1 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what measures are in place to secure Singapore’s space-based critical information infrastructure dependent on satellite and space systems; (b) whether the Government has established or plans to establish cybersecurity and resilience standards required of satellite operators; and (c) what contingency plans are in place in the event of disruptions to these satellite operators.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Sir, today, over 99% of our Internet traffic is transmitted internationally via submarine cables, and domestically via terrestrial cables and radio networks. In Singapore, specific enterprises may use satellites as a secondary channel for communications or environmental monitoring.
The impact of potential disruptions to satellite services today is therefore limited. For example, operational systems in the aviation and maritime sectors are primarily supported by terrestrial connectivity networks, with satellite communications serving as a secondary mode of communications.
As cybersecurity threats to space systems are expected to evolve, the Government will work closely with the industry to enhance the security and resilience of Singapore’s space infrastructure.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Choo.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker, and Senior Minister of State. I have three supplementary questions.
First, as reliance on satellite-enabled systems grows, is there a role for strengthening domestic capabilities in satellite cybersecurity monitoring, threat detection and attribution? My second supplementary question: given that satellites are difficult to repair once launched and may rely on legacy or unpatched systems, what is the Government's assessment on the resilient risks? My third supplementary question: and how are these mitigated over their life-cycle?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank the Member Dr Choo for her supplementary questions. My sense of her questions is they stem from a concern around the resilience and security of our digital connectivity infrastructure, which is understandable. The digital connectivity infrastructure is increasingly essential for our economy and our daily lives.
Let me set the context and elaborate on the point that I made earlier. More than 99% of our Internet traffic is via non-satellite means. Unlike other, perhaps, larger countries, Singapore is a hub for submarine cables. Most of our Internet traffic to other parts of the world is via submarine cables. We are a very submarine cable-densed hub in the world. That is the first point.
The second: within Singapore, domestically, we have very robust digital connectivity infrastructure. We have fibre optic cables to almost every home and every business. In fact, Singapore is probably one of the world's first countries to have fibre optic cables to every address. That was more than 15 years ago.
Complementing that is the mobile infrastructure networks. About five years ago, we rolled out the 5G standalone network, making us probably one of the first countries in the world to have nation-wide coverage of standalone 5G mobile coverage.
These networks complement one another, and security and resilience are built into these networks in their design. So, 99% of our Internet traffic is through submarine cables to other parts of the world, and within Singapore, through the terrestrial networks, primarily fibre optic cables as well as our radio networks, which are mobile networks.
That is the context in which we look at our digital connectivity infrastructure.
On top of that, we participate actively in international bodies that set standards for resilience and cybersecurity for the space industry, for example, international standards, such as those from the International Organization for Standardization, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems.
Satellite operators and their partners adopt cybersecurity and resilience standards relevant to their specific use cases, such as for information technology, aerospace and telecommunications. And users that transmit sensitive data would also adopt stringent data encryption policies to protect the data in transit.
Singapore participates actively in many of these committees. This space is evolving, the space technology is evolving rapidly, especially with commercial endeavours in this area, and Singapore continues to monitor the trends closely and participate actively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Preschools that Offer Care Services Beyond 7.00 pm","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many preschools currently offer extended care services beyond 7.00 pm on weekdays and whether this number has increased compared to five years ago; and (b) what specific alternative care arrangements are available for parents who do not have flexible work arrangements, live-in domestic helpers or familial support to pick up their children by 7.00 pm.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): To cater to the needs of working parents, preschools providing full-day services are required to operate from 7.00 am to 7.00 pm on weekdays. Preschools have the flexibility to extend their services beyond the standard operating hours, based on factors such as parental demand and the availability of resources, such as manpower. Today, around 20 preschools operate beyond 7.00 pm on weekdays. This is a decrease from 40 preschools in 2021.
We recognise the challenges that parents face in balancing their caregiving and work commitments. For parents who require additional caregiving support outside of the standard preschool operating hours, there are alternative options available. These include paid and community-based options, such as babysitting services.
To support parents in accessing flexible work arrangements (FWA), the Government has worked closely with tripartite partners to encourage employers to provide a family-friendly work environment. This includes the launch of the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA requests in 2024. The guidelines set out the process for employees to formally request for FWAs, and employers to consider them and aim to better support working parents in their caregiving needs.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, for a worker finishing work at 6.00 pm in the Central Business District and reaching a heartlands preschool by 7.00 pm is often a logistical impossibility, unless they take taxis every day. And since the work inflexibility, commuting costs and the lack of domestic help disproportionately affect lower- and middle-income parents, does the Minister of State agree that rigid cut-off times could exacerbate social inequality?
I have some suggestions. To avoid teacher burn-out, would the Ministry consider requiring one's preschool per HDB estate to offer care until 7.30 pm, staffed by ancillary care assistants? This could provide a safe environment for dinner and unstructured play without increasing the workload of core educators.
And secondly, has the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) conducted a proactive survey to gauge the actual interest in extended hours? Without this, we cannot assume that demand is low, just simply because parents may have simply resigned themselves to the current reality and are making career sacrifices in order to cope.
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. I think the first point with regard to employees ending at 6.00 pm and having to make it to the preschool to pick up their children, I empathise and I understand that some employees, some parents will face that constraint. Which is why I think the emphasis on FWAs is all the more important. I think we want to get to a state whereby the relationship and the common understanding between employers and employees, as a society, is as such – that we do support the caregiving needs of all our working adults, especially working parents. So, I wish to double down on the need and the emphasis on FWAs.
I thank the Member for his suggestion of setting a preschool per estate that operates on extended hours. I do not think ECDA or the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will have a firm view either way on this. I think the key thing here is that the decision to extend operating hours is a business decision that we have left to the preschool operators. The preschools today are actually free to charge. They are available and they are allowed to charge for the extra hours beyond 7.00 pm, depending. This is because we understand and we recognise that for the preschools to run beyond the operating hours, there will be additional demands on them, staffing requirements, additional resources, costs. And therefore, they can charge.
However, we have not seen that. The data over the last five years bears itself that the number of preschools offering that has actually come down, which may suggest that there may not be a demand for that. And I will highlight that 20 preschools is actually lesser than the number of constituencies that we have.
I think the decrease, based on what ECDA understands, can be due to a variety of factors. First, of course, there may be lower parental demand. It may be the case, as we have observed, that flexible arrangements is setting in. More parents do get those flexible arrangements from their employers and therefore, there is not such a need for that. The preschools may also face very real manpower constraints, such as preschool educators themselves or educators themselves having to go back to their own families and their own children at 7.00 pm.
Another reason may also be because parents themselves recognise that it is important for them to spend enough time with their children and not leave the children in the preschools for too long a period. I reference a study made in 2024. This is the Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study (SG LEADS) that found that the longer the children stayed in preschools, beyond 40 hours and significantly beyond, we start to observe that their literacy, their numeracy achievements do have some impact. And I think generally, parents do recognise that too many hours in the preschool is not a good thing. More family time is useful.
From MSF's perspective, we strongly encourage our parents to spend enough quality time with their children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Oversight of Wakaf Management","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what governance and oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure wakaf assets are managed faithfully in accordance with donors’ intentions while remaining financially sustainable; and (b) how has wakaf management evolved in recent years to address challenges such as fragmented assets, rising maintenance costs, and redevelopment constraints in land-scarce Singapore.
\tThe Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Sir, under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), the ownership of all wakaf assets is vested in the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, or Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS). The wakaf assets are managed by Warees Investments, a subsidiary of MUIS, and the appointed mutawallis, in accordance with the intentions of the wakif or donor.
There are clear governance mechanisms in place to ensure that wakaf assets remain financially sustainable and are managed with accountability and transparency.
First, all mutawallis must be approved by the MUIS Council and have the competencies to maintain good governance and long-term sustainability of the wakaf they oversee.
Second, Warees and the appointed mutawallis must comply with audit requirements set out under the AMLA, as well as undergo periodic checks by MUIS that religious guidance by the Fatwa Committee has been adhered to.
Third, the MUIS Wakaf Disbursement Committee, which comprises members from the MUIS Council, monitors and reviews annual wakaf disbursements, and makes recommendations on the allocation of wakaf funds, in accordance with the wakif’s intention.
Wakaf management has indeed become more challenging over the years. Amidst rising costs and development needs, MUIS and Warees strive to keep rents affordable, while performing their fiduciary duty to ensure sufficient financial returns for the wakaf beneficiaries.
Where tenants face challenges paying rent, MUIS and Warees engage them to understand their situation and explore repayment plans. For some wakaf properties, MUIS and Warees have also undertaken asset enhancement and redevelopment initiatives under the Wakaf Revitalisation Scheme to optimise financial returns while sustaining their heritage value. Recent examples include The Red House at East Coast Road and Jamae Chulia Heritage Development at Mosque Street.
MUIS will continue to review and enhance wakaf asset management to ensure that our wakaf assets can sustainably support their intended beneficiaries.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Hamid.
\tDr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister for his reply. I do appreciate the challenges faced in unlocking the assets and to create greater value. In my interactions with members of the Malay/Muslim and the Indian/Muslim community, they have expressed interest to find out how the value from these wakaf assets can be used to uplift the community over time.
Secondly, I would also like to ask the Acting Minister, how does MUIS and its subsidiaries actually engage diverse segments of the Muslim community to ensure that their views are heard and incorporated into the asset management as well?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. These are very good questions indeed. In fact, we often hear and meet the community leaders, and they ask about such questions.
Essentially, the returns from the building rentals, as with any other forms of income generated from the wakaf assets are distributed to beneficiaries in accordance with the wakaf deed. So, we have to be very clear about that and we follow what is in the wakaf deed.
In 2024, a total of $11.3 million was disbursed to the wakaf beneficiaries, which include the family members of the benefactors, as well as mosques, madrasah, community organisations and charities. Depending on the intention of the wakif, these returns may be used to build and maintain mosques and madrasahs, support the poor and needy, and also, fund the development and welfare of the community.
In fact, I have been very fortunate to be involved in the development of wakaf back in the early 2000s, when I was in the MUIS Council, where I was actually looking after the wakaf aspect of MUIS work. I saw how the community worked together, with MUIS leading the community, to see how the returns go back to where it is supposed to be and to the community. Fast forward to today, the Member will see a vast development in that space, whereby, not only have asset or wakaf revitalisation and asset enhancement or optimisation been done, but also looking at the historic value of the wakaf.
All I can say is that, the community, in fact, has benefited a lot significantly from these wakaf returns. Sometimes, I discuss with the mosque leaders, community leaders as to how they have been using the returns and I am very happy to see that such returns are something that they look forward to because that helps, not only in how they manage the mosque, but also that helps in the way they reach out to the community and benefit the community.
So, I must say that the returns of wakaf assets not only go back to where it is supposed to be. But with the value enhancement efforts and the returns that the community has gained have somehow helped to build the community. It helps in the development of the Malay/Muslim and Indian/Muslim communities, and beyond.
Also, the Member's second question was about how we engage the community leaders. Yes, indeed, we do. In fact, just to give the Member an example, I was also directly involved, I was helping Minister Masagos on the restoration works of the historic Jamae Chulia Mosque and the development and construction of Jamae Chulia Heritage. I remember the various engagement sessions we had. We tried to reach out to the Indian/Muslim community leaders, had many sessions, even went back and forth when they needed clarity, there were clarifications or even certain things that did not meet the planning criteria. We spoke to them and then, when there were constraints, we decided on an option that would provide a balanced outcome.
I must say that this process had not only reached, but also gave the community leaders the satisfaction that they are part of this journey. So, this is something that we want to continue to do. As the Member can see, the Jamae Chulia Mosque restoration has been completed and the Jamae Chulia Heritage is going to be completed soon. It is the pride of the community. And not only do we want to develop for today, I think the key, what I got from my engagement, is that the community leaders want to do this for the future generation as well.
So, I assure the Member that we will do our best to ensure that what the wakif would like to leave behind is not only acceded to, but we hold it with trust.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SG Enable's Support for ITE Graduates with Disabilities to Access Host Companies under Work-Study Diploma Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how SG Enable can support ITE graduates with disabilities to access suitable host companies under the Work-Study Diploma programme.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Sir, under the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) Work-Study Diploma Programme, trainees are hired by the participating companies as full-time employees and receive on-the-job training delivered by employers in tandem with classroom training by ITE.
ITE graduates with disabilities participating in the Work-Study Diploma Programme may approach SG Enable for employment support from trained job coaches. They provide job support services, such as fostering workplace integration, and they also provide employers with practical advice on job redesign. SG Enable also connects interested inclusive employers with ITE to participate in the Work-Study Diploma Programme and offers disability awareness training to these employers to better support and integrate employees with disabilities.
In addition to support from SG Enable, ITE also works with employers to ensure that necessary support arrangements are in place for trainees with disabilities. One example is for employers to provide step-by-step instructions for trainees who require more time to learn at work.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Thank you, Speaker. For many young persons with disabilities and their families in the ITE system, the Work-Study Diploma pathway does offer very viable route towards a secure and meaningful future. However, given their condition, some may require a longer runway to secure a suitable host organisation, particularly as what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary had mentioned, if there needs to be job redesign or the workplaces to be properly resourced to be inclusive employment areas.
Could I ask if the Ministry would also consider establishing and regularly updating a centralised repository of inclusive employers, for example, the companies recognised under the SG Enable Enabling Mark, to make this available to schools offering the Work-Study Diploma programme, especially, not just for the diploma but also for work attachments, industrial attachments?
The other one too: would the Ministry also consider working with the schools and SG Enable to provide flexibility, especially with the extension of programme deadlines for our persons with disabilities, especially if they are unable to find a suitable host organisation within the stipulated deadline or timeframes, for reasons unrelated to their academic merits?
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions and for her attention to this space, inclusive employment. On the centralised register, as she has correctly identified, the essence of this scope of work really is about the customised nature of providing job support. So, finding out students with disabilities what their specific areas of strengths, interests, motivations and possible career pathways are. That is a highly bespoke journey. I think we will double down on that front.
As to time extensions, I think we could take the suggestion back and explore her suggestion. But even if we were to grant time extension, I think it goes back to the first point that I mentioned earlier, and that is for each student, we need to really explore what the possibilities are. Because this area of work, again, on inclusive employment, is one that is highly bespoke.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ban on Flavoured Tobacco to Curb Appeal to Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider a total ban on flavoured tobacco to curb youth appeal; and (b) whether further tobacco tax increases is being considered to discourage smoking.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Health reviews our tobacco control policies regularly with the aim of keeping smoking prevalence as low as possible. We do not rule out introducing a ban on flavoured tobacco products in the future and implementing further tobacco tax increases.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Cai.
\tMr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Speaker. Seven clear days ago, I filed this question, not knowing that a few hours later, the Prime Minister would raise cigarette tax, answering part (b) to the question. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State.
In 2022, The Straits Times reported over 50% of cigarettes sold in Singapore are flavoured. This was noted to be far more than in other countries where the market share is typically 5% to 25%. There are also countless scientific studies that have shown that added flavours make cigarettes more appealing to youths, as they mask the harsh tobacco taste. Some flavours, like menthol, also interact with nicotine in the brain, making them more addictive.
Given this, my three supplementary questions are: were there studies that found correlation between the popularity of vape and flavoured cigarettes amongst youths, which was due to the variety of flavours that they were sold in; two, are flavoured cigarettes in Singapore, more addictive, and what is the current market share of these cigarettes; and thirdly, are there plans to reduce the proportion of flavoured cigarettes sold or to entirely cut them out?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Thank you, Speaker. Yes, indeed, there is a large body of international evidence showing that flavoured tobacco products increase smoking initiation, particularly amongst youths. Because, as the Member had mentioned earlier, the flavours, like menthol or fruit, are used to mask the harsh tobacco flavour and this actually increases its appeal to the youths.
He also mentioned about The Straits Times report, it is still fairly accurate that menthol cigarettes take up almost half of Singapore's cigarette market.
So, we are definitely not close to reviewing this. We are looking into this matter. As I mentioned in the earlier answer, we are reviewing as to whether or not we will introduce a ban on the flavoured tobacco products.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Financial Assistance for Parents Whose Infants are Enrolled in ECDA's Childminding Pilot Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether parents of infants enrolled in the Early Childhood Development Agency's Childminding Pilot are eligible for other forms of financial assistance beyond the use of Child Development Account funds; and (b) what further financial assistance schemes were available to the parents to defray the costs of enrolling in such services.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Besides the use of the Child Development Account (CDA) funds, the Government provides subsidies to ensure childminding services under the Early Childhood Development Agency's (ECDA's) Childminding Pilot for Infants are affordable. For parents who use these services full-time, for five days a week for four weeks, they will pay around $700 a month in out-of-pocket expenses. This is lower than the usual cost of childminding services today, which can be around $1,200 to $2,800 a month.
Of all families enrolled, more than 80% have used their infant's CDA monies to defray the out-of-pocket expenses of childminding services under this pilot.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Muhaimin.
\tMr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State.
The Minister of State mentioned that there is 80% of enrolled families that have used CDA monies to defray the cost. Can the Minister of State share what proportion of enrolled families come from lower-income households, those with per capita household income of $1,500 or below, and whether the absence of means-tested subsidies has been a barrier to participation for such families; and if so, what the Ministry intends to do about it?
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. Actually, I recognise the Member's concern for our lower-income families and that we are also acutely aware of this segment of society that we especially need to take good care of.
I wish to highlight and inform the Member that the Childminding Pilot is actually a pilot. We only offer it at two centres currently and taking care of no more than 100 infants at this current juncture. The objective of the pilot really is for us to explore how to do this well and to scale this across the country, including how to make it even more inclusive for all children, for all income types as well as to understand what operators need to do to keep this a viable model.
Therefore, currently, we only provide supply-side subsidies to the operators as well as on the CDA monies.
We recognise that for lower-income families, if they really need the infant care or childminding support, we do recommend them to go for our many, many infant care preschools. Our low-income families when they enrol in our Government-supported preschools, they will, as the Member is aware, receive a lot more subsidy options, including means-tested subsidies. With fee caps in our Government preschools, after preschool subsidies, our lower-income families can actually pay as low as $40 for full-day infant care in Anchor Operator preschools.
\tMr Speaker: That is $40 a month, a month, right?
Mr Goh Pei Ming: Yes, Speaker. Thank you very much. It is $40 a month.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [12 February 2026] [3rd Allotted Day] (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026.\" – [Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Diana Pang.
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Budget as delivered by the Prime Minister.
What struck me about this Budget is not just the package of measures, but the signal it sends. In a more uncertain, fractured world, it reassures all Singaporeans that we can remain steady, confident and united, it reassures Singaporeans that we are always here to take care of each other. This Budget carries a clear \"we first\" direction, reminding us that progress is not just about growth in figures, but about shared responsibilities, stronger bonds and a social compact that is real in everyday life.
Mr Speaker, if we take this \"we first\" direction seriously, then we must pay attention not just to the policy intent, but how these policies land on the ground, especially at transitional points where households and businesses are most exposed. In that spirit, whilst I will touch briefly on ComLink+, measures affecting small and medium enterprises (SMEs), I will focus my main remarks on the revised Preferential Additional Registration Fee (PARF) policies and the issues of transitional fairness.
First, Mr Speaker, I support the enhancement of ComLink+, which is a scheme that helps families progress from public rental towards home ownership. But I want to raise the practical issues on transitional risk. Moving from public rental housing into a new home is not that simple. For some of these families, there is a degree of vulnerability as they encounter moving – there are renovation costs, furniture costs, new travel routines, childcare, school logistics and sometimes, a change in a workplace too.
Some of these families may not yet be stable to absorb a sharp drop in social and financial support if they are immediately treated as having \"graduated\" out of ComLink+. It is only human nature that if families fear that by buying a home triggers an immediate loss of support, they may delay taking up the step of home purchase that the policy is trying to encourage.
Mr Speaker, this is not a call to keep families dependent. It is the opposite. If we want families genuinely to take the difficult step from rental to ownership, or from assistance to self-reliance, we should make the transition predictable and safe. I hope the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) can share how support is tapered when these families transition out of ComLink+ and whether their family coaches can help with a transition plan, so they do not fall into gaps between schemes at their most vulnerable and most fragile moments of the transition.
Next, Mr Speaker, the Budget also introduces policies that affect a large majority of SMEs. In doing so, the Government typically engage trade associations and chambers to gather feedback of on-the-ground perspectives. However, not all SMEs is required to be part of these bodies. Even the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), as the apex business chamber, only has compulsory membership for companies above the $0.5 million paid-up or authorised capital threshold. This means a substantial segment of the micro-SMEs may not be in the room when these policy feedback are being gathered, even though they are the ones who are most sensitive to cost and compliance changes. I therefore urge the Government to consider opening feedback channels you hear from these small and micro-SMEs, via channels, such as the SME Centres, so that in all fairness, the policy does not get shaped mainly by the larger companies.
Mr Speaker, for the last part of my speech, I will turn to the PARF changes. Since the announcement, I have received ground feedback from residents and people who are concerned about the sudden implementation and the financial hit they may have to take, through no fault of their own.
As announced, the PARF rebate will be reduced by 45% and the cap lowered from $60,000 to $30,000. This change applies to Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) obtained from the second COE bidding exercise in February 2026 onwards.
Mr Speaker, my concern is not about whether the Government has good policy reasons to recalibrate PARF. Policy can and do change all the time. My concern is the effective date and the absence of transition safeguards for buyers who had already committed to a car purchase under the prior framework. One of my Geylang Serai resident shared with me that before Budget Day, he committed to a vehicle purchase and paid a deposit based on the prevailing PARF rules. However, after the announcement, the dealer's position was that the deal will proceed, and if the buyer cancelled, this deposit would be forfeited because the dealer did no wrong and any dispute should be taken to the authorities. In reality, for many committed buyers, there is no meaningful option to renegotiate the pricing or cancel their purchase without losing substantial deposits. These buyers bear the downside of an immediate policy shift.
Mr Speaker, what makes this change particularly difficult is the hastiness of the implementation. The next COE cycle started after Budget was announced and before this House got to debate the policy change. When the PARF rebate framework changed with such a short runway, the assumptions that buyers and sellers made at the point of contract no longer stands, yet buyers remain locked in because they cannot back out of the contract without any penalty. I, therefore, have six questions I hope the Ministry for Transport (MOT) can consider.
First, why was there no interim measures for buyers who had already committed and paid deposits before Budget Day, and would the revised PARF framework have started in a later COE cycle or with a longer lead time, so that the buyers have time to react and consider their decision to buy?
Second, in deciding on an immediate start date, did the Government consider industry practices, such as non-refundable deposits, and was it anticipated that some buyers would face the dilemma of either proceeding at a loss or forfeiting their deposits if they cancel their car purchase?
Third, will the Government consider introducing a limited relief mechanism for buyers who entered into purchase agreements and paid deposits before Budget Day? For example, mandating a short grace period, a cancellation-without-penalty window or other measures to prevent immediate hardship to this group?
Fourth, did the Government consider the impact on new-car sellers who typically commit to inventory and order pipelines six to 12 months in advance? For these new car dealers, they are now at risk of holding stock that is much harder to sell and may have a knock-out effect on their business viability and also employees' jobs.
Fifth, did the Government expect this change to increase COE renewals because retaining older cars becomes relatively more attractive and if so, what is the expected impact on the number of COEs available for the new cars and the resulting trajectory of the COE premiums?
Finally, did the Government assess how this policy might raise household costs, including higher used car prices and the impact on families who need cars for caregiving, disability needs, shift work or caring for elderly family members?
Mr Speaker, some people have also asked my team whether if this is, in substance, an electric vehicle (EV) promotion policy. If so, can the Government clarify whether our infrastructure is ready? For example, is the national power grid ready to support a mass adoption of EVs, and will EV charging, especially in older estates, keep in pace, so Singaporeans will not feel that policy is moving faster than practical realities.
Mr Speaker, the principle is simple. When policy moves quickly, transitional safeguards matter. Otherwise, it creates a perception that when Government provides support, there are conditions and waiting period. But when the Government takes away value, it can be immediate. I worry this perception would erode trust, especially if ordinary families are hurt because they are not sophisticated buyers and reasonably expect the rules to remain stable when making big purchases.
So, in closing remarks, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget's \"we first\" direction. However, I urge the Government to view the issues that I have raised through the lens of transition and in fairness, whether it is social, economical or business in nature.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for Health","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister of State Rahayu, you have a clarification to make?
The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Thank you, Speaker. Mr Dennis Tan had, in his speech on 24 February 2026, called for Pioneer Generation (PG) and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) subsidies to be available at national dental centres when patients are referred there due to complicated conditions. Mr Tan mentioned that his colleague, Mr Kenneth Tiong, had raised the same issue in a Parliamentary Question.
I would like to make some clarifications, please. Subsidies and PG benefits are, in fact, extended to patients at national dental centres. Hence, when Mr Tiong asked in November last year if polyclinic dental services should cover denture fabrication repair and fitting, the Ministry of Health (MOH) had replied that the polyclinics do cover these services. However, complex cases should still be referred to specialist centres like the National Dental Centre Singapore (NDCS), since they require specialist management. Such referral cases are subsidised at the specialist centres.
For the specific case that Mr Tan had raised, the patient had also written to The Straits Times Forum page. Subsidies were not extended to the patient's mother because she was a private patient. MOH will be reaching out to the member of public to explain the situation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for her clarification. May I ask, what is the extent of the MediSave coverage for dental subsidies? And if so, can they be expanded?
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for his question. Actually, the Ministry has recently announced higher subsidies for root canal treatments and permanent crowns, so there are some extensions already looked at. But as with many other measures, we are constantly reviewing it to see how best we can support patients.
Mr Speaker: I would like to move on, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Because Minister of State Rahayu was raising a clarification on Mr Dennis Tan's speech; and indirectly, to Mr Tiong.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, last year I turned 60 and was classified as a senior citizen, entitled to a PAssion Silver Card. It was a proud moment for me. I had reached a recognised life stage when society deemed it fit to accord me a public travel concession. It also made me reflect more about the demographic group I just entered and what this next phase of life should be about.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), healthy ageing is defined as the process of developing and maintaining the functional ability that enables well-being in older age. It moves beyond a disease-focused model, aiming to maximise a person's capability to be and do what they value, whether in terms of mobility, relationships or societal contribution.
Our own Ministerial Committee on Ageing has adopted a similar approach. In its 2023 Action Plan for Successful Ageing, it is stated that, and I quote, \"Ageing is not only about illness and frailty. It also provides opportunities for longer years of active engagement, good health and contribution to society.\"
Sir, I have spoken about ageism in this House in the past. Instead of seeing a grey-haired individual as weak and helpless, we should as far as possible see how that person's ability and potential can be unlocked. We should look to empower our seniors.
Over the years, various taxpayer-funded schemes have been put in place to uplift seniors. I will highlight just a few.
If seniors wish to continue working, the Government provides employers with a Senior Employment Credit, which has been extended for another year under this year's Budget. Senior Singaporeans have also been included in the SkillsFuture programme, making lifelong learning affordable. Our public buses are now fully wheelchair-friendly, with bus stops mostly barrier-free, encouraging disabled seniors to go out and stay connected.
Sir, the topic of the Prime Minister's Budget speech this year is \"Securing Our Future in a Changing World\". Yet, at the same time, amidst this relentless pace of change, we must ensure that we do not leave our seniors behind; many of whom are struggling to keep up with a world vastly different from the one they used to know.
Today, I would like to highlight three areas that seem to me to be recurring issues facing seniors: first, the push towards digitalisation; second, the withdrawal of face-to-face services; and third, the Government's means testing policies.
First, on digitalisation. The relentless pace of digitalisation is epitomised by the use of Singpass. To transact with all Government departments, Singpass is the default mode. Singpass has overall been a great enabler that eases authentication and transactions across many sectors.
For some seniors, however, it is bewildering and disempowering. Seniors who never had a smartphone have to purchase one in order to download the Singpass app and utilise its functions. Even so, many are unable to operate the app as it is simply alien to what they are used to. They find it difficult to open the app to quickly scan QR codes or to toggle between the app short message service (SMS) functions and websites in order to key in one-time passwords, all within a short time limit. Seniors with close relatives or friends can get help for digital transactions. However, this still engenders a feeling of dependency and helplessness. Then, there are seniors without children or close relatives.
The prospect of isolated seniors is real. According to the Ministerial Committee on Ageing, an estimated 83,000 seniors above 65 years will live alone by the year 2030. These vulnerable seniors may end up trusting the wrong people or may decide not to transact with the Government at all. Many seniors, especially the older ones, did not have the opportunities for schooling, unlike later cohorts.
According to the Department of Statistics Population trends 2025, as at 2024, nearly 40% of those over 55 years old, have education at below secondary level – a very significant segment. Education levels tell us something about comfort with technology, as using technology usually requires higher level language skills, often in English.
Sir, to that end, I wonder if there is information available on the extent to which services may not be reaching seniors due to the demands of digitalisation and how best we can support them. For example, I am aware that the Silver Generation Office is doing health-related outreach to isolated seniors at their homes. How far are they trained and able to assist such seniors in digital transactions?
I now move on to the related point of the withdrawal of face-to-face or over-the-counter services.
Sir, in the last decade, there has been a rapid withdrawal of face-to-face services across many sectors. One huge change is in banking, with banks driving their customers to digital banking apps and the reduction in physical bank branches. For Government services, this has been happening as well, with face-to-face services being reduced for one reason or another. For instance, we have been told that due to manpower constraints in the Home Team, Neighbourhood Police Posts and some neighbourhood Police centres no longer have manned counters.
Sir, a recent drastic change affecting residents in the Hougang area has been the closure of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) Branch Office at Hougang Central. Although the closure of this office was due to the site being sold for development, the lack of a replacement physical branch has upset and worried residents. This is not surprising. According to the Department of Statistics, as at June last year, the Hougang planning area is one of those which has a high concentration of residents over the age of 65. On this, Sir, please let me continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): The HDB Branch Office at Hougang Central closed on 1 September, affecting areas, including Hougang Single Member Constituency and parts of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC). Residents told me that they now must travel to the more distant Sengkang Branch to do their business, which is very inconvenient.
In response to the related issue raised in Parliament by Hougang Member of Parliament (MP) Dennis Tan, the Ministry of National Development responded that the Hougang Branch closed on 1 September to make way for the development of an integrated commercial and residential project in the vicinity of Hougang Avenue 10 and Hougang Central. Currently, HDB has not established a new physical branch nearby, but has replaced counter services with electronic service and self-service machines.
