underemployment may occur as a result of this mismatch. It is, therefore, imperative that we monitor this closely and provide proper career counselling, coaching and mentoring at all stages of a person's career from his or her first job, during his or her job, as well as when looking for the next job, or beyond retirement and re-employment. NTUC has started this career mentoring journey with our youths and PMEs and we hope to see greater support for this by our tripartite partners, with a call out to more Singaporean workers to utilise this.
I have suggested previously and am lobbying again for SkillsFuture credits be used for career coaching, guidance, mentoring and counselling services beyond those currently provided free of charge by the institutes of higher learning, WSG and e2i.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Chairman, career health is just as critical as physical well-being in today's fast-changing job market. PME job placements doubled from 8,800 in 2023 to 17,000 in 2024 – a strong sign of momentum. But are we doing enough to future-proof our workforce?
How often do we check in on our own career health? The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme's $4,000 top-up supports mid-career upskilling, but financial aid alone is not enough. Are we fostering a true learning mindset? WSG offers job-matching and career counselling, while SkillsFuture remains key to staying relevant.
During the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Bill debate, I called for stronger course quality assurance and feedback channels. I am encouraged by growing university participation, which has boosted course credibility. Can the Government share updated utilisation rates, demographics and popular course types since 2022?
Employers play a critical role in career development. Beyond IHRP certification for HR practitioners, are they building a real culture of learning? Are training efforts aligned with future industry needs?
At the same time, businesses navigate evolving work norms – FWAs, new leave policies and upskilling demands. How can we better support them in investing in employees while managing these pressures?
I seek updates on two key areas. Jobseeker support: what active job search criteria must involuntarily unemployed individuals meet to qualify for SkillsFuture aid? How will this scheme drive re-employment? Career coaching expansion: NTUC has proposed using SkillsFuture Credit for career coaching. What is the Government's stance? Could this enhance personalised support and employability?
A future-ready workforce needs proactive individuals, committed employers and bold policies. Let us build that together.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, for CPF members born in 1958 or after, who have not set aside their minimum sums, they can only withdraw $5,000 from their Ordinary Accounts (OA) when they reach 55. This is unlike the earlier cohorts who could withdraw a percentage of their OA savings at 55. This limit of $5,000 has been applicable since 2013, that is, for the past 12 years, and there is no indication of any change in the horizon. I believe a review should be considered.
As we are aware, persons aged between 55 and 65 may face employment disruption or ill health, whether themselves or in their spouses or parents. Having some extra cash may be critical during this period. How much can $5,000 do at today's cost of living? It is worth pointing out that, in contrast, the Minimum Sums to be locked into the Retirement Account rise with each cohort of Singaporeans based on their birth year. Should we not also have increases in the sum withdrawal at age 55 with each cohort to recognise the impact of inflation over time?
My second point concerns CPF nominations. As explained in my Budget speech on 27 February, the concern is mainly about homemakers being left without inheriting any of their late spouses' CPF balances. This happens when the deceased's spouse has made nominations naming other persons as beneficiaries.
As mentioned then, CPF savings built-up during marriage are classified as matrimonial assets that are subject to division during a divorce. A non-working spouse is regularly awarded a share of the spouse's CPF savings in a divorce. All the more then, a non-working spouse that sticks it out in a marriage till death should not be deprived of her spouse's CPF savings.
I suggest that nominations made by married persons that exclude the spouse should be witnessed by the spouses to be valid so that spousal consent is in effect obtained.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Chairman, on the topic of enhancing CPF returns, I would like to, once again, take the chance to raise concerns that I have previously voiced out in Parliament in each of the past four years and also earlier this year during the Budget debate. While I have been going on like a broken record, I hope we can urgently implement the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, which was first accepted by the Government back in 2016.
With Prime Minister Lawrence Wong highlighting this issue in a recent interview by Lianhe Zaobao earlier this year, I hope that the Minister will not respond to this cut once again by saying that he will provide updates when ready, but that he is now ready to provide updates. I am sure Singaporeans and the civil servants working at on the scheme alike will appreciate a deadline from the Minister.
Moreover, if the Government is not confident that our own investment entities, be it Temasek Holdings or GIC, can produce better risk-adjusted returns that are better than CPF returns over the long term, then we are in serious trouble. I appreciate that Prime Minister Wong mentioned in his round-up speech last week that we will certainly continue to review, finetune and improve the CPF system. But I hope the Government can do so expeditiously and set a deadline for this, as the longer the delay, the higher the opportunity cost and the real cost to Singaporeans' retirement savings.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): One common concern Singaporeans have is the sense that foreign talents do not compete on a level playing field with our local graduates.
Some are frustrated with how foreign companies seem to favour hiring their own nationals, perhaps even simply going through the regulatory motions with a designated candidate already in mind. Others point to how international companies place a greater weight on qualifications acquired from their home countries. Yet others flag how foreign hires are favoured because they are willing to work for lower salaries than the prevailing market rate.
The Ministry has tried to address some of these issues. The Fair Consideration Framework is designed to arrest discriminatory job advertising. MOM has also instituted foreign worker quotas and levies for S Passes and the points-based COMPASS for assessing EP hires. Ostensibly, the raised salary cap was an effort to keep foreign talent earnings in line with PMET wages locally.
It is unclear whether these strategies have been successful. Between 2014 and 2021, the TAFEP received an average of 379 complaints a year, but only a third warranted additional investigations and a mere 41 were found in breach of guidelines.
If there is no underreporting, this seems to suggest that alleged cases have no merit. Yet, the sentiment about unfair foreign competition in the workplace stubbornly remains. Part of the reason is that the various restrictions on hiring foreigners do not appear to have contained their increase. The skilled foreign workforce has steadily grown over the 2010s and it took the shock of COVID-19 before we saw a scaling back.
One resident I spoke to even shared that it was only during this period that he was meaningfully considered for jobs that he had long been qualified for. Another resident shared her belief that the salary cap may have inadvertently led to accelerated pay raises for foreign hires at her workplace as her company chose to pay foreign workers slightly more rather than incur the additional cost of hiring a new local.
Existing solutions to spur local hiring appear to be targeting only symptoms. But the reason favouring the hiring of a foreign talent is that simply, without CPF, foreign talents are often just cheaper.
There are good reasons why the Government may not wish to offer CPF for foreigners. After all, the system was designed and meant for locals. Incorporating potentially transient account holders into the system could also mess with actual real assumptions and the goal of stable, long-term returns. Enfolding foreigners into CPF could easily turn into an unnecessary logistical and financial nightmare.
Yet, there is a simpler solution. We can set aside the CPF-equivalent payouts into individual specific accounts under an escrow, which will be returned to the foreign worker once they depart. We will not be shortchanging them in any way other than the modest amount of potentially foregone returns. If this is a significant concern, we could place the escrow principal into an ultra-safe, highly-liquid asset, such as Singapore Government Securities, which offer the prevailing market risk-free interest rate.
No additional management of these funds will be required beyond tracking the account holders as well as their outstanding balances, and disbursing the amounts when the worker leaves the country for good. Of course, a small administration fee may be levied for this purpose annually.
Other jurisdictions with large foreign worker populations, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, already have schemes in place that are similar. This approach will go a long way towards rebalancing the perceived wage differential between the foreign and local workforce.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Chairman, MOM's November 2024 report highlights a decline in Singapore's residents' dependency ratio from 6.0 in 2014 to 3.5 in 2024, underscoring the growing financial strain on our workforce, especially in our senior care. Including non-resident workers raises the ratio to 5.2, easing some pressure, which I am very grateful for.
While foreign talent is vital to our economy, it must contribute meaningfully through skills transfer or job creation for locals. Global hubs with regional hubs here not only attract skilled talent, but also generate local jobs and knowledge sharing opportunities.
How can we continue attracting talent who will strengthen our workforce through upscaling and job creation? How do we ensure Singapore's workforce remains competitive in AI, green tech and advanced manufacturing? What steps can we better prepare our locals for future skills?
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Chairman, workforce flexibility is key to enhancing productivity and business scalability, and businesses appreciate the Government's efforts in studying cross-deployment models. The AfA on Business Competitiveness has recommended expanding cross-deployment of foreign workers beyond sectoral boundaries to help businesses optimise manpower amid demand fluctuations.
Given the importance of this initiative, could the Ministry provide an update on the progress of studies on expanding cross-deployment, particularly for majority-owned companies operating across different sectors? Additionally, how feasible would it be to introduce a composite Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) for companies expanding into adjacent industries with transferable skillsets, allowing them to scale without being constrained by sector-specific foreign worker quotas?
As businesses remain eager to explore structured pilots, would the Ministry consider working with trade associations and chambers to identify companies keen to participate and co-develop a practical framework? By working hand-in-hand, the Government, businesses and industry partners can unlock workforce flexibility, drive productivity and strengthen Singapore's economic resilience.
Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Chairman, with Singapore's tight labour market, skilled foreign workers play a crucial role in complementing the local workforce.
Following the implementation of COMPASS, employers are adjusting to a new assessment criteria and many have sought greater clarity on how the framework has impacted hiring practices. At the same time, updates to S Pass qualifications, salary thresholds and levies are reshaping talent acquisition strategies. Additionally, planned changes to Work Permit policies, such as the expansion of the Non-Traditional Sources Occupation List and Non-Traditional Source countries, along with the relaxed Work Permit requirements, aim to alleviate sector-specific labour shortages.