Here, I would like to ask HDB, before deciding to close the Hougang branch, was there sufficient assessment of the impact on Hougang residents? Hougang area has many old flats and senior residents. Does the Government believe that after the branch closure, residents simply have to adapt to digital services? If it were in newer areas with younger residents where physical branches were closed, I might be able to understand. But in a community like Hougang where senior residents are the majority, is such an arrangement appropriate?
(In English): Sir, back to English. Residents of the area have been asking what is next on the Government's agenda for the removal of face-to-face services? They worry that the Hougang Neighbourhood Police Centre is next.
Sir, finally, I move on to my third and final observation on means testing for subsidies and benefits.
In the Budget speech, Prime Minister Wong emphasised that families were the bedrock of society and the first line of support for every individual. It is useful to examine whether some Government policies might inadvertently discourage family support. Take, for instance, the means testing criteria for Government subsidies and schemes, the Silver Support Scheme and healthcare subsidies for long-term care and outpatient treatment under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) are prime examples of policies affecting seniors. These schemes have eligibility criteria, such as per capita household income (PCHI). Should a wage-earning adult child decide to live with his or her parents for mutual support, the seniors may become ineligible for support or have support reduced compared to if they lived on their own. The same would apply to a single aunt or uncle with very limited resources, but living with a family of working adults.
Sir, it is thus not surprising that there are adult children who decide not to have the same address as their parents or relatives, so that their elderly can qualify for more Government support. This surely cannot be the message the Government wishes to send.
I agree with the principle of means testing, as our resources are finite. However, some refinement of our means testing criteria is due. Would it be possible for instance, to do away with the per capita household income criterion for schemes, such as Silver Support, and simply look at the seniors' own income?
Sir, to round up, I would like to urge the Government to continually review how it empowers seniors and to that end, I wish to conclude on a positive note.
I must give credit to the Traffic Police and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) for something meaningful they have just implemented to help senior drivers.
For years up to now, drivers aged 65 or older have had to undergo medical examinations for renewal of their licences – for the general driving licence issued by the Police, once in three years; for the vocational licence issued by LTA, it is annually. Senior drivers have come to the Meet-the-People Sessions, expressing confusion over these two requirements. Some have also had difficulties uploading the medical reports onto the portals of the two agencies, as they were not comfortable handling attachments.
Now, under the new harmonised medical examination report scheme implemented on 2 February, drivers need only attend one medical examination that can be used by both agencies. In addition, the doctor will be the one uploading the medical report onto the relevant portal. Drivers need not do this themselves anymore. This is similar to the way medical examination reports on migrant domestic workers are being submitted to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) by clinics.
Sir, the new scheme implemented by both these agencies demonstrates how a seemingly small gesture can go a long way to easing the life of seniors. With collaboration across agencies and with Singaporeans, we can forge a kinder, more conducive environment for all generations.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of Budget 2026. As the Head of Advocacy for the People's Action Party (PAP) Women's Wing's Seasons of Life, I am heartened by the Budget's emphasis on supporting Singaporeans through every stage of their journey – from youth to parenthood and into the golden years. Drawing from my engagements with residents in our Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC and various community partners and stakeholders, I wish to raise recommendations that build on this foundation, ensuring no one is left behind as we navigate life's seasons together.
Let me begin with our youths and the imperative of education for lifelong learning.
As the Deputy Chairperson of the Education Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), my colleagues and I remain unwaveringly committed to ensuring access to education at all life stages. I fully agree with the Prime Minister that learning must extend beyond theory and translate into hands-on applications that empower individuals to thrive. An example which I wish to share with this House is the YMCA's Vocational and Soft Skills Programme (VASSP), an initiative I have proudly supported for the past few years which aims to equip out-of-school youths and youths-at-risk with job competency and specific vocational skills. I regularly attend their dialogue sessions, where I share my personal story: starting as a student in the Normal (Academic) stream, facing doubts about my future, yet finding the confidence to pursue a law degree and becoming who I am today.
This programme is a vital effort to uplift youths who may feel disillusioned about their future due to influences like misguided peers or challenging family backgrounds. Such initiatives should not only be encouraged but normalised, aligning with the Prime Minister's vision in his Budget speech: that every Singaporean, regardless of where they start in life, should have a fair chance to pursue their aspirations and realise their full potential.
As our nation ramps up efforts in artificial intelligence (AI) education and encourages lifelong learning, we must ensure that the right infrastructure is in place to support every keen learner. I have previously suggested in this House that we consider establishing another Institute of Technical Education (ITE) in the North. This new ITE could also serve as a dedicated campus for lifelong learning, collaborating closely with the nearby Republic Polytechnic and collaborate closely with the adjacent JTC industrial areas. Such a facility would democratise access to practical, skills-based education, bridging gaps and fostering a culture of continuous growth.
Turning to marriage and parenthood, I applaud the Budget's recognition that families are the bedrock of society and the first line of support for every individual. Building on this geological metaphor, Budget 2026 should enhance support for family starting and building, much like the stratification of bedrock that provides enduring stability.
Prospective parents face unique concerns and challenges; there is no silver bullet to improve our ever-low total fertility rate (TFR) overnight. The decision to marry and have children is deeply personal. The key question is: what are the \"right conditions\" that would help couples feel confident and ready to start a family?
Through my engagements with fellow Singaporeans, in particular my Woodgrove residents and Fertility Support Singapore (FSS), I have been motivated to continue to spotlight support for assisted conception procedures.
As Minister Indranee Rajah noted in her speech at FSS' \"Fertility and Inclusion in the Workplace\" forum, and I quote, \"There are couples who wish to have children but have difficulties conceiving. The struggles they face are deeply personal, often invisible and sometimes painful.\"
SingHealth statistics indicate that roughly one in six couples, about 17%, experience infertility in Singapore. For these couples who clearly wish to start families but face daunting hurdles, we can and must do more. FSS' community engagements reveal that financial costs are the top stressor, forcing some to abandon their fertility journey entirely. With two successive years of historically low TFR, Sir, the time to act is now.
My fellow PAP Women's Wing MPs and I stand aligned with FSS' recommendations to propose several feasible solutions to create those \"right conditions\": one, promote early health screenings for fertility, potentially collaborating with the Registry of Marriages and as part of the Healthy SG movement; two, increased subsidies for assisted reproductive treatments (ART); three, raising the MediSave utilisation limit for ART and allowing treatments in private clinics to alleviate long waiting times in public hospitals where time is of the essence.
Additionally, we recommend Government to co-fund for ART at private clinics, expanding MediSave withdrawals from three to six cycles, MediSave coverage for elective egg freezing, subsidised fertility screenings for couples and enhanced workplace support for fertility and family-building.
Beyond conception, the journey after birth, subsumed under SG Made For Families, also influences decisions to start families. Concerns include accessible and affordable housing as well as mitigating career impacts for parents raising children.
It is regrettable that not every need can be met as each family's circumstances are unique. That said, this House will strive to ensure that every Singaporean family is cared for.
A common appeal from my Woodgrove residents is for housing that allows them to build true homes. Obstacles that my residents face include successfully balloting for a HDB flat, upgrading to a larger flat to accommodate their growing family, which for buyers of resale flats means needing to fork out at times significant cash to meet the cash-over-valuation component. As such, I hope that HDB can provide access to bigger HDB flats by granting priority as second timers to the Sale of Balance Flats for families with two or more children who wish to upgrade and live closer to or with their parents.
For children’s education, we must keep expenses affordable by offering better flexibility in tapping on the Child Development Account (CDA) funds for preschool-recommended enrichment lessons and field trips, for example.
We should also support continuous career progression for working parents, especially mothers, ensuring stable incomes to cover growing expenses for ageing parents and children. I urge reinstating the working mother tax incentives to allow mothers who earned more income each year to claim a larger amount of tax relief for each child, so as to motivate mothers to remain and/or return to the workforce when they feel ready to pursue leadership positions.
Finally, let us not forget our seniors entering their golden years. Many do not wish to burden their children, and seek to remain active and healthy. Grassroots organisations and Active Ageing Centres play complementary roles in this, supporting seniors with face-to-face interactions, helping them to embrace digitalisation, organising regular engagements to foster community bonds while keeping our seniors’ minds sharp and prevent physical frailty. A recent example is the Frailty Management Programme that was launched in Care Corner Active Ageing Centres in Woodgrove and Marsiling, with a comprehensive and tailored care plan and close monitoring to address our seniors’ physical, nutritional and social needs.
Mr Speaker, the Government has been actively encouraging seniors, and in particular, Singaporeans to embark on legacy planning. But I believe more can be done to increase the take-up rates, especially among our seniors, such as: one, continuing to waive the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) registration fees for Singaporeans; and two, considering a revamp of the Wills Registry, while ensuring users are properly advised by legal professionals and better protected.
At this juncture, I wish to declare that I am a practising lawyer.
As part of our PAP Senior Group initiatives, Woodgrove Branch has organised three sessions of pro bono LPA certification sessions last year serving our seniors in need. I am immensely grateful to our group of dedicated volunteers and lawyers, who have given many of my Woodgrove residents a peace of mind and more importantly, assisted them in completing their legacy plans.
At Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, we have more pro bono LPA certification sessions in the pipeline, which we hope our residents will sign up for and attend when the dates are announced. Please stay tuned.
Building on the momentum, I intend to speak during the Ministry of Law’s Committee of Supply (COS) to propose ways to enhance access and protection to encourage legacy planning.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, Budget 2026 lays a strong foundation but with these recommendations, we can make it even more inclusive. By supporting Singaporeans through youth, parenthood and seniority, we build a resilient nation where every season of life is one of opportunity and dignity. I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has set out an ambitious vision for AI. He asks us to harness it as a strategic advantage. I agree with that framing. The question I want to put to this House today is: a strategic advantage for whom? The answer will determine whether Budget 2026 fulfils its promise; that growth must translate into good jobs and rising incomes for Singaporeans.
I want to address three things. How can we own the technology rather than just renting it? How can we protect the worker who is being asked to adapt in this new age? And how can we ensure that the gains are shared with the people who helped create them?
Let me start with the technology itself.
Mr Speaker, I want to push our AI ambitions further. Right now, the heavy fiscal levers in our AI strategy are largely focused towards adoption – identifying where AI can improve our existing industries and subsidising our businesses to deploy it faster.
That is necessary but not sufficient. If our industrial strategy remains focused on fast adoption, we are agreeing to a permanent, compounding transfer of value to foreign technology companies. Every API call we make, every subscription, every enterprise licence, is rent paid to a landlord in Silicon Valley or perhaps China.
Singapore has never just accepted that kind of relationship with any industry. We move up the value chain, extracting value at the source. We do not just use semiconductors; we manufacture them. And our ambition for AI should be no different. We need to stake out our own defendable positions and capture the value that comes with them.
The question is therefore where, specifically, we have a right to win. And I think that the answer starts with understanding Singapore’s constraints.
We cannot win a compute war. We lack the land, the power grid and the capital to train trillion-parameter frontier models. But Singapore has been here before. When we faced constraints in other industries, we did not try to outspend our larger competitors. Instead, we identified niches where our specific combination of capabilities gave us an advantage and we built from there.
We have already done this in AI. Singapore has produced SEA-LION and MERaLION, large language models built on open-weights foundations, fine-tuned for Southeast Asian language context and our cultural context. We identified a gap in our region and we filled it. That was and remains the right instinct. We must now look further afield with global ambitions.
I want to make the case for another niche, one with global export potential – Edge AI and the efficiency research that underpins it.
The rest of the world is running into the same energy wall that we face when deploying. Data centres are straining electrical grids everywhere. The United States (US) is planning new nuclear plants, specifically to power AI data centres. My colleague, Dennis Tan, earlier highlighted in this House the outsize environmental impact of an indiscriminate rush to embrace large-scale models for every minor task, a dilemma that every nation is grappling with.
This global problem, in other words, is the same problem our constraints have been forcing us to think about – how do you make AI run on less?
This is the field of model distillation and quantisation, compressing large AI models so they can run locally, with minimal degradation in performance, without an Internet connection to the cloud, on a fraction of the energy. The result is what practitioners call “Edge AI” – intelligence that runs on the device itself, rather than routing data to a distant server.
The Prime Minister announced four national AI Missions in this Budget. I want to look at two of them through the lens of Edge AI.
In advanced manufacturing, the robots on a factory floor cannot depend on a cloud connection. A production line that hesitates because of network latency or halts because of an outage is a competitive liability. The AI running that factory needs to operate locally and be resilient to disruption.
In connectivity, the autonomous systems that manage our containers at our ports make thousands of routing decisions every second. Our ports handle a large proportion of the world’s transshipment volume. These decisions cannot wait for a round trip to a data centre.
The export potential follows directly. As the rest of the world scrambles to solve their energy and latency constraints, the software that makes AI run efficiently on local hardware will command a significant premium. We are already being pushed to solve this problem. We should be solving it deliberately and with an eye on selling the solution.
I am not a deep technical expert and I am not offering a comprehensive blueprint today. What I am suggesting is a way to think about where Singapore has a right to win, and Edge AI is one possible answer to that question, among many others.
The same logic points towards explainable AI – building tools that make the reasoning that AI models make transparent enough for regulated industries to deploy. Finance and healthcare, the two other sectors that are the focus of our AI Missions, are just these industries that operate under obligations to explain automated decisions.
Singapore's regulatory institutions and our reputation for the rule of law may give us a genuine advantage in the space as well. These are just ideas, and there will be other niches that neither side of this House has yet identified.
So, what do I ask for? The Government has already committed $37 billion under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2030 (RIE2030) plan, with AI explicitly within the scope. I ask that within that envelope, Edge AI efficiency research – model distillation, quantisation and on-device deployment – be named as an explicit priority, with success measured by commercial export potential and not just domestic adoption.
My more specific ask concerns the national AI Missions. The four Missions are already funded. I ask that each Mission consider Edge deployment capability as a key design criterion, whether an efficient, low-latency, sovereign Edge model is appropriate for the use case.
And more broadly, I ask that the Government establish a formal process for identifying Singapore’s AI export niches, applying the same constraint-aware logic that produced SEA-LION and MERaLION, across our strategic industries. Not just Edge or Explainable AI. A systemic search for where Singapore has a right to win and a commitment to back those niches with capital.
The goal is to ensure that in years to come, Singapore is a genuine owner of commercial AI capability that we can export to the world. Not just a well-compensated tenant but a landlord of our own.
But owning the technology is only the first part of the answer. The second is protecting the people being asked to adapt to it, including those the market has already started to leave behind.
Mr Speaker, the aggregate economic data looks encouraging – broad-based wage growth and lower income inequality. But averages can be dangerous and they can mask a specific problem that I think deserves more attention.
Research published in October last year by Stanford University and ADP found that since late 2022, which was when ChatGPT broke cover, entry-level hiring in AI-exposed sectors in the US has fallen by 16%. For software developers aged 22 to 25 specifically, the headcount has fallen by a greater 20%. We do not have such granular data for Singapore but that alone is part of the problem.
This is what I call the broken bottom rung of the ladder.
Now, I want to be clear that what is at stake here is not just in economic terms but in human terms as well.
The first job is not just income. It is the place where you discover what you are capable of. Where someone more senior takes a chance on you, teaches you something you could not have learned any other way and passes on a standard of craft or judgement that you will carry for the rest of your career. It is where professional identity is formed.
If that rung is gone, not because graduates are less capable, but simply because it is now cheaper to automate the tasks that used to justify hiring them, we do not have an unemployment problem; we have a rupture in how knowledge and expertise pass from one generation to the next. The experienced professionals of 2046 are the junior hires of today. If we do not hire them today, we will not have any in 20 years.
After my Parliamentary colleague, Eileen Chong, and I put out a call for feedback some months ago, we heard from many young Singaporeans who are living this.
Graduates who applied for over 100 roles; who took unpaid internships, hoping it would lead somewhere; who are talented, willing and being told by the market there is simply no place for them yet. They are simply asking for a chance to start.
The broken rung is the most visible symptom, but the disruption does not stop at entry-level workers. Mid-career workers face a parallel challenge – skills that took years to build being absorbed by AI faster than retraining programmes can respond.
So, what do I ask for? Data first. We cannot manage what we do not measure. I call on MOM to publish granular employment data for new graduates, broken down by sector, role type and AI exposure levels. If the broken rung is happening here, we need to see it in our numbers before we can respond to it.
The Government's 400% Enterprise Innovation Scheme (EIS) tax deduction for AI expenditure is a powerful lever as well. While the details are being firmed up, I ask that the Government require that firms claiming the EIS deduction above a meaningful threshold demonstrate a credible plan for maintaining graduate and entry level roles, not by preserving roles that AI has genuinely made redundant, but by investing and reimagining what junior work looks like in an AI-augmented firm. Public money for AI adoption should come with a commitment to developing the workers who will work alongside it.
The Government's announcement of six months of free premium AI tool access for workers taking selected courses is also a welcome step.
But six months is a trial period. Mastery takes longer. AI is not a course you complete, it is daily practice, much like using spreadsheet programme is. A worker who builds that habit over six months and then has the access removed is being set up to fall again.
The Workers' Party (WP) has called for SkillsFuture Credit to cover AI tool subscription on an ongoing basis. I renew that call today – for young workers starting out and for those mid-career workers who need to stay current as well as for our senior workers looking to embrace new technology.
The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme currently targets workers aged 40 and above, but the disruption is hitting many earlier. Singaporeans in their mid to late 30s, the Millennial cohort, whose careers were built on skills that AI is now absorbing are facing displacement before they even qualify for mid-career support.
Lowering the qualifying age to 35 is a simple, concrete and targeted step that addresses where the disruption is actually occurring.
That brings me to the third and final question. AI is not just changing how we work. It is changing what we owe each other. The assumptions baked into our social contract about risk, about reward, about the relationship between capital and labour were written for a different economy. Budget 2026 is an opportunity for us to update this.
So, what do I ask for? The WP has called for a redundancy insurance across multiple Parliaments. I argue for it myself in my maiden speech. I will not repeat the following argument today. But I want to offer a different frame for it.
Critics have called it a welfare crutch. I want to make the opposite case. Redundancy insurance is the engine of the economic agility that this Budget demands. A worker with six months of financial breathing room can say yes to retraining. They can take the risk of moving sectors. They can be the bold, adaptable Singaporean that the Government is asking them to be.
Without that buffer, the rational response to uncertainty is not agility, it is paralysis or grabbing the first job that comes along, plunging workers into a cycle of underemployment. Paralysis is exactly what we cannot afford in an economy that is undergoing structural transformation.
The Government is rightly optimistic about AI's potential, but responsible governance requires managing all our outcomes, including the downside. Redundancy insurance is a suitable hedge; and I urge the Government to act on it.
The EIS deduction condition I proposed earlier on maintaining graduate and entry level pipelines as a condition for tax deductions addresses new workers entering the workforce, but there is a parallel question about existing workers. What happens to the person already in the job when AI arrives?
Right now, the tax system is largely neutral on the question. A firm can deploy AI to augment its workforce or to replace it and incentives are often available either way. Without a nudge, the default logic of capital is to substitute labour. Labour is expensive. Shareholders benefit when headcount falls. AI makes substitution easier than it has ever been.
I propose a targeted retraining tax credit, available only to firms that can demonstrate that they have reskilled a specific worker into an AI-augmented role rather than retrenching them. Retention done right cost less than redundancy. Let us make the fiscal system reflect that.
Which brings me finally to the distribution question. Global evidence consistently shows that productivity gains from AI do not automatically translate into wage growth. The Government is investing taxpayer resources and regulatory sandboxes in four national AI Missions: advanced manufacturing, connectivity, finance and healthcare. These are the right priorities, but they come with a public obligation.
I propose that an annual AI gains audit, scoped specifically to these four sectors, be implemented. Not red tape for every business, but a targeted accountability mechanism for sectors receiving extraordinary levels of public support to answer one straightforward question: are the productivity gains from state-backed AI Missions flowing into the wages of our workers or are they flowing into shareholder returns?
Mr Speaker, this is a Budget with genuine ambition and the WP supports much of its direction. But ambition must come with accountability. The strategic advantage of AI must be felt in the wages of our workers, not just in the earnings reports of the companies deploying the technology.
Own the technology, not just rent it. Protect the worker that is being asked to adapt to it and ensure that the gains of AI accrue to workers and not capital owners. These are not obstacles to Singapore's AI ambitions, they are the conditions that make these ambitions worth pursuing. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I begin, I would like to declare that I am an assistant professor in imaging neuroscience at the Singapore Institute of Technology, and I am a registered member of the Allied Health Professions Council.
Healthcare affordability is not simple. It is a shared equation. In mathematics, we assume that one plus one equals two. It seems obvious, straightforward. But even something as simple as one plus one only works when the foundations are sound. Healthcare is like that.
Many Singaporeans ask, \"Can healthcare be more affordable? Can waiting times be shorter? Why does it feel more expensive?\"
These are valid concerns. But when we look beneath the surface – at ageing, chronic disease, medical inflation, workforce pressures and rising expectations – we see that healthcare is not a simple sum.
In this Budget, the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) operating expenditure is about $20 billion. Over the past decade, healthcare spending has more than doubled. As more Singaporeans live into their eighties and beyond, demand will continue to rise.
This $20 billion is not just a number. Behind it are countless hours of system design, workforce planning, infrastructure development and careful budgeting by our policy-makers, healthcare leaders and civil service. It represents: subsidies that keep care accessible; investment in hospitals and community facilities; expansion of long-term care; and training and retaining of healthcare professionals.
Healthcare is a system that must be carefully balanced. And like any equation, the outcome depends on how responsibly each part is managed. Affordability therefore cannot mean only what an individual pays today. It must also mean what the nation can sustain tomorrow. If costs are not shared responsibly, they do not disappear. They are simply borne elsewhere – by taxpayers and future generations.
Budget 2026 reflects that balance investing where necessary, strengthening fiscal structures and our financing mechanisms, and ensuring that our system remains strong not only for this generation, but for the next.
Mr Speaker, healthcare waiting time is often where policy becomes personal. It is the elderly resident sitting quietly outside a specialist clinic. It is the working adult taking leave to accompany a parent. It is the anxiety of waiting for clarity.
In Tengah, residents share these concerns with me. They are not asking for extravagance. They are asking for reassurance that care will be timely, accessible and sustainable.
Rising waiting times do not happen in isolation. Singaporeans are living longer, chronic conditions are more prevalent and mental health needs are growing. Medical advances also mean we can treat far more conditions than before. Demand is rising partly because we are doing more and doing it better. That is progress. But progress brings pressure. Waiting time is the visible symptom of rising demand in a more capable system.
Budget 2026 recognises this structural shift. It continues to invest in hospital capacity and manpower. It strengthens primary care under Healthier SG. It expands community hospitals, step-down care and long-term care capacity. These are not short-term fixes. They are long-term adjustments. But capacity alone cannot secure sustainability. Capacity is necessary, but sustainability also depends on managing demand appropriately and delivering care in the right setting.
Hospitals are best focused on acute and complex care. Stable chronic conditions, prevention and recovery are often better supported closer to home, through our general practitioners (GPs), community teams and integrated networks. This is not about reducing care. It is about delivering care more appropriately so that access remains protected over time. Embedding strong primary and community care early in all estates is how we prevent avoidable strain as our population ages. If we manage demand wisely today, we protect access tomorrow.
Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 continues to strengthen Healthier SG and primary care. This reflects a simple reality: long-term sustainability depends not only on how we treat illness, but on how early we prevent it.
Doctors anchor our healthcare system. They diagnose, manage complexity and intervene when risk is high. That role remains central. But health is shaped less by crisis and more by consistency. In rehabilitation work, I often see how small, sustained interventions change trajectories. What appears to be a simple back strain may reflect years of cumulative weakness and poor movement habits. With early strengthening and education, recurrent injury and future specialist visits can be avoided.
The issue is not just back pain. It is the long-term trajectory. Managing blood pressure before complications arise. Keeping diabetes controlled before organ damage develops. Maintaining strength and balance before a fall leads to hospitalisation. These interventions are quiet but they determine whether someone remains independent at 75 and beyond.
For many families, that independence determines whether caregiving remains manageable. Prevention does not compete with hospital care. It protects it. The most affordable hospital bed is the one we never need to use.
Budget 2026 strengthens this direction through Healthier SG enrolment, primary care reinforcement, and expanded community and long-term care capacity.
Embedding prevention early through thoughtful design in our residential estates and active ageing programmes allows us to shape healthier habits before chronic strain accumulates. Extending healthspan alongside lifespan reduces pressure on families, hospitals and public finances.
Prevention is not about spending less. It is about sustaining independence, protecting dignity and preserving the system for the next generation.
Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 continues to strengthen care beyond hospital walls through shared care with GPs, expanded community capacity and home-based models. This reflects an important evolution in how we organise care.
Hospitals are built for acute and complex conditions. Doctors stabilise patients after stroke, surgery or serious illness. That role is decisive and remains central. But long-term outcomes are determined by what happens after discharge. Recovery is not automatic. When rehabilitation is timely and coordinated, patients regain function earlier, caregiver strain reduces and hospital capacity is preserved for those who need it most.
When recovery is delayed or fragmented, avoidable readmissions return pressure to acute services. Strengthening community rehabilitation and home-based recovery therefore improves both patient outcomes and system efficiency.
This is not an additional layer of care. It ensures that our investment in acute medicine delivers full value. We can continue refining this by shortening time-to-rehabilitation after discharge, strengthening community therapy capacity and tracking functional outcomes to ensure quality and accountability. These refinements do not compete with acute medicine. They complete it.
For example, in my constituency of Tengah, as a young and growing estate, planning neighbourhoods that are ageing-friendly and rehabilitation-supportive from the start will reduce avoidable strain as our residents grow older. Good medicine stabilises. Recovery determines whether that stability lasts.
Mr Speaker, behind every infrastructure expansion and policy reform in this Budget stands a healthcare workforce carrying increasing complexity. Doctors manage clinical uncertainty and high-stakes decisions. Nurses sustain care across wards and communities under rising demand. Allied health professionals restore function and independence. Pharmacists safeguard medication safety. Care coordinators keep services connected. Each profession carries distinct responsibility. And each is indispensable.
If we want better access and shorter waits, we must strengthen not only capacity, but coherence. When responsibilities are organised clearly around training and competency, duplication reduces, bottlenecks ease and patients move more smoothly through the system. This is not redistribution of authority. It is disciplined deployment of expertise.
Sustainability is not only about infrastructure and funding. It is about work design, career pathways and workforce well-being. Workforce sustainability is central to national resilience. No healthcare system succeeds if any part of the team is persistently overstretched.
To our healthcare workers, your work is demanding and it matters deeply. A sustainable system must also be one that sustains you. When the workforce is supported, patients benefit and when we steward both carefully, healthcare remains strong for generations to come. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, healthcare has never been simply a matter of \"how much money is spent.\" It concerns the peace of mind of families, the dignity of our seniors and whether our system can endure over time.
Many Singaporeans ask, \"How much will I have to pay this time?\" This is a very real and reasonable question. But we must also honestly ask another question: \"If individuals bear none of the cost, who will ultimately shoulder it? Will it be taxpayers, the next generation, or society as a whole?\"
Healthcare costs do not disappear; they must be borne by someone. This is precisely one of the most difficult aspects of healthcare policy. In conversations with residents in Tengah, I found that what many elderly people fear most is not their own suffering, but becoming a burden to their families. That sentiment deserves our understanding.
I support the Government's continued efforts in MediSave, subsidies and long-term care support. At the same time, we must ensure that the system remains sustainable.
The best healthcare is not only about treating illness after it occurs, but about preventing disease, promoting early recovery and reducing avoidable hospital stays. Healthcare is not simply a matter of adding or subtracting costs; it is a responsibility shared by society as a whole. As long as we strengthen the foundations, Singapore's healthcare system can go further and remain stable.
(In English): Mr Speaker, to conclude, in mathematics, one plus one equals two only when the foundations are sound.
Healthcare is no different. Affordability, access and quality do not happen by accident. They are the result of careful choices, shared responsibility and long-term stewardship. Stewardship is not about choosing between care and cost. It is about protecting both – with balance and foresight.
If we want healthcare that remains strong for this generation and the next, then every part of the equation must be managed responsibly. Because in healthcare, one plus one does not automatically equal two. It equals two only when we build it carefully – together. I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, this is the first Budget of the current Parliamentary term. I would like to think of this as an opportunity for us to future-proof
Singapore in a world characterised by flux, we must be steadfast in holding on to who we are – our collective identity as Singaporeans are our roots, keeping us fixed and resolute as One People through disruptions and upheavals.
Sir, the Budget is as much about our collective values and identity, as much as it is about dollars and cents.
In his Budget speech, the Prime Minister identified that the spirit of our people is our greatest strength. He also said that Singaporeans must be active participants rather than mere spectators in our nation-building effort. I agree with this sentiment.
But, Sir, participation requires agency. If the Government is sincere about the spirit of our people being our greatest strength, then it must be equally sincere about giving Singaporeans the means and the space to tend that spirit themselves. Too often, however, Singaporeans find themselves as mere spectators in the making of our national collective identity.
The Government recognises the importance of nurturing the shared bonds of civic friendships among Singaporeans. I hope to, however, convince the House that our national identity and sense of solidarity is something that is best fostered organically from the ground up in ways that affirm and reflect our citizens' lived experiences. In the next few minutes, I will talk about heritage, history and human ingenuity.
First, I want to suggest the importance of heritage conservation, not out of sentimentality or nostalgia, but because these places have meanings for us as Singaporeans. Places and place memories are important to our identity and belonging. Unrelenting change, including those brought about by rampant commercialisation, can degrade our sense of who we are.
Second, I will also suggest that the construction of our national history can be more democratised and inclusive. If Singaporeans are to be active participants in nation building, then we deserve to tell a Singaporean story that is brought forth by the collective memory making of the Singapore public.
My final point will address the Government's focus on AI. I understand that we have to embrace advances in technology and seek to include these tools in our repertoire. My concern is specific that we do not elevate AI to such a degree that we risk undermining the very thing that we are seeking to enhance: our human ingenuity.
Sir, our heritage is essential to our civic and national identity. The Government has made it a priority to renew and strengthen our Singapore spirit in this year's Budget. I especially welcome the Prime Minister's plans to strengthen our cultural and heritage institutions, which include the reopening of the revamped Malay Heritage Centre.
However, even at the Istana Kampong Glam welcomes the public through its doors once more, it would be a pity if Kampong Glam itself loses its cultural character as a historical precinct which it has served and still continues to serve local communities. I spent part of my early childhood in Bussorah Street which was once known as Kampong Kaji. For me, Kampong Glam cannot be separated from the social and communal practices which are embedded within the neighbourhood. Kampong Glam thrives because the district remains a living heritage for the community who live, work and visit there.
I am sure that the House shares my concern about how traditional and heritage businesses often with long standing roots in Kampong Glam are finding themselves displaced by the challenging operating environment.
On 12 January, a report by CNA revealed that between 2023 and 2025, the yearly median rent in Kampong Glam rose from $6.02 to $7.54 per square foot, translating to a 25% increase over two years. During our Sitting earlier this month, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for National Development confirmed that a small proportion of tenants did face rental hikes of 25% or more in these two years. He, however, said that this involved leases for shops in high footfall streets, such as Haji and Bali Lanes.
However, this is not sufficient as an assurance that Kampong Glam will remain viable for heritage businesses. High rents in Haji and Bali Lanes can easily have a spillover effect on other adjacent streets, such as Arab Street, which houses some traditional textile retailers.
The disappearance of heritage businesses in Kampong Glam will be an irreversible thinning of the precinct's place meaning. We should also not understate the intimate connections between our sense of self, our sense of belonging and our sensing of the physical infrastructure.
To a large degree, our identity is anchored in places. People know who they are because they know where they were, where their grandparents brought them around to run errands, where they posed with their extended family around Sultan Mosque for a Hari Raya photo, or where they socialised over teh tarik with friends or brought their partner for a date.
Even when I grew older, I continued to bond with my father about Kampong Glam and our shared his interest in its history and heritage. Born and raised in Kampong Kaji, my father would regale me with stories of Wak Cantuk and playing with his friends from Gedung Kuning and other parts of Kampong Glam. While he is no longer here, our conversation still lived on fondly through my memories and every time I drop by Kampong Glam.
Mr Speaker, it may be said that churn and change is a constant order of the market. However, such indiscriminate churn can carelessly sever the connective threads nested in Kampong Glam that intricately links people and places, history and memory, and identity and belonging.
A nasi padang stall that has operated for decades, or a textile shop that has served both grandmother and granddaughter – these are not merely commercial storefronts selling goods and services. These are also precious repositories of cultural knowledge, community relationships and public memory. These are simply gone when they are gone. And no influx of souvenir shops, photo booths and Instagram-friendly cafes can compensate for such a loss.
Sir, if I may, I would like to quote a line from an essay titled \"Displacing Singapore\" written by Mr Peter Schoppert, which described the constant physical transformation of Singapore as such: \"The past continually makes way for a future that has no time to ripen into a present.\"
With Kampong Glam, we have the opportunity to do things differently, to let the past ripen into a present. We can still balance the forces of commerce and the imperatives of culture. This includes helping the heritage businesses that carry the memory of many generations, supporting the families who have anchored this district through the decades and taming speculation so that the cultural heritage of the district is not hollowed out.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) planning parameters for historical districts stipulate guidelines for building use. Would it not be possible to amend these parameters to ensure that heritage businesses can remain viable in the areas, such as introducing heritage business licences, specifically for historic districts?
This would offer businesses some measure of protection from open market competition, as well as prevent the over-commercialisation of a historic district.
Sir, I turn now to the topic of our national history. Recently, I visited the Albatross Files exhibition at the National Library, which I thought was quite remarkable, since it is not often that the state offers a revisionist account of its own historical narrative. As a student, the narrative of separation that I was taught was one of expulsion. A Straits Times report from 21 December 2025 quoting a former secondary school history teacher confirms this.
That aside, the declassification of the Albatross File is a good move. Yet the existence of the file was only first revealed in 1996 by Dr Goh Keng Swee during an interview with Dr Melanie Chew. And it took another 27 years for it to be fully declassified. Must Albatross really wait for 30 years before its existence was to be publicly acknowledged and almost 60 years after Independence before its contents were to be fully revealed to the public?
Even then, the declassification process of Albatross seems tightly managed. I refer to the 7 December speech by Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who shared how a specific team went through the material carefully, picked out the key documents and sections, annotated them and wrote up the editorial apparatus.
I do not mean to downplay the considerable work and effort of these scholars. However, was there a reason that the file was not released to the public domain in the first instance so that the wider community of scholars and the public can read, discuss, interpret and construct their understandings of a past in a more democratic and collective fashion?
As the Minister for Digital Development and Information stated in her written answer on 12 January, \"A deeper appreciation of our history and how we got here will strengthen our national identity.\" I however doubt that our more mature and discerning citizens can truly have this deeper appreciation if the Government's approach to history remains didactic, where history is meant to be consumed by the people rather than constructed by the people and for the people. Historical narratives gain resonance when it is written by the many, not dictated by the few.
Sir, in the spirit of encouraging and facilitating a deeper appreciation of our history, would it not be more reasonable to have, as a default, an automatic declassification and public release of records once 25 years have elapsed?
Currently, even Government documents that have been transferred as public records to the National Archives Singapore (NAS), the so called \"public archives\", are not easily accessible. In 2023, the then Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information mentioned that the NAS has made the metadata of around 780,000 records available to the public. However, most of these records still require permission from the originating agency before they can be read.
In the Senior Minister of State's statement, it was also revealed that 68,000 filed records have been declassified and made accessible to the public.
Sir, surely any public archive deserving of its name should have its records readily available to the public without the need to seek permission from a Government agency. An automatic declassification process will make records generally available to the public by default instead of requiring interested Singaporeans and researchers to undertake an opaque approval process to gain access.
I understand that a more transparent and open declassification policy may cause some anxieties. However, the Government can heed the advice of Senior Minister Lee, who once said, quote \"In teaching the Singapore Story, you have to deal with delicate issues, especially race and religion, and sometimes relations with our neighbours. We must treat such issues sensitively, but we cannot gloss over them. Amnesia is not an option. We cannot pretend that incidents involving race and religion never happened. They are part of our history\", end quote.
Sir, a society that can collectively alter its history is one that is confident in facing the future. To future-proof Singapore, amnesia is not an option. If you want Singaporeans to be active participants in their own country, if you want our citizens to deepen their appreciation of our history and to strengthen our national identity, then the Government must believe that Singaporeans can be trusted to participate in the construction of our national history.
Sir, my final topic – AI. A focal point of the Budget speech was on harnessing AI as a strategic advantage for Singapore. The Prime Minister outlined the Government's commitment to strengthen AI literacy for our students in the institutes of higher learning (IHLs) and to help workers automate routine tasks so they can concentrate on performing higher value activities that would involve judgement, creativity and human insight.
These are pragmatic measures to familiarise Singaporeans with AI and integrate its use into our daily routines. However, I wonder whether we are in danger of becoming an AI-reliant society, rather than an AI-resilient society.
My worry is that such indiscriminate habituation to AI may risk undermining the very things that we want to augment. Those things that the Prime Minister talked about – judgement, creativity and human insight. Sir, human ingenuity is a precious thing, and we must not let it be the case that the more we rely on AI, the more we end up dulling our critical faculties for human ingenuity.
Sir, as an undergraduate, I remember struggling through dense academic text, picking apart the writings of scholars such as Émile Durkheim, Max Weber and Karl Marx, trying to find out what their words meant and what it is they were trying to convey. Had AI been available then, it would have been convenient and very tempting for me to have ChatGPT summarise the content or generate ideas for an essay or seminar discussion.
However, there is value in undertaking the sometimes slow, often uncomfortable and always arduous task of reading a text and grappling to understand it on your own terms. This is the process through which we sharpen our cognitive skills. This is how we learn to decipher and interpret the meanings of the written word, and by extension, make sense of the world, which those words reflect and shape. This is how we develop our sense of judgement and our capacity for creativity.
I appreciate the Prime Minister's reassurance that the Government will define how AI is developed and used in Singapore, including setting out clear rules for its responsible and safe implementation. I await more clarity in this direction.
One last point, Mr Speaker, I will reiterate what my WP colleague Dennis Tan raised, and his concerns about AI and the environment.
We should remember that every AI query has a physical and environmental footprint. We may think of AI as performing virtual magic on our computers, giving us answers in almost an instant, or even helping us to generate pantun for Parliament. But this magic has to piggyback on a vast infrastructure of data centres that consume voracious amounts of electricity and water.
Globally, data centres are straining power grids and depleting water sources. Needless to say, the energy and water demands of these data centres also have third party effects, such as increasing the utility cost for everyone else, including residents. This has become such a serious issue in the US to the extent that the New York Times reported on 15 January, that the politicians and lawmakers have started mulling over legislation to oblige tech companies to pay their fair share for electricity consumption, including paying upfront for the cost of upgrading the power grid.
Locally, data centres accounted for 7% of Singapore's total energy usage in 2020. Moreover, data centres also contribute to the urban heating of our island, because for every one megawatt of heat removed from data centres by the cooling systems, 1.2 megawatt of heat is ejected into the environment.
In fact, resource and sustainability concerns prompted the Government to issue a moratorium on data centre construction in 2019, which has been lifted in phases since 2022. In May 2024, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) released the Green Data Centre Roadmap, which established energy and water efficiency targets for data centres for the next 10 years.
I hope that the Government is confident that we are not only on pace to meet these efficiency targets, but to also ensure that the data centres' energy and water consumption does not create upward pressure on the utility cost for households and small businesses.
Sir, I highlight these issues not as a reason to abandon or shun AI, but the world is facing an existential challenge of climate change and the United Nations University Institute of Water, Environment and Health recently warned of a global water bankruptcy. Given these circumstances, it seems only pragmatic for us in this House and as a country to consider the ethical and environmental trade-offs involved as we embark on a national quest to integrate AI into our personal, social and working lives.
Sir, the Prime Minister has identified the many challenges that Singapore is facing. I hope that the Government reads my remarks as I intend them to be: constructive amendments for the purpose of strengthening our civic endurance and collective resilience to navigate the challenging days ahead. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Gabriel Lam.
Mr Gabriel Lam (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 is not incremental, it is strategic. It is presented at a moment when the Prime Minister has described a profoundly changed world. More fragmented, more contested and less predictable.
Last year, we grew at 5%. This year, growth is expected to moderate to between 2% and 4%. The global environment will remain structurally uncertain. In such a world, resilience must be intentional. Today, I will focus on three foundations that will determine whether we truly secure our future together: one, a workforce that can outrun disruption; two, families that experience structural assurance; three, a Singapore spirit strong enough to withstand fragmentation. These are not separate agendas. They reinforce one another.
Economic resilience begins with adaptability. This Budget strengthens that adaptability. The Local Qualifying Salary will rise to $1,800. The Progressive Wage Credit Scheme will be enhanced and extended. More than 600,000 individuals took up SkillsFuture-supported training last year. Over 60,000 mid-career Singaporeans have benefitted from the Level-Up programme. The merger of SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) into a single integrated agency is a decisive structural move. It recognises that in an era of frequent job transitions, training and placement must operate as one system.
In the logistics industry, there have been many success stories of candidates undergoing career conversion or job reskilling and finding a newfound purpose in the workforce. I am very grateful to the various trade associations and chambers, as well who work hand-in-hand with the Government agencies in securing jobs for workers in their sectors.
But participation must translate into mobility. In a slower growth environment, our edge will not depend on how many courses are taken, but on whether upgrading consistently leads to higher wages and better prospects. The next step must be sharper outcome accountability.
I thus call on the Government to publish regular data on post-training wage progression and re-employment outcomes by sector. Industry Transformation Maps should embed workforce mobility benchmarks, not just productivity metrics. Firms that receive significant transformation grants should demonstrate clearly how local workers benefit in terms of career progression. Resilience must mean that effort leads to advancement, visibly and measurably.
Yet even the most adaptable worker draws strength from stable family foundations. Economic confidence cannot be sustained if households feel uncertain.
This year's Budget strengthens support across life stages. Preschool subsidies will extend to families earning up to $15,000. ComLink+ enhancements can provide around $10,000 annually for families with young children. Central Provident Fund (CPF) top-ups of up to $1,500 will support Singaporeans aged 50 and above with lower balances.
We begin this term on a strong fiscal footing. These measures ease pressure at critical junctures. In my interactions with residents in Canberra, many families have shared similar concerns. They are working hard, managing their responsibilities diligently and doing their best to provide for their children and care for their parents. What I hear consistently is not a demand for more but a desire for greater certainty, certainty that support will remain stable, that costs will not outpace incomes unpredictably and that the system will continue to stay behind them as they navigate different life stages.
But in an ageing society with structurally rising healthcare and retirement needs, assurance must be systemic. We must hence move towards a clearer, consolidated family assurance framework – one that maps lifetime support across housing, childcare, healthcare and retirement in a transparent way.
I call on the Government to ensure that inter-agency support for families under multiple schemes is streamlined into a single digital interface, reducing administrative complexity. Income thresholds for key schemes should also be reviewed regularly and pegged transparently to median income growth so that support evolves automatically with living standards.
Assurance should not feel conditional or episodic. It should feel embedded. When families feel predictable stability, they make long-term decisions with confidence, and that confidence strengthens economic resilience.
But every strong household and strong worker requires something deeper. In 2025, global conflict remained high, with over 200,000 violent conflict events recorded across many regions and conflict-related fatalities rising to nearly 240,000, underscoring how geopolitical instability persists across multiple theatres and continues to affect millions worldwide.
Singapore cannot afford social fracture. The Budget invests deliberately in strengthening shared bonds through cultural institutions, expanded sports facilities, extended 250% tax deductions for donations and corporate volunteering, and a new $50 million SG Partnerships Fund. These are not soft measures. They are strategic investments in cohesion.
In Canberra, we launched Project Sound Box, a sound mitigating box that reduces the sound generated from the lion dance troupes in the area by 40 decibels. The troupes also work closely with various stakeholders to end training by 9.00 pm and to provide updates on their training schedules. This information is disseminated to the resident chat groups so that they can be kept informed.
We have also organised learning journeys where residents of different races come and see the troupes train, and the troupes give a briefing on the significance of the various dance moves. The troupes are seen as a member of the community and are invited to various events in the community.
But unity must be operationalised. The SG Partnerships Fund should incorporate clear multi-year community impact metrics so that cohesion outcomes are sustained, not symbolic.
Structured civic participation pathways, including youth policy internships and project incubators, should become a permanent feature of our governance landscape. Corporate volunteering and social contribution metrics can be integrated into environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting frameworks, encouraging deeper private-sector ownership of nation-building.
A \"we first\" society must be cultivated intentionally. Unity must be measurable, participation must be meaningful and contribution must be normalised.
In conclusion, Budget 2026 recognises that the world has changed. Resilience, therefore, must be layered and disciplined. A workforce that translates skills into mobility. Families that experience structural assurance. A society that embeds unity into practice. When these three reinforce one another, we do not merely withstand uncertainty. We convert it into strength. That is how we secure our future together. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Speaker, last week was the Lunar New Year. I had the pleasure of sampling a Xiangshan Hong Mei Ren mandarin orange. The texture was extraordinary, the vesicles of the orange were very sweet, the skin almost paper thin. It has been described as eating jelly, or jelly growing on a tree; 12% to 15% sugar content, low acidity, no floating skin.
It inspired me to investigate its history. The Hong Mei Ren was once called the Ehime No 28, developed over 15 years at the Ehime Prefectural Fruit Tree Experiment Station in Japan, and prized for its jelly-like texture and ultra-premium positioning. But due to the lack of intellectual property (IP) protection, it was lost. A handful of stem cuttings were carried to Xiangshan county in Zhejiang province in China in 2001. Today, the Hong Mei Ren has expanded to over one million mu (亩) over 15 Chinese provinces, dwarfing Japan's 300 hectares over a hundred fold.
Fifteen years of breeding, gone. Just like that. It was one of the most consequential agricultural IP losses in modern Japanese history, alongside the Shine Muscat grape and strawberry leakages. That reminded me of something closer to home.
It is well known that our research and development (R&D) ecosystem over the last 30 years has not produced impressive commercial outcomes. Tens of billions of spending since 1990, more than 30 years. Where are the deep tech commercial successes? The report card of significant commercial outcomes, high value initial public offerings (IPOs), globally competitive companies is bare.
That is what I would have said up to 23 May 2025. On that day, Mirxes, a microRNA cancer diagnostics biotech company incubated over many years of Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) research at Biopolis IPO-ed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX), raising HK$1.09 billion with China-linked cornerstone investors. Finally, a billion-dollar IPO.
Coincidentally, also about 15 years of effort, like the Japanese breeding the Ehime No 28. But the story is more complicated. Mirxes listed in Hong Kong, not Singapore, because the Singapore Exchange (SGX) has no equivalent to the HKEX pathway for pre-revenue biotech. Its cornerstone investors were Chinese entities holding over 40% of the IPO. Its manufacturing now is in Zhejiang province. Its growth market is in China. So, the initial science came from Singapore, but commercialisation leaked offshore.
If this is success, then what does failure look like?
This is not the fault of the Chinese. They optimise rationally within the realities of the system. This is our failure to capture value, our responsibility to anticipate, to get it right, to make sure Singaporean taxpayers reap the rewards of tens of billions ploughed into R&D.
Mirxes highlighted two facts.
First, the system does not produce a strong pipeline. That Mirxes is the only billion-dollar IPO or commercially significant R&D company after 30 years of continual investment tells you something.
Second, even when a success emerges, the system is naively vulnerable to value chain leakage. To lose a one-billion-dollar IPO may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose more is carelessness. I will return to this later.
Sir, I welcome the Budget's commitment to $37 billion under RIE2030 and the expansion of Startup SG Equity into growth capital. These are steps in the right direction. But the question is not whether we are spending enough, it is whether the system converts that spending into commercial outcomes for Singapore.
Why does the system produce these two outcomes: (a) a limited pipeline of commercially viable R&D companies; and (b) a failure to take advantage of successes when they come?
The structural flaw is that agencies like the Economic Development Board (EDB) and the Statutory Boards are structured as grant givers, not as investors or ecosystem builders. If you are a grant giver, your job is to mark the market, to benchmark, to do due diligence against market rates. If you mark the market, you are then subject to the audit process, every decision scrutinised against whether you followed the benchmark.
If you are a civil servant in that position, there is absolutely no reason to stick your neck out. Zero incentive for upside, only downside risk from audit. So, of course, you end up with super conservative civil servants who say, \"I do not want to do any innovation.\" You end up with long meetings where senior officials agonise over $5,000 or $10,000 because they are worried about compliance. Worse, annual key performance indicator cycles force officers to judge five- to seven-year bets on a 12-month horizon. So, promising ventures get culled before they can prove themselves.
Meanwhile, you miss the forest for the trees. To take an ecosystem approach to funding so that the day-to-day operational environment for R&D startups is the best that it can be. To design policy to capture R&D upside. Our agencies are structured to avoid losing money, not to make it. That is why 30 years of spending has not produced 30 years of results.
I agree with the Prime Minister that R&D is a core imperative. Productivity gains, moving up the value chain. All of this matters. But there must be an honest reckoning with 30 years of limited commercial outcomes and value leakage. The R&D ecosystem needs three things: money, speed and a market.
First, money. I tried to count Singapore's Government-linked startup funds. I stopped at 20. There are eight sub-schemes under the Startup SG umbrella alone. SGInnovate, Xora Innovation under Temasek. Vertex Holdings with seven sub funds. The National Research Foundation, A*STAR, the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Monetary Authority of Singapore run their own programmes. This is not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course, each was created for a reason. Each has a logic, but the aggregate effect is a landscape so fragmented that no single entity has the mandate, the capital concentration or the institutional authority to make the kind of large, decisive fast bets that define successful deep tech commercialisation elsewhere.
The SG Growth Capital merger of SEEDS and EDBI is a step in the right direction, but the deeper question is whether we have the institutional courage to truly consolidate to give one to two entities the capital, the mandate and critically, the permission to fail, at scale, rather than spreading accountability so thin that no one is responsible for ecosystem outcomes. The pruning must go deeper.
France has a public investment bank called Banque publique d'investissement (Bpifrance), a single institution combining innovation investment, SME lending, loan guarantees, export credit insurance and strategic equity stakes. In 2024, Bpifrance deployed 60 billion euros. Its officers proactively contact companies with programmes. It is commercially viable, with a 2024 net income of 900 million euros.
Under Francois Hollande and economic advisor Emmanuel Macron, in 2012, France merged four fragmented investment bodies – one for SME loans, guarantees innovation, one for venture capital, one for strategic equity and one for regional equity – into a single entity, Bpifrance. Export credit insurance was added later in 2017. It now employs about 3,500 staff, centralising innovation investment, economy-wide strategic investment, SME financing, loan guarantees, export support and regional business development.
The diagnosis that prompted Bpifrance's creation was plain. Despite strong science and underlying dynamism, France's entrepreneurial culture was weak, risk-averse and fearful of failure.
Bpifrance also organised learning expeditions and export programmes to help French companies internationalise. It became the anchor investor across French tech, not just deep tech. Its 10-year assessment found that 80% of French startups that raised funds between 2013 and 2021 received Bpifrance support, and two thirds of French venture capital funds have Bpifrance as a limited partner. Bpifrance deliberately accepts below market returns, targeting 7% annually rather than 10% plus to take risk that private investors will not, training a generation of entrepreneurs and building an ecosystem from scratch.
I believe we need an equivalent policy investment bank – an institution outside the civil service, incentivised to take risk and freed from line-item accountability, staffed with ecosystem builders, not risk-averse civil servants.
We need to take a portfolio approach, thinking in 10-year cycles, 10-year cohorts, 10-year mandates. They need the right incentives. We had this in the early years with DBS and Temasek, but both have since drifted from that mission and today, no institution fills the gap. The WP has argued before for an Export-Import (EXIM) Bank. The French example shows a mandate wider still – innovation investment, SME lending, export credit, strategic equity, all under one roof.
It is often said that we have a lot of capital in Singapore, but we have the wrong type of capital for R&D commercialisation. Capital tied to Government and corporates. Excessive obsession with business metrics way too early. Startups forced to jump through a thousand hoops for small cheques. Family officers largely uninterested in our R&D ecosystem. My colleague Jamus Lim has proposed requiring a modest domestic allocation as a condition for family office tax incentives, which I support.
What does success look like 25 years from now? A flywheel, where private capital is sophisticated enough to understand deep tech. Patient capital writing experimental cheques, less metric-obsessed early on. This is the ecosystem that we should be building towards.
Second, speed. Funders and regulators need to understand that two extra days of approvals or one month of delayed cash flow is life and death for a startup. You do not understand what it takes if you have not tried it yourself.
Fast capital deployment does not just save companies. It trains a generation of entrepreneurs who will not waste 60% of their time fundraising.
We should make peace with the fact that roughly 80% of bets on startups made in good faith will back a losing venture. That is the power law in action. The real gain is often the entrepreneur's second and third startup. But if the first attempt feels like pulling teeth, they drop out, and the compounding of iterated learning across business formation is lost.
Speed is not just about money, it is about people.
MOM uses income as its proxy for talent: the Tech.Pass at $22,500 a month, the ONE Pass at $30,000. This may work for hot fields. It seldom works for deep tech, which due to their call-option nature, are unfashionable before they are fashionable. A strong biotech engineer in Thailand earns a quarter of Singapore wages. To bring them here, a startup must triple their salary – not because their skills are worth less, but because MOM's threshold demands it. That is startup cash burnt on regulatory compliance, not R&D.
We are asking founders to choose between the talent they need and the runway they cannot afford to lose. The assumption that salary equals value breaks down where it matters most. Deep tech talent is scarce, specialised and often transient. An 18-month engagement with a materials engineer or a combustion engine specialist can redefine a company's trajectory.
The visa framework should reflect that reality. I propose a segmented approach: a company-driven deep tech visa, tied not to income, but the company's credentials. A monthly review committee of mixed Singaporean and international entrepreneurs evaluating deep tech companies. There are perhaps 50 to 80 serious deep-tech companies formed here each year. Companies meeting the criteria enter a special segment: flexibility for three to five visas in Year One, with annual portfolio reviews assessing whether the company is growing.
Easy entry, progressively stricter requirements on each renewal, all strictly performance-based. Is the company growing? Are Singaporeans being hired and trained alongside foreign specialists? If yes, renew. If not, exit.
Traditional organisations – banks, established corporates – can afford strict income rules. There is enough local talent. But deep-tech startups need radical fluidity and the visa regime most suited to them should follow the company, not the person.
We should also aim to make visa decisions snappy. It is fine to say no to people. But let us have the courtesy to do it fast, within a matter of weeks. Let us not waste our companies' time.
Third, a market and offtake. Money and speed are necessary, but insufficient if no one is buying. The system must be designed for offtake, structured so that when R&D produces something, there is a buyer on the other end.
Singapore hosts regional headquarters, not global ones. Decision-making centres remain in New York, London, Paris and Shanghai. Regional postings run three to four years. When the regional executive who championed an innovation pilot rotates home, continuity goes with them. Corporate incentive structures often reward launching initiatives, not seeing them through, creating structural discontinuity.
Tax incentives should require backing from both regional and global headquarters. If there is no interlocutor in New York or Shanghai who has signed off, no incentive. This ensures a direct link to decision-making and prevents projects from being forgotten when executives rotate home.
Beyond that, we should attach strategic buyer offtake commitments to grants. Require multinational corporations (MNCs) to pilot, evaluate or procure from at least one local startup or SME, as part of grant conditions. And the Government itself must practise innovation procurement. Europe and China give SMEs quotas of contracts to help them gain scale, so we must do the same.
I said I would return to the question of protecting value. Money, speed and a market can build a pipeline. But pipeline alone is not enough if the value leaks out. Three countries have dealt with this question, and they are not peripheral economies. They are among the most successful R&D ecosystems in the world.
Israel protects at inception. Under the Law for the Encouragement of Industrial Research and Development, the Israel Innovation Authority attaches binding conditions to all public R&D funding. IP developed with public grants cannot be transferred outside Israel without explicit prior approval. Unauthorised transfer is a criminal offence. No known prosecution has occurred, but the deterrent is powerful.
Taiwan protects through structure. Industrial Technology Research Institute spun off Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company in 1987, by transferring fabs, equipment, technologies and 98 professionals to a new Taiwanese entity – with significant government ownership. The critical feature was not any single restriction but a system: government ownership stakes in spin-offs, personnel who were Taiwanese nationals, incorporation in Taiwan, government funding giving the state structural leverage over deployment.
South Korea designates core protected technologies. Under the Industrial Technology Protection Act, South Korea designates more than 70 technologies across 13 fields as National Core Technologies – semiconductors, displays, batteries – and requires prior approval for any export or merger and acquisitions involving these technologies. Maximum prison sentences for overseas technology leakage reach 18 years, with punitive damages at five times actual losses.
Singapore needs equivalent mechanisms for conditionality. Some say we should adopt golden shares, IP retention conditions and protected technologies. Domestic manufacturing requirements tied to public funding. My view is the necessary and plausibly sufficient policy to adopt is an IP conditionality regime, designed for a small open economy. Legislate that IP developed with public R&D funding cannot be permanently transferred offshore without prior approval from a designated authority – enforceable domestically against Singapore-domiciled entities and individuals.
Ultimately, we will be judged on the competitiveness of our ecosystem. An SGX that rewards R&D. Special Economic Zones that can scale up manufacturing at lower cost. Company-driven R&D manpower policies. Risk capital from a consolidated policy investment bank, like Bpifrance. Trade architecture that companies actually use, not headline ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement numbers or scarcely used Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), but reduced non-tariff barriers and the ability to incorporate once in Singapore and operate across key Southeast Asian markets.
When companies reach a certain size, the siren song of redomicile will prove irresistible for many. The competition shifts to building a growth-capital ecosystem deep enough and catalysing a Southeast Asian market large enough that staying makes more sense than leaving.
So, sunset such an IP conditionality regime once the ecosystem is strong enough. This will crowd-in private R&D and take the burden of sustaining our headline R&D numbers off the Singaporean taxpayer. Yes, fewer R&D startups may form under these IP conditions. But I say, it is better to have fewer startups with real upside capture than sexy headlines, nice public relations pieces in CNA and nothing to show from it.
And it shifts R&D accountability to where it belongs, not on public servants approving a grant, but on the system retaining value.
You may be very proud of your Ehime No 28. But unless you take preparatory measures, unless you design for the upside, one day you will find your R&D being sold as a Hong Mei Ren mandarin. Incubated in Singapore, harvested in Zhejiang and Hong Kong. Thank you, Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to Budget 2026, which shows a Government responding to the needs of the people while taking care for the long term.
As expectations rise with regards to access to care, social support and well-being, and rightly so, we should not only be spending more, in terms of the help we give our people, but also spending to ensure that the help is received in a simple and dignified manner.
In this regard, I have three reflections to share. First, how residents experience our systems on the ground; next, the progress Singapore has already made towards systemic integration; and third, how we can deepen integration so that care truly becomes seamless.
First reflection – when help exists, but feels hard to reach. Let me share a story of one of our residents in Jurong Spring Gek Poh. A senior elderly lady who comes monthly to collect her food packs from our weekly ground-up initiative called the Jurong Spring Food Cares programme. For months she did not come, and we wondered what had happened to her. One day, I received a phone call from her sister, saying that she had fallen, taken ill at the hospital and was now recuperating at home.
She eventually returned to her home in our constituency and I visited her. She was overwhelmed – medical appointments, social service worker appointments and many other agencies that she had to visit. At the same time, she was trying to cope with the new diagnosis of breast cancer, not knowing exactly how deeply this was going to affect her.
She did not lack the services or the help. What she lacked was just better coordination and integration. Our systems are robust and well-intentioned, but to a vulnerable senior, they can sometimes feel difficult to navigate.
As we move towards a \"we first\" society, we must design systems not just for efficiency, but also for human experience.
Reflection number two – the current progress we have made on integration as a nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to acknowledge that Singapore has already made significant progress in integrating healthcare and social support, and this is important because health and social issues do not exist in isolation. The formation of the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), the development of regional health systems, expansion of community care and ageing in place initiatives, like the Age Well SG, demonstrate our strong foresight and the sustained effort by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the whole of Government.
Integration is already underway through care coordinators, transitional care programmes and stronger partnerships across primary, acute and community care sectors. These are important and commendable foundations, but we must be cognisant that integration succeeds, not merely when agencies connect, but when our people feel the connection.
Health challenges today are rarely, purely medical. A clinic visit may begin with diagnosis of diabetes or injury, but underlying issues may include loneliness, caregiver strain, financial stress or mental health concerns. To truly integrate care, we must see the whole person and not just the diagnosis.