In this context, could MOM provide insights into the early impact of COMPASS on skilled labour recruitment? Furthermore, how does MOM intend to balance the tightening of S Pass and Work Permit policies with the need to ensure that businesses across key sectors can access the foreign talent they require?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: In October 2022, I filed a Parliamentary Question on whether the current slate of national public holidays was a holdover from the colonial era practice of allocating two holidays per ethnic group. The response from MOM was that it was the result of a decision made in 1968 to reduce the number of holidays to stay competitive.
He explained that each religious group was asked to give up a holiday each. As a result, Muslims gave up the Prophet Muhammad's birthday, Christians relinquished Easter Monday, while Hindus chose Deepavali over Thaipusam. His response reiterated the Government's longstanding position that the existing configuration of holidays was appropriate and that increasing them would indulge calls for a host of additional holidays, such as Lao Tzu's birthday or Women's Day. However, this response glosses over the important historical context for how these holidays came about in the first place.
During the colonial period, the Straits Settlements, of which Singapore was a part, allocated public holidays by ethnic group. This was initially limited to the Chinese New Year, Hari Raya Puasa and Thaipusam. But following a petition by the Malay and Indian communities to the then-Legislative Council, Hari Raya Haji and Deepavali were added.
This means that if we accept how holidays were historically granted by ethnic group, then this original distribution of two per group would have been fair. But holidays were added and removed thereafter due to self-government, our merger with Malaysia and Independence, such that 16 public holidays in 1967 were no longer equally distributed.
Hari Raya Puasa was observed over two days while Hari Raya Haji and the Prophet's birthday were also holidays. Easter weekend included Friday and Monday, alongside Christmas.
Hence, when called to give up a holiday, the Indian community had to do so with a smaller number to begin with. What may be worse is that the responses by the Government appear to suggest that the holidays that have been gazetted were chosen not so much for the ethnic linkages, but for their religious significance.
If so, then the allocation of two per religion, Hari Raya Haji and Puasa, Good Friday and Christmas and the two days of Chinese New Year and Deepavali and Vesak Day may, on its face, seem fair. Except, of course, Vesak Day, despite being the birthday of Indian prince and ascetic sage, Siddhartha Gautama, is hardly celebrated by the local Indian community in Singapore at all, but more by Buddhists. In contrast, Thaipusam, despite its official non-recognition as a holiday, remains a spiritually significant and joyous affair for Hindus here.
In the debate surrounding the Holidays (Amendment) Bill in 1968, which rescinded Thaipusam as a holiday, then-Minister for Law and Economic Development EW Barker, went as far as to suggest, \"If our island prospers, I am sure the Government will ask me to come back here and, on that day, it will be my pleasure to move amendments to increase the number of holidays.\"
Between 1968 and today, our gross domestic product (GDP) per capita has grown from a little more than $2,100 to more than $127,000 – close to a sixtyfold increase. It is impossible to claim that we have not prospered. It is time to call in that promise made close to six decades ago and reinstate Thaipusam as a national holiday.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng. You can take your two cuts together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, many Singaporeans are tired, stressed and burnt out and it is time to give Singaporeans more time to rest and recharge. It has been 57 years since we reviewed our minimum entitlement of only seven days of annual leave. It is time to review this to help all workers, especially the 18,800 employees who receive only seven days of annual leave. They receive such a low number of annual leave likely because the minimum entitlement is only seven days for the first year of service. It is a fact that lower-income workers are getting less annual leave. It is time for the Government to increase the minimum entitlement of annual leave and level the playing field for our lower-income workers.
I have seen first-hand the impact kickbacks have on migrant workers. I was there with our Nee Soon East cleaners as they told me about the kickbacks they were forced to pay.
As I shared in my Adjournment Motion three years ago, \"These workers were terrified when they spoke to me. They feared the repercussions of reporting their bosses. What would happen to their job, family and debts? What would happen to them? I could see their hands trembling as they spoke.\"
I was also there with our cleaners again, before MOM interviewed them and I saw how terrified they were. A crime had been committed against them, yet their first emotion was not anger but fear.
Many have asked why it takes so long to detect kickbacks. The answer is simply, fear. This fear, coupled with the power imbalance, defeats our current whistle-blowing mechanisms. Kickbacks are a widespread problem and the cases we have detected are just a tip of the iceberg.
MOM has done well to publicise our efforts in tackling kickbacks, but we need to do more and now walk the talk. It is not just Nee Soon East cleaners who pay kickbacks. This, again, is a widespread problem that we have not done enough to detect and tackle.
To tackle this more effectively, we need to treat kickbacks as seriously as corruption. We need our laws to have a more deterrent effect to have any chance of wiping out kickbacks.
The current penalties are just too low. We should increase the maximum sentence to five years of imprisonment and a fine of $100,000, matching the maximum penalty for bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. I have been calling for this for many years now.
To our migrant friends, I know you will be afraid to step forward to report the kickbacks you are forced to pay. Again, it is this fear that makes it so difficult to detect kickbacks and ensure that justice is served. MOM has provided assurances that you will be protected and like our Nee Soon East cleaners who not only faced no repercussions for reporting the kickbacks, they also got their money back. You can report kickbacks by calling MOM at 6438-5122.
The Chairman: Ms Jean See, you can take your two cuts together.
Ms See Jinli Jean: Budget 2025 will boost support for companies going through mergers and acquisitions. Nonetheless, there must safeguards for affected workforce with acquiring and target companies.
Given today's diversified workforce, does MOM plan to update the Tripartite Guidelines on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment so that businesses planning for mergers and acquisitions (M&As) can apply differentiated yet fair approaches to manage lay-offs or contract cessations that affect emerging workforce, such as persons with disabilities, agency workers, freelancers and migrant workers?
Could the Ministry share its plans to guide companies on good practices in workforce engagement during M&As? How does MOM plan to develop the community of support for employers as well as those affected groups of workers?
As the Government supports more companies to adopt AI, protection for workers, be they employees or platform workers, must be updated alongside adoption. On employees, Member Patrick Tay raised at last November's Sitting that AI tools that substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making could lead to biases in hiring or promotion. He asked for companies to be transparent when they use such tools.
On platform workers, I had shared with this House that platform workers are stressed by financial precarity because platform algorithms determine trip allocation, fares and incentives in ways opaque to platform workers. For instance, two platform workers who provide rides for the same route at the same timing could receive different fare amounts. Thus, platform workers try to reduce precarity by working as many hours as needed to meet their daily earnings' threshold. This is unhealthy and unsafe.
The Minister had mentioned that the Government is closely monitoring the trend in use of AI to ensure that guidelines and regulations are adequate to protect the workforce. Could MOM provide an update? Could MOM share if it would set up an inter-governmental workgroup to guide fair use of AI in the context of workforce rights and responsibilities?
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Sir, the last review and amendments of the Employment Act was effective April 2019 and a review is overdue. With the rise in median wages, changes in the nature of work, workforce and workplaces, I am asking MOM to embark on a review of the Employment Act with our tripartite partners. For a start, there are three areas which need review.
First, is in relation to Part IV of the Employment Act. I submit that both the salary caps as stipulated in section 35 of $2,600 and $4,500 respectively be raised. Further clarity and illustrations in the Act, on who is or is not a workman, under Part IV will also be useful and instructive.
Second, there continues to be questions in the interpretation of section 18A of the Employment Act on transfers which impact workers affected by ongoing company restructuring, M&As. Can I ask that there be further clarity on what falls within and outside of section 18A? This can be done either by an inclusionary or exclusionary approach, like in many statutes. Illustrations can also be incorporated in the Act and a formal set of tripartite guidelines can be issued in the interim before any statutory changes.
Third, is the provision on \"dismissals\" under section 14. At present, I am aware that employers terminate employees with notice pay but without giving reasons for the termination. It, therefore, makes it difficult for employees to bring a case of unfair dismissal against the employer. Can employers be made to give their reasons for termination or discontinuation of employment explicitly in all cases of cessation of employment initiated by the employer?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Business Motion","subTitle":"Extension of a Sitting in Committee of Supply","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 91(3)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's Committee Sitting for a period of up to 30 minutes. Minister Tan See Leng.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head S (Ministry of Manpower)","subTitle":"An open and resilient economy, with diverse pathways and opportunities for all","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Chairman, I thank the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Members of Parliament and Members who have spoken for our workers as well as our employers. It has been five years since the COVID-19 pandemic. Fortunately, we managed to recover fairly quickly.
During COVID-19, resident unemployment peaked at 4.8%. MOM's priority then was to protect livelihoods. Through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, we assisted more than 200,000 jobseekers. Now, resident unemployment is at 2.8%, amongst the lowest compared to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.
Against the backdrop of wars and supply chain disruptions, most countries, including Singapore, battled global inflation in recent years. For many Singaporeans, the pressures of rising cost of living were a real concern. We managed to cushion this through targeted support for households and income growth that kept pace with, and even exceeded inflation.
Over the last five years, the median real monthly income of residents grew by 3.6%. For lower-wage workers, this was even higher at 5.9%. This means while prices have risen, our wages have increased more. We have done better than other advanced economies, such as the United Kingdom (UK), US and Japan, where real wages have stagnated or declined.
Beyond recovering, we helped workers and businesses to emerge stronger.
First, we supported Singaporeans across career stages.
For working professionals in their 20s to 40s, we helped advance their careers. Our Career Conversion Programmes helped 37,000 workers reskill into growth jobs over the last five years. For mature workers in their 50s onwards, we helped them stay meaningfully employed. The Part-Time Re-employment Grant helped more than 6,500 employers offer work opportunities to 50,000 mature workers.
Second, we strengthened protection for vulnerable groups and helped Singaporeans save up for retirement.
For those who lost their jobs involuntarily, we introduced the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme to provide temporary financial support while they look for a job.
For lower-wage workers, we uplifted their wages. We expanded the Progressive Wage Model (PWM), we raised the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS), we enhanced the Workfare Income Supplement to boost their incomes and CPF savings. Up to nine in 10 full-time, lower-wage workers are now covered by PWM, LQS and the Progressive Wage (PW) Mark.
For platform workers, we strengthened their housing and retirement adequacy, their work injury compensation and representation. For persons with disabilities, we boosted their employment from 28% to 34% over the past five years.
We strengthened the retirement adequacy of all Singaporeans. We introduced the $9 billion Majulah Package in 2024 and we expect to spend over $800 million on the enhanced Silver Support Scheme this year for 290,000 seniors. About 740,000 Singaporeans will be eligible for the enhanced Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS). We want to assure all Singaporeans that they can meet their basic retirement needs so long as they work and contribute consistently to CPF. We will also uplift those who are unable to, or lack the runway to work and save through CPF.
Third, COVID-19 was a wake-up call for businesses to drive productivity and strengthen resilience. We refreshed, therefore, our work pass framework to enable this. We launched the Overseas Networks and Expertise Pass (ONE Pass) for global talent; and the COMPASS for Employment Pass (EP) holders. We remained disciplined in our reliance on Work Permit holders to spur industry transformation.
We supported businesses' transformation. Mr Sharael Taha asked how successful this has been.
Since 2019, we have launched 17 Jobs Transformation Maps. Around 10,000 companies received support to train and to hire workers, and to redesign jobs through schemes, like the Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs). We also launched the HR Industry Transformation Plan in 2023 to drive our workforce transformation.
Finally, we built fairer, more inclusive and safer workplaces. We launched the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests and we built employer capabilities to better attract and retain talent in the workforce. This initiative could potentially unlock access to a sizeable group, with about 240,000 women and 130,000 seniors of working age, which is outside the labour force today.
We passed the Workplace Fairness Bill to combat workplace discrimination. We improved the well-being and safety of migrant workers. We introduced primary care plans, we raised operating standards in dormitories, we improved service offerings at Recreation Centres and we attained a record low workplace fatality rate of 0.99 fatalities per 100,000 workers in 2023.
These achievements were only possible with the strong support of our tripartite partners, the NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF).
But the work goes on. With significant geopolitical and economic uncertainties ahead, we have projected a more cautious pace of GDP growth in 2025, at about 1% to 3%. In the longer term, two forces will make growth even harder to sustain.
First, our demographic challenge. With our low fertility, our resident workforce is expected to stop growing by the next decade. Our population is also ageing. One in four Singaporeans are projected to be aged 65 and above by 2030.
Second, intensifying global competition. Southeast Asia will benefit from a demographic dividend and we need to keep up as the rest of Southeast Asia grows. Cities, like New York, London and Dubai, they are attracting top companies and talent in fields like biotechnology and AI.
Amidst these challenges, how can we continually grow the economic pie? How do we continue to create meaningful opportunities for Singaporeans?
First, we have to continue to remain open to the world to stay competitive and to support our society's needs. In 2014, there were six working-age residents supporting each elderly resident aged 65 and above. In 2024, last year, this fell to 3.5. Foreign workers blunt this decline. Including them, the old age support ratio in 2024 rises from 3.5 to 5.2.
But there are limits to growing through numbers. The only sustainable way forward is through productivity-driven growth.
We have made good progress on our productivity journey. Supported by the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), labour productivity grew by around 2% per annum over the last decade. However, even so, Singapore's productivity remains at 40% to 70% of frontier economies.
There is an exciting opportunity, and that is for us to reshape our economy into one that is driven by productivity and innovation. The global order has also changed dramatically in a matter of weeks. Singapore can stand out as a beacon of stability and as a beacon of openness, drawing in global talent, drawing in global companies.
As Deputy Prime Minister Gan shared earlier on today in his Ministry of Trade and Industry COS speech, we will strengthen our connectivity to the world; we will help our local companies build new brands and new businesses; we will foster a pro-enterprise environment for growth in areas like advanced manufacturing, deep tech and the green economy.
People – their passion, ingenuity, skills – these are at the heart of this journey. MOM will build a workforce that is adaptable, innovative and diverse, helping Singapore thrive in a turbulent world.
We have three priorities this year: (a) enabling businesses to transform; (b) empowering workers to build career health; and (c) fostering inclusive and safe workplaces.
First, we will enable businesses to transform. Businesses understand this need, but they face a high-cost environment. Part of the increase in manpower cost has been necessary to uplift our lower-wage workers, and this is a priority in our country's social compact. We will alleviate businesses' short-term pressures while we drive and continue to drive long-term transformation.
Second, we will empower workers to build their career health through different life stages even as our economy transforms.
And third, we will foster fair, inclusive and safe workplaces.
Let me start with how we are enabling businesses to transform. To stay competitive, companies need to transform their workforce in tandem with business improvements. We will set aside over $400 million for a new Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package. It will address the calls from Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Edward Chia and Ms Jean See for more holistic and integrated support for enterprise workforce transformation, with three main features.
First, we will introduce a new SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant. This will bring together schemes administered by WSG and SSG, and simplify the application process. Companies can access a holistic suite of workforce development support via one application channel, for activities like job redesign, capability building and training. WSG will work with anchor programme partners to advise companies on suitable and sustainable solutions.
Second, we will enhance support for job redesign. Currently, WSG provides funding support of up to 50%, capped at $30,000, for companies to engage pre-approved consultants on job redesign. Under the Workforce Development Grant, we will increase this to 70%. We will also review and raise the cap of $30,000.
Some larger companies have begun identifying workers who may be impacted by AI and proactively reskilling them for new jobs. But other companies, especially SMEs, may need more support for job redesign to address disruptions like the impact of AI. We will expand the scope of coverage for job redesign expenses beyond consultancy services to include equipping line managers and HR with job redesign and change management skills in identifying workforce solutions and AI tools. We will share more details in due course.
Third, the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit will be redesigned in 2026 to better support workforce transformation. We received feedback that the reimbursement model could better address companies' cash flow issues and be clearer as to which schemes the credits could be used for. With the redesigned scheme, eligible companies will get a fresh $10,000 of credits. Like an online wallet, companies can use the credits to offset out-of-pocket expenses on relevant workforce transformation programmes.
The NTUC's Company Training Committee (CTC) Grant was enhanced in 2024 to support training tied to business transformation. The take-up has been encouraging. As of December 2024, the CTC Grant has supported more than 400 transformation projects, benefiting over 7,000 workers.
Take Ms Rachel Lee, a tax advisor at BDO Tax Advisory. Rachel used to spend many hours on manual tasks, like data collection and document preparation. Using the CTC Grant, BDO Tax Advisory introduced a centralised data platform with a smarter and faster workflow, automated data collection and validation. And this, therefore, allowed Rachel to focus on providing clients personalised support, improving business outcomes.
As announced by the Prime Minister in his Budget speech, we will set aside around $200 million to scale up the grant and to extend it to 2028.
How can educational institutions and employers collaborate to develop future-ready employees? Today, they can co-develop workforce training programmes customised to business needs. We will also expand the CTC Grant to fund employer-led training that provides workers formal certifications. The CTC Grant will provide enhanced support via course fee subsidies and absentee payroll.
We thank Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Edward Chia for their suggestions to improve HR practices and standards. HR plays an important role in workforce transformation, not just to comply with employment legislation but also to uplift organisations' human capital. We will launch a Tripartite Workgroup on Human Capital Capability Development to raise HR standards and HR professionals' capabilities to contribute strategically to business and workforce outcomes.
Let me now turn to our foreign workforce. Businesses have cited, continually so, manpower constraints as a key challenge.
At the same time, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim shared that there is ground scepticism over the need for foreign talent. That scepticism is natural. When we see a foreigner, we think, \"They are taking a job a Iocal could have had\". But what is harder to see is that, without the access to foreigners, the company and its jobs may not even be in Singapore to begin with.
The hard truth is that Singapore has a small domestic market and we have no natural resources. As Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said, \"If we do not attract, we do not welcome and we do not make talent feel comfortable in Singapore, we will not be a global city, and we will not count for much.\"
So, it is very easy to use simplistic arguments to insinuate that it is a zero-sum game, that if you remove one foreigner, you get one more job for a local. Mr Leong shared that he is for an open economy and open society, and asked for facts to support this, to quell anti-immigration sentiments. Let me share the facts.
I take note that he is trained in econometrics, he is a statistician. But please do not underestimate the power of the entire team of Government economists, scholars, Government statisticians who are monitoring this for many, many years and many, many decades, and have also understood the trends. They probably have a deeper depth of knowledge and understanding of the trends than probably you and I do.
So, over the last decade, the number of EP and S Pass holders grew by 38,000. The last 10 years. Resident PMETs grew by 382,000, 10 times more. One in three of the increase in resident PMETs came from non-PMETs upgrading to higher-skilled PMET roles, with residents in their 30s to 50s forming the majority. Members of the House, our upskilling programmes, our investments in our local non-PMETs to upgrade to PMETs have borne fruit.
In the Financial and Insurance Services, Professional Services and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sectors, EP and S Pass holders increased by 18,000. Resident PMETs increased by 172,000, again a 10-fold increase. As of 2024, there were three to six resident PMETs for every one EP or S Pass holder in these sectors. The same story holds, even if one compares only Singapore Citizens, or even local-born Singapore Citizens, to EP and S Pass holders.