Reflection three – learning from international practice and adapting it for Singapore. During my public health training at the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, I studied models of integrated care that left a lasting impression on me, including work from the Manchester Local Care Organisation in the United Kingdom, where integrated neighbourhood care has been implemented at scale. Patients with complex needs were assigned a single case worker, supported by a multidisciplinary team, which included doctors, nurses, social workers and other allied health professionals.
One person understood the patient's story. One person coordinated services, one trusted point of contact. Patients did not have to repeat their stories across agencies. They experienced continuity, clarity, and most importantly, dignity.
Singapore does not need to replicate another system, but we can adapt useful principles within our already strong healthcare and social care systems. Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that we explore placing more integrated case workers within our community and primary healthcare systems, the first touch points for many of our seniors.
Why this settings? First, the seniors already trust their doctors. Second, as I have mentioned before, medical and social needs surface simultaneously most of the time. Third, early intervention becomes possible, and fourth, support becomes proactive rather than reactive.
Imagine a simple workflow. A senior visiting a primary care physician for follow-up for poorly controlled diabetes. The doctor identifies several social vulnerabilities, a co-located or a nearby social worker or caseworker immediately responds and assist, with application for financial aid, mobility devices, befriending services and even social prescription. True integration begins when help starts the moment the need for that help is recognised.
This can be piloted progressively within our regional health systems, leveraging our Healthier SG networks, existing care coordinators, shared digital records, community partners, including our community health posts. In fact, this might achieve three of our national priorities of creating more jobs, providing seamless care, and even piloting AI solutions when we handle very complex health and social issues.
Stealing the words of my colleague, Dr Tan Wu Meng from last year's COS debates, this should not be seen as a cost, but as a forward investment, an investment in our people, for our people. So, let us invest more in integration and integration is not just about building new systems, but about making existing systems feel like one. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, before I continue, allow me to give some focus to our Malay/Muslim community.
Many Malay/Muslim seniors face challenges that not only relate to physical health, but also social, emotional and spiritual in nature. In our culture, peace of mind, moral support and spiritual guidance are very important to age gracefully.
Many of them come not just for financial or medical assistance, but because they seek support and guidance. For our community, that place is usually the mosques and local asatizah networks. The mosque is not just a place to perform their prayers, but also a centre for community support.
We already have a strong foundation in place through the M3 network, which combines the efforts of Government agencies and Malay/Muslim community institutions. Based on this strong foundation, may I propose these three measures.
First, enhancing training and resources for mosque officers and volunteers so that they can work more closely with the health and social services sectors. Second, placing social health coordination officers at mosques that are more frequently attended by senior citizens so that assistance can be better accessed. Third, expanding senior citizen programmes at mosques to include health talks, health screenings and counselling support.
With these measures, Malay/Muslim seniors are not only cared for physically but are also strengthened spiritually and socially.
(In English): Mr Speaker, in Tamil, please.
(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, at a time when we are debating on Budget plans with regard to ageing, we must also reflect on how we understand ageing. Often, ageing is described only as a challenge. Our senior citizens are not a burden. They are repositories of wisdom, examples of patience, community leaders with skills and experience. Also, they are strong pillars of families and society. Therefore, it is now time for us to change the direction of our national conversation.
We are not a society that is ageing, we are a society that is active and that which has a long life. We are not a society that is growing old, we are a society that is living well and maturing. We are not only a society that supports the elderly, we are a society that empowers the elderly. To implement this, we can advance in several key directions.
First, we must create more opportunities that encourages lifelong learning. Second, we must expand on meaningful employment opportunities for seniors. Third, we must create a platform where seniors serve as mentors to the youth. Fourth, we must increase opportunities to utilise their experiences in community management, arts and traditional sectors. Finally, we must create programmes that not only meet the needs of seniors but also celebrate their strengths and contributions, because a country's strength lies not only in its youth, but also on the experiences and wisdom of its elders.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, we should judge ourselves not just by how advanced our systems are, but by how cared for our people are within those systems.
As Singapore moves towards becoming a “we first” society, our task is not merely to build more programmes, but to ensure that every resident experiences care as one coherent journey – simple, humane and dignified. Because integration is not achieved when policies align on paper but when a senior no longer feels lost, when help arrives without confusion and when dignity is preserved at every step of life. If we succeed, ageing will not be feared as decline but embraced as a stage of contribution, purpose and active longevity.
So, let us not just build a system that treats illness, health, social, or otherwise, but build a society that journeys with all our people together as one with clarity, compassion and care. I support the Budget, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yeo
Mr Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, I am extremely heartened by the Government’s support of our seniors in this year’s Annual Budget Statement. As the Prime Minister acknowledged in the Budget Statement, with longer lifespans, retirement adequacy is a major concern for our seniors.
This is a sentiment that is echoed by the seniors in Potong Pasir. Our life expectancy in Singapore has risen over the years to about 83.5 years. If a senior retired in 2005 at the statutory retirement age of 62 years, he or she would be 82 in 2025 – a long retirement period of 20 years.
During this 20-year period, if we use the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS’) goods and services inflation calculator, a basket of goods and services under the food, healthcare and transport categories which, in my view, are three categories that affect seniors significantly, increased approximately between 60% to 80%.
For a retired senior, every dollar saved at the time of retirement, for retirement will be stretched with each passing year. Accordingly, the Government has over the years supplemented our seniors in retirement with cash and voucher support in various forms: CPF and MediSave top-ups, Silver Support and the Pioneer, Merdeka and Majulah Packages.
In this Budget, seniors can look forward to benefiting from additional subsidies for CareShield life premiums via a top-up of the long-term care support fund, further CPF top-ups and changes to the CPF system to help build up retirement savings. The objective is to ensure that seniors age with dignity, security and peace of mind.
However, as the number of seniors continues to grow in the community, as we expect it to, it is inevitable that there will be seniors who fall between the gaps. Others may have to grapple with challenges that extend beyond financial concerns. Today, I wish to highlight the concerns of two such categories of seniors.
The first are retired seniors who live in homes with higher Annual Value (AV). I had raised the issue of reviewing the use of the AV as a means test for healthcare subsidies in my maiden speech last year. This issue has also been raised by other Members of this House on other occasions.
To address this, the Government had reviewed the AV threshold for means testing from time to time and raised it to allow more Singaporeans to benefit from higher subsidies. I agree with the Prime Minister when he explained in his response at the Budget debate last year that there is no perfect means testing regime to test both income and wealth.
However, the fact that this issue has been raised on a number of occasions by Members of this House reflects the ground sentiment that an increasing number of seniors living in homes with higher AV are either extremely concerned about their retirement adequacy in the future or already facing financial challenges in retirement.
To be clear, the means testing regime of PCHI and in its absence, the AV of one’s residence is, on the round, an objective measurement of one's income and wealth in the distribution of subsidies. I will posit, however, that retired seniors, who need to plan their retirement funds over a longer life span, own and live in homes with slightly higher AV purchased through pre-retirement income, or have residential arrangements that may not accurately reflect their level of wealth, are disproportionately more affected by this means testing regime than any other demographic of Singaporeans.
Perhaps the deeper underlying issue is to consider whether there is a need to review holistically how we assess our retired seniors in the various subsidies and support mechanisms that we have in place. Some of these mechanisms are applied nationally across all demographics of Singaporeans. The means testing regime of PCHI and AV is one. Other mechanisms are senior-centric, like silver support and the Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation Packages.
For those mechanisms applied nationally, in healthcare for example, some subsidies are tiered, like in hospitalisation ward subsidies, while others suffer a cliff-drop reduction of subsidies, like in the case of residential long-term care services.
Sir, if there is a policy imperative that the needs of our seniors, especially those in retirement, should be prioritised, I ask if the Government will consider reclassifying seniors as a separate category for current subsidy mechanisms that apply across all demographics and apply a more nuanced and targeted approach to address the needs of this growing class of retired seniors.
The second category are seniors who live alone. This is a growing trend. According to the Department of Statistics, the number of one-person households for those aged 65 years and above has more than doubled from 2014 to 2024, rising from 42,100 to 87,200 households. Based on the overall expectation that one in four Singaporeans will be over the age of 65 by 2030, we can certainly expect this trend to continue to grow.
Through my pro bono LPA Programme over the past 10 years, I have had the opportunity to engage many seniors who make conscious choices on a very difficult and life-changing issue of the possible loss of mental capacity. It is abundantly clear to me that they are anxious, worried and unsettled about what could happen to them as they age, especially if they are single or choose to live alone due to complex family dynamics.
Let me share an example. A senior lived alone in a home that was in a state of disrepair. Our volunteers in the neighbourhood observed that she needed help. No family member or relative was contactable. She was physically frail. Sadly, her mental capacity was also failing. She missed her bills and had her utilities turned off. She missed her meals, even though volunteers left cooked meals at her doorstep. She was friendly one day and extremely hostile the next. Our grassroots team, the Social Service Office, AIC and other volunteer groups rendered assistance in whatever way possible. Yet they were limited as to how far they could go, and no agency had the authority and or the power to intervene directly. Eventually, after almost a year, we were informed that some action had been taken to have her situation addressed.
This may be an isolated case, one with a peculiar set of circumstances. But as the number of seniors living alone in Singapore grows, the expectation must be that more such cases will emerge. Currently, the Public Guardian can only supervise or investigate matters involving LPAs and or deputyships. Under certain circumstances, the Public Guardian may appoint suitable third parties, like social workers or medical care providers as professional deputies.
The Mental Capacity Act, however, does not empower the Public Guardian to intervene directly if a senior loses his or her mental capacity and has no viable person who can be appointed as a deputy to make decisions and manage matters on his or her behalf. This could result in vulnerable seniors failing to get the support or timely intervention they need, even with many willing helping hands in the community.
I ask if the Government will consider reviewing the Mental Capacity Act and empowering the Public Guardian to intervene directly in such cases? The Public Guardian can work alongside the Public Trustee to manage the assets of such seniors and direct caregiving agencies to administer the care required. I understand that in jurisdictions such as Australia, there exists a legal framework that allows for direct intervention in such cases. Interestingly, Australia also recently enacted the rights-based Aged Care Act 2024 which came into force on 1 November 2025 with a focus on empowering seniors to uphold their rights, needs and personal choices in their aged care.
Mr Speaker, as our population ages and the needs of our seniors become more varied and complex, it is vital that our policies evolve with greater clarity and foresight. The concerns I raised today – from retirement adequacy to fair access to support and the vulnerabilities of seniors who live alone – remind us that no single framework can meet every circumstance.
As we continue strengthening our systems, let us work together collectively to achieve the objective espoused in this year’s Budget: for every senior in Singapore to age with dignity, security and peace of mind. Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.
Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): A surplus of $15.1 billion. Mr Speaker, Sir, this year we find ourselves in a position of remarkable fiscal strength. Much of the debates in this House has been dedicated to \"national AI Missions\" and our digital frontier.
With the privilege of being the last speaker of the Budget debate, I want to speak about a different kind of infrastructure, one that does not run on silicon or servers, but on the time, heart and grit of our people.
I am referring to the Care Economy. When we say \"Care Economy,\" we are not just talking about a sector of work. It refers to the unpaid labor of a daughter waking up at 3.00 am to check on the rise and fall of breath of her bedbound father. The teacher conducting a welfare check in the evening at home of an absent child. It is the parent caring for an adult child of special needs worrying about the future when they pass on. Or a retiree delivering lunch to a lonely neighbour unwell for the day.
Currently, the national accounting of our GDP struggles to see that work. It is invisible. The World Economic Forum estimates compensation of unpaid care labour globally to be in the tune of roughly $11 trillion – 9% of global GDP. Closer to home, a 2024 Duke-National University of Singapore (NUS) study revealed that informal caregiving for our seniors aged 75 and above is worth $1.28 billion annually, an equivalent to 11% of our total Government expenditure on healthcare, which is today's second after defence.
Behind every fiscal surplus is an \"invisible surplus\" provided by our caregivers. Their time is uncounted, but without it, our society would fracture. We must recognise that care has a cost, often paid in the currency of burnout by those who give the most.
First, I would like to call for a flipping of paradigms. The terms \"silver tsunami\" or \"super-aged society\" are used with a sense of gloom and burden. I call for a reframe. Let us strive amidst a \"silver opportunity\" for a \"super healthy society\".
It is heartening to see the expansion of the SG Partnerships Fund, but we can be bolder. I propose a specific seniors-led tier within this fund offering higher funding for ground-up initiatives led and participated by those above 60. Let us empower our active agers to be perceived not just as recipients of help, but mentors to youths and first-responders to frail neighbors in community. Let us build a silver economy where products and services are designed by seniors, for seniors, allowing them to age with agency and purpose.
Next, as HDB supply gradually begins to meet demand, the anxiety of our residents shifts. It is moving from \"Will I get a BTO?\" to \"What happens to my home in the long run?\" And for those still on the margins – single unwed parents or Singaporeans with foreign spouses – the question remains, \"Is there a place for me here, for me and my family?\"
We must reframe the narrative of home ownership. HDB should not be viewed through the lens of ticking depreciation or potential profit. It must be seen as a home for life. When a resident feels secure in the longevity of their community, they do not just live there. They invest social capital and their generations after continue aspiring to remain as many generations have in Toa Payoh. While we await the details of the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS), it is an opportunity to reframe and offer a vision of Singapore where HDB ownership provides psychological and social security through every transition of life.
Mr Speaker, the true test of resilience is only discovered when it is tested. In Toa Payoh, we have 17 rental blocks in Toa Payoh Central. I noted in a Parliamentary Question reply this week that the median number of occupants in a two-room rental flat is four. Allow me to visualise what I have seen.
You step into a flat with multiple children, up to eight or 10 people in a two-room. One room, one hall and one toilet. The only room is typically wall-to-wall with mattresses with clothes piled, strewn all around. the living room doubles as a kitchen and a nursery. Young children lie, occupied with screens while parents cook or rest after a long day of work, if they are even home. Sometimes, you find a charging personal mobility aid.
Within these four walls, a conducive environment is a state of mind, staying on the right track in life and keeping up with educational goals is a daily uphill struggle.
While our nation's commitment to education reform is a vital tool for social mobility, school only accounts for a fraction of a child's day. What happens during the school holidays or the unsupervised hours after the bell rings? I have sat with primary school students who shared a cigarette, exchanging tips on which shop to shoplift. And this is a friction of inequality that no Ministry alone can solve.
What is heartening, though, is the organic resilience of our community. Youths from the youth network have formed a kids club in Toa Payoh Central. What started as weekly activities at the basketball court during school holidays have become homework sessions during school term. These same children are now supervised at least for one night in seven days.
Mr Speaker, these children want to study, but they can only do so in the right environment, with the right role models. If we truly believe that education is a vital tool for social mobility, let us reconsider and prioritise the design of spaces and rules in our homes and communities.
We have the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) Programme for retrofitting seniors' homes. How about access as a ComLink scheme milestone? Incentive for retrofitting modular furniture for families with young children in rental flats? I have even thought of the acronyms – ACCESS can stand for Adaptable, Compact, Child-centric Enhancements for Small Spaces, or Augmenting Conducive Childhood Environments for Student Success.
Our income inequality is at its lowest on record, but the more insidious wealth inequality has widened. When a few accumulates significant assets, properties, equities and growing bank balances in an uncertain world, the instinct to secure one's future can easily transit into a cycle of accumulation where enough is always just beyond reach. The gap between the haves and the have nots threaten to wedge society psychologically.
As President Tharman Shanmugaratnam reminded us at the Opening of this Parliament, we must resist the trend where wealth and trenches and inequality is passed down. With a $15.1 billion surplus, we have the fiscal capacity to do exactly that. We must be surgical in a moral division of resources to reinvest in our collective social capital, beginning with the stability of homes.
Caregivers often torn between being at work and the bedside, just as childcare leave supports the role of a parent, we must fund paid parent or elder caregiving leave. Workplace accommodations so that choosing to care for parent does not mean a blow to one's career for the sandwiched generation.
Not every disability requires a wheelchair. Thousands battle autoimmune and invisible conditions that demand immense stamina. We must fund better diagnostic support and workplace flexibility, ensuring our infrastructure of care includes the struggles we cannot see.
The rising tide of youth mental health challenges is a cry for presence. We must divert resources to give parents the commodity of time, prioritising parenting over productivity during critical development windows and crisis. Family must always be our first line of defence.
While staff in senior care centres uphold basic care and nursing competencies, yet when those same seniors requiring specialised care return home at night and on weekends, we do not require our foreign domestic workers to have these similar qualifications. We should subsidise upskilling specialised in geriatric and palliative care. Offering these professionalising home-based services can extend ageing in place and provides our seniors dignity and our families a peace of mind.
For the vulnerable and persons with disabilities, we must move deeper for them. This means moving beyond vouchers towards long term coordinated interventions that break the cycle of poverty, safeguard our children and ensure every Singaporean is an active contributor to our nation.
For large families with many children, costs do not merely add up. They multiply: from space at home, food portions to educational expenses and transportation costs. These scale exponentially with every single member. Unfortunately, childcare leave and Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers does not follow the same logic of proportionality. If demography is destiny, and families are bucking the trend to hold up our TFR, we must increase direct tiered support for families with three or more children to ensure that the invisible infrastructure of a large family remains a source of strength rather than a driver of household debt.
Mr Speaker, I will now address some of the concerns of my residents in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Government is investing heavily in artificial intelligence, but when I visit Toa Payoh, I often hear seniors express a complex sentiment about AI, in Hokkien: \"Ai lai, Mai lai\". Please allow me to explain.
The first \"Ai\" is AI – artificial intelligence. This Chinese New Year, I believe many received AI-generated cartoon-style family portraits and even saw friends galloping with horses in the images. This technology makes everyone's \"good morning images\" more interesting – this is the kind of AI application that everyone welcomes.
But technology's value should not stop there. We must harness AI's powerful organisational capabilities to handle complex administrative work.
Technology should not bring distance, but societal cohesion with love. Because the second \"Ai\"; must be the \"Ai\" of \"爱心\" or love. What seniors worry about is not how smart machines are, but that machines replace human warmth. What they \"Mai lai\" or do not want to come, is that kind of cold interaction that has only graphics on a machine, without human dialogue.
We must be clear: AI is the \"ladder\" that helps us identify vulnerable groups, but every node in the care network must be filled by humans.
Mr Speaker, facing the technological wave, I hope our society will not be replaced by cold AI systems, but should embrace the spirit from Aaron Kwok's classic song, \"对你爱、爱、爱不完\" (ln English): Loving you endlessly.
Technology should not bring distance, but societal cohesion with love.
(In English): In conclusion, Speaker, a rich Singapore is not defined by the size of surplus in our banks, but by the strength of the bonds in our community. It is a place where a senior feels valued, a caregiver feels seen and our social fabric and cohesion remain strong. Let us invest in the high touch human connection that no AI Mission can ever replace too. And as Benjamin Kheng would sing in our 2024 National Day song, Not Alone: \"If we just look to each other, then this house will feel like home.\" Mr Speaker, I support the Budget. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.
The Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, this year we tabled the largest Budget in our history – larger than the five Budgets combined in 2020 to fight COVID-19. And not surprisingly, we also have a record number of Members participating in this debate. And I thank everyone who has spoken and supported the Budget.
I would like to start by sharing with Members something I say at all Budget dialogues I have attended so far and that is, please do not look at any one Budget in isolation. Because it is not possible for any single Budget to be all encompassing. So, if your favourite item is not mentioned in this year's Budget, it does not mean that it has been overlooked or ignored. Because every Budget builds on the last, and lays the framework and groundwork for the next.
Indeed, in the debate, several Members highlighted that suggestions and points they raised on AI in previous years were taken up this year, in this year's Budget. So, that is the spirit in which we craft and design every Budget.
On that note, I have listened carefully to the many thoughtful suggestions that have been shared in the last few days, even on the occasions when I have not been in this Chamber, I have read your speeches. We will study your suggestions and give them due consideration. And maybe, in a few Budgets from now, some of these suggestions will be highlighted thereafter.
Sir, I will not be able to address every point raised today. The programmes, specific questions will be taken up during the COS debates. For my response, I will focus on three broad issues that have been highlighted.
First, how will we secure continued economic success and good jobs for Singaporeans in a changed world? Second, are we doing enough to ease cost pressures and ensure every Singaporean can progress? And third, is our fiscal strategy fit for the future, the challenges we face both now and in the future?
Let me start with how we sustain economic success and secure good jobs for Singaporeans. Many Members spoke about this, including Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Victor Lye, Mr Kenneth Tiong, Dr Neo Kok Beng, Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Gho Sze Kee and Mr Vikram Nair, amongst others.
Our economic strategies must adapt to a changed world. This is a world where power and strength increasingly shape outcomes where rules are more contested, where economic relationships are being rewired.
We felt these pressures acutely last year, especially after the US' Liberation Day tariffs. Now, fresh changes in US tariffs remind us that uncertainty and volatility is becoming the norm and in such a world, smaller countries, like Singapore, risk being bypassed or marginalised.
So, we cannot afford to stand still. We must deepen trusted partnerships, diversify our links and strengthen our resilience. And crucially, we need to establish leadership positions in key domains, so that we create distinctive value that others cannot easily replicate. And many Members talked about value capture for our economy. That is exactly what we are doing.
And so, we are investing heavily in R&D, building up our enterprise ecosystem step by step and anchoring cutting-edge investments in Singapore. We must stay at the frontier – in advanced manufacturing, finance, digital services and new growth sectors.
In the past, growth and jobs moved more closely together. When the economy expanded, firms hired more workers across the board. Today, the relationship is more complex. Let me explain.
Our fast growing sectors are export oriented. That is to be expected. Companies in these sectors compete globally and they create well-paying jobs, with strong career progression opportunities. But precisely because they compete at the frontier, they have to be productive and operate efficiently, often with lean manpower. And that is a global trend.
You look at leading companies around the world, some of them run highly automated facilities, including so-called \"dark factories\" that operate 24/7 with minimal human presence. That is one reason why manufacturing employment in many advanced economies has steadily fallen.
We see similar patterns here in Singapore. Over the last decade, the manufacturing sector has, on average, contributed about 20% of GDP. But its employment share is smaller. And it has declined – from 14% in 2015 to about 12% today.
Over that same period, employment in exportable services – areas like finance, information technology (IT) and professional services – has grown as we diversified our economy. Yet, taken together, the manufacturing, finance, IT and professional services segments of our economy account for just around 30% of employment.
Does that mean that growth is no longer important?
Far from it. Growth is essential. It creates new opportunities, raises wages and generates the resources we need as a society. Frontier industries, in particular, produce positive spillovers. They anchor our enterprise ecosystem and drive demand across the rest of the economy.
So, without sustained growth and, especially, growth at the frontier, investments will go elsewhere, capabilities will erode, wages will stagnate and Singapore risks a real decline.
But growth alone is not sufficient. Growth alone will not automatically translate into job opportunities across the board. We must also uplift the broader domestic economy – raising productivity, wages and career pathways across the services sector.
And that is why we are taking sustained action in areas like education, healthcare and social services. We have put in place skills frameworks to articulate competencies, enable skills upgrading and support structured progression in these areas. We have increased salaries for workers in public healthcare institutions and Government-supported preschools. We have updated salary guidelines for the community care and social service sectors.
These are not ad hoc or one-off moves. They are integral to our economic strategy. Because inclusive growth means more than developing frontier industries. It also means ensuring that domestic services – services that Singaporeans rely on daily – become more productive, more professional and more attractive as careers.
In this regard, SMEs play a critical role. They employ many Singaporeans and anchor economic activity across our island. Many members also shared their concerns about SMEs, including Ms Diana Pang, Mr Jackson Lam, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Azhar Othman and Mr Sharael Taha.
In particular, the two SME segments under greater pressure are retail and food and beverage (F&B). These sectors face structural headwinds – from e-commerce and changing consumer habits and from increased overseas travel by Singaporeans and perhaps also by the strong Singapore dollar. Yet, even amid these challenges, the number of F&B and retail establishments continue to grow. And with more players in the market, competition has intensified.
So, how should we respond to these trends?
In the immediate term, we have provided Corporate Income Tax rebates, including in this Budget. Over the longer term, our support must be sustainable and should not distort market incentives.
For businesses in retail and F&B, what are their cost drivers? The largest components of their operating expenditure are the costs of goods and materials, labour and rent. Let me go through each one of these.
In a small economy like ours, goods and materials are largely priced in global markets. So, there is little scope for us to influence these costs.
On rental costs, at the macro level, rentals have broadly tracked economic fundamentals. Rent increases for retail spaces have trended below nominal GDP growth and inflation in the last few years. Rental costs have also declined as a share of total business costs. Between 2019 and 2024, they fell from 26% to 17% for the F&B sector; and from 30% to 26% for the retail sector.
Now, that is the broad picture. Of course, market rents vary by property type and location. Individual tenants may face higher rent increases at renewals, and we are mindful of these cases. Where Government agencies are landlords, like HDB and JTC, and where we have direct oversight, like in hawker centres, we have frameworks to keep rents fair and competitive. And we will continue reviewing and updating these frameworks. We will also continue to monitor the situation closely to ensure that rentals remain sustainable and competitive.
I have covered cost of goods, rental. Next, manpower.
Indeed, labour costs have increased in recent years. Part of this reflects structural factors – an ageing population and tighter labour supply as well as market forces as firms compete for workers. But part of this is also the outcome of policy. Through the Progressive Wage Model, we are raising wages for lower-wage workers. That is the right thing to do – to uplift incomes, strengthen dignity in work and narrow wage gaps.
And at the same time, to support businesses through the transition, we introduced the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme and, in this Budget, we are enhancing the Scheme and extending it for another two years. That reflects our consistent approach to uplift workers while supporting firms to adjust.
Mr Mark Lee asked for more leeway for SMEs to hire foreign workers. We cannot relax the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC). Doing so will encourage excessive reliance on foreign manpower and weaken our Singaporean core. But we will consider calibrated ways to provide more flexibility, like expanding the sources from which businesses can hire Work Permit holders, for certain types of occupations where genuine shortages exist.
We will continue to strike the right balance – sufficient flexibility for businesses without undermining Singaporean workforce development.
Ultimately, the sustainable path forward is productivity improvement and business transformation. And many Members spoke about this. We know that SMEs need more support to embark on such transformation. Several Members, including Ms Cassandra Lee, Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Mr Henry Kwek, have offered suggestions on what more we can do.
Mr Mark Lee also highlighted the need to strengthen management capabilities, and he and several other MPs, including Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Victor Lye, spoke about the importance of internationalisation. These are all useful feedback and suggestions, and the Government will continue to take them onboard, study them and lean forward to enable our SMEs to innovate, upgrade and internationalise.
SMEs that redesign jobs and transform their operations can offer higher wages and more meaningful opportunities to attract and retain Singaporeans. Many SMEs have done so successfully, including those in retail and F&B. Enterprise Singapore and the Singapore Productivity Centre recently did a deep dive into F&B establishments in Singapore. The findings were reported in the media and they are very instructive because F&B establishments that benchmark themselves with productivity standards and knew that they were lower than the benchmarks could find practical and useful ways to raise their productivity. And when they did do so, they have generally done better.
I mentioned HarriAnns on Budget Day as one example. Other companies have done so too – restructured, transformed, digitalised and even expanded abroad. And we want to encourage many more SMEs to take that path.
Let me cite another example. Poh Heng Jewellery. It was founded in 1948 as a small shop on North Bridge Road. Over the decades, it grew into a household name. A few years ago, the company embarked on a serious transformation. It strengthened its management. It embraced e-commerce. And with Government support, it is developing AI tools to analyse customer data and shopping behaviour, so as to enable more personalised product recommendations. And it now employs 150 people and is making plans to expand into ASEAN.
These examples show that even traditional industries can reinvent themselves and in doing so, create better opportunities for Singaporeans.
Another powerful force reshaping our economy is AI. And many Members spoke about this, including the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng, Mr Desmond Tan, Mr Desmond Choo, Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Darryl David, Ms Lee Hui Ying, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Andre Low and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Many also shared about the anxieties that workers and fresh graduates are feeling.
These concerns are real. And we must, and we will, take them seriously.
Historically, every major technological wave has displaced some jobs but also created new ones. Computers displaced stenographers and typists but created new professions in ICT, in finance and services. And over time, productivity gains expanded opportunities for workers.
Indeed, what we have seen in Singapore so far is that AI can augment jobs and help workers achieve more, even as it automates certain tasks.
Take the example of Ms Angeline Tan, who works at Nanyang Incorporated, a local event infrastructure company. Her company adopted an AI chatbot to handle customer enquiries. Instead of being displaced, she stepped up. She became a Chatbot Manager, assuming responsibility for auditing the system's responses and ensuring its accuracy. But she did not stop there. She upgraded her skills further. And today, she is an AI Tech Lead in her company, overseeing the implementation of AI tools, improving workflows and taking on more creative responsibilities. And that is the pathway we want to encourage – workers moving up the value chain.
AI can also make our workplaces more inclusive. Robots can handle physically demanding tasks. For example, they can support seniors and persons with disabilities. Ms Denise Phua and Mr Sharael Taha spoke about this, and we will step up efforts in this area too.
These are not theoretical possibilities. They are already happening today.
For now, our labour market remains resilient. The proportion of permanent employees has risen to a record high of nearly 91%, with gains across most sectors. Vacancies continue to outnumber jobseekers and over 40% of openings are entry-level professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) roles, indicating still healthy demand for young graduates.
So, thus far, the evidence does not point to widespread displacement. But as many Members have highlighted, there are emerging pressures and we recognise that. We cannot rely only on today's data. We must prepare for tomorrow.
I mentioned earlier that the historical experience with major technological waves is that ultimately more jobs are created than lost. That has been so in the past. But there is no economic law that says this will always happen or that this will happen in the future.
Indeed, many are concerned that this time may be different. Because AI is more powerful, advancing faster and affecting a wider range of occupations. And many Members raised important concerns, for example, that companies may lean too heavily on AI and invest less in worker training. That more workers could be displaced and the older ones will find it harder to re-enter the workforce. And that entry level jobs, the first rung of career ladders, may be hollowed out.
We are alert to these risks and we will act early to prevent such outcomes from taking hold in Singapore. We will invest more deliberately and more systematically in our people.
In that regard, I agree with NTUC Secretary-General Mr Ng Chee Meng's three calls: to empower every worker to be AI-ready; to strengthen support and safeguards for workers; and to strengthen the Labour Movement's ability to protect and uplift PMEs. We will work closely with our tripartite partners, especially NTUC, to realise these shared goals. [Applause.]