Resident data largely mirrors citizen data, because Singapore Citizens have consistently made up about 84% of the resident workforce.
MOM has periodically released statistics and analyses on the employment outcomes of Singapore Citizens. Employment outcomes for Singapore Citizens have been favourable over the last decade. The labour force participation rate of Singapore Citizens has risen, making it one of the highest globally. This is ahead of cities in Japan, Finland and Germany. The unemployment rate of Singapore Citizens has remained stable and low over the decade and, internationally, Singapore has one of the lowest unemployment rates.
We should never develop a \"Singaporean only\" mentality, because this would deprive us of talent needed to anchor global businesses that benefit Singaporeans. Foreign-owned firms comprise less than one-quarter of companies in Singapore, but they employ about one-third of resident workers, and about 60% of residents in high-paying jobs. Our own local enterprises have benefited from servicing multinational corporations (MNCs) and gaining global exposure. Global companies and foreigners also pay taxes that help fund Government spending on education, healthcare and housing.
Our work pass framework is carefully managed to provide access to high-quality foreigners who support productive sectors and create good jobs for locals. Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Mohd Fahmi have asked for updates on this.
The ONE Pass has continued to attract global talent who create opportunities in Singapore, and about 3,000 ONE Passes were issued in 2024.
Beyond economic contributions, ONE Pass holders have contributed to the local community, mentoring local leaders and startups, volunteering with social organisations and collaborating with our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).
Take Ms Savita Iyer, the chief financial officer for The Walt Disney Company Southeast Asia. She has worked across the globe and volunteers as a mentor with the Singapore Leaders Network Fellowship Programme, which prepares Singaporeans for regional and global leadership roles. One of her mentees is Ms Sueann Yeo, Head of APAC Private Wealth Client Relation, EQT Group. Ms Yeo feels empowered to have a female mentor who is a leader in her field and to apply her mentor's experience to her own leadership journey.
At the EP level, we have finetuned our framework to ensure that EP holders complement our local workforce. The EP qualifying salary is benchmarked to the top one-third of the local PMET wages to ensure that EP holders are of high calibre.
The minimum qualifying salary was increased from $5,000 to $5,600 on 1 January 2025 and there will be no further changes this year. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested levelling the salaries for local and foreign workers through a CPF escrow. I believe this is unnecessary, because when setting the qualifying salary, we already include CPF contributions in the local wage benchmarks. In salary terms, the playing field is actually quite fair. While the take-home pay of an EP holder may be higher because they do not contribute to CPF, this does not mean locals are paid less, because their CPF contributions go towards housing and retirement needs.
Mr Patrick Tay asked for an update on how our EP framework incentivises businesses to develop a strong local core. We implemented COMPASS about a year and a half ago. About 30% of the current EP stock has passed through COMPASS and early results suggest that we are moving in the right direction. Firms more dependent on foreigners of a single nationality or foreigners in general will have to diversify their workforce or they have to hire more locals to pass COMPASS.
Since COMPASS was introduced, the share of firms with higher dependence on foreigners of a single nationality has decreased by 7%, while the share of firms with higher dependence on foreigners generally has decreased by 15%. These firms also created 4,000 more PMET jobs for locals.
At the S Pass level, we will continue to raise the quality of our workforce and safeguard employment opportunities for local associate professionals and technicians (APTs). We have benchmarked the minimum cost of hiring for S Pass holders to the top one-third of local APT wages. To ease the transition, we phased out the increase in the S Pass qualifying salary over three steps. We announced it in 2022, and phased it out over three steps, in 2022, 2023 and 2025.
In light of businesses' cost challenges, we have moderated the increase. The S Pass minimum qualifying salary will be raised from $3,150 to $3,300. For the Financial Services sector, it will be raised from $3,650 to $3,800. Per usual, the qualifying salaries will increase with age. These changes will apply to new S Pass applications from 1 September 2025, and renewal applications expiring from 1 September 2026. The S Pass levy rate will also be standardised at $650 for all S Pass holders from 1 September 2025. We will continue to review the S Pass qualifying salary against the benchmark, given prevailing economic conditions.
At the Work Permit level, numbers are at an all-time high, 17% above pre-COVID-19 levels. Sectors more reliant on Work Permit holders, such as Construction, Food Services and Accommodation, have experienced low or negative productivity growth over the last decade. You might have read – over 3,000 F&B outlets closed in 2024. But these closures were outpaced by almost 4,000 new openings, with a 4% increase in Work Permit holders.
As Mr Fahmi urged, businesses need to reduce reliance on Work Permit holders by raising productivity and redesigning jobs for locals. Recognising this, the Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Competitiveness made helpful recommendations to enable businesses to hire higher-skilled workers – and go for quality over quantity.
Mr Mark Lee asked about the recommendation to allow cross-deployment of foreign workers across sectors. It is a complex issue – we need to balance the potential efficiencies against the risk of circumvention of our work pass controls. Having said that, we are studying this in consultation with industry partners and will update when ready.
On the other recommendations, we will adopt them to enhance our Work Permit framework.
First, we will remove the maximum period of employment restrictions for Work Permit holders. Previously, period of employment was capped at 14 to 26 years – causing firms to let go of experienced workers who could be at prime working age. We will also raise the maximum employment age of Work Permit Holders to align with the local retirement age, currently 63. With these changes, employers can retain experienced workers who are still able to contribute.
Mr Jayakumar has worked at KTC Civil Engineering and Construction for 25 years, joining as an Assistant Foreman before rising the ranks to Foreman. With his wealth of experience, Mr Jayakumar mentors and trains newer workers, helps instill a strong culture of safety, and promotes best practices.
KTC welcomes the removal of the maximum period of employment restrictions, which allows experienced workers like Mr Jayakumar to continue contributing to the company's productivity and delivery of projects.
Second, we will expand the list of Non-Traditional Sources to include Laos, Cambodia and Bhutan, considering industry demand. This will allow firms to build a more skilled and resilient workforce.
Third, we will expand the Non-Traditional Sources Occupation List (NTS-OL), to enable businesses in Services and Manufacturing to hire skilled workers from Non-Traditional Sources in more non-PMET occupations, in consultation with industry partners and unions. On top of that, we have included nearly all the manufacturing operator roles recommended by the AfA. We will also include heavy vehicle drivers and cooks. As NTS-OL workers must be paid at least $2,000, this will not undermine efforts to uplift locals in these occupations.
Finally, we recognise companies need manpower support for transformation. The Manpower for Strategic Economic Priorities (M-SEP) scheme provides transitionary Work Permit and S Pass quota to firms contributing to Singapore's economic priorities. We will expand the eligible programmes and add a new pathway for firms that send locals on overseas exposure or leadership programmes. We will also extend the support period from two to three years.
These changes will help us move towards a higher-quality Work Permit workforce. At the same time, we recognise there are essential roles that are difficult to automate and recruit locals for. We have been providing targeted flexibilities, such as for conservancy cleaning.
Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo shared how the Ministry of Home Affairs is carefully augmenting the recruitment pool with foreigners for emergency medical services and auxiliary police officers, even as they maintain a strong local core.
Ms Hazel Poa also suggested allocating more foreign workforce quota to firms with inclusive employment practices. Mr Mark Lee and Mr Zhulkarnian Abdul Rahim had made similar suggestions in Parliament previously. We will study this proposal carefully, given possible trade-offs with the key objectives of our foreign workforce levers to spur business transformation and encourage firms to hire locals.
We are actively reviewing our Work Permit framework to drive transformation, while nuancing it to support different needs as our workforce changes. Updates will be shared in due course.
Moving on to empowering our workers. Singaporeans have a world-class education and work ethic. As our economy transforms, we are well-poised to take advantage of new opportunities. However, formal education alone is not sufficient. The OECD's Survey of Adult Skills found that Singaporeans' literacy skills declined as early as in their mid-30s. We must do more to pursue lifelong learning.
In our Forward Singapore engagements, Singaporeans shared that they looked forward to new opportunities but were uncertain how to get there. Career Health SG is our commitment to empower Singaporeans to develop meaningful and resilient careers amidst economic changes.
For instance, as mentioned in my Ministry of Trade and Industry COS speech, as we transition to a green economy, we are actively reskilling workers to take on new or redesigned green jobs through programmes like the CCP for Sustainability Professionals and the CCP for Future Energy and Chemical sector.
Employers also have a big part to play in supporting their employees. An SBF survey showed 60% of large companies and less than half of SMEs provide their employees with training. We understand. I used to run a business before. When business is good, there is no time to train. When business is bad, there is no money to train.
Employers may also be unsure how to guide employees in their career journey. That is why we have invested in a holistic set of initiatives to support Singaporeans' career health. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will elaborate on MOM's efforts to empower Singaporeans to build career health and strengthen support for employers.
Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about underemployment in Singapore. Mr Leong has asserted, not for the first time, that underemployment is a severe problem – that it is increasingly difficult for Singaporeans to find jobs matching their skills and aspirations.
I want to share with everyone – I understand the anxieties and I empathise with the apprehensions that Singaporeans today have, that they feel in a rapidly changing world. As Mr Patrick Tay mentioned, the faster pace of economic transformation, all of this accelerated change may lead to mismatches between employers' needs and workers' aspirations.
The underemployment that Mr Leong described earlier is referred to as skills-related underemployment, where individuals believe that their job does not fully utilise their skills. However, today, there is no internationally accepted way to measure this. I shared before – we are working with the International Labour Organization (ILO) to develop such measurements. But this international collaborative process will take time. What we have and what we can measure objectively is time-related underemployment, which he talked about – the one-hour time rate. This is well-defined and an internationally accepted measure. This means, persons working part-time but willing and able to engage in additional work.