What does this mean in practical terms? For example, as we develop Champions of AI and implement our national AI Missions, we will not only just help companies transform. We will capture value in Singapore; we will pay close attention to how these companies apply AI; and, importantly, guide them to use AI to enhance human skills and expertise.
Take aviation maintenance. Machines and AI can perform many functions. But skilled technicians remain essential and AI can help them make better diagnoses and perform their work more cost effectively.
Achieving all this will not be easy. Every sector is different, and how they use AI and the impact on workers in each sector will vary and that is why we are coordinating all of these efforts through the national AI Council, aligning industry transformation and workforce upgrading to ensure that AI uplifts our workers.
That is our assurance and that is why our strategy going ahead is clear. We will not have jobless growth in Singapore. [Applause.]
We will exploit AI to grow the economy, and we will ensure that growth translates into good jobs and better wages. That is how we give every Singaporean confidence to progress in the future.
Next, let me touch on cost pressures. We achieved better than expected growth of 5% last year. Yet, as many Members have highlighted, including Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, amongst others, Singaporeans continue to feel cost-of-living pressures. The data may show improvement. But lived experience and realities do matter.
So, the question is this: what more must we do to ease cost pressures and ensure every Singaporean can continue to progress?
We must first understand why affordability and cost concerns have surfaced – not just in Singapore, but across many economies around the world.
After COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, inflation surged globally. In Singapore, it rose to more than 6% in 2022 and it has since come down to 0.9% last year. Inflation has moderated, but price levels remain higher than before and that is what households are experiencing.
To cushion the spike, we provided more than $10 billion through the Assurance Package. Some have observed that the transfers in this year's Budget are smaller than last year. But in fact, support in this Budget remains substantial and broader in scope: we are providing CDC Vouchers, cash support, utilities rebates, Child LifeSG credits and CPF top-ups for seniors.
What does this mean? A middle-income household with young children receives about $2,800, after you tote up all the different items. A lower-income household with young children – about $5,000. And a retired elderly couple – about $7,600.
Essentially, we give more to those with greater needs and we give more to seniors, especially our retirees, as they are not working and have to cope with higher prices on fixed incomes.
These are meaningful sums and they are on top of substantial, broad-based subsidies for essentials, like education, healthcare and housing, as well as targeted support for lower-income families and workers.
Mr Louis Chua said the Government’s primary response has been to rely on one-off and ad hoc handouts. He said that last year. I had clarified the matter then. But regrettably, he has repeated this false claim again this year. Because the facts are only about 5% of our overall Budget is for one-off measures – that was so in FY2025 and it is so in FY2026. The remaining 95%, the overwhelming share, is for longer-term and structural schemes.
And in this Budget, we enhanced preschool and student care subsidies, as well as ComLink+ to support families with children.
Total social spending has increased this year. It has not gone down. We are providing more help for Singaporeans.
Our approach is not just to cushion costs because the durable solution to cost pressures is steady, sustainable wage increases.
Mr Shawn Loh highlighted concerns that a decreasing proportion of Singaporeans benefit from economic growth. He highlighted the concerns among seniors and, indeed, one group that will face greater impact is retirees because they are not working and that is why we provide more for them in the Budget.
But when we look at data at both the household and the individual worker levels – household and workers – in fact, incomes have risen faster than inflation over the past decade, across the entire income distribution. So, real incomes have gone up for both households and for workers across the entire income distribution.
We also look at household expenditures. Spending has increased in dollar terms, but expenditure as a share of income – that has either remained stable or fallen, across the income distribution as well. Meaning Singaporeans generally are spending less as a share of their incomes even if their spending has gone up in dollar terms. In particular, the share of household income spent on essentials, like food, public transport and education, has declined across all income quintiles.
There is one exception – that is, healthcare. Singaporeans are spending a larger share of their income on healthcare and health insurance. That reflects our rapidly ageing population because as you get older, you will tend to spend more on healthcare, and that is why we provide significant and growing subsidies for healthcare services and for our national health insurance premiums. It is also why we have taken steps to rein in overly generous private riders and other practices that drive up medical inflation, especially in the private sector. And we will continue to ensure that healthcare remains affordable in Singapore. No Singaporean will be denied the healthcare they need because of an inability to pay. That is our assurance. [Applause.]
Another reason for concerns about cost is that inflation for some frequently consumed services, especially F&B, has risen faster than general inflation. Food consumption may form a smaller share of income which I mentioned just now. But we experience the higher prices each time we order something, or we dine out and the psychological impact is immediate and visible.
The domestic services, be it healthcare or F&B, are labour-intensive. We want wages for Singaporeans in these sectors to rise. But when wages rise, costs also increase. And that is the fundamental tension every economy must manage. Some countries choose to suppress service wages to keep prices low. But then this traps a segment of workers in low-paying jobs. It is not what we want to do.
Others, like the European economies, have taken a different path. Wages in the services sector are high. You go to any European country, you will know they are paid very well. But that leads to higher prices overall and a heavier cost burden, which in turn has to be supported by a larger welfare state, financed by taxpayers. There is no free lunch. Someone has got to pay this.
So, Singapore is forging our own path. We pursue broad-based wage growth. But wage increases have to be supported by skills upgrading and productivity improvements. And at the same time, the Government bears a substantial share of the costs of essential services, through subsidies and transfers, with more support for lower- and middle-income households.
Overall, this balance has delivered good and affordable services to Singaporeans at a sustainable cost. But we know that this is still a work in progress. The macro data may be reassuring. But as many Members have highlighted, the lived realities differ from household to household and the circumstances vary for specific segments.
Different families face different pressure points. For example, there are larger families with more children and they will face greater cost burdens, as Mr Pritam Singh and Mr David Hoe have highlighted. Mr Singh suggested adjusting the CDC vouchers. That could be one way to help them. But we will continue to explore other measures to help those with larger families.
There are also families caring for seniors or children, and especially those sandwiched with both. Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin highlighted their concerns. And in fact, we already provide more for them in the Budget, in every Budget, including in this year's Budget.
There are families with members who have special needs. Prof Kenneth Poon and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim highlighted their concerns. And caregivers too need to be supported, as Mr Cai Yinzhou and Ms He Ting Ru highlighted.
In recent Budgets, including this one, we have strengthened support for all of these groups. And we will continue to do so, and will consider the suggestions that Members have made.
Targeted support for specific groups requires means-testing, And we use different indicators to means-test. The two key ones are the AV of dwellings and PCHI. Quite a number of Members in this debate, including Mr Alex Yeo, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Gerald Giam, Ms Sylvia Lim just now, Mr Edward Chia suggested reviewing these indicators.
I suppose if you were to take a step back, most of us would agree that support should be given to households with less income and less wealth. No one would dispute that.
How to measure income and wealth is the challenge. AV and PCHI are practical and effective indicators. But no measure is perfect and we will continue refining our criteria, especially when it comes to support for seniors.
Cost pressures can also feel sharper due to inequality. Because of inequality, comparisons intensify. Social stresses grow. Encouragingly in Singapore, income inequality has narrowed compared to a decade ago. Lower- and middle-income workers have seen faster real income growth than those at the top. Without this inclusive growth, I have no doubt that the cost pressures that we are feeling on the ground would have been far worse.
We have achieved good outcomes. But we will continue to press on. And in this Budget, we are raising the Local Qualifying Salary as well as enhancing and extending the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme. Several Members, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Sanjeev Tiwari, suggested further steps to support lower-wage and vulnerable workers. We will study your suggestions carefully – balancing wage increases with sustainable productivity improvements.
We are also paying close attention to wealth inequality. We have begun publishing the data and will track this more systematically. But we are not starting from a weak base. Through housing grants, homeownership and CPF top-ups, we enable lower-income households to accumulate assets in Singapore. Today, households in the lowest quintile have average net wealth of nearly $300,000 – that is a meaningful foundation.
Mr Saktiandi and Assoc Prof Terence Ho suggested additional asset-based transfers. I think someone called it a \"Singapore Dividend\" or other forms of putting together the measures that we do to help Singaporeans build assets.
In fact, this is the approach that the Government has long taken. We focus not just on income support, but on enabling Singaporeans to accumulate assets, because asset ownership gives families a concrete stake in our nation's success and allows them to share directly in Singapore's progress. We do this through a range of different mechanisms like the CDA, Edusave, Post-Secondary Education Account, through CPF and our housing policies and most recently, we introduced the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) Progression Award which incorporates an element of CPF top-ups. We will continue to strengthen pathways for Singaporeans to build savings and assets.
We also have progressive taxes on wealth, through our property and vehicle taxes. We will continue to study ways to moderate excessive wealth concentration – carefully and responsibly. But redistribution has limits. It is very easy to say, \"Let's tax the rich more!\"
But capital and talent are mobile and if we rely solely on ever-higher taxes for this segment, eventually, the broad middle will also have to shoulder the burden. And we risk undermining competitiveness, enterprise and job creation. Redistribution alone cannot build a strong and resilient society. So, our approach is balanced.
We keep taxes moderate but progressive. We redistribute resources to those with greater needs. And we complement that with heavy investments in human capital – early childhood education; quality schooling and tertiary education; as well as lifelong learning through SkillsFuture. Upward mobility remains central to our social compact. Because here in Singapore, your starting point should never determine your finishing position. [Applause.]
Several Members also spoke about retirement. Mr Saktiandi Supaat has been championing this for many Budgets. Ms Poh Li San also mentioned this in the debate. And in this Budget, we are indeed strengthening our CPF system because Singaporeans are living longer and we want them to retire with confidence and peace of mind.
Our CPF system rests on sound and sustainable principles. Each member saves for his or her own retirement. But we do not leave individuals to fend for themselves. We boost those with lower balances through Silver Support, the Majulah Package and periodic CPF top-ups. And we continue to review the parameters of these schemes. That keeps our system fiscally sustainable, while ensuring that those with less get more support.
The CPF provides, as Members would know, risk-free returns of 2.5% on the Ordinary Account (OA) and 4% on the Special Account (SA), with extra interest of 1% to 2%. Members who wish to invest their savings for potentially higher returns can do so, today, through the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS). But the experience with the CPFIS has been mixed.
From 2016 to 2024, while a majority of CPFIS-OA investors earned above 2.5% per annum, only about half achieved returns of more than 4%; this is for OA. In other words, many would have been better off topping up their CPF SA and earning the guaranteed 4% return. For CPFIS-SA investors, the results were even more sobering – around three in four made 4% or less per annum. In other words, they underperformed the SA rate, which is risk free.
So, the reality is that we all talk about investments. Such a wonderful thing. But investing and earning consistently good returns is not that easy. That is why we took some time to study how to implement a low-cost investment option within the CPF – it has to be simple, low-cost and effective. There are commercial lifecycle products available in the market, but up till now, the take-up has been limited, partly due to the high fees, which can go up to as much as 2%. But in recent years, the market has matured. More players have entered. Digital platforms have helped to lower costs. That is why we now believe it is possible to offer well-diversified life-cycle products at lower fees.
The CPF Board will be engaging the industry next month to call for expressions of interest. There is still a lot of work to be done – designing the scheme, the specific parameters that several Members talked about, building the IT system and ensuring a smooth and seamless user experience. The CPF Board is working towards rolling out the scheme in the first half of 2028, but if we can do this earlier, we will.
Beyond retirement, we have and will continue to strengthen support across life stages. We have initiated major moves as part of Forward Singapore. In public housing, through the new HDB classification system of Standard, Plus and Prime flats. In healthcare, through Healthier SG and Age Well SG. We have made SkillsFuture a key pillar of our social compact and we are strengthening this further. We have introduced the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme and we have enhanced ComCare and ComLink+. Mr Abdul Muhaimin asked about this particular issue of ComLink+. Let me just touch on it briefly.
There are, today, about 11,000 families on ComLink+, most are in rental housing. There are around 14,000 eligible families living in rental flats. We have approached them, but some chose not to come onboard ComLink+ or could not be contacted. With the enhancements to ComLink+, we will redouble our efforts to reach out to them and with stronger community support, we hope more of them will come onboard the scheme. And we will also extend ComLink+ to lower-income families beyond the rental blocks.
Members have also offered many other suggestions to further strengthen our community and social support system. Many suggestions have been offered. For example, in healthcare delivery and integration with social support. Members, like Dr Choo Pei Ling, Mr Dennis Tan, Miss Rachel Ong and Dr Hamid Razak, just now spoke about this.
Suggestions around housing and neighbourhood rejuvenation – Mr Ang Wei Neng and Ms Joan Pereira touched on that.
More support for the arts, culture and community initiatives – Ms Elysa Chen and Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh mentioned that in their speeches, as well as suggestions to review the income thresholds for the Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS), which Mr Ng Chee Meng and Mr Patrick Tay had advocated.
We will study these suggestions carefully. In particular, the JSS was launched only recently, about a year ago. So, we will review the scheme and its parameters once we have more experience.
Many Members also asked for more support for families, especially for parents and would-be parents. Mr Foo Cexiang, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Shawn Loh, Ms Eileen Chong, Mr Gabriel Lam and others have highlighted this concern.
Indeed, our falling TFR is a serious concern. It is not unique to Singapore. It is happening across all advanced and high-income economies. So, we really should have some humility about this because no country has truly succeeded on a sustained basis to reverse this decline.
Members offered practical suggestions around housing, cost pressures and the affordability of raising children. Some also asked for more work flexibility and leave provisions, so that parents can be present in their children's formative years. In fact, we have taken significant steps on both fronts recently. We have enhanced shared parental leave. And with the Large Families Scheme, parents can now receive up to $48,000 for their third or fourth child, and even more for the fifth or subsequent child.
As a result of the recent enhancements, our expenditure on marriage and parenthood initiatives has increased – from $4 billion in FY2020 to $7 billion in this Budget. But we will not stop here. We have not given up. We will not give up. [Applause.]
We are already planning for the next tranche of measures to strengthen support for families. And there will be an opportunity to discuss this at the COS debate and the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office will share more at that occasion.
Sir, this Government will continue to provide stronger assurance for Singaporeans at every stage of life. We will do this in a coherent and deliberate way – strengthening individual responsibility, reinforcing collective support and preserving long-term sustainability. We will continue to strengthen our social compact and ensure Singapore remains a society where every citizen can progress with confidence.
Let me move on to the third question – is our fiscal strategy fit for immediate challenges and is it positioning us well for the future? Let us first look at the global context. Since the start of this decade, countries have been tested in ways few could have anticipated. Many advanced economies are now carrying record high levels of public debt. And as debt rises, so will borrowing costs. Over time, this constrains fiscal flexibility and weakens longer-term growth potential for these economies.
Against this backdrop, Singapore's strong fiscal position is a strategic advantage. Many Members spoke about our fiscal position and public finances, including Mr Ang Wei Neng, Ms Valerie Lee and Mr Xie Yao Quan. I am glad they see our healthy fiscal position as a strength; a source of strength.
Given the surplus we have generated, in FY2025 and also the ones that we expect in FY2026, Mr Gerald Giam have asked whether the Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike should be re-evaluated. But let us consider the facts. At the beginning of this decade, we knew that healthcare spending would rise sharply in line with our rapidly ageing population. This was structural, not cyclical. And healthcare was not the only area where spending pressures were increasing. We had estimated that healthcare alone would require additional funding of 0.6% to 1.2% of GDP and this would happen in the second half of this decade, which we are in right now. That is a significant and permanent increase. The question was how to fund this.
We studied a range of options. We raised property taxes and motor vehicle taxes for luxury cars. We have increased the top marginal personal income tax rates. But these moves were still not sufficient to close the structural funding gap. The WP had suggested raising the maximum Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) we can use in the Annual Budget from 50% to 60%. We did not agree with that proposal, because the NIRC framework was carefully designed to safeguard intergenerational equity. If we increase the cap to 60%, that can ease immediate pressures. But it will weaken fiscal discipline, reduce our buffer for future shocks and it will shift a heavier burden onto the next generation.
In the end, the GST was the only broad-based and sustainable option to fund rising healthcare needs, while preserving our reserves framework. But even as we raised the GST, we also made sure we mitigated the impact on Singaporeans. We delayed the effective tax increase for the majority of Singaporean households, by at least five years. We enhanced the permanent GST voucher to further defray the tax paid by lower- and middle-income households. After accounting for these measures, the majority of GST collections are and will continue to be, from higher-income households, tourists and foreigners.
In other words, we secured stable funding for healthcare while cushioning the impact of the increase for most Singaporean households. Could we have relied instead on Corporate Income Tax collections? But remember, back in 2022, when we made the decision on the GST, there was no sign that Corporate Income Tax collections would rise so significantly. At that time, the discussions on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) were still evolving. The eventual outcomes and their revenue implications were far from certain. It would not have been responsible to fund permanent healthcare commitments using revenue sources that were uncertain and can yet dry up.
Corporate Income Tax collections only started rising towards the end of FY2023 and have stayed elevated until now. This outcome was not anticipated. It was due to GDP growth outperforming expectations in 2024 and 2025, as well as better-than-expected contributions from multinational enterprises (MNEs) in a few key sectors.
And this brings us to the issue of fiscal marksmanship – Mr Alex Yam, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Xie Yao Quan touched on this. We have debated this before in the House. It is perhaps, my favourite topic, because I have shared before that I started work in the Ministry of Finance (MOF) doing precisely this – fiscal projections. And as I have explained, our forecast deviations are within a reasonable range – comparable to other advanced economies. Within this range of variation, revenues in recent years have indeed come in above projections.
Is it because we were overly conservative? The short answer is, no. Our projections are prepared by the MOF economists using the best available data at the start of each financial year, including GDP growth assumptions at that time. But for a small open economy, like Singapore, growth outcomes can diverge significantly from forecasts, as global conditions evolve, Because we are so dependent on the external environment, forecasting Singapore's GDP growth is like forecasting the world's GDP growth; which is very, very difficult to do.
Likewise, revenues from property transactions or Certificate of Entitlement (COE) premiums are inherently difficult to predict. Can you tell what the next year's property prices will be? What next year's COE premiums will fetch? It is very hard to do.
In the case of COEs, we increased the quotas. Yet the premiums continued to rise with sustained demand. That explains the increase in revenue from Licences and Permits, which Mr Gerald Giam asked about.
So, forecasting in such an environment will never be exact. But I assure everyone in this House and Singaporeans that our approach has been and will be responsible and professional.
A further insinuation is that the PAP Government deliberately painted a \"doom and gloom\" picture for electoral advantage. Let us consider the facts and the context.
Actually, after the US Liberation Day tariffs, there was widespread uncertainty across the world, not just in Singapore. At that time, how many analysts projected 5% growth for Singapore in 2025? I do not recall any.
The reason why things did not turn out as badly as we feared was partly due to factors beyond our control, but also partly because of the decisive steps we took. Deputy Prime Minister Gan and the team moved quickly, engaging the US to safeguard our core interests, deepening links with other countries, forging new agreements that sustained investor confidence. Our agencies, our businesses and our workers adapted swiftly and worked tirelessly through a very uncertain period. Their efforts deserve recognition. [Applause.]
Let us not belittle these contributions just to score a political point.
The fact that we are in a better position today than our projections is something we should all welcome. It is good news for Singapore and Singaporeans. [Applause.]
Imagine if we had chosen differently. If we did not raise GST and had instead hoped for revenue upsides. And then the economic situation did not turn out so well. We would be having a very different debate today. We would be scrambling to close fiscal gaps. We would be responding from weakness. But because we made the difficult yet responsible decision, because we chose responsibility over convenience, we are now in a position of strength.
Sir, we did not gamble with Singapore's future. We made the hard call and that is why we can act with confidence today. [Applause.]
Next, let me turn to our medium-term revenue and expenditure outlook. We are expecting structural revenue increases from Financial Year 2027. That is when the first revenue collections from the BEPS Top-Up Taxes come in. Based on the strong corporate tax collections so far – and that is pre top-up taxes – our initial sense is that the further increase from the top-up taxes could be significant. We will continue to firm up our estimates over the coming months as we get more up-to-date data on how firms are performing and adjusting their plans.
Since the BEPS revenue is coming, some may ask, well, how about rolling back the GST? Again, the GST increase was introduced to fund rising structural healthcare expenditure for an ageing population. These spending needs are permanent and will continue to grow. They should be supported by a stable and reliable revenue base.
At the same time, as I have shared in the Budget, Government spending is rising in many other areas, aside from healthcare – for social needs, economic competitiveness, our energy transition, security and infrastructure. The additional corporate tax revenues will strengthen our fiscal position and support these growing needs. But they do not replace the structural role of the GST and especially what we have done to fund permanent and rising healthcare costs.
In fact, expenditure pressures are already evident. Take the example of defence spending. I mentioned that the Ministry of Defence's (MINDEF's) budget of 3% would be where it is for now and that the budget includes spending on cybersecurity by MINDEF and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), something Mr Giam asked about. But it does not include cybersecurity spending beyond MINDEF. And we do need to spend more on cybersecurity outside of the MINDEF family. The Ministry of Digital Development and Information, and the Cyber Security Agency, for example, will have to invest more. We will have to harden our critical information infrastructure, like our grids and our power system, against cyber threats. That is why I said in the Budget that security spending will rise in the coming years.
In short, our aim is not to run high surpluses for the rest of this term of Government, something that Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about. Our objective is a balanced Budget over the term of Government. And that is clear from our historical records. Mr Xie Yao Quan very helpfully gave a speech yesterday outlining the historical data.
And if you look at the past years, we have had balanced Budgets in many years – balanced meaning within a range of plus/minus 0.5% of GDP, in terms of the overall fiscal balance. We have had years of surpluses, we have had good years, but we have also had years of deficits.
But on the whole, we plan for a balanced Budget over the term of Government. If there are revenue upsides, when there are revenue upsides, we will deploy these to meet our growing needs.
Mr Shawn Loh suggested giving back surpluses above 2% of GDP to all Singaporeans. But in practice, we actually do not wait to cross a mechanical threshold like that. Whenever there are revenue upsides, we have shared some of the gains with Singaporeans.
Last year, we used that to fund the SG60 package. This year, we channelled them towards CPF top-ups and the Cost-of-Living Special Payment. We have also strengthened our national priorities by investing in our social support system – enhancing our connectivity, security and economic resilience.
For this FY2026 Budget, expenditure is at 18.4% of GDP. As I said just now, it is the largest Budget on record. Earlier, MOF had projected that Government spending could reach 20% of GDP by 2030. But if you look at the trends, since emerging from COVID-19, expenditure has grown by an average of $10 billion every year. And we expect our needs to rise even more for the coming years, in this term of Government. So, Government spending is likely to exceed 20% of GDP well before 2030.
In light of our fiscal position, Mr Shawn Loh had asked if the Government can commit to not making further major revenue moves. At this juncture, if circumstances remain broadly stable and without any further major revenue moves, we expect our fiscal position during this term of Government to remain healthy. We have already said that there will be no further GST increases until at least 2030. Aside from the GST, we continue to review our tax system regularly as part of prudent fiscal management. We will make revenue adjustments only when necessary – to fund structural spending needs or to achieve clear policy objectives like strengthening progressivity or addressing externalities.
These are difficult decisions. Any tax change, I should say any tax increase, is a difficult decision. We take them only after careful study and full consideration of the impact on households and businesses.
MOF had earlier published medium-term fiscal projections up to 2030. With updated revenue and expenditure developments, these projections will need to be refreshed. So, we will publish updated medium-term projections extending to 2035 by next year.
But a word of caution is in order. Because in today's fast-changing world, assumptions can quickly become outdated. The forward projections serve as a guide and will have to be continually updated. Ultimately, what matters most is maintaining fiscal discipline, together with the agility and nimbleness to respond swiftly as circumstances change.
Let me turn to specific points on our tax system. Ms Diana Pang asked about the timing of the changes to the Preferential Additional Registration Fee rebate. We implemented the vehicle tax changes immediately to prevent a rush-to-market. That has long been our practice for property and motor-vehicle-related taxes. The changes are announced and then applied immediately to ensure market stability and fairness. A number of questions has been raised on this particular issue, and the Ministry of Transport will address them separately.
Mr Saktiandi and Mr Louis Chua shared their views on the personal income tax regime. When taken together with our progressive tax rates, tax reliefs and rebates, currently about one in three resident workers pay no personal income tax. Among those who do, about eight in 10 have an effective tax rate of less than 6%.
We will consider these suggestions around the personal income tax as part of our regular fiscal reviews.
There was a debate yesterday about what it means to run a fiscal surplus. Does a fiscal surplus mean that the Government is taking more from the economy and leaving households and businesses to bear a deficit? This is an oversimplified and inaccurate characterisation of how our fiscal system works. A surplus simply means that in a year, revenue exceeds expenditure. And in Singapore's case, revenue includes significant investment income from our reserves, not just taxes collected from businesses and households. So, if you exclude Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC), expenditure exceeds revenue. In other words, we are putting money back into the economy, not draining money from businesses and households. In fact, our Budgets in both 2025 and 2026 have been expansionary, with significant support for households and businesses.
More importantly, we should look at who pays the tax and who benefits from the transfers. And on that score, the picture is clear. For every dollar of tax paid by the top quintile, they receive 20 cents in benefits. That is the top income quintile. Pay a dollar in tax, you get 20 cents in benefits. In contrast, the middle quintile receives around $2 in benefits. A dollar of tax, you can get back more, $2 in benefits. And the bottom quintile gets $7 in benefits.
In other words, those who are better able to contribute, are the ones who generally pay more in taxes. We use that revenue to strengthen our social compact and provide greater support to those who need it most.
Mr Speaker, our fiscal system is fair, progressive and sustainable. It is pro-worker, pro-enterprise and pro-Singapore. [Applause.]
Let me conclude on a final point around accountability. I agree in-principle with the many comments and suggestions that Members have made, including Mr Pritam Singh, Dr Haresh Singaraju and Mr Yip Hon Weng, asking for more information to ensure fiscal accountability and value for money in Government spending.
We want to do that. We want to ensure that. This is why we have been publishing the Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review biennially since 2010. That sets out the key outcome indicators across major policy areas and allows the public to track our progress over time.
We will continue to review the indicators in the report and ensure they are relevant and useful. It is not static. We continually look at refreshing and updating this document. Ministries on their own also conduct detailed reviews of major spending programmes to assess effectiveness and outcomes. I will ask all Ministries to provide clearer and more accessible information on major initiatives, so that Singaporeans can better understand how public resources are used and what results they achieve.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. I have outlined our strategies to secure our future together in this changed world. I thank Members of this House for your support for the direction we must now take.
This next phase will not be easy. The economic headwinds remain. The geopolitical environment is becoming more contested. The major powers are competing more intensely. They may say they are not asking others to choose sides. But in reality, they are using the full range of tools – from economic leverage to regulatory controls and technology restrictions – to advance their interests. Others may be subtle – seeking to influence opinions, shape narratives, or even sow division among our people.
We must be clear-eyed about these realities. But we have faced difficult external environments before. We have navigated uncertainty, preserved our sovereignty and independence, and emerged stronger because we remained one united people and acted with resolve.
And we enter this new era with considerable strengths. A strong economy. A cohesive society. Sound public finances. These are not accidental achievements. They are the result of decades of hard choices made by generations of Singaporeans.
This Budget builds on that strong foundation. It is a collective commitment that we will do what it takes to thrive in a more demanding world, that we will stand together when pressures mount and we will continue pushing forward to seize new opportunities on the horizon.
The world may be more uncertain, but we are prepared. We are united. And together, we will shape our own destiny and secure a brighter future for every Singaporean. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Before I call on hon Members for clarifications, I seek Members' understanding to keep them clear and concise. And if you have many clarifications, please raise all of them when called upon. Knowing the Prime Minister, I know he will also keep his answers clear and concise. Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be brief. I actually did not have any clarification questions until Prime Minister reached the end of his speech, where he spoke of more information, more accountability, more sharing from the Government. This is, of course, warmly welcomed.
I made some points in my speech about RIE. Just to make the point very clearly, the previous RIE plan had a simple pie chart, with a diagram telling people who are interested what $25 billion would be used for. The latest one does not have anything of that sort. It just dives straight into the RIE domains.
And this is an example of, I think, the sort of accountability people are actually interested in looking at – how or where the $37 billion, which was committed to RIE 2030, how it will be expended, how Singaporean jobs will be enhanced and what opportunities there would be for Singaporean, to say nothing of the budgetary issues.
I believe there was a Member yesterday, also, who commented that he filed some Parliamentary Questions to MOE and he did not get the answers that he asked for. I think there is quite a lot of work to be done there, and I hope in this term of Government, we see a new approach from the PAP Government.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, we will provide more information. I see the value of getting Ministries to put out more information, to share more about how their resources are being used and what outcomes they have achieved.
And so, as I have committed in this Budget, or in the speech just now, we are getting Ministries to do more, certainly in the area of RIE as well. More information and hopefully, that will encourage people, Singaporeans, to also look at the information and have a better understanding of what we have achieved.
For example, in the debate just now, I heard Mr Kenneth Tiong talk about the outcomes of our R&D spending. We may have different views. I think that was rather one-sided, in talking about how poorly we have performed in terms of R&D spending and what outcomes we have achieved. But hopefully, with more information, we can have a more holistic appreciation of the various outcomes we have achieved. We are not complacent, we are always looking at ways to do better. We acknowledge that. But having the information to provide more informed debate is always something we would encourage.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I have a question for the Prime Minister on what he said about BEPS. I am not an economist, so please forgive me if I do not frame it correctly.
He appeared to say that we are expecting upside in the next few years due to BEPS. From what I recalled in past debates, he was more cautious. I mean, he said, well, we also have to consider the incentives that we need to give to businesses, and in the end, it might not be a net positive. So, I wanted to know whether he has changed his view on this.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, we were more cautious in the initial years because there was no certainty how BEPS would evolve, and remember there was Pillar One and Pillar Two. Pillar One was targeted at jurisdictions like us, hub economies – where there was a move to shift profits away from hub economies. So, we were concerned about revenue loss under Pillar One.
Pillar Two was about a minimum tax rate across the board. And that would give upsides to revenue, but we were not sure at that time whether Pillar Two would be implemented.
Today, Pillar One has not taken off. So, the downside risk has come down, at least for now. It may be resurrected later on, but Pillar One has not been implemented. It is not on the agenda for now. Pillar Two has had broad-based consensus and therefore, jurisdiction after jurisdiction have been implementing their version of a domestic top-up tax, and we have too. That certainly will provide revenue upsides.
But it does not change our broader assessment that even with the revenue upsides, we will have to spend more and we will have to find ways to strengthen our investment promotion toolkit, because notwithstanding the minimum corporate tax of 15%, which was supposed to give governments more negotiating power over the MNEs, the reality is MNEs still have considerable negotiating power.
And governments everywhere want to attract these strategic investments to their own countries. And they are continuing, notwithstanding a minimum corporate tax of 15% to offer other generous incentives, which are considered BEPS-compliant. So, they are spending more, they are offering a whole range of different incentives to reshore or to attract strategic investments like that.
That is what the competitive landscape is today. That is the reality of the competitive landscape.
So, the revenue upside is more assured, in terms of the domestic top-up tax, but at the same time, we are very likely to also have to spend more on the economic front to stay competitive.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, I appreciate Prime Minister Wong's highlighting of the F&B sector, which of course, is close to many Singaporeans' hearts and stomachs. It is facing indeed undue pressure, and something that we get as feedback as well.
Prime Minister emphasised how the Government has, where it can, looked to mitigate pressures that they face on rent. He spoke about how it hopes to try to limit hikes in properties that it controls. Yet many business owners share that there is insufficient effort at restraining unbridled market forces and they hope that some form of a cap on the year-to-year rate of increase in rentals, without outright rent control via a fixed rent ceiling, may be helpful. I wonder whether Prime Minister can share whether this is a possibility in future.
On labour, I appreciate Prime Minister's explanation that foreign worker quotas and levies remain needed to ensure a Singaporean core. Yet, the feedback we receive is that despite paying rather solid wages in these sectors, it is really hard to attract locals. And I note that certain other sectors, like construction, actually have higher DRC. I believe the F&B is currently classified under services, which has a much lower DRC. Given the unique work conditions within F&B, I am wondering if the Government will consider relaxing the ratio for this sector.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on rentals, as I mentioned just now in my speech, at the macro level, we have not seen rental rates spiking up. In fact, as I mentioned just now, at the macro level, rental rates have moved in line with economic fundamentals – lower than GDP growth, lower than inflation rates. There may be localised issues, localised shortages, or a particular area, very popular, that kinds of things, these things can happen. I am not saying they do not. There will always be a distribution of rental increases. But overall, the situation remains stable, so we do not envisage imposing rental caps, particularly since at the macro level, the situation remains stable.
In fact, the experiences of jurisdiction everywhere when they impose such rental caps has been not so positive. Because you end up with inadvertent consequences and you do not always achieve the objectives that you had wanted to do, which was to ensure competitive rentals.
On foreign worker levies and DRCs for the F&B industry, they are part of services. The DRC is lower than construction, but we prefer not to carve out something separate for F&B, because it is really very hard to distinguish between F&B as a service and the other service industries. Once you make the DRC for F&B lower, you can be sure there will be many F&B foreign workers in Singapore doing non-F&B jobs. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Prime Minister and Minister for Finance\", Official Report, 26 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 20, Correction By Written Statement section.] And it is very hard to monitor. It is very hard to enforce because they are all service-related.
So, we rather keep services DRC as a whole, where it is. But as I mentioned, where there are ways in which we can extend some flexibilities to businesses, like on the source of workers, we will consider doing so.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have got three supplementary questions. First of all, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for mentioning that he will be releasing fiscal projections beyond 2030. Just wondering whether I can get clarification from Prime Minister whether those projections will be accompanied with economic baseline assumptions, specific scenarios? That will be useful for the public.
Within the same domain, thank you to Prime Minister for explaining the reassurance that the fiscal policy has been expansionary. It helps to relieve concerns that it has been extracting and there is opportunity cost on that front.
Second supplementary question, Mr Speaker, is on climate transition. I think Prime Minister in his speech and in his opening Budget speech touched a bit on climate and energy transition. But I was wondering whether the Prime Minister can share a bit more about climate transition, especially our plans to have those polders around Singapore. What are those costs on our fiscal needs and our fiscal expenditure going forward, because those will be quite substantial beyond 2030 and beyond 2040 as well.
And thirdly, I would like thank the Prime Minister for mentioning my suggestion about changing the income tax thresholds, to help relieve lower-income and middle-income workers and Singaporeans. I was wondering what is the possibility of that suggestion being implemented.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on the three questions. First, yes, we will provide the economic assumptions underpinning our fiscal projections. Second, on the climate transition, we will continue to provide more information on both our mitigation, as well as our adaptation plans, because we are moving on both.
On the mitigation, it is really about pushing for decarbonisation and doing more in terms of clean energy, and there will be opportunities in due course to share more. On adaptation, it is really about protecting Singapore against rising sea levels, and we will also find opportunities to share more about these plans. We have already started to set aside resources for these two areas of work, which will require a lot of additional investments, so we are already setting aside funds for that.
Thirdly, on the personal income tax thresholds, as I said just now, we will take on board these suggestions as part of our regular fiscal reviews.
I would also just want to mention again, on the point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim talked about rental. While I gave a macro picture about the overall rental rates, as I mentioned in my speech just now, I do recognise averages may not capture every single experience. There will be instances where rental renewals end up with sharp increases. We know that this happens, but the interventions and the way we help will have to take into account the different considerations. We do not think rental caps will work, but for example, if we understand better a particular situation where there has been very sharp increase in rental for that location, it could be a supply source shortage, there could be specific circumstances linked to that area. Then we will have to study and consider what appropriate interventions might work for such circumstances.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just to very quickly clarify, I do not mean a rental cap in terms of the total amount that it can increase to, but just the rate of increase – precisely what the Prime Minister is getting at, which is when there is a surge, whether there is a cap on how much that surge can occur.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, as I have mentioned, in instances where the Government is a landlord or where we do have some control over rentals – hawker centres, HDB rentals, JTC rentals – we already do so and will continue to finetune our framework.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Prime Minister. First of all, thank you so much for addressing the increase in capital intensity at some length. I have asked in two Parliamentary Questions yesterday about it that I did not get to ask a supplementary question for, so I am going to take the time to do it now.
At the same time, I am very heartened to hear the promise that in Singapore, we will not have jobless growth. I also am very heartened by the promise at the end of your speech on greater transparency on outcomes. So, I was wondering if you could share if capital intensity continues to increase, how will the Government's measures of outcomes change, if any?
My second clarification is, you talked about making the hard calls. I think it is very easy to talk about hard calls in terms of raising revenues, but let us also remember that hard calls are also in how much we choose to invest to grow the economy. And so, I would like to just hear his thinking around how he will balance the need for immediate support, preserving fiscal space for unforeseen pandemics or higher than expected healthcare increases, but also importantly putting more into things that will grow the economy. Even though a billion dollars is being laid out for AI, for example, I would like to hear whether there is openness and preserving fiscal space for investing in growth.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, as the Member has highlighted, returns to growth accrue to capital or labour. There is a lot of concern that with AI you will see a disproportionate shift of returns to capital, and labour will suffer. We are, as I said in my speech, I did not highlight that in such terms, but that is the risk we are very much alive to.
And if the trends in the marketplace globally are moving in that direction, well, we will have to consider what additional levers, what steps to take, how we ensure that workers benefit from growth. That is our commitment. We will try our very best to have AI develop in such a way that is pro-worker that enhances human skills and expertise. And at the end of the day we will have levers also, through SkillsFuture, through transfers, through a whole range of different means, to make sure that growth in Singapore is balanced and Singaporeans will benefit. Not just capital owners, not just the companies that push out AI tools. Singaporeans will always benefit from growth in Singapore.
On the question around our openness to using fiscal space and resources for growth, yes, of course we are. We will always want to grow the pie, because that is what our future is about. We have to be at the frontier. We have to keep on expanding the pie for all to benefit. Our investments in R&D are very much in that direction. With AI and all the moves we talked about in AI, we will also allocate more resources to pushing the frontier, so that we can continually expand opportunities, jobs and better incomes for Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. I have three clarifications for the Prime Minister. I think the first is on the point he mentioned about the one-off, Sir, that I mentioned in my speech. To me, the question is really, as I have shared in my speech, in light of our surpluses, are we then better off to put in place the structural levers and interventions, rather than having to decide on these on a one-off basis year after year?
So, I gave the example of personal income taxes. Are we better off having that updating of the bracket rather than have varying personal income tax rebates year after year? Similarly, on the corporate front, are we better off with revising, maybe some of our Partial Tax Exemption and Startup Tax Exemption schemes, which were last changed in 2018? And I also gave the example of how for the Global Trader Programme, that was extended up till 2031. So, that is the first.
The second is in relation to the Occasional Paper that MOF has put out. Just wondering if the Prime Minister has given the MOF team perhaps a timeline as to when recommendations may be put forth to address some of the issues that were brought up, specifically when it comes to the taxing of wealth. I think it has always been mentioned that it is mainly via our system of property taxes. And the report has showed wealth, especially for the top 20%, to the extent that it is under reported. I would say that probably the share of non-property assets is likely to be larger than what we have found. So, in the context, wealth taxes beyond just property taxes.
And last but not least, in terms of the TFR, on this front, again, to maybe borrow a phrase from the Ministry for Sustainability and the Environment, are we willing to have ambitious and realistic targets with regards to the TFR, even if for the medium to longer term to guide our policy interventions?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I thank Mr Chua for his clarification on the first point about the Government relying on one-off ad hoc measures. I hope we can banish this forever in this House. Because we do not rely only on one-off ad hoc measures. We have some, yes, 5% of the Budget. How is that an over reliance?
We have much more allocation of resources on longer-term and structural schemes. And will there continue to be some one-off measures? Yes, we will, from time to time, it is not mutually exclusive. But the weight of our fiscal moves are really on the longer-term and structural schemes. The emphasis is in that direction. And it is not just a mindset issue, it is not just a policy issue. You can look at it from a resource issue: 95% allocated there; clearly, the emphasis is in these areas and the reviews will be done from time to time.
As I mentioned just now, policy changes, policy reviews, take some time. We take in suggestions. Some suggestions we may not be able to do, and we explain our position, and there will be differences of views. But there will be suggestions which we think are good and we will consider them carefully. And in time to come, we will make the changes.
For the suggestions that Mr Chua had put forward on personal income tax, we will take them, as I had mentioned to Mr Saktiandi, together with other suggestions that Members have given as part of our regular fiscal reviews. That also goes to timeline.
The Occasional Paper that we are putting out will be done by next year, but the fiscal reviews that we do on the policy front, that happens on a regular basis. There is no specific timeline for this because we are always on a continuing basis, reviewing and updating our policies.
On TFR and measures, will we be more ambitious? I would say we have always tried to be ambitious. We have pushed the boundary each time in terms of the moves we made. And in this coming review we will be even more ambitious. Can we set targets? Name me a country which has succeeded on a sustained basis. These are very complex. This is a trend that is happening around the world. It is not just about economics. If money can solve the problem, I will put the money down and solve the problem. But it is not just an economic issue, it is far more complex than that. Countries have spent far more than us and have not been able to achieve a meaningful, sustained improvement in their TFR.
So, we will try. We are not giving up. We will be more ambitious. And Minister Indranee at the COS debate will share more about how we can try to engender a whole-of-society reset around marriage and procreation. We will give it our best efforts. [Applause.]
Just a quick point that my colleague just highlighted to me when Mr Singh talked about the RIE reports and what have been published. In fact, someone alerted me that there are additional reports, beyond what Mr Singh had shared. At the office, the National Research Foundation has put out more information already. But in any case, as I said, our commitment, whatever the baseline is today, we will do more.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Prime Minister. When tariff shocks escalated last year, businesses were certainly genuinely uncertain. It was the Government's swift and credible response that stabilised sentiment and positioned Singapore as a trusted base amid fragmentation. However, as the tariff situation becomes uncertain again and supply chains continue to readjust, could the Prime Minister give assurance to businesses that we will have the fiscal space to support them, to respond decisively if volatility intensifies?
At the same time as we move decisively into frontier industries like AI, quantum and space technologies, these are energy intensive and capital heavy sectors. Could the Prime Minister clarify how the Government assesses our long-term fiscal headroom to support both frontier industry development and the sustainable energy infrastructure required to power it?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on the first question, yes, we give our assurance to all businesses. We are all in this together. Whatever uncertainty and volatility we may face, the Government will certainly be there to walk with our businesses and our workers to navigate the changes ahead of us.
We are not out of the woods yet. The situation was better than expected last year, but there is new uncertainty now. And I think uncertainty and volatility will now be the norm anyway. So, we will continue to work closely with our businesses and workers, and also as part of our tripartite system.
On the frontier industries and the fact that they are energy intensive, it is a cause for concern. I think Mr Dennis Tan had also spoken about this. We are trying our best to manage this and the solution for us at the end of the day is to accelerate our efforts on decarbonisation to be able to harness even more clean energy sources than the limited sources we have today. That is key.
The new sources may not materialise in the short term. We are working on multiple fronts, including importing clean energy from outside Singapore, pursuing ideas like hydrogen, as well as civilian nuclear energy. But we are going full steam ahead on all of these areas so that we can find clean energy sources for ourselves that are reliable, sustainable, competitive, and that will help drive the industries of the future.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Thank you. Prime Minister, our workers were very, very encouraged and inspired to hear that you will be personally overseeing the Singapore's AI transitions.
With autonomous vehicle (AV) bus services expected to commence this year, as well as pilot AV shuttle services already underway, it is clear that the pace of change is accelerating. My question is, how will we ensure that sectors such as our bus industry and point-to-point transport sector are given sufficient time and structured support for these transitions? In particular, how do we sequence implementation so that technologies like AI and AV strengthen safety standards, uplift skills and enhance livelihoods, rather than become a source of disruption and anxiety for our workers?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I recognise the anxieties of our drivers. In fact, when I had the dialogue with union leaders, this was surfaced as well. The assurance I gave then and I give now is that we will manage this very carefully. We already have very close engagement with the unions and drivers, and as we introduce these new technologies, we will pace the transition in a way that ensures that we are also able to retrain workers if jobs are impacted and make sure that the transition and the introduction of technologies do not adversely impact our workers. We want workers to benefit from new technologies.
Mr Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Thank you, Speaker. The Prime Minister mentioned in his Budget speech that 1% of the GDP is dedicated to R&D expenses, commonly known as the gross expenditure on R&D (GERD).
Israel, an innovation nation, has 6%. I think Sweden has 4%. For most of the European countries, it is about 3%. What is our target and how can we actually use part of the $15 billion surplus to give it a boost?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, we have been maintaining that commitment of 1% for some time now. I do not think it is about saying that we just have to do more and spend more. As many have highlighted, we want to ensure good outcomes from our R&D spending as well. So, we will continue if the outcomes are good. If we are getting good results, we are able to get good projects, certainly, we will be prepared to put more into Government R&D.
But we also do not just track what the Government spends. We want Government spending to catalyse more business R&D. So, the other measure, aside from GERD is BERD or the business expenditure on R&D, which is commonly tracked as well. And we are heartened that on the business side, private sector R&D in Singapore has also gone up, corresponding or together with Government spending on R&D. That bodes well for the future because that means that the private sector, too, is seeing the benefits of investing more in R&D and investing for the future.
Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Thank you, Speaker. I, of course, respect the Prime Minister's prerogative to characterise my views on R&D as somewhat one-sided. So, I would like to offer him the opportunity for a fuller defence in light of, perhaps, three groups of facts.
First, since 1991, the first National Technology Plan to RIE2030, the nominal amount committed is about $125 billion, of which I think there are indeed few visible commercial outcomes. Mirxes in 2025 was the first and only billion-dollar IPO. I do not recall any other commercially significant companies out there. Even if we were to give it to the Government that it is an MNC-driven strategy, the first phase of the Biopolis project was not a big success. For all the MNC R&D offices for these pharmaceutical companies – in 2010, we had the departure of Eli Lilly; in 2013, we had the departure of Pfizer; in 2014, the departure of GlaxoSmithKline; in 2016, the departure of Novartis.
So, I do not really quite see where, perhaps, he is having his different view from.
My second clarification is whether he will consider putting on a policy investment bank function or, rather, reconstituting it, given that it has been missing since Mdm Ho Ching took over Temasek in 2002.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, as far as the outcomes of R&D are concerned, we track a whole range of outcomes. It is not just on the basis of a company getting IPO success. There are outcomes with regard to jobs created. There are outcomes with regard to the spillovers to local industries and the SMEs that support our MNEs doing research here. There are outcomes to the wider economy and incomes that are raised. There are outcomes with regards to business expenditure on R&D, which we have talked about just now.
So, it is not just a narrow focus on a single measure of success but a wide range of different indicators. For the research part, mind you, which is also important because we do not only want commercialisation success, we also want to anchor strong basic research. That scientific base is important. It is also tracked with another set of different indicators, like publications, which we also track.
So, there are a wider range of outcomes we track in terms of our R&D spending. That is why I said just now that the views that Mr Tiong had highlighted were rather one-sided. I do agree with Mr Tiong though, about what he said about the broad principle that sometimes the system can be risk-averse, that there are ways to do more in terms of value capture. There is no disagreement, in principle, in terms of that direction.
We want to encourage more private innovation. We want to encourage more of an enterprise-building approach, in terms of how we grow our economy rather than just focus on specific individual grant schemes. There is scope to have less fragmentation. These are things we are already doing and will continue to do.
On the question of an investment bank approach. Well, I would also disagree with him that this has changed with the chief executive officer in Temasek. This has never been the case. Temasek, when it started, was always very clear about its mandate from the very beginning – commercial, not doing national service, focused on commercial outcomes.
If there are things that the Government wants to do and Temasek thinks it is useful to do from a commercial point of view, then, yes, we can partner Temasek to do so. There are many instances even till today, including some of the equity funds which are done with a co-investment approach with Temasek, not because we forced Temasek to do these as national undertakings but because they see commercial value in growing enterprises and growing the enterprise ecosystem, and in achieving and securing better long-term returns for their portfolio.
This has been consistently the approach from the start and that is the same approach we will continue with Temasek going forward.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Prime Minister, for a convincing round-up speech. I am seeking three clarifications.
Number one is on SMEs. In this age of AI and growth, I asked about how the Government intends to strengthen the intermediaries who are actually advising the SMEs in this age, intermediaries, like the SME Centres, Singapore Business Federation, NTUC, the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and the trade associations, for example. From where can these intermediaries tap on resources to advise and to be in a good position to advise as well. That is my first clarification.
The second one is on the Prime Minister's comment on no jobless growth. I wrote that down. The Prime Minister said that. No jobless growth. I wanted to hear his thoughts on the prognosis of those Singaporeans who are unlikely to catch up. The vulnerable, for example, like some of the seniors, like persons with disabilities who have higher support needs, for example. They might actually lose jobs in this time and age. So, I wanted to hear his views on those who are likely to lose jobs and actually may not be able to take up or upgrade their skills, in that sense.
The third clarification is on TFR. I think somebody mentioned it, but I am very relieved to hear from the Prime Minister that this is not a lost cause and that even if the Budget Statement does not cover it, Minister Indranee will cover that. Hopefully, what Elon Musk has predicted, that Singapore will become extinct, that will not be a reality.
But can the Prime Minister share a little bit more about strategies other than producing our own? We know that many young people may not want to get married or even after they get married, some of them prefer pets to children. Are there other strategies that the Prime Minister will consider, like easier adoption procedures to have more people adopt, more of us Singaporeans adopting? The second is, in terms of immigration as well, to bring in people who are of the right profile and suitable profile to grow our Singaporean population?
So, three clarifications for you, Sir.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on intermediaries, it is an area we are looking at. No easy answers now because when it comes to providing IT solutions that are AI-enabled, that is quite straightforward. But when you talk about intermediaries who truly understand what it means to transform an enterprise using AI, in fact, there are very few. I mentioned this in my Budget speech, even the leading companies are grappling with this and looking at ways to do this better.
So, it is an area where we ourselves are looking to build capabilities and expertise and identifying experts who can help us and not just help us as in help the Government, but help the intermediaries within our economy, who can in turn help our businesses, especially our SMEs.
Second, on jobless growth and the concerns that vulnerable groups may have. We are very mindful of these concerns. That is why we have progressively strengthened our social support system. We have put in place Jobseeker Support, we are strengthening SkillsFuture and we will continue to monitor this segment very closely and the impact that AI may have on vulnerable and disadvantaged workers, on seniors. We will continually review and strengthen our support mechanisms.
Third, on the TFR and whether there are other ways in which we can encourage or we can maintain our Singaporean core, whether it is through adoption or immigration. Yes, indeed, we will have a multi-faceted approach. Mr Foo Cexiang gave a very good speech yesterday on adoption procedures and how it can be very complex and frustrating for parents who would like to adopt. I think it is something that certainly we would want to take a closer look at to see how we can streamline.
So, our approach, as Minister Indranee will share during the COS, will not – of course, marriage, procreation, parenthood within Singapore is important, but also other areas, like adoption, as well as immigration will come in as well.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister as well for his wrap-up speech. My questions relate to education and inequality. Just like Member Denise Phua, I want to quote something the Prime Minister mentioned, which is that the starting point should never determine our finishing position.
I think that is a very high and inspiring principle to share. But I bring this up because based on recent data – and I had asked a Parliamentary Question to MOE before about the difference in Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores across different income groups, we find that these differences are statistically significant. They are there. While they are no different from other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, I think that we have that larger aspiration not just to match up to what other countries are doing, but to do better, regardless of what the other countries are doing. So, I wanted to hear from the Prime Minister, what his thoughts are and what MOF is thinking is around this issue.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the concerns that the Member had raised on education are indeed on our agenda. In fact, many Members spoke about education during the debate.
I did not really touch on it as a topic in the round-up speech, but we have this as one of the key items on our agenda for this term of Government, looking at how we can especially help disadvantaged groups level up in our education system, focusing on those with less resources, those with different start points, making sure that more support is given to them, but at the same time addressing the other concern too, which many Members spoke about – the concerns about high-stakes exams, the anxiety about the arms race that parents and students are feeling.
So, that is on our agenda. That is something we are looking at.
Other concerns that I think Members raised in this House during the debate, for example, around digital screen time – Ms He Ting Ru talked about that, others too. Access to social media for children, that is also on our agenda. So, there are things that we are reviewing. Like I said, I cannot cover every single topic in a Budget or in a round-up speech, but these are things and priorities that we are looking at and we will have future occasions to address them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for responding to my speech. I have got two clarifications.
The Prime Minister said that Budget Estimates are prepared by MOF economists based on variable data, including GDP growth projections. While I accept that GDP is highly sensitive to external shocks and can deviate significantly from forecasts and this impacts the actual fiscal position, but in the interest of transparency, will MOF provide more disclosure regarding the methodology of its revenue projections? For example, our GDP assumptions pegged to the mid-point of the official forecast range at the start of the fiscal year and what is the specific weighting of GDP growth in fiscal estimates?
Secondly, the Prime Minister argued that these deviations are within a reasonable range and result in unavoidable volatility. However, this does not fully account for the systemic nature of the trend. Could the Prime Minister explain why there is a consistent directional bias towards conservative fiscal marksmanship over the past 20 years, excluding the two years of exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and the FY2023 Majulah Package allocation? For 18 of these 20 years, the actual surpluses have consistently exceeded original estimates by significant margins. A review of the historical data shows that these variances frequently reach double-digit, triple digit or even quadruple digit changes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the MOF economists when they look at fiscal projections use Government's forecast of the economy, which is also published. We would typically use the mid-point of the range and then, of course, because these are in nominal terms, you have to factor for that. And the projections are done on those basis. There is a well-defined methodology used by many governments to project revenue, which often are tied to incomes. There is a certain buoyancy estimate of how buoyant the revenue is when incomes rise so the GDP is the most critical assumption in many revenue projections.
The estimates are what they are. Why have we seen more revenue upsides than downsides over the years? Perhaps, there is a simple explanation to this – which is that we have consistently performed better than expected. We should welcome that. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Azhar Othman.
Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Memebr): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we mentioned about space technology, quantum technology, AI technology and decarbonisation technology, if we look forward, it is very exciting to see all these coming. But, at the same time, we must also understand the capacity of our workforce. At one point, they must be prepared to train towards a certain skill and these skills are somewhat, I would say, common across the board and these technologies need expert skills or those who are highly skilled.
Having said that, how do we ensure that our workforce can keep up to the change? And furthermore, does our education allow that to happen as well? Because the speed of technology moves so fast; in other words, the speed of the education must also follow through as well.
So, these are things that that become very clear and very apparent of what I think we must prepare the workforce for: the ability to learn, the ability to quickly learn become crucial.
Secondly, the point I want to raise is that I look at countries who have 2040 vision, 2050 vision. I am sad to say that the fundamentals of the citizens are not able to cope to the change where the country wants to go to. In other words, as a country move forward and get better and better, the workforce or the people still lag behind. At one form, they try to get better because of their own internal problems or their own family problems. Another section is that how do we improve, how we make them improve to keep up to the technology, to the change?
So, Singapore in the context whereby we are moving quite rapidly; so does the world. But is the workforce, is the citizen able to do so? And how do we change the structure or allow the structure to be evolved, starting from education and looking at how the workforce can adapt to it because —
Mr Speaker: Mr Azhar Othman, get to your clarification.
Mr Azhar Othman: So, this is the point I am saying: how do we prepare our workforce towards this technological change?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I agree fully with Mr Azhar that human capacity, human capital is critical. In fact, I would say the long-term potential of Singapore, how far we go really depends on us being able to maximise our human potential. That is key and that is why we have long invested in education. And it is not just about the investments. It is about updating our system so that at the school and tertiary levels, we help prepare our students well for new industries of the future.
But even that alone is not enough because, as Mr Azhar highlighted, the technology is changing so quickly. Whatever you have learned in school or from tertiary levels of education may very well need a refresh and an update a few years later after you graduate. And that is again why we are investing significantly in SkillsFuture and we have made it a key pillar in our social compact.
So, we are mindful of all of these concerns – of the need to prepare our people well for the future and we will continue to invest heavily in every Singaporean.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I have quite a few questions. But the Prime Minister has been answering our questions for close to an hour. So, I will ask only one. And I note the collective sigh of relief in the House.
I am glad to hear Prime Minister's round-up speech. Specifically, he acknowledged that rising incomes are the best way to guard against increases in the cost of living. But he also acknowledged that for the half a million retirees in Singapore, they do not experience these rising incomes when the cost of living increases. To the Government's credit, the last few years of support have given that assurance to our retirees.
Would the Prime Minister now agree that we should assure this group of retirees that structural support should always keep up with the cost of living, not including the one-off measures that Prime Minister mentioned but that 95%? Can Prime Minster promise our half a million retirees in Singapore that the cost of living should be not too much of an anxiety to all of them and that the current levels of support should stay the same in real terms?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I was relieved that Mr Loh said he only has one question, but he asked the most difficult question.
To answer the question, we will continue to monitor cost of living across all segments of society. We are very mindful that retirees will face potentially the biggest concerns because they do not have incomes, they will not benefit from wage increases and the cost-of-living pressures would be felt more acutely by this segment. And so our assurance to them is that we are watching out for them, we will take care of our retirees. But at the same time, we will also take care of all Singaporeans, to make sure that we help wages go up, we help retirees who do not have wage increases ease their cost pressures across different areas. And everyone, everyone in Singapore can truly benefit from the nation's progress.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Mr Speaker and thank you, Prime Minister, for the round-up speech.
Prime Minister, you mentioned in your Budget speech on taking SkillsFuture forward and strengthening the assurance for mid-career workers and seniors. In my speech, I asked to help our young seniors stay relevant and employable for the long term. I call for more fundamental revamp of the SkillsFuture and to retrain our workforce every 10 years or so, to counter the shorter economic cycles and the impact of AI.
I would like Prime Minister to share more about beyond merging WSG and SSG, and involving the IHLs and Institutes of Education (ITEs) more for continuing education and training, will the Government be looking at more measures to help our young seniors, especially the PMETs to stay effectively more relevant and more employable?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the short answer is yes, we will certainly help our young seniors. We know that at that mid-career level if you are made redundant, getting back into the workforce can be more challenging. At that level, wage increases also may not be as high because there is a certain life-cycle to wages. Wage increases tend to be higher when you are younger and then, after a while, it starts to plateau off. So, they will face more pressure too. So, we are mindful. That is why we have already put in place schemes, like Level-Up for those above 40. And we will continue to see how we can strengthen support for mid-career, young seniors. And with the merger of SSG and WSG, I am sure we can do more.
There are many, many good ideas put forward by Members for many different segments: young seniors, retirees, disadvantaged groups. We want to do more for everyone. I wish I had a wand, a magic solution that can solve every problem and take care of every group overnight. But the realities of life are not like that. Policies take time, new schemes take resources and importantly, let us be very mindful, we are able to talk about all of these things and all the good things we can do because our economy has done well, because we have good growth and now, we are in a position with the resources to act decisively.
If these foundations are not present, we would be scrambling, we would be having a very different conversation. So, let us also be mindful of the fundamentals – keep growth, keep our economy growing, keep on ensuring a dynamic vibrant economy, good growth and generate the resources we need in order to take care of all the different segments of society.
Mr Speaker: We have had an hour of clarifications from 16 Members. I do not see any more Members raising their hands.
[(proc text) Question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Commencement Time of Committee of Supply","subTitle":"Announcement by Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. We have completed the debate on the Budget Statement. I had originally intended to take a break. But we are a bit short of time and we have a long day ahead. So, I am going to proceed next to the Committee of Supply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the Financial Year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 4 of 2026","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027, contained in Paper Cmd 4 of 2026. For convenience, I shall take the totals for each Head of Expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of estimated expenditure under the Main and Development Estimates Outlays for FY2026 on pages 6 and 7 respectively of the Command Paper.
A total of 425 amendments to the Estimates of Expenditure have been submitted this year. The guillotine times to the discussion of the Heads of Expenditure under Standing Order 92(7)(a) have taken into consideration the earlier commencement time of a Sitting, the reduction of Question Time and the extension of sitting times of the Committee of Supply for each allotted day.
I must remind hon Members that the total time for discussion of each Head of Expenditure includes the replies from the front bench. With the assistance of the digital timer in the Chamber, I trust that hon Members will be able to keep to the speech times indicated against their amendments. I would urge hon Members both from the front as well as the backbenchers to adhere to their time limits, as I – not just me, my deputies as well – will be stringent in our time-keepings. And I certainly hope I do not have to do this — which will mute your microphone.
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.