Just to share with everyone, and for Mr Leong's consumption as well, Singapore's resident time-related underemployment rate is low and stable, averaging 3.1% over the past decade and it was at a low of 2.3% last year, in 2024.
This is lower than many other developed economies like the United Kingdom (UK) and Finland.
Some workers have personal reasons for taking on jobs that may not match their qualifications – reasons like passion, lifestyle goals or caregiving needs. We respect these choices and we want those who are underemployed voluntarily to have a range of jobs to choose from to suit their needs and their aspirations.
The most common example, which Mr Leong also cited as proof of underemployment, are former PMETs – his example of a senior vice president of a bank who is now a private hire driver. However, we should be very careful about using anecdotal examples and extrapolating this. Only 1.1% of our resident workforce, or about 28,000 residents, are working primarily as private-hire car drivers. We did a survey, an MOM survey, and it shows 63% do so on a \"preferred basis\" and they shared that they enjoyed the flexibility and freedom the job provides, not because they cannot find permanent work.
Similarly, a survey by Grab shows that more than 70% of their drivers have chosen to take up this work because of \"flexibility of time\".
What about self-employed persons (SEPs)? MOM's latest survey shows that 94.1% of SEPs who did own account work as a primary form of their livelihood, for example, financial advisors, insurance agents, real estate agents, taxi drivers, private-hire car drivers, preferred such work arrangements. Among them are degree holders who willingly take on jobs that typically do not require a degree because either they found the current work meaningful, because it suits their needs, or maybe it gives them the flexibility that they want.
On the other metrics that Mr Leong alluded to, the picture is also not the dire one that he has painted. Compared to other developed economies, our residents have one of the highest median incomes and labour force participation rates, and lowest unemployment rates.
Incomes of residents have risen across all percentiles in the last decade. Residents earn one of the highest wages in the world, unlike in many other developed countries where wages have either stagnated or declined. The median starting salaries of our graduates are higher than other countries like the UK and Australia, even after adjusting for purchasing power parity.
More locals have secured PMET jobs in the last decade, with the proportion of our resident workforce in PMET jobs increasing from 54% to 64%. This corresponds to the share of tertiary-educated workers in the resident workforce, which increased from 51% to slightly over 60%, over the same period that we are comparing.
If underemployment was widespread, the PMET share would be much lower than the share of tertiary-educated workers.
The incidence of discouraged workers; that means workers who have given up searching for work, also declined from 0.4% in 2023 to 0.3% in 2024. Majority of these were seniors, whom we are now helping to upskill them for new job opportunities.
I understand – I spend a lot of time talking about the data, but the data may not reassure those who are feeling anxious or who may have lived experiences, difficulties going through their livelihood, struggling to find roles, struggling to find purpose and meaning in life, or to find roles that match their expectations.
Let me assure every fellow Singaporean, for those in this phase of your career journey, you are not alone. Let us help you. We have a wide range of programmes to help you stay up to date in the job market, for you to stay employed, for you to stay confident, for you to seize good job opportunities. That is the spirit behind our Career Health SG.
So, we have a whole list of help schemes that are available. I put up a glossary just to help me, to remind myself as I am going through this speech. There are at least 34 of them. I am happy to share them at the end of this debate and I hope that all of us, all of our fellow Singaporeans, will take full advantage of these programmes to broaden your career horizons.
At the same time, we are committed to ensuring a fair level playing field. We will continue to promote fair employment practices and we will take firm actions against discriminatory hiring. That is how we pass the Workplace Fairness Legislation Bill a month and a half ago.
For those facing setbacks, we have your back.
From April this year, the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme will provide temporary financial support for involuntarily unemployed persons while they look for a job. And like I said, this is just a transitional support scheme. It sits on top of whatever social assistance schemes that you are already on. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will share how eligible individuals can qualify for payouts under the scheme.
For Singaporeans aspiring to become corporate leaders, overseas exposure is crucial. Through the Forward SG exercise, the AfAs on Business Leadership Development (AfA-BLD) and on Business Competitiveness, businesses have highlighted constantly the need for Singaporean corporate leaders with global exposure and perspectives. As stated in the Forward SG report, we will do more to help Singaporeans stand out as leaders in their respective fields.
Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Edward Chia will be glad to learn that we will redouble our efforts to groom the next generation of Singapore Global Leaders on three fronts.
First, as announced by Prime Minister in his Budget speech, we will expand career development opportunities for Singaporean professionals. Today, we support companies to groom Singaporean talents through overseas postings and leadership milestone programmes. These programmes offered by agencies, such as Enterprise Singapore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Infocomm Media Development Authority, cover a range of sectors and support both early-career professionals and mid-career leaders.
We will double the collective capacity of these programmes from 400 participants a year to over 700. This will enable us to groom homegrown leaders, like Andrew Chia, the Head of Wealth and Retail Banking for Singapore, ASEAN and South Asia at Standard Chartered Bank. Prior to his current role, MAS supported his posting to Jakarta as CEO of Standard Chartered Bank Indonesia, as part of their International Postings Programme (iPOST). The invaluable experience prepared him for the current role overseeing the Singaporean franchise and eight other regional markets.
Second, we will enhance overseas transition support for Singaporeans and their families. We know that moving overseas and back can be difficult for families, especially on housing and children's education. We will help to ease the transition. Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat owners with overseas postings during their minimum occupation period can approach HDB to explore flexibilities, such as deferring the minimum occupation period, if they have a clear and reasonable timeline to return to Singapore.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has measures to support families' education needs and preferences. Through the Assured School Placement scheme, MOE ensures that children of returning Singaporeans are guaranteed a place in a primary or secondary school with vacancies near their home. Those seeking admission to a secondary school based on merit and choice can also take part in the School Placement Exercise for Returning Singaporeans.
The Singapore Leaders Network (SGLN), a leadership community established in 2022 to prepare Singaporeans for regional and global leadership roles, will provide end-to-end support for Singaporeans embarking on overseas stints. It will connect participants with in-market communities and provide guidance on housing and education matters through relevant agencies.
Third, we will strengthen the ecosystem of our leadership communities. These are crucial for building professional networks and accessing career resources. As Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong mentioned, we will enhance SGLN to provide overseas transition support. We will scale-up networking programmes, mentorship opportunities and the flagship SGLN Fellowship programme for middle to senior Singaporean managers. We will share more details soon and I really encourage all aspiring Singaporean leaders to join the network.
We will also foster cross-sector networking between SGLN and sectoral communities, like the Singapore Financial Leaders Network and the SG Digital Leadership Accelerator.
As our population ages, we need to really be very forward-leaning on extending the productive longevity of seniors and strengthening retirement adequacy. So, we will help our senior workers to remain productive for as long as they wish to. We will launch a tripartite-led effort this year to co-develop ideas with citizens and businesses on enabling multi-stage careers for mature workers.
As announced by the Prime Minister in his Budget speech, we will extend the Senior Employment Credit to continue supporting employers in hiring senior workers. We will help our seniors build up their retirement savings by taking the next step to raise senior worker CPF contribution rates in 2026. We will also, at the same time, extend the CPF Transition Offset for employers.
Ms Sylvia Lim suggested changes to the CPF system, including increasing the amount that members can withdraw at age 55. I think she knows that this will reduce members' future monthly payouts when they might need it most. The current withdrawal rules strike a balance between members' immediate needs and ensuring sufficient retirement income for life.
Property owners have the flexibility to set aside their Full Retirement Sum in property and cash to withdraw their retirement account savings above the Basic Retirement Sum. And members born from 1958 can also withdraw up to 20% of their retirement account savings when they turn 65.
To Ms Sylvia Lim's other suggestion to require spousal consent for CPF nominations, our current approach, I have said that before, is aligned with that for wills. The distribution of one's assets is a personal decision. Requiring spousal consent would mean members are no longer free to choose who would receive their CPF savings upon their demise. We will continue reviewing our CPF policies to ensure relevance.
We have made good progress in strengthening the retirement adequacy for Singaporeans through moves in the last two years. We have been raising the CPF monthly salary ceiling to keep pace with salaries. I have said earlier on, it will be raised further from $7,400 to $8,000 from 1 January 2026.
We have also put up the Majulah Package where 1.6 million Singaporeans received the MediSave bonus in December 2024 and about 800,000 also received the Retirement Savings Bonus. From this year, eligible working seniors will receive the annual Earn and Save Bonus for as long as they work.
And this is how the Government has enhanced Singaporeans' retirement adequacy, even as we study moves, such as the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, which Mr Louis Chua mentioned. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will share more on our initiatives to help seniors build their retirement savings and stay engaged in the workforce.
It is also important that we foster fair and inclusive workplaces, so that all workers can share in the fruits of our growth. We will continue to uplift our lower-wage workers. To help them upskill for better jobs, we will enhance Workfare Skill Support. We will also enhance the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) to support employers in wage increases. Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad will share more.
We want to foster inclusive workplaces where everyone can contribute, even with different work arrangements. We will enhance CCPs for the reskilling of mid-career new hires and employees on flexi-load jobs.
For persons with disabilities, we have supported firms in making reasonable accommodations, including the Employment Support for Employers to hire Persons with Disabilities scheme and ongoing work on a Tripartite Advisory. We will also help them to build an adequate nest egg.
In the Budget speech, the Prime Minister announced the expansion of the Match Retirement Savings Scheme to include Singaporeans with disabilities, regardless of age, so long as they meet certain criteria. And we will also continue to support the employment of ex-offenders. Minister of State Gan Siow Huang will share more.
We have improved our Workplace Safety and Health outcomes to be on par with developed countries, but we have to continue to stay vigilant. It is always a work in progress. Senior Minister of State Zaqy will share more.
As our economic transformation speeds up, we hear concerns on workers' protection. We will embark on a review of the Employment Act with our tripartite partners to ensure that we continue to strike the right balance between protection for workers, but preserving, at the same time, flexibility for businesses.
We thank Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Louis Ng for their suggestions on the Employment Act, which we will consider in our review and I think we will share more later this year.
Ms Jean See asked about support for employees when companies undergo M&As. These companies must plan retrenchments and contract cessations fairly, based on objective and consistent criteria, following the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment. And to guide employers to strengthen their capabilities, we have built up an ecosystem of support through the Institute for Human Resource Professionals and SNEF.
Mr Mark Lee suggested enhancing CCPs for employees redeployed after M&As. As I said in my Ministry of Trade and Industry COS speech, CCPs already offer substantial support for such workers, especially for mature workers, who may need more help during business transitions like mergers. Nonetheless, we will study this.
We also thank Ms See on her points on the fair use of AI. Today, all employers must comply with Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, regardless of whether AI is used in their employment decisions. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) has yet to encounter complaints of discrimination involving AI.
Mr Chairman, I will say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As Confucius said, \"At 30, I stood on my feet. At 40, I was no longer lost. And at 50, I knew what destiny is in store for me.\" Similarly, MOM will help Singaporeans achieve their career aspirations at every stage of life.
For those new to the workforce or looking to switch careers, we will help unlock your career potential. For example, we have enhanced the CCPs to help more workers, including those in flexi-load jobs, upgrade their skills. If you are a working professional aiming to take your career to new heights, we will help you gain overseas work experience and expand your professional networks.
To our senior workers, please be assured: we will support your continued employment and help meet your basic retirement needs.
To support employers in hiring senior workers, we have extended the Senior Employment Credit. Next year, we will take the next step to raise CPF contribution rates for senior workers and extend the CPF Transition Offset.
We are also helping Singaporeans accumulate retirement savings through the Majulah Package, Silver Support Scheme and Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, for greater assurance in their golden years.
MOM also looks after low-wage workers. We enhanced Workfare Skills Support to support your upskilling. To support employers in raising your wages, we have also enhanced the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme. We will build a safe, inclusive workplaces and ensure fair competition between local and foreign workers.
For businesses, we will support your transformation and talent development efforts to help you continue to thrive.
This is a commitment by MOM to Singaporeans. The Government will work with employees and employers to build a better tomorrow.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Chairman, today, the global order underpinning peace and prosperity has been upended in a matter of weeks. Supply chains are shifting. Technology is advancing rapidly. There is great uncertainty.
But Singaporeans have the mettle and drive to navigate this turbulence and find new opportunities. We may be small, but we are nimble. We have never been defined by our limits, but by how we have responded to them and how we continue to respond to them. Through COVID-19, we have seen the adaptability and resilience of our businesses and workers even as we weathered crisis after crisis.
In today’s world, the idea of a single job or rice bowl may no longer hold true, because change is not just constant, it is accelerating, and new challenges and disruptions will always emerge. But we can forge something stronger, and that is the resilience, adaptability and courage to take on whatever comes next. When one door closes, we will carve out a new path. If the ingredients change, we can master new recipes.
We will walk with every Singaporean to help you journey through that change. We will help you realise your fullest potential, so long as you are willing to do so.
While we may not be certain of what lies ahead of us, one thing is certain. The Government will never let you down. The Government, workers and businesses together, coming in unity, in unison – we will achieve a brighter future for Singapore and for Singaporeans. [Applause.]
The Chairman: We will take clarifications at the end. The next Member is not here. Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): The PWMs for retail and food services sectors were introduced in September 2022 and March 2023 respectively and has positively impacted 75,000 lower-wage workers, with wage increases of between 8.5% and 19% and clear career pathways. The two tripartite workgroups will convene again this year to determine wage ladders for the next phase.
Employers support uplifting the livelihoods of our lower-wage workers, but many are grappling with business pressures. In 2024, over 3,000 F&B businesses closed in Singapore, the highest number since 2005. Challenges such as a looming trade war, global economic uncertainty, rising cost of raw materials, e-commerce competition and the development of the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone are making our retail and F&B businesses rethink their strategies.
Given the concerns raised by businesses, what can the Ministry do to further strengthen the PWCS to support firms in raising wages beyond 2026. Could the Ministry look into recognising enterprises who have attained the PW Mark with additional wage support?
Business owners have also shared the need to further streamline the PWM reporting process to the MOM and CPF. One company reported that Government compliance costs have gone up by 30% while another shared that they quadrupled their HR staff strength after PWM implementation.
Since the PWM has been in place since 2012, how can the Ministry refine reporting processes to reduce administrative burdens on businesses while maintaining accountability?
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Sir, Budget 2025 has made enhancements to the Workfare Skills Support scheme to provide lower-wage workers more access to more substantive reskilling and upskilling and training allowances modelled after the level-up programme for those over 40 to those over 30.
Sir, this is an important move – recognising that those over 30 are also at a critical stage in their careers, often balancing the demands of work, family and personal aspirations. Many lower-income workers also have children relatively earlier in their lives. This will provide a boost to those who are eager to take charge of their careers, lowering the financial hurdles they may face.
Career growth and skills developments should not be bound by age. We want all Singaporeans, no matter where they are in their careers, to be equipped to succeed. The sooner they get on board the train, the better. Indeed, some low-wage workers aged below 30 have also been out of school and in the job market for a while and would benefit from more training opportunities.
How will the Government educate and encourage lower-wage workers over 30 to take up the longer courses that lead to deeper upskilling and better employment? Will the Government consider expanding the Workfare Skills Support enhancements further, say to those over 25?
The Chairman: Mr Melvin Yong. Take your two cuts together.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Chairman, it has been almost two years since the implementation of recommendations by the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers. What has been the progress of these efforts and what are the benchmarks that the MOM uses to measure success?
It is heartening that the Government has taken the lead in making the Progressive Wage Mark a contractual obligation for Government tenders. How many lower-wage workers have been uplifted through the PW Mark, beyond the companies that are subject to mandatory licensing and foreign worker requirements? What more can we do to encourage companies to adopt the PW Mark?
The PWM has uplifted wages and more importantly, catalysed longer-term shifts in the PWM sectors. I urge MOM to extend the PWM to the pest management sector, which is an essential service that has many rank and file workers earning wages below the 20th percentile of resident workers. Implementing PWM will help reduce attrition and hopefully, transform the industry into one that can provide a viable career for Singaporeans.
Mr Chairman, when our annualised fatal injury rate held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 workers for 2023 and the first half of 2024, I then cautioned that we must continue to work hard to keep our workplace accidents as low as we can.
Unfortunately, complacency seems to have set in for the construction sector. In December last year, MOM noted a spike in construction workplace deaths in the second half of 2024. Worryingly, it was reported that many of these incidents were due to the lack of basic safety measures or non-compliance with established safety measures.
The spike in workplace fatalities is deeply concerning, because every life lost is one too many.
Can MOM provide an update on the Safety Accountability, Focus and Empowerment (SAFE) measures implemented thus far? How have these measures improved workplace safety and health ownership? How are these SAFE measures expected to improve safety in the construction sector?
What is the Ministry's plan to sustain the collective tripartite efforts on total workplace safety and health (WSH), including efforts on occupational disease prevention? Ensuring workplace safety and health is a never-ending endeavour. What is the Ministry's plan to foster a stronger workplace safety culture at every company, beyond just enforcement?
Ms See Jinli Jean: Freelancers are part of the value chain to create and deliver a finished product. Oftentimes, the imbalance of bargaining power between freelancers and service buyers means that freelancers are held in check by market reality when pricing their fees. Thus, freelancers would tend to price their fees based on what the market is prepared to pay, without factoring in the cost of safeguarding their health and safety at work.
In the context of the creative industry, service buyers such as creative production houses are vendors and contractors that are held in check by the market reality of tight timelines and tighter budgets imposed by commissioning firms and Government agencies. Because of budget limitations, creative production houses could be apathetic towards putting in measures that safeguard the health and safety of freelancers, including guidance on a cap on the total hours of work on set and ensuring risk mitigation for higher-risk activities such as specialised rigging, smoke effects, stunts and the use of weapons.
Could the Minister share if the Tripartite Standard on Procurement of Services from Media Freelancers has promoted a culture of shared responsibility for workplace safety in the creative industry? What are the Ministry's plans to ensure that freelancers and service buyers in the creative industry are familiar with the health and safety requirements that are relevant to the work that they do, control, contract or commission? Would the Ministry consider outlining safe work safeguards, such as reasonable hours of work for the creative and media industry?
Miss Rachel Ong: Chairman, burnout is a growing concern in Singapore, with 61% of workers experiencing it and 73% feeling stress weekly, according to recent studies.
SMEs face even greater challenges, often lacking the resources to support employees' mental well-being. While larger firms can afford to provide mental health support and initiatives, SMEs struggle without dedicated infrastructure, leaving workers very vulnerable.
I am grateful that the Government has introduced initiatives like the Total Workplace Safety and Health programme, offering free consultations, as well as HPB's integrated workplace mental health solution, which equips workplaces with wellness tools.