","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 U (Prime Minister's Office)","subTitle":"A forward-looking government, a confident Singapore","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head U, Prime Minister's Office (PMO). Mr Foo Cexiang.
Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chair, I move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
Sir, the rules-based international order that has prevailed for decades – characterised by free trade, global supply chains and the development of multilateral institutions, like the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO), and international law and treaties like the Paris Agreement on climate change – is being unravelled. Countries have adopted more protectionist measures, like tariffs and restrictions on trade, contributing to the fragmentation of global supply chains and economies.
As a small and open country, these trends will disproportionately affect us in Singapore. How we adapt and capitalise on these trends will determine Singapore’s success in this new era.
As front-liners and policy-makers, our Public Service plays a critical role. Our public officers will need to have a keen understanding of our rapidly changing global environment, they will need to have the gumption and courage to question assumptions held by their seniors and predecessors, to be able to make decisions necessary to seize and develop opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans.
At the same time, back home, Singaporeans’ expectations of the Public Service are evolving. Our social fabric is becoming more diverse. Singaporeans increasingly want to play an active role in shaping our nation's future. They seek meaningful engagement and consultation on policies and initiatives that affect their lives, including their lived environment.
For example, when I recently did a Citizens Reflections session with my residents, I received strong and positive feedback from those who joined the session to discuss the recent Land Transport Bill. They told me that they found the session refreshing and they gained much deeper perspectives into the workings of our legislative process. And their interest will extend to the realms of the executive processes, land use planning and many other policy areas of Singapore.
That said, the conduct of the session took considerable time and effort by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and myself, and it also required sustained commitment from the participants to produce a report. So, greater consultation requires not just a willingness to consult, but the dedication and commitment to put in the time and effort.
So, in light of this, how is the Public Service preparing our officers to better understand and meet the challenges posed by a changing domestic landscape, where there is a greater need of engagement and consultation, as well as a fracturing world order?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Sir, Singapore entrusts significant powers and broad discretion to the executive to make decisions on a wide range of matters. These include the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act and the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, which allow Ministers to give directions and make decisions relating to fake news and foreign interference, and the Online Safety Relief and Accountability Bill, which empowers the Online Safety Commission (OSC) to direct takedown of harmful content or restrict online accounts.
Where executive discretion is exercised, and in the absence of a judicial review ouster, the public usually is only able to use judicial review to question that, albeit limited to grounds of legality, procedural propriety and rationality. A recent use was in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2019, when the Supreme Court ruled that then Prime Minister Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and Parliament resumed the next day.
In Singapore, judicial review is rare. Given this, how does Singapore guide and monitor the use of executive discretion and what are the safeguards in place to ensure that these are done judiciously?
I am not saying that there is no place for judicial discretion nor am I calling for judicial micromanagement. Instead, I hope for a better understanding and data about: first, if there is any central tracking of the use of executive powers; and second, what are the principles, if any, guide the use of such oversight?
We should have a central public registry to record Ministerial powers and delegated authorities, allowing Parliament, the media and citizens to better understand who holds what powers and when they apply. Public body should publish periodic reports on how the discretionary powers are exercised. For instance, during a debate on the Online Safety Bill, we proposed that OSC submit annual reports detailing the number and categories of reports received, directions issued and findings of online harms trends.
Finally, the legal principles and thresholds guiding executive discretion should be transparent and made known, providing a clear framework for decision-making and reducing public concern about motives.
Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, as we speak about transformation across the Singapore economy, it is also equally important to understand the transformation within the Public Service. I am going to talk about the launch of the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) programme, or the GRIT@Gov, which reflects an important move to attract young Singaporeans to develop them for meaningful careers within Public Service.
As a union representing Public Service, we welcome the efforts to strengthen the pipeline and provide meaningful early exposure to Public Service work. And this is also to help the much-needed experience that they will then be able to better compete in the market as experience is a prerequisite to many jobs and of course, to get better pay.
However, recent news reporting indicates that placements are still building up since the programme started in October 2025. We want to understand how can awareness, matching and role clarity be better strengthened, so that suitable candidates are able to see GRIT@Gov not just as a traineeship but as a credible entry pathway into long-term Public Service careers?
Beyond the placement numbers, it is also important that the quality of experience the trainees have when they are placed at the respective roles within Public Service and it is also important how impactful the roles are so that they not only find purpose but also see clear development pathways within the Public Service.
In addition, this is also important for mid-career officers who require similar guidance on career refresh and job redesign. Ultimately, whether we speak of GRIT@Gov, artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled transformation, career progression or workplace fairness, the central question is: can Public Officers see sustainable and meaningful long-term careers in Public Service?
The next thing is also with the soon-to-come Workplace Fairness Act, which marks an important national step in addressing workplace discrimination. While the Act does not apply directly to Public Officers, the underlying principles remain relevant within the Public Service.
We hope to understand in this context; how will the Government apply the principles of early resolution and mediation that will be reinforced to promote fair and timely handling of workplace grievances?
The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Chair, I thank Members for their questions on how the Public Service will ensure we continue to meet the needs of Singapore and Singaporeans well.
Let me first address the cut by Mr Foo Cexiang on how we are preparing our public officers for tomorrow’s challenges. We agree, indeed, that the international order and our domestic landscape are fundamentally changing, and changing fast. Singapore must rethink our approaches and seize new opportunities to secure our place in the world.
To keep Singapore exceptional and ready for the future, I believe we must do three things well: understand the world well; understand our people well; and understand technology well.
First, understanding the world is vital to sharpen our clarity on how Singapore and Singaporeans can stay relevant in the new world. Given how small and open Singapore we are and how everything in Singapore is affected by global developments elsewhere, from security to trade, to food and technology access, we need to make sound decisions for Singapore and our officers must understand the new world we operate in.
To help public officers build up their global exposure and connections, we are ramping up overseas postings and exchanges, attachments to international organisations and stints in the private and people sectors. We will also ensure Public Service leaders are globally informed and connected. Today, nearly four out of every 10 officers on our central leadership development programmes have participated in programmes with structured overseas exposure.
By understanding the world, our public officers and leaders can better seize emerging opportunities and safeguard Singapore’s long-term interests.
Second, we will also need to understand our peoples and their expectations well. This will help to shape our purpose.
The work of the Public Service is not just to deliver transactions but to build trust. Singaporeans want to be heard, to be involved and to co-create solutions. Following the Forward Singapore exercise, we have strengthened the partnerships with citizens and communities through the Singapore Government Partnerships Office. In 2025, agencies received over 1,600 partnership proposals from citizens, corporates, community groups and organisations.
We also continue to make our services more accessible, inclusive and responsive. Today, 99% of government-to-citizen transactions, like Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers, can be completed digitally. Citizens who need help in person can visit ServiceSG centres, where they can access 600 services from over 25 agencies under one roof. To bring these integrated services closer to more residents, we have set up a 10th ServiceSG Centre in Ang Mo Kio this year.
To serve Singaporeans well, we must also invest in our officers. Mr Sanjeev Tiwari asked how public officers can have a meaningful, sustainable career within our Service. Last year, I announced the launch of a Career Fitness Movement for public officers to prepare for meaningful careers with increasing longevity. To date, more than 4,300 officers from over 69 public agencies have gone through the foundational programme under the movement. Building on this momentum, we are introducing supplementary programmes to provide targeted support for officers at different career life stages. This is only possible through the strong support of our partners, such as the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees, which Mr Sanjeev heads.
Mr Sanjeev Tiwari also asked how the Public Service reinforces fair and timely resolution of any workplace concern. The Public Service is committed not only to invest in career fitness of our officers but also recognises the importance of resolving early any workplace concern from our public officers. We have in place a Grievance Handling Procedure and Internal Disclosure Policy. These strive to ensure early resolution of any concern whilst maintaining confidentiality. We will continue to review them to ensure that they remain relevant and effective, working in partnership with the unions.
On Mr Sanjeev’s question on the GRIT@Gov programme, the Government is committed to invest in the skills of trainees. For trainees with an interest and aptitude to pursue a long-term career in the Public Service, we will also continue to invest in them as part of our Career Fitness Movement.
Third, let me touch on technology. Understanding technology is an essential capability for every public officer and leader. Technological advancement, like Generative AI, is not a good-to-have but a must-have for all of us to thrive in the future. Hence, we are enhancing our capabilities in science, technology and engineering across the Public Service to improve how we deliver services. For example, all public officers are required to undergo compulsory digital and AI training, while digital training for senior Public Service leaders has accelerated over the past years. This goes to every level, from the Permanent Secretary to the last officer.
Let me now conclude. To ensure Singapore is ready for the future, our Public Service will equip our officers to understand the world, understand our people and understand technology.
Understanding the world will sharpen our clarity on how we can maintain Singapore’s relevance. Understanding our people will shape our purpose and enable us to deliver for, and with, Singaporeans. And understanding technology will strengthen our capabilities and enable us to harness the latest advancements to be future-ready. This is how we will continue to deliver as One Public Service and keep Singapore exceptional for all Singaporeans.
Let me now address Ms He Ting Ru’s question on how PMO guides the use of Ministerial powers and discretion. The Prime Minister assigns responsibilities to Ministers, including for statutory functions. All statutory functions must be exercised in accordance with the law. The law confers discretion on Ministers and other officials so that they can exercise their judgement on how best to deal with each case based on the facts, instead of mechanically applying a rigid rule.
The rationale for a discretionary function, its scope and limits, and any applicable safeguards, would have been debated by this House when the legislation was passed. Each Minister is responsible for exercising the statutory functions assigned to him or her.
The most important issues are referred to and discussed by Cabinet before a final decision is taken. Cabinet, in turn, is collectively responsible to Parliament.
Chairman, may I have your permission to take clarifications for the Public Service Division's portion now, and I think we have 100 seconds.
The Chairman: Any clarifications for the Minister from the three Members? Ms He?
Ms He Ting Ru: I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. Can I just ask my clarification? Whether the PMO will consider eventually one day publishing more data, so that the public can better understand how the various Ministerial discretions were actually exercised, especially in the example I cited earlier for the OSC, when we actually called for this to be published a bit more.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Chair, we will certainly look into that. But let me assure the House that for every decision made, actually it is carefully recorded and the grounds of the decision made are carefully recorded. And over time, we will build up the corpus of knowledge, just like case law.
The Chairman: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Chairman, the Prime Minister has laid out clearly the realities of the world we face. It is more uncertain, more fragmented and more competitive than before. In such a world, innovation is not optional. It is central to Singapore’s long-term economic strength and strategic resilience.
The Government’s $37 billion commitment under Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2030 (RIE2030) Plan reflects foresight and discipline. It is a deliberate investment in deepening our capabilities so that Singapore remains competitive, relevant and able to create real opportunities for our people. As we move into the next phase, I would like to focus on two priorities that will determine whether this investment delivers its full impact. First, anchoring and capturing value from innovation. Second, sustaining renewal within our talent system.
Singapore has built strong research and innovation capabilities over decades – in semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, biomedical sciences and AI. These were the result of sustained and deliberate choices. As our ecosystem matures, the emphasis must increasingly shift from building capability to anchoring value. In a small and open economy, we will always participate in global value chains. Participation in global value chains is not enough. We must anchor higher-value segments here in Singapore.
Anchoring value means retaining intellectual property (IP), scaling Singapore-headquartered enterprises and creating high value roles for Singaporeans across the innovation chain. Traditional research indicators – publications, patents and grants – remain important measures of quality. But as investment scales up, it is appropriate that we continue sharpening how we track economic impact. This includes attention to IP anchored locally, enterprise growth driven by domestic innovation, productivity gains linked to publicly funded research as well as high-skilled opportunities created for Singaporeans.
We cannot compete on scale. We compete on focus, execution and value capture. This is not a change of direction. It is disciplined refinement. It ensures that our accumulated research depth translates into sustained economic strength. Excellence in research must translate into consequence for our economy.
Innovation ultimately depends on people. Singapore has built strong institutions, attracted global expertise and expanded our local research base. These are significant achievements. As our ecosystem matures, renewal becomes as important as accumulation. Strong systems endure when experience and fresh perspectives reinforce one another.
We can continue strengthening renewal by providing meaningful leadership opportunities for emerging innovators, recognising mentorship and leadership development within our institutions, designing mission-based programmes with structured progression pathways.
These refinements build on existing strengths. When younger Singaporeans see that frontier ideas can be pursued and realised here, and that leadership pathways are real, confidence in our innovation ecosystem deepens. Renewal is not about replacing experience. It is about ensuring succession.
Innovation policy is not about funding levels only. It is about incentives, institutions and value capture. What we measure influences behaviour. Who we empower influences direction. Where value is anchored determines national strength.
The Government has taken a bold and necessary step with RIE2030. If we steward this investment with discipline, anchoring value and renewing talent, Singapore will not merely participate in technological change. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how RIE2030 will continue strengthening value capture and structured renewal pathways as we move into this next phase.
The Chairman: Minister Gan.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Chairman, Dr Choo Pei Ling highlighted the need to anchor and capture value from innovation and sustain renewal within our talent system. RIE2030 will focus on contributing to our economy and national priorities, and ensuring our research capabilities and talent remain globally competitive.
We will launch a number of new large-scale, cross-cutting RIE Flagships and RIE Grand Challenges. These will focus on research and innovation, which can drive outcomes in major economic sectors and key national strategic priorities.
For example, the Semiconductor RIE Flagship seeks to strengthen Singapore's position as a strategic node in the global semiconductor supply chain, building new research capabilities and advancing the manufacturing of chips and semiconductor equipment in Singapore. The benefits from RIE investments extend beyond the economy to the society at large.
The RIE Grand Challenge on Maximising Healthy and Successful Longevity, for example, aims to generate research insights and interventions that support healthy ageing and enhance our ability to slow the onset and progression of cognitive and physical decline. On the other hand, our National Precision Medicine Programme aims to develop more targeted treatments based on the genetic make-up of our patients and our population.
RIE2030 will also address sustainability challenges through targeted investments in areas such as decarbonisation, climate adaptation and sustainable urban development. We will develop a comprehensive portfolio of decarbonisation solutions. We will also accelerate Singapore's nuclear safety research through the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Institute (SNRSI) to explore safe, clean energy options for our future energy mix.
For climate science and adaptation, we will develop integrated solutions for flood prevention, urban heat management and coastal protection. We will strengthen Singapore's resource resilience through advanced water treatment, next-generation urban farming and circular waste management systems. Enhanced climate science capabilities will provide more precise weather forecasting and climate projections, strengthening Singapore's competitive advantage in weather-sensitive sectors like aviation and maritime.
We will continue to support the building of strong collaborations between our research institutions and private sector partners to conduct industry-relevant research and development, and to commercialise inventions and technologies from publicly funded research. Through these collaborations, our institutions build up capabilities and know-how while meeting industry needs, enabling our researchers to commercialise their IP with companies, developing innovative products and services. This in turn spurs increased private sector investments in Singapore and the creation of new high-value jobs while further strengthening Singapore's RIE ecosystem.
We are also scaling up platforms that bring together our institutes of higher learning (IHLs), public research institutes and industry to accelerate commercialisation of technological advancements in strategic areas including medical diagnostics and additive manufacturing. For example, we will continue to support the establishment of corporate laboratories between companies and IHLs, to address industry challenges and support their journey to becoming product builders.
Our research and development (R&D) investments have also created good jobs. In 2023, more than 60,000 jobs were associated with R&D activities. Research Scientists and Engineers accounted for over 70% of such jobs.
We will sustain our investments in talent and basic research. RIE2030 will seek to attract top and upcoming researchers while nurturing local talent across research, engineering and innovation domains. Talent schemes such as the National Research Foundation (NRF) Fellowships and Investigatorships, Returning Singapore Scientist Scheme and the NRF Professorship enable awardees to establish strong teams and access advanced facilities needed for ambitious and high-impact research.
NRF has introduced a new Postdoctoral Award to support high potential postdoctoral talents to pursue independent research. International postgraduate scholarships for Singaporeans will also be enhanced to broaden global exposure and open up new avenues for value creation.
These moves will help to strengthen Singapore’s deep tech and commercialisation talent pipeline. We will continue to attract top-tier and promising research talent and enhance links between our researchers and the global community, which will anchor a strong base of scientific capabilities here that will spur future breakthroughs and create value in the long term.
The Chairman: Any clarifications for the Minister? No? Then we move on. Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Mr Chairman, climate has two faces and Singapore must deal with both of these with one budget.
First, climate is a global commons. As in so many things for a small and open economy, Singapore is a price taker of global norms of behaviour. We cannot ourselves dictate how fast the sea-levels rise, how much human activity to curtail, how little carbon is emitted into the air. We must instead prepare and protect, as much as we can, this little piece of land, one degree north of the equator.
This is the second face of climate change, that although much happens is a result of all countries acting in concert, the impact on specific countries must be dealt with by each country on its own. No global saviour is going to come and give us a helping hand.
There are very few countries that can say with confidence and indeed, with enough bankability, to say what we are saying with this Budget – that we, as a country and as a people, are prepared to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for generations of the future to protect our sea line, our homes and businesses, because although we are price-takers in the global commons, we are not passive. We have the resolution and resources to ensure climate adaptability.
This is in many ways the Singapore Story. As our forebears have done for us, so now, we must do for our future.
Here, I would like to thank the National Climate Change Secretariat for its achievements in 2025, especially at the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference at Belem, Brazil.
Singapore's 2035 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) aim to reduce emissions to 45 to 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide supporting our 2050 net-zero goal. This shows Singapore's commitment, even though we contribute only 0.1% of the world's emissions. Can I ask the Minister, what is the expected impact to Singapore's climate goals from the United States' (US') stance on climate, including most recently its withdrawal from international climate organisations?
Second, in view of the Prime Minister's mention during Budget on Carbon Tax pricing to possibly adopt the lower range of $50 per million tonne of carbon dioxide, I would like to ask what is the progress on Singapore's key domestic mitigation measures to meet our 2030 NDC target? What progress has Singapore made in procuring carbon credits to meet our climate targets? And if we do cut to $50, how do we ensure businesses do not back off on their green transformation plans?
Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Member): Thank you, Chairman. I would like to request an update from the Ministry regarding our progress towards achieving net zero by 2050. As a small nation, there is so much we can do to harness solar energy through rooftop installations and water-based solutions. Given our limited land resources, it is understandable that we are focusing on importing green energy from neighbouring countries. However, this approach carries risk, including high costs and the vulnerability of relying on external sources, especially in adverse situations.
I would appreciate insights from the Ministry on the specific actions taken to reach net zero. I do support the importance of energy efficiency, and the Energy Efficiency Grant is a positive step in this direction. It is crucial for Singapore to demonstrate its commitment to climate change mitigation and carbon reduction. By doing so, we not only showcase our responsible actions to the world, but also protect ourselves from severe flooding and rising sea levels with the counter measures in place.
Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, the Prime Minister signalled in his Budget speech that the Government is considering the lower end of the planned carbon tax range for 2030, citing weaker global climate momentum. While we still have time before deciding, how does the Government ensure that there is enough pressure on large emitters to decarbonise?
With the recent carbon tax increase, how does the Government evaluate its impact and progress on decarbonisation, given that the allowance system makes the decision-making process more complex, both for firms and for price setters? Is progress fast enough? Have key performance indicators (KPIs) for allowances been met? Which allowance recipients are resisting decarbonisation? What is the Government's evaluation of the carbon taxes effect on the development of domestic renewables projects and projects importing low carbon electricity to Singapore? Has the constrained supply of high-quality international carbon credits pushed Singapore towards higher reliance on low carbon electricity import projects?
These are pertinent questions as our electricity use accelerates, particularly with the expansion of data centre capacity. While the Government should support higher levels of low carbon electricity use in data centres beyond the 50% stated in the second data centre call for application, is the increase in demand for electricity hampering our decarbonisation efforts? Are big tech firms also out competing smaller users, like small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and households, for cheaper renewable electricity?
Even without the AI-driven expansion, green electricity is in high demand due to increased electrification. The Government should consider tougher measures on data centres and other key polluters alongside the carbon tax.
Frameworks already exist in the form of efficiency standards and grants to support progress. What is needed is ambition to scale up incentives and disincentives, alongside more clarity on what our emissions roadmap looks like in the industrial sector.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Chairman, in a more fragmented global environment, climate policy is no longer moving in lockstep. The US has pulled back from certain multilateral processes, while Europe and regional partners are progressing at differing speeds.
Singapore, as a small and trade-exposed economy, must navigate this divergence carefully. The business community thanks the Government's position that our carbon tax trajectory is set with a pragmatic and calibrated approach – taking into account international developments, development competitiveness and the progress of decarbonisation technologies. The long-term direction is clear. But in the near term, calibration must remain dynamic.
How does Government continuously assess whether Singapore's carbon pricing remains aligned with major trading partners to minimise carbon leakage and unintended relocation of emissive activities?
Beyond the tax trajectory, coordination is equally important. If decarbonisation is left to firms individually, costs may fragment and SMEs may fall behind. One way is to manage through structured supply chain coordination. Large procurers – our \"queen bees\" – can lead by setting common reporting standards, sharing tools and co-funding capability building across their supplier networks.
Will Government consider scaling such supply chain-led models, so that decarbonisation becomes coordinated and investable, rather than uneven and burdensome?
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Chair, we are in a race to a low-carbon future while I am in a race against time. In his Budget 2026 speech, the Prime Minister acknowledged the decline in global climate momentum, which may see Singapore pegging its carbon tax at the lower end of the $50 to $80 per tonne range by 2030. This would be buffered by other measures, such as developing other energy sources, importing low-carbon electricity and scaling up the use of electric vehicles (EVs).
However, one area of growing concern is the significant carbon footprint incurred by the use of generative AI (GenAI). Singapore is taking much-needed steps forward but also risks leaving a larger environmental footprint with every step.
How can Singapore ensure AI development is climate-aligned? The carbon footprint of GenAI can vary significantly, depending on factors, such as model size, training frequency, cooling systems and the energy mix powering data centres. Given this, does the Ministry have an estimate of the environmental footprint based on the planned AI scale-up? If yes, how does it fare against our existing footprint?
How does the Ministry intend to quantify Singapore-specific emissions arising from AI development? Is there a framework to measure and publicly disclose the carbon footprint associated with large-scale AI infrastructure?
How is the projected energy demand from AI being incorporated into Singapore's long-term carbon modelling and emissions trajectory planning? Are there plans to also implement carbon taxes on AI infrastructure to encourage responsible use? What is the expected carbon tax rates, considering all known factors?
The increase in carbon tax rates will translate into higher costs borne by corporations and communities. What measures will the Government take to alleviate the burden on businesses, households and individuals for a successful race to a low-carbon transition?
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, the new global order, AI advancements and climate pressures are reshaping economies, lives and livelihoods. Climate change is not a distant threat. Its impact is already felt. 2024 was one of the warmest years on record, with total rainfall 8.1% above the long-term annual average.
But around the world broadly, the momentum for climate action has slowed. A report by Climate Forecasting Consortium's Inevitable Policy Response showed that decelerating or regressive policy surged by over 500% in 2025.
In Singapore, many companies want to transition, yet some may lack the expertise. Others, particularly large emitters, find it not so easy to pivot and require high capital investments to improve efficiencies and transform their operations.
In some sectors, commercially viable low carbon substitutes are not yet available at scale. In this regard, I seek the Government's views in three areas. In a world where climate action is slowing or increasingly becoming politicised, how will Singapore maintain credibility of our carbon tax policy while ensuring that industries remain competitive and our country is economically viable, especially vis-à-vis other countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Last year, I raised a Parliamentary Question regarding the structuring of transition allowances. Sir, we should remain transparent about allowances and committed in our push towards decarbonisation. Could the Ministry share more about future plans for the use of transitional allowances and purchasing of international carbon credits to ease near-term pressures, while ensuring that the integrity of our carbon price signal remains strong?
Beyond carbon policies, the transition will also depend on whether firms and workers can adapt. The recently published Green Skills Report defines what are green jobs and green skills, finding that such competencies are being integrated into mainstream roles, not just specialist jobs, with about 5,000 workers projected to be needed by 2030. It also reviewed more than a hundred existing interventions and programmes which have been implemented by agencies and stakeholders thus far.
How successful have current interventions been, in terms of translating into jobs filled and income growth for Singaporeans? How can Singapore grow into a green skills hub for ASEAN and the wider Asian region?
Finally, amid the evolving technological landscape with increased adoption of AI, advanced manufacturing and digital systems, how is Singapore building a pipeline of hybrid green digital talent? At the heart of it, is how Singapore can sustain credible climate action while remaining competitive and building capabilities needed for the transition. No single country, especially one as small and trade-exposed as ours, can solve this alone.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Chairman, in this Budget focusing on helping workers to transit in a changing world, I want to talk about how our decarbonisation plans translate into opportunity, not anxiety, especially for workers and companies in carbon-exposed sectors.
The UK established a dedicated North Sea Transition Authority in 2022 to manage industrial and workforce transition in a coordinated manner. Singapore's context is different, but as carbon pricing rises, we may want to consider whether stronger sector-level coordination is needed for marine and energy-intensive industries.
Closer to home, Sembcorp Industries has pivoted steadily into renewables, expanding its solar and battery energy storage portfolio. Seatrium is delivering cleaner energy projects and offshore renewable projects right at the Sembawang Shipyard. This demonstrates that our traditional capabilities can evolve to support the energy transition.
Many technicians in these sectors already have strong skills in electrical systems, safety compliance, fabrication and project management. These are transferable skills to electric vessel servicing, offshore renewables support, battery systems and industrial energy efficiency.
I suggest the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) considers establishing a coordination function to map sector exposure, identify transferable skills and align industries, agencies and employers early. In this way, workers need not look for greener pastures elsewhere. They can build greener careers here in Singapore. The green transition can and must be a mobility ladder, and decarbonisation should strengthen, not weaken, Singapore's industrial workforce.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Gan.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Chairman, Sir, let me thank Members for their interest in the subject of climate change, which has long-term implications for Singapore's competitiveness, our energy security and our resilience. With your permission, I will take clarifications after this speech.
Let me first begin with the fundamentals. Whatever the political debates of the day, the physical reality of climate change will continue its course. In fact, its effects are becoming more pronounced, more frequent and more costly.
Globally, last year was among the hottest on record, with rising ocean temperatures and intensifying extreme weather events driving higher economic losses worldwide. These impacts are especially acute in Southeast Asia, one of the world's most climate-vulnerable regions.
As a highly open economy dependent on regional stability and global supply chains, Singapore is directly exposed to these risks. In short, climate change is no longer a future risk. It is already affecting lives and livelihoods, here and now – and the costs of inaction will only continue to rise.
At the same time, we must acknowledge the reality on the ground, especially on the political front.
Global climate action is under strain. Some countries have slowed down the implementation of climate actions and started to review their climate policies. The recent decision by the US to withdraw from the Paris Agreement has introduced additional uncertainty into global climate cooperation. At the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), countries could not reach consensus on the phasing out of fossil fuels. Some multinational companies have also scaled back their sustainability commitments.
These developments do present cause for concern. But we must be clear that while global progress has been uneven, it would be a mistake to conclude that climate action is no longer relevant.
Some developed countries such as the UK and European Union (EU) members continue to make sustained emissions cuts towards their 2030 NDC targets. Over 130 countries have set NDC targets for 2035. In total, these targets cover around 80% of global emissions, including the US before it withdrew from the Paris Agreement.
China, the world's largest emitter, has committed for the first time to absolute emissions reductions beyond its peak. Malaysia has done so too. South Korea's 2035 NDC target range is aligned to a linear pathway to net zero, with room to improve.
Major economies are also continuing to make sustained investments in clean energy and technology. Clean energy now attracts around two thirds of global energy investment. In many countries, technologies such as solar and wind are already cheaper than some fossil fuel alternatives.
For many countries and companies, investing in clean technologies is increasingly the rational choice – improving energy security, lowering long-term costs and creating growth and good jobs.
Overall, while the current global picture is mixed and political momentum is uneven, economics, technology and nature will eventually drive the global transformation towards a low-carbon future.
Against this backdrop, Singapore approaches climate change as a climate realist. We begin with three hard realities. First, climate change is real, worsening, and will shape the operating environment for our economy and society. Second, Singapore contributes only 0.1% of global emissions. While what we do alone cannot solve this global crisis, we must make our contributions as a responsible member of the international community. This spurs others to do likewise and helps us secure our own long-term competitiveness and resilience in a carbon-constrained world. Third, Singapore is alternative-energy disadvantaged. Mature and easily deployable decarbonisation options are simply not available to us. Our transition will be more challenging and will require more lead time. Therefore, Singapore needs to prepare early for a world that will become increasingly carbon-constrained and climate-impaired. If we delay action, the eventual adjustment will be sharper, more costly and more disruptive for us.
At the same time, we must calibrate our climate actions carefully, taking into consideration global developments to manage near-term costs and competitiveness for our households and our industries.
Let me outline now our approach.
First, sending the right signal through carbon pricing. As we announced earlier, we have increased the carbon tax to $45 per tonne this year. As the world decarbonises, businesses and economies that are more emission-intensive will become less attractive to carbon-conscious investors and consumers. Carbon pricing sends a clear economy-wide signal that emissions carry a cost and that cleaner solutions have a value.
Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms He Ting Ru asked about the carbon tax and how the carbon tax can encourage sustainable AI usage and adoption of renewable energy respectively. Carbon tax plays an important role through the right-pricing signal. Power generation companies pass on their carbon tax burden to end users through higher electricity prices.
This increase, which is small for households but more significant for energy-intensive companies, leads to two effects. First, this drives end-consumers such as data centre operators to be more energy efficient, which helps to promote more sustainable adoption of AI. Second, this narrows the difference in costs between cleaner energy alternatives and fossil-fuel based options.
Carbon pricing is gaining traction globally. Carbon pricing adoption continues to expand, driven in part by measures such as the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which started this year. The UK will introduce theirs next year.
In our region, Thailand introduced a carbon tax last year, Malaysia plans to do so this year and Japan will make its national emissions trading system mandatory this year. For Singapore, decarbonisation will be more costly than for many other economies because of our resource constraints and lack of alternatives. This means our carbon tax must be right-priced to spur companies to invest in low-carbon technologies and reduce their emissions.
But pacing also matters. As Mr Mark Lee and Ms Lee Hui Ying have noted, we must manage the near- to medium-term cost impact on our households and businesses, relative to our regional competitors.
We are therefore reviewing the carbon tax trajectory for 2028 and beyond, and will announce future rates in advance. If the global push for climate action slows down significantly, we may need to position ourselves toward the lower end of the previously announced range of $50 to $80 per tonne by 2030. We will support our households and businesses through this transition.