Yet with burnout widespread, especially in SMEs, more targeted support is needed. How will the Government enhance mental health resources for SMEs that lack the capacity to manage these challenges effectively?
Ms Yeo Wan Ling: Singapore will be super-ageing society as defined by the United Nations (UN) in 2026. As an ageing society, workplaces must be more inclusive and accommodative to the physical needs of a more senior staff base, from providing more ergonomic support to more aware of long-term work-related disorders.
In addition, more attention and conversations can be situated around lifecycle changes such as menopause, which Duke-NUS has dubbed the Menopause Wave to come in a super-ageing Singapore. Some progressive companies have put together menopause policies, which cover the physical and mental well-being of peri-menopause and menopause employees, but efforts are at best spotty.
Mental wellness is also an increasingly important workplace safety and health performance indicator, with around one in seven people in Singapore experiencing a mental disorder in their lifetime. Studies have also suggested that work stressors were among factors associated with poor mental health. Some workplaces have mental wellness champions, but more can be done to enhance the training and expertise of such champions.
Given that it is important that safety, wellness and health performance in our workplaces continue to evolve to support our workforce changes, how will the Ministry continue to support employers, especially the less resourced SMEs, in the collective efforts to build a strong safety and wellness culture in corporate Singapore?
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Chairman, according to our tripartite guidelines for retrenchment, an employer is presumed to have retrenched an employee when the employer terminates the employment contract with \"no plan to fill the vacancy any time soon\".
However, in practice, there could have been instances in which employers terminated employees in ways that were calculated to fly under the radar of retrenchment. Employees might have been made to resign or are let go in the name of poor performance, even if employers were really planning to make their roles redundant and not planning to fill the vacancy any time soon.
So, the affected employees feel like they are in fact being retrenched. If they file a case with the TADM, they can probably get a judgement in their favour, but affected employees might not have chosen to do so for various reasons and effectively they chose to forgo the retrenchment benefits that they ought to have received. I call this stealth retrenchment.
We know mature workers in their forties and fifties are especially affected by retrenchments in general. My guess is that they are also disproportionately affected by stealth retrenchments, as I just described.
Retrenchment affects a mature worker profoundly. Emotionally, for sure, but also financially, especially if the mature worker is sandwiched between children and elderly parents. And retrenchment done in stealth adds salt to the wound and cuts even deeper as the worker feels a sense of injustice, betrayal and suffering in silence.
What are MOM's plans to enhance job matching support for mature workers and help them bounce back from setbacks? And in particular, for those who were told to \"resign\", ostensibly on their own accord, but were, in reality, laid off and thus involuntarily unemployed, will they still be able to access the Jobseeker Support Scheme and the temporary financial support of up to $6,000 for six months when the Scheme requires the jobseeker to have been involuntarily unemployed?
Mr Yip Hon Weng: Chairman, I have long championed extending the productive longevity of our senior workers – not just to tackle demographic shifts, but because their experience, resilience and skills are invaluable.
Yet, in our ageing society, are we truly harnessing this potential? In 2022, 31% of residents aged 65 and above were employed, but nearly 69% earned less than $2,500 monthly. The old-age support ratio has plunged from six in 2014 to 3.5 in 2024. Are we underutilising a workforce that still has much to give?
What if we flipped the script? The employment rate for seniors aged 65 to 69 hit 47.5% in 2022. More seniors want to work, but are we offering them the right opportunities?
To our senior workers: lifelong learning is not just a buzzword. It is the key to career reinvention. How can we better match skills to new roles, including those in the gig economy? I have pushed for tailored courses that align with seniors' interests and experience. Are we doing enough to ensure that fair wages reflect their productivity?
To employers: age-friendly workplaces are not just nice to have; they are a necessity. Over 5,000 companies have committed to raising retirement and re-employment ages. But are they redesigning roles to make work more flexible? Are job-sharing and hybrid arrangements becoming the norm, or the exception?
To the Government and tripartite partners: the Senior Employment Credit benefited 400,000 senior workers and 90,000 employers in 2023. But why stop there? Could we proactively partner with businesses to create more opportunities? It is time to rethink ageing in the workforce. Can we build a society where every individual, regardless of age, has a place to contribute meaningfully?
Mr Sharael Taha: Mr Chairman, with increased life expectancy and Singaporeans being healthier, it is even more important to plan for retirement and retirement adequacy. Senior workers may also want to continue working with shorter hours, lighter workloads or flexible schedules. However, the employment of seniors will require a shift in mindset from all stakeholders.
Have our policies on senior employment, such as Senior Employment Credit, job redesign and flexible work arrangements made an impact on senior employment? Are we starting to see seniors getting employed in better redesign jobs that leverage on their strength and experience? Has job redesign provided more and enough opportunities for our senior workers?
While ensuring that our workforce is prepared for a longer retirement adequacy, workers must also plan for their extended career longevity by taking responsibility for their career and skills upgrading, especially as part of their career health check and retirement planning. How can we help our workers plan for upskilling to enhance their employability and extend their career longevity?
Mr Mark Lee: Chairman, workforce transformation presents a valuable opportunity for businesses to address manpower challenges while tapping into a diverse and skilled labour pool. The extension of the Senior Employment Credit and Enabling Employment Credit is a welcome move, as it enables businesses to tap into underutilised labour pools such as seniors and persons with disabilities.
To build on this momentum, will the Ministry consider supporting job fractionalisation, allowing seniors and persons with disabilities to contribute meaningfully through FWAs tailored to their needs? Additionally, can the Ministry explore tripartite standards for fractional employment, funding support for part-time workers undergoing training, and the creation of official platforms, working alongside trade associations and chambers, to facilitate and manage a fractional workforce? These measures would not only expand Singapore' workforce capacity but also provide businesses with more adaptable and sustainable manpower solutions.
Mr Sharael Taha: Chairman, while Singapore maintains a low unemployment rate and offers many career opportunities, securing meaningful employment remains a significant challenge for seniors, differently-abled individuals, and those with caregiving responsibilities. Have we moved the needle in expanding job opportunities for these groups of individuals? Is it enough?
Take, for example, SG Enables efforts to connect persons with disabilities to jobs while commendable, the employment rate for this group still remains relatively low. Similarly, the Senior Employment Credit incentivises business to hire older workers, but if you were to ask any seniors looking for jobs, they will still share that age bias persist in hiring practices. FWAs, whether flexi-load, flexi-time or flexi-place have been promoted. However, adoption remains inconsistent.
How do we go beyond schemes and incentives to truly shift workplace culture towards inclusive hiring practices? Should we consider stronger regulatory measures? What more can be done to ensure that employment inclusivity is not just a policy goal, but a reality for all Singaporeans?
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Zaqy.
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Zaqy.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, I report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2025/2026 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Social and Family Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I make a clarification with regards to a supplementary question posed by the Leader of the Opposition on the 3 March Sitting?
Mr Speaker: Go ahead.
Mr Eric Chua: Sir, on Monday, 3 March 2025, the Leader of the Opposition asked in his supplementary question for an explanation of an apparent discrepancy between the ComCare disbursement amounts reported in FY2022 annual report and Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) Supporting Lower-Income Households Trends Report published in 2024.
I would like to clarify that the data in the trends report is reported on a calendar year basis whereas the data in the ComCare annual reports is reported on a financial year basis. But to be complete, I would also like to highlight that the Ministry has issued a correction to the FY2021 and FY2022 ComCare annual reports, which were earlier presented to Parliament.
On Friday, 28 February, when preparing for the MSF Committee of Supply, the MSF team reported to their director that there was an error in the FY2021 and FY2022 ComCare annual reports. A corrigenda has since been submitted to Parliament and published.
In summary, the total amount of ComCare payments in FY2021 were understated. Hence, the $112.5 million figure cited in the trends report should have been $122.5 million.
Nevertheless, the reason for the difference cited in the supplementary question is that the ComCare annual reports refer to the financial year, whereas the trends report refers to the calendar year.
Mr Speaker: Deputy 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":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 10.00 am. Order. Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 7.54 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Retirement Adequacy, Provision of One-time Top-up to CPF Retirement Account and Increasing Retirement Account's Interest Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"8 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of Singaporeans' current preparedness for retiring gracefully and with dignity; (b) whether the Government can consider using recent Budget surpluses to provide a one-time top-up of $24,000 to the CPF Retirement Account (RA) for Singaporeans aged 55 years and above and to do the same for all reaching that age in future; and (c) whether the Government has looked at ways to increase the annual interest rate on RA to 6%.
Dr Tan See Leng: Over the last decade, the proportion of active Central Provident Fund (CPF) members who have set aside their cohort Basic Retirement Sum (BRS), at age 55, has improved from about five in 10 to more than seven in 10 today. We expect this number to increase to about eight in 10 in 2027.
The improvement in the BRS attainment rate for CPF members is the result of many years of enhancements to the CPF system and our aim is to assure Singaporeans that as long as they work and contribute consistently to CPF, they will be able to meet their basic retirement needs. We recently made significant moves through the Forward Singapore exercise to strengthen support for retirement adequacy. From 2025, we have enhanced the Workfare Income Supplement scheme, the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme and the Silver Support Scheme.
For members who need more help, the Government provides targeted support for their retirement needs. For example, we introduced the $9 billion Majulah Package in 2024 to provide Singapore Citizens born in 1973 or earlier with an additional boost for their retirement and healthcare savings. This included the Retirement Savings Bonus of up to $1,500, which was given to about 800,000 eligible seniors' CPF accounts in December 2024.
CPF interest rates are pegged to returns of investments of comparable risk and duration in the market, with floor rates of 2.5% for the Ordinary Account and 4% for the Special, MediSave and Retirement Accounts, to protect members from any downside risks. When interest rates were low, the Government continued to pay the floor rates; and when the pegged rates exceeded the floor rates, members have correspondingly earned the higher interest rates.
For members aged 55 and above, the Government currently pays 6% interest on the first $30,000 and 5% on the next $30,000 of combined CPF balances to help boost their retirement savings. Members who wish to take on some risks for potentially higher returns may also choose to invest their savings under the CPF Investment Scheme.
We will regularly review our CPF policies as part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans, to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to build up their retirement savings, with the Government providing targeted support especially to those who need it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Basis for Disallowing Expenditure on Antiques and Fine Art under Section 14N Deduction Regime of Income Tax Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the Ministry's basis for disallowing expenditure on antiques and fine art under the section 14N deduction regime of the Income Tax Act.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The section 14N tax deduction is intended to help businesses, especially small and medium enterprises in service industries, reduce business costs when they refresh or upgrade their premises to improve their service offerings for their customers. It allows businesses to claim deductions on expenses incurred for qualifying renovation and refurbishment works. We have disallowed expenses relating to antiques and fine art as they are commonly acquired for investment rather than for the intended purpose of section 14N.
Where antiques and fine art constitute a plant for a business in carrying out its trade or business operations, the expenditure will qualify for capital allowance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Donations to Arts, Cultural and Heritage IPCs Qualifying for 250% Tax Deduction in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the total value of donations made to arts, cultural and heritage Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) that have qualified for the 250% tax deduction under the Income Tax Act in the past five years; and (b) what proportion of all tax-deductible donations to IPCs do these contributions represent over the same period.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The information requested for the latest available five-year period from 2019 to 2023 is in Table 1 below. This can be obtained from the publicly available Commissioner of Charities Annual Reports.
3 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what key factors does the Ministry consider when assessing whether a particular industry merits additional or incentivised income tax deductions, exemptions or reliefs, beyond the standard treatment provided for in the Income Tax Act.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Our income tax concessions for an industry are mainly intended to support economic growth and enterprise in Singapore. In assessing any proposed tax concession, the Government conducts a cost-benefit analysis, assesses its effectiveness given the nature of the industry and considers whether the proposed concession is consistent with our tax principles and policy. The Government also considers whether the proposed concession is necessary, given the other existing non-tax measures that may already be in place to support the industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investments Channelled into Arts-related Businesses in Singapore under Global Investor Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) to date, how much investment has been channelled into arts-related businesses in Singapore as a result of incentives offered under the Global Investor Programme (GIP); and (b) what proportion of total GIP-related investments does this represent.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Global Investor Programme (GIP) accords Permanent Resident status to eligible global investors who intend to drive their businesses and investment growth from Singapore. It does not offer financial incentives.
There has not been any GIP investor in arts-related businesses in recent years. However, these investors may make voluntary investments or contributions to the arts industry. We do not track these voluntary investments.
5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the nutritional value of food prepared is a criterion for the licensing of a food caterer for workers living in a dormitory; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider working with the Ministry of Manpower to look into incorporating requirements on nutritional value for the catered food of workers in dormitories.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The objective of licensing food businesses, including food caterers, is to ensure food safety to safeguard public health. The nutritional value of catered food is not a licensing consideration and the Singapore Food Agency has no plan to incorporate such requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Designating More Areas as \"No Smoking Zones\"","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry is considering designating more areas as \"No Smoking Zones\".
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In 2019, the National Environment Agency (NEA) designated Orchard Road as a No Smoking Zone. In 2024, the Orchard Road No Smoking Zone was expanded to cover additional areas near Somerset Road and Exeter Road. As the last expansion took place only last year, NEA currently does not have any plan to designate more areas as \"No Smoking Zones\".
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Success in Attracting International Students to Autonomous Universities for Postgraduate Studies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Education (a) how has Singapore been able to attract international students to its Autonomous Universities for postgraduate studies over the past five years; (b) whether the Ministry has data comparing this to Singapore-based international institutes, such as the Institut Européen d'Administration des Affaires (INSEAD) Business School and the École Supérieure des Sciences Économiques et Commerciales (ESSEC) Business School; and (c) which disciplines do these foreign students come to Singapore to pursue.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Postgraduate programmes at the Autonomous Universities (AUs) are well regarded and consistently attract both local and international postgraduate students. Overall, AUs admit more postgraduate students compared to Private Education Institutions in Singapore. At AUs, these students pursue a range of disciplines, including science and technology, business and finance, and the humanities and social sciences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Direct Grants and Support to Caregivers to Address Financial Insecurity and Retirement Inadequacy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry is studying the possibility of providing direct caregiver grants to address the financial insecurity and retirement inadequacy that some caregivers face; and (b) what other plans does the Ministry have to support caregivers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government regularly reviews and enhances support for caregivers of various profiles. This includes initiatives to defray daily costs of living and care services. For example, at Budget 2025, we announced enhancements to the Home Caregiving Grant, to alleviate the caregiving expenses of persons who require assistance with their Activities of Daily Living. Caregivers of seniors and persons with disabilities can look forward to enhanced subsidies for long-term care services in 2026, with more eligible for such subsidies with the raise in maximum qualifying per capita household income to $4,800. Parents with young children also receive a wide range of financial support to defray costs relating to their children's development, such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and preschool subsidies.
Supporting caregivers to stay working where possible, enables them to continue progressing in meaningful careers, while saving for their retirement and building financial resilience. In this area, we support the employment of caregivers by enabling working caregivers to balance work with caregiving through flexible work arrangements and by providing job placement and skills upgrading support for those who wish to return to work. Caregivers may also be eligible for the Workfare Income Supplement, which supplements eligible lower-wage workers' income and retirement savings.
The Majulah Package, introduced in 2024, as well as enhancements to the Silver Support Scheme and Matched Retirement Savings Scheme from January 2025, help to boost the retirement and healthcare adequacy of seniors, some of whom may have caregiving duties. Eligible seniors, including caregivers, can benefit from these support measures which supplement their retirement income and Central Provident Fund savings.
Beyond addressing financial stability and retirement adequacy, the Government has also introduced other measures to support caregivers in fulfilling their caregiving duties. These include enhancing Government-Paid Paternity Leave and introducing the new Shared Parental Leave scheme, to provide stronger caregiving support to working parents of infants. We have also improved access to information on caregiver schemes and services through the SupportGoWhere Care Services Recommender and the Enabling Guide on SG Enable's website. Caregiver-led initiatives, like CaringSG, which is supported by SG Enable; and Enabling Services Hubs also aim to bring peer and community-based support closer to home for these caregivers.
Additionally, we recognise that the emotional, mental and physical toll on caregivers is often heavy, and are committed to providing holistic support to help caregivers overcome the day-to-day demands of caregiving. Caregivers who are feeling stressed or experiencing depressive and anxiety symptoms may reach out to the Community Outreach Teams funded by Ministry of Health for mental health support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review into Making \"Children-in-Between\" Programme Mandatory","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether an update can be provided on the review into making the \"Children-in-Between\" programme which helps both parent and child cope better with the impact of the divorce, mandatory.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Member's suggestion to make the \"Children-in-Between\" programme mandatory has been previously addressed during the second reading of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill on 10 January 2022. [Please refer to \"Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill\", Official Report, 10 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue 44, Second Reading Bills section.]
Our position remains that parents must assume primary responsibility for their children's well-being rather than have the Government mandate a programme for their children. In line with the position that parents must assume primary responsibility, the Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme has been extended to all parents with minor children filing for a divorce since 1 July 2024, to better support parents in making decisions that prioritise their children's well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Couples Utilising Their MediSave Accounts for Assisted Conception Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health in each year for the past five years, how many couples have for the purpose of Assisted Conception Procedures utilised (i) below $5,000 (ii) $5,000 to below $10,000 (iii) $10,000 to below $15,000 and (iv) the maximum of $15,000 from their MediSave accounts.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: A breakdown of the utilisation of the lifetime limit is in the table below.
11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what protocols are in place to prevent the cross-border spread of influenza into Singapore, particularly through high-traffic areas like airports; and (b) whether there are plans to enhance screening measures or implement traveller advisories when significant outbreaks occur in the region.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Influenza circulates globally year-round and there is no way to prevent cross border spread without extreme economic costs to Singapore. We urge Singaporeans to take preventive measures, such as being vaccinated against influenza, practising good personal hygiene, avoiding crowded places and wearing a mask and seeking medical attention promptly when unwell.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccination Services by Trained Community Pharmacists in Retail Pharmacies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health with regard to the recent introduction of influenza vaccination services by trained community pharmacists in retail pharmacies (a) how does the Ministry plan to assess its effectiveness; and (b) whether there are plans to expand this service to more locations based on initial outcomes.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Influenza vaccination services in retail pharmacies were introduced as part of a sandbox on 28 October 2024. We will conduct a review of its effectiveness and safety after six months of data, taking into consideration information from site audits, user feedback, the management of any vaccine adverse reactions or reportable events and the overall uptake.
A decision on whether it will be extended will be taken later in the year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Status of URA's Design Guidelines and Good Practice Guide for Creative Hoardings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Usha Chandradas asked the Minister for National Development whether there are any updates on the status of the Urban Redevelopment Authority's Design Guidelines and Good Practice Guide for Creative Hoardings.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Urban Redevelopment Authority has published the Design Guidelines and Good Practice Guide for Creative Hoardings on its website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}