It may be challenging for some companies in emission-intensive and trade-exposed sectors to decarbonise in the near term. This makes it difficult for them to compete with firms operating in locations with low or no carbon tax. We are engaging these affected companies to support their transition.
We will also support households to manage energy costs through additional U-Save rebates as we have announced.
Ms Poh Li San and Mr Azhar Othman asked about progress towards our climate goals. We are making steady progress on various fronts. For example, we have reached our 2030 solar deployment target of two gigawatt-peak ahead of schedule and will raise our 2030 target to two gigawatt-peak, as announced by the Prime Minister in his Budget speech earlier. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) will provide more details on clean energy during its Committee of Supply (COS).
We have also made good progress in the built environment and land transport. We have greened 66% of our buildings as of last year, up from 61% the year before. We are on track to reach 80% by 2030, reducing emissions while helping businesses to save cost on energy.
We are also progressing well towards our goal of having all vehicles run on cleaner energy by 2040. Last year, 85% of newly registered cars were cleaner energy models, up from 82% in 2024. EVs were the top-selling new cars registered last year.
Every effort matters. Together, they form the backbone of our domestic mitigation effort.
Because our domestic options are limited, cross-border solutions are essential. Carbon credits is one example. Carbon credits allow us to decarbonise by financing emission reductions in overseas sites where there is greater potential for decarbonisation. To date, we have signed 10 Implementation Agreements with countries such as Vietnam, Thailand and Peru. We have successfully operationalised four of these agreements so far. Building on this momentum, we will operationalise our fifth agreement on 31 March with Thailand, with a call for projects under our partnership. This marks our first operationalised agreement with an ASEAN member.
We are creating clear demand signals for carbon credits. Last September, we announced the award for about two million tonnes of high-integrity, nature-based credits from projects in Ghana, Paraguay and Peru. A second Request for Proposal for both technology and nature-based carbon credits is currently in progress.
Looking ahead, we are exploring novel solutions such as biomethane, low-carbon hydrogen solutions and nuclear in the longer term.
Not all pathways will succeed. But we must continue to study our options and create more options for Singapore.
The climate transition will create new growth opportunities in areas such as green manufacturing, carbon services and trading, and sustainable finance. We will help our enterprises navigate this transition and thrive in this future economy.
We have a suite of support schemes that businesses, particularly SMEs, can tap on. This includes the Enterprise Sustainability Programme and the Enterprise Development Grant. In addition, we are supporting companies to build capabilities, including in sustainability reporting through schemes such as the Sustainability Reporting Grant. This helps them remain integrated into the global supply chains.
As Mr Mark Lee noted, green procurement is another important enabler for the transition. Green procurement stimulates demand and revenue for companies that can operate more sustainably and offer lower-carbon products.
Since last year, the Government has set aside up to 4% of tender evaluation criteria for environmentally sustainable considerations for large construction, and information and communications technology (ICT) hardware tenders. [Please refer to clarification later in the debate.] This provides opportunities for our businesses to build a track record to meet the demands of other buyers and investors who are seeking green goods and services.
For example, large companies with significant purchasing power such as Siemens and Schneider Electric have their own green procurement frameworks globally. We continue to support greener procurement choices in a manner that takes into account industry readiness and international developments.
Most importantly, as Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin have said, we will support our workers to capture opportunities in this green transition. For example, we are implementing new training programmes in sustainability reporting and in the energy sector, two priority areas identified by the Green Skills Committee.
To pull together the many strands of work, the Singapore Business Federation has recommended establishing a public-private Carbon Transition Council to support companies in transition planning and seize green opportunities. We are assessing the proposal and will provide an update in due course.
Climate change cannot be solved by any single country. It requires collective action. Even as we press on domestically, we are working with international partners to push ahead with global climate action. Singapore contributes by catalysing flows of finance and shaping credible frameworks.
At the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), we launched the Financing Asia's Transition Partnership (FAST-P) to bring together public, private and philanthropic partners to finance Asia's green transition. Singapore has pledged up to US$500 million to FAST-P, with the aim of crowding in up to US$5 billion of commercial capital. The Green Investments Partnership under FAST-P has achieved its first close with US$510 million in committed capital – 10 times the Government's initial contribution of US$50 million. This will be deployed to support green and sustainable infrastructure projects.
We are also doing our part to support the development of high-integrity carbon markets and rolling out novel types of carbon credits such as energy transition credits to support early coal phase-outs in the region. These efforts reduce regional climate risks, strengthen economic resilience and reinforce Singapore's role as a trusted and credible partner.
Finally, mitigation alone is not enough. Even under optimistic scenarios, the world will face increasingly severe climate impacts. We must undertake adaptation as a core pillar of our long-term climate resilience. We are developing a National Adaptation Plan to strengthen resilience across infrastructure, public health, water, food and coastal protection. We are ramping up targeted measures, particularly to address heat stress. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment will elaborate on this.
Mr Chairman, the road ahead will be bumpy. Global climate action will remain uneven. Technologies will mature at uncertain speeds. The cost impact will need to be managed carefully. But the direction towards a low-carbon future is clear and we are heartened that the world has made meaningful progress. The annual increase in global carbon emissions is now at 0.3% – one-fifth that in the decade before the Paris Agreement was signed – although this is still not enough to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Singapore's task is not to posture, but to prepare and to act. We are a climate realist. We will watch developments in global climate action and key technologies that will inform the pace at which we ought to move. We will do what we must, to secure our survival and prosperity in the low-carbon and climate-impaired world of the future. By decarbonising steadily and adapting decisively, we will ensure that Singapore remains competitive, liveable and resilient for many decades ahead.
The Chairman: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin: Thank you, Chairman and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his speech as well. I have two clarification questions. The first is really in the acknowledgement that Singapore is a small player and at the same time, we continue to be a trusted partner to others who are on the same journey as us.
Could Deputy Prime Minister please share more, whether there are plans, especially if the recent Green Skills Report and opportunities for us to expand to provide talent to wider Asia, beyond just creating good jobs for our people, this will also allow us to build closer relationships regionally for greater effort. And my second clarification is on transparency and plans for transition allowances, moving forward.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you, Chairman. On the carbon allowance, MTI will respond to that issue during MTI's COS. On the regional cooperation, indeed, we are working with international partners to reach out to our regional contacts, especially in the developing countries, to help to train professionals and to help to train skills development to do capacity building, so that we can come together and move forward together in this journey towards climate action. So, I think we are indeed doing this, together with our international partners.
The Chairman: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan: Thank you, Chairman. I just have one clarification for the Deputy Prime Minister. I am heartened to learn that Singapore is doubling down on its decarbonisation plans, and I also refer to the Singapore Business Federation Carbon Transition Council, which was mentioned in the Deputy Prime Minister's reply. And I wanted to seek clarification because the council sounded like it was looking at just professional skills transition. I hope that would not exclude any engineers or technicians who are looking to build their careers in this transition plan as well.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you, as I said that we are assessing and evaluating the proposal. We will discuss with the Singapore Business Federation further and to see how we can structure it, so that it is effective and be inclusive, so that it will be effective in helping our companies and helping our professionals to be trained and to be ready for this transition.
The Chairman: Mr Azhar Othman.
Mr Azhar Othman: Thank you, Chairman. As far as I made aware that we are planning to import green energy from different countries – being vulnerable to these kinds of power sources, can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify how do we mitigate the risk of importing such power from these countries? As we all know, certain position or a certain situation can happen that this may be blocked or disrupted?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you, Chairman. We adopt a multi-pronged approach to ensure our energy supply and security. Today, we rely primarily on natural gas and even our natural gas supplies are imported. We do not produce our own natural gas, so there is a certain need to ensure supply resilience, and this is something that we always think about, we always consider and we need to invest.
To some extent, we build storage system for the natural gas. We have long-term contracts and we also have multiple contracts with multiple suppliers and that will ensure our supply chain resilience.
And similarly, as we explore alternative energy sources, we must also keep in mind this is energy security. Whether it is an import of electricity, whether it is import of other possible energy sources, we will always have to bear in mind this energy security. One strategy is really diversification. The other way is to make sure that you have long-term contracts, you have secured contracts and you have alternatives.
So, we would not be able to rely on any single particular source, any single particular form of energy. So, I think diversification is our key strategy in ensuring energy security. Of course, we need to do as much as we can internally and that is why we are maximising our solar deployment and explore other alternatives, including the possibility of a nuclear at some point in time.
The Chairman: Moving on, Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Chairman, Singapore's latest resident total fertility rate (TFR) stands at 0.97, a historic low. There are several drivers for this, all of which are common across developed countries.
First, family formation is occurring later. As marriage and first births shift into the 30s, the biological and practical window for having children narrows.
Second, the costs of raising children have risen. This includes financial costs, such as housing, childcare and education, as well as opportunity costs. The perceived career penalty of motherhood remains real, so many higher-earning women postpone parenthood.
Third, recent years have also been marked by changes in attitudes towards parenthood. As reflected in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, both young men and women increasingly find meaning in life outside of parenthood and there is a broad movement towards an increased acceptance of not having children.
These are common threads across developed countries, with France and the Nordic countries having the best TFR in the developed world. Although, even in these countries, it is falling – with Sweden and Norway now at 1.43 and 1.44; and France at 1.62. The one common thread these countries have though, is a heavy socialisation of childcare related costs, all the way from childcare to university, with healthcare costs being state-provided and long periods of parental leave. It was reported in 2021 that France allocates 3.6% of its gross domestic product (GDP) to family policy, which is among the highest in the OECD.
The general pattern is that the greater the role the state plays in the childbearing processes, the more likely it appears people are to have children. And on this topic, I am a socialist. I look forward to hearing the Government's detailed plans to improving the TFR and playing a role in supporting in the childbearing journey.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Mr Chairman, during the Budget debate, I spoke about the need to take decisive action by assuring Singaporeans that the basic costs of child-raising should never be a barrier to having children. The Prime Minister said the Government will not give up. His words will resonate with many Singaporeans – perhaps, even my wife.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
It is also now time to fundamentally rethink our long-term population strategies and plans. First, for the past few years, our fertility rate has been far lower than the Population White Paper's assumed fertility rate of 1.2. This has implications on immigration and integration. Slowly but steadily, immigration rates have been creeping up. New citizenships granted reached an all-time-high – around 23,000 per year.
If our citizen births – around 29,000 in 2024 – continue to decline, there will come a day when the number of new citizenships given to immigrants exceeds the number of Singaporean babies born. We must delay this for as long as possible.
Singaporeans deserve a lot of credit for maintaining an open and harmonious society, but we should not take this for granted. We must increase the emphasis on assimilation. Within our immigration framework, this means prioritising immigrants who have spent a longer time in Singapore and who have married into Singaporean families. It means prioritising those who are contributing in a larger way to society. It means prioritising those who have a basic proficiency in English, which is the language of interaction in our common space. By extension, this also means rejecting behaviour which ostracises our minority communities, such as shop signs that do not have English.
And it also means ensuring that our common spaces at work, home and play support the continued integration of immigrants. This is not the Government's job alone. Businesses and the community have a part to play.
Second and finally, technology has advanced, and especially at the intersection of AI and robotics. This has granted us a new opportunity to reduce our reliance on foreign labour. Today, our economy creates one million jobs that are held by Work Permit holders, with a significant number in construction and manufacturing. COVID-19 showed how vulnerable we were.
In other countries, intelligent robots destroy jobs and displaced citizen workers. But in our situation, intelligent robots can help to reduce our reliance on foreign labour, creating a more resilient economy and freeing up infrastructure for other uses.
In conclusion, if we are willing to take new action with greater ambition and align all Singaporeans with our strategies, we can build a better Singapore together.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, earlier this month, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) published Singapore's wealth inequality data for the first time. Our Wealth Gini stands at 0.55, higher than our Income Gini and likely an underestimate. Wealth and income inequality are distinct problems and they require distinct solutions. Wealth compounds across a lifetime and passes down across generations.
MOF's own data shows that social mobility is moderating among children born to fathers in the bottom 20%, the proportion who remains stuck in that bracket increase across successive cohorts. The ladder is still there, but the rungs are getting further apart. The child development account has one great feature.
The first step grant is automatic, but the Child Development Account (CDA) is designed for money to be spent on healthcare and childcare, not saved. And its most substantial feature, co-matching of up to $15,000, accrues only to families who can afford to deposit money in the first place. The families who need the help most, benefit the least.
I propose that Singapore study the introduction of a Baby Bond. A universal state endowed account opened automatically at birth, invested in a diversified and low-cost portfolio over 18 years. If directed to Singapore equities, it gives every Singaporean child a stake in the nation. Time and compounding do the heavy lifting. A meaningful endowment invested early becomes real capital by adulthood.
I propose three design principles: one, a universal starting grant. The same base endowment for every Singaporean child. After all, we are all equal at birth. Two, public funding only and no private contributions. The UK's Child Trust Fund allowed private top ups and it ended up compounding the advantage of families that were already ahead. Three, withdrawals restricted to wealth building uses only – education, entrepreneurship, housing or retirement savings.
One more reason this is timely is that the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS) appears set to launch in 2028. A Baby Bond built on the same lifecycle investment logic could roll over directly into the LRIS at maturity. Potentially structured as an extension of the same scheme, drawing on the same commercial providers, a hypothetical $5,000 endowment at birth, compounded over a lifetime, could become $200,000 with a conservative lifecycle approach, or even $400,000 and more with a more aggressive equities-based strategy.
And therefore, Chairman, I ask the PMO to commission a feasibility study on the Baby Bond scheme for Singapore. It will be a useful arrow in a quiver to tackle wealth inequality.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, I rise to speak on population sustainability and the Singapore core. Our TFR remains low. If this trend persists, it will pose long-term structural challenges. At the same time, we are ageing rapidly. Longevity is a blessing, but it also means a shrinking ratio of working-age residents supporting rising healthcare and social needs.
Caregiving demands will increase for seniors, children and students. We will need more preschool teachers, nurses and counsellors. This reinforces the need to strengthen our workforce so families have the confidence and support to raise children while caring for their elderly.
Recent Budgets have introduced enhanced childcare subsidies, housing grants and expanded parental leave. May I ask whether they have led to meaningful improvements in our TFR? If not, what constraints are limiting their impact? Beyond fertility, there is another dimension to our population trends. Singapore is a global city. Many Singaporeans are internationally exposed and increasingly form transnational marriages. In Zhenghua where I serve, I have received a growing number of appeals from residents seeking clearer citizenship or permanent residency pathways for their spouses.
National data reflects this shift. The proportion of transnational marriages has risen from 30% to 37% in the last five years. Today, more than one in three marriages involves a Singaporean and a non-Singaporean. There are approximately 270,000 Long-Term Visit Pass holders, many part of Singaporean family units. Meanwhile, the Permanent Resident (PR) population has remained relatively stable at 520,000 to 540,000. Many of these spouses contribute economically and socially. They are raising Singaporean children who will form a part of our future Singapore core.
May I therefore ask whether we are reviewing the overall PR framework to accommodate both transnational families and the manpower needed to drive industries and create good jobs for Singaporeans?
Mr Chairman, this is a long-term challenge requiring clarity and consistency. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin: Thank you, Sir. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong was a great hype-man for Minister Indranee so I am really looking forward to her speech. In my past speeches, I have made calls for better fertility health support, including on subsidies, immune deficiency foundation treatments and health screenings. In my Budget speech yesterday, I spoke about how our super-aged society status and low TFR presents an existential challenge.
Over the past few years, the Government has made significant efforts, including our Made For Families plan. These are deeply personal decisions, and we must frame it sensitively and optimistically for younger Singaporeans to feel hopeful about having someone to have and to hold through good and bad times in life.
I urge the Government to continue to respond meaningfully, not incrementally, and consider what are the most meaningful ways between direct cash transfers to offset costs, provision of services, such as childcare, or even tax measures.
Today, I will focus on forming and flourishing families. Sir, love cannot be legislated, but more conducive environments perhaps can be designed. Many youths share how a lack of time and opportunities to meet people as well as economic and social anxieties are some barriers to romance.
Facilitating intentional opportunities to meet new people once youths have left school outside of the grind of work and repeated proximity in shared context, for example, through hobby communities or even volunteering, could ignite a spark. Could we weave some of this into our design of schemes to gently create opportunities for social interaction?
For example, a version of the Culture Pass to encourage shared experiences. By bundling special tickets for two and encourage bringing someone else along. How can Active SG credits help people find new pickleball doubles partners, try a badminton class together? And could mentoring programmes for young professionals have mentors who guide their mentees in small groups or industry fellowships, which do the same?
Next, as informal family care remains central, how can we better support couples and families who want to stay near family members? Beyond broadening housing typologies, which I will speak about in the Ministry of National Development (MND) COS, some seniors now hesitate to move in with their children as it could affect eligibility criteria of certain schemes, such as healthcare subsidies, the Home Caregiving Grant, where seniors adult children's incomes will be factored in, if they are living together. Given the cost pressures on families today, especially for those with young children, could we review mean-testing thresholds for certain support schemes?
A final point. Not everyone may be so fortunate to have family support. I reiterate my call to form parenting circles within neighbourhoods where parents can opt in to share baby items and figure out this phase of life together. This can be done in a systematic way, for example, through Short Message Service (SMSes) sent out by the Government at certain milestones – six months or one year. This time period is important as social isolation within the early years of parenthood correlates with lower fertility intentions for a second child.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Singapore's marriages fell by 6.2% in 2025 compared to 2024 and this significant drop is projected to worsen Singapore's ultra-low TFR, which stood at 0.97 in 2024.
The question is: why are Singaporeans deterred from marrying and having children? Last February, I moved a Motion in Parliament calling for continued review and updating of policies to better support families and the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans. I endorsed a whole-of-society approach to build a Singapore Made For Families.
Through my engagements, it is clear this is a multi-faceted issue requiring enhanced Government support across life stages. At the outset, couples must want to start a family and feel confident they can raise one. As I said during the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill debate, prospective parents have unique concerns. The decision to marry and have children is deeply personal. While no policy can meet every individual need, we must raise the baseline support on several fronts.
First, a home of their own with sufficient space remains a top concern. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has ramped up Build-To-Order (BTO) supply to keep public housing accessible and affordable, yet I still receive many appeals from Woodgrove residents for help with BTO or Sale of Balance Flats. Despite multiple ballots, some couples never secure an opportunity. This becomes a major speed bump in their family journey.
I suggest refining HDB priority schemes to consider applicants' existing living arrangements. Those facing ascertainable hardships, such as overcrowded households, family conflicts or past pregnancy loss, could receive an additional ballot chance.
Second, more support is needed for couples facing conception difficulties. SingHealth data shows roughly one in six couples experience infertility here. Through engagements with residents and Fertility Support Singapore, I have seen financial costs as the top stressor, sometimes forcing couples to abandon their journeys entirely. In this connection, I reiterate several proposals which, in my considered opinion, would establish the \"right conditions\" and constitute \"more support\" by the Government for aspiring parents.
One, promote early and complimentary health screenings for fertility, potentially collaborating with the Registry of Marriages (ROM) and as part of the Healthier SG movement. Two, increased subsidies for assisted reproductive treatments (ART). Three, higher MediSave utilisation limits for ART, allowing treatments in private clinics to reduce long public hospital waits where time is critical. And four, Government co-funding for ART at private clinics, expanding MediSave withdrawals from three to six cycles, coverage for elective egg freezing, subsidised couple screenings and enhanced workplace support for fertility and family building.
Third, on raising children. We must keep education and family expenses affordable. Offer greater flexibility in using Child Development Account funds for preschool-recommended enrichment lessons and field trips, for example.
We must also continue to support continuous career progression for working parents, especially mothers, to ensure stable incomes amid rising costs for children and ageing parents. I urge reinstating working mother tax incentives, allowing mothers who increase their earnings to claim larger relief per child. This would motivate them to stay in or return to the workforce and pursue leadership roles when ready.
In closing, these refinements – better housing access, stronger fertility support and eased family-raising burdens – can help more Singaporeans realise their aspirations. Let us continue building a Singapore truly Made For Families.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Deputy Chairman, in the 15th century, Venice was a wealthy global hub, but as its population weakened, it grew cautious, protecting privilege rather than renewing itself. Venice did not collapse in a single moment. It simply faded as it became smaller than the world around it. Today, with a TFR of 0.97, Singapore faces a similar precipice.
We must continue supporting families, but we cannot assume fertility will rebound fast enough to offset structural ageing. To maintain vitality, a calibrated intake of new residents remain a difficult but necessary reality. But society cannot change faster than it can absorb.
I ask the Minister, what is the Government's planning range for annual population growth over the next decade? What rate is socially and infrastructurally sustainable before housing, transport and healthcare are strained? Are there defined triggers for additional mitigation? And what are the projected parameters toward 2030, so this House can debate numbers alongside principles? Growth must match provision. If growth outruns infrastructure, if trains are crowded, flats are expensive and competition for jobs intensifies, it breeds deep seated resentment as Singaporeans feel squeezed at home.
But if services and jobs expand in lockstep, we replace friction with confidence. Regarding non-resident manpower, we need a more granular approach. Construction manpower is surge capacity that builds our home and infrastructure. Since their interaction with the local workforce is limited, should we give the sector calibrated leeway to meet build targets while holding firms to higher standards of housing, safety and healthcare?
For S Pass and Employment Pass holders, the anxiety is often about concentration by source, by sector and within specific firms, not absolute numbers. Should we publish indicators or define soft thresholds to intervene before clustering becomes entrenched? We must tighten levies, where necessary, and enforce fair workplace practises rigorously, including in hiring outcomes. We must be able to see that locals are being hired, promoted and developed.
Integration must be a deliberate and well-resourced effort to protect our social fabric. Venice's lesson is that hesitation without renewal is fatal. A great city that fails to replenish its people fades through miscalibration. Singapore must not fade. We must renew deliberately, grow steadily and integrate cohesively. Let us remain not a monument to past success, but a living city that continues to matter.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Chairman, last month, Deputy Prime Minister Gan telegraphed that, our TFR \"base has come down further\" in 2025. But our first collapse in TFR actually happened 25 years ago in 2001.
From 1985 to 2000, we had on average 47,000 live births per year. From 2001 to 2020, this plunged to around 40,000. This shift 25 years ago is now creating a moment of reckoning for the size of our resident workforce today, because these smaller birth cohorts are now starting to enter the workforce 25 years later. So, for the first time in Singapore, the birth cohorts hitting working age are smaller than the cohorts aged 65 to 69, that is, those reaching retirement and re-employment age roughly – smaller by 30,000 persons.
Just five years ago, we had almost 20,000 more hitting working age than those aged 65 to 69. From 20,000 more to 30,000 less. A drop of 50,000 over five years. The stark implication is this – to keep our resident workforce growing at the same modest rate as in previous years, we will have to top-up our resident workforce with more new citizens and PRs by around the same number over five years.
Even if we assume a discount for AI-driven productivity growth, we will still need to naturalise quite a lot more compared to current levels. That is why, in my view, we are facing a moment of reckoning in our immigration policies. We need to intensify. This was pre-ordained 25 years ago, when our TFR first collapsed, and those birth cohorts are hitting working age today.
The Government has been stressing the importance of integration to make immigration work. But beyond enhancing integration, I think we also need enhanced equity to make intensified immigration work. And so, I put forth in good faith the following policy proposals.
First, introduce National Service (NS) for new male citizens of working age. This is about enhancing equity between citizens by birth and citizens by choice. The full-time NS can be shorter than two years for pragmatic reasons, but there should also be Operationally Ready National Service (ORNS) obligations.
Second, if we expect larger numbers of new citizens and PRs in our workforce, then let us continue to keep the Employment Pass numbers in our workforce largely constant. At the same time, redouble efforts to manage concentration in certain professions and companies and of certain nationalities. This is about enhancing equity in the job market, in professional recognition and in career progression.
Third, in our autonomous universities, yes, keep the share of foreign undergraduates constant because it is important for Singaporean undergraduates to learn how to collaborate and compete with peers from all around the world. But at the same time, let us look at reducing the number of locally funded scholarships and tuition grants to these foreign students. This is about enhancing the sense of equity for our young adult Singaporeans as they prepare to start their careers.
Finally, let us also look at reducing and managing the concentration of foreign undergraduates in certain courses in our universities. Let us take a whole-of-Government approach to enhance equity for Singaporeans so that we can make immigration work for Singapore and all Singaporeans.
Ms Lee Hui Ying: Mr Deputy Chairman, our senior youths today – not young seniors, but senior youths, those in their late 20s to 30s, are burdened with adulting responsibilities.
They are now in a liminal space. They face a different reality, one marked by disruption and exponential change. They have just entered the workforce, just got married, just started their parenthood journey. And just as they learn to care for their children, they are called to care for their parents too.
They face unique challenges, which risk being left out by supports that are targeted at the usual age groups or life stages. While they strive to remain committed at work, caregiving responsibilities are often unpredictable and do not fall neatly into existing leave categories.
The Prime Minister has sent a clear signal that support for our young parents is important. I urge the Minister to consider a flexi-care leave scheme, which is already adopted by some private organisations. This will give workers the assurance and flexibility to respond to caregiving needs across different life stages without having to choose between their jobs and their families.
It can be for accompanying parents to medical appointments, caring for a child who is unwell or attending to urgent caregiving needs at home – or simply a day to recharge for their own mental well-being, no questions asked.
This is not just a matter of compassion, but of workforce sustainability. By supporting working caregivers, we enable them to stay employed, productive and present, strengthening both our families and our workforce.
Dr Haresh Singaraju (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, in my Budget speech, I asked this House, across domains, is this person's life improving? I now turn to the domain where aspiration most often meets its quiet barrier – the workplace.
This Government has built strong foundations. Thirty weeks of parental leave takes full effect this April. LifeSG credits, the Large Families Scheme – the financial architecture is sound. Yet our TFR remains at 0.97.
The United Nations Population Fund's (UNFPA) 2025 report warned that financial incentives alone are largely ineffective when structural barriers remain. It is not always about money. It is about structure.
We certify our food. We certify our childcare centres. Our estates are built for play and communal living. Housing, education, healthcare costs, each being addressed, each with metrics, each with accountability. We have not certified whether a workplace lets a parent be a parent.
The workplace may be the last significant barrier within our direct reach and it has no metrics.
In the Government's 2021 Marriage and Parenthood survey, 92% of married Singaporeans said they wanted two or more children. The Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) own Family Trends Report published last July found that among women whose families are largely complete, four in 10 ended up with fewer than two. That is a gap between what people want and what the system delivers.
In 2020, Minister Josephine Teo told this House that paternity leave take-up in the public sector was 84% against the national rate of 53%. In MSF's latest Family Trends Report, the national figure is 56%. It barely shifted.
The legislation changed. The culture has not. The public sector understood that. The rest of the market has not caught up. Same law, different culture, different result.
Young couples today already know what a family-friendly workplace looks like – flexible hours without eyebrows raised, nursing rooms, supervisors who check in not just on output but on how you are coping. The Government itself has described this in detail across five areas under its Made For Families initiative.
But no young couple choosing between two job offers can tell which company actually delivers and which just says it does.
The Government already has the Made For Families brand mark, two tripartite standards, the Work-Life Ambassador Scheme, the Flexible Work Arrangement guidelines and the new Shared Parental Leave scheme. At least six instruments, and I have not listed them all. Good intentions, every one of them, but no single standard that tells an employer or a jobseeker what a family-friendly workplace actually looks like.
I have one ask – pilot a Made For Families workplace certification, a tiered national standard that measures where the workplace truly supports family life. Companies that achieve higher tiers receive funding support and visible recognition, a mark that they carry into recruitment so that young Singaporeans know, \"This is a place where I can build a career and a family\".
This goes beyond young couples. When a workplace gets it right for families, that same culture reaches the parent whose child has a disability, the worker juggling a parent's medical appointment and a child's school schedule, and the senior worker navigating health concerns. A certified workplace supports all of them.
We have done this before. The Building and Construction Authority's Green Mark launched in 2005 as a voluntary standard. The Government required public sector buildings to certify first. By 2008, it was statutory for the private sector. Today, over half of our building stock carries the mark. Making the invisible visible changed how an entire industry competed.
Workplace culture is no less invisible and its consequences for families are no less real.
Australia's Family Friendly Workplaces programme, developed with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), has certified employers covering over a million employees in under five years and has since expanded to the UK. The model works.
Start with the public sector. The Made For Families brand mark already sits in the Strategy Group in the PMO. The architecture is there.
The Government has committed approximately $400 million annually for Shared Parental Leave at steady state. Build on that by rewarding certified employees with prominent job listings, enhanced tax deductions and prioritised Government procurement. Make the mark worth carrying.
Mr Chairman, in my Budget speech, I proposed a cross-domain well-being framework to tell us whether people's lives are truly improving. This certification is one practical application measuring the domain where aspiration most often meets its quiet barrier. My generation of parents is not asking the Government to raise our children. We are asking our workplaces to not make us choose between raising them and building a career. I ask for a tiered certification that tells family something no fund transfer can – you can still be you and your employer will make room.
Mr Mark Lee: Chairman, we often speak about population sustainability in terms of birth rates and ageing statistics, but one of the real levers lies in our workplace, in how our workplaces are designed.
Our TFR remains around 0.97, our median age exceeds 42. Labour force growth will slow structurally over the coming decade. These are long-term realities. If workforce tightens but workplace practices do not evolve, growth narrows and opportunity compresses, especially for younger Singaporeans and consequently, our SMEs.
Increasingly, young couples' decision to marry and have children is shaped less by direct costs and more by workplace realities.
They ask: will taking parental leave slow my progression? Will flexible work reduce my visibility? Will returning after a caregiving break affect my career trajectory?
In many SME-heavy sectors, where manpower buffers are thin, extended leave creates operational strain. Employers may be supportive in principle, but without structural solutions, implementation becomes difficult.
At the same time, we must also look at the other end of the workforce. Many seniors today are healthier and able to contribute meaningfully, but businesses still face practical frictions around job redesign, fractional employment, training support and rising employment costs.
Today, workplace flexibility is often negotiated informally. If we are serious about long-term workforce sustainability, flexibility must become structurally supported. This suggests a broader question – how is PMO coordinating across the Ministries to drive systemic workplace reform so that both parenthood and extended employment become operationally viable for businesses, especially SMEs?
Will the Government consider:
(a) Sector-based manpower pools to help firms manage parental leave coverage;
(b) Structured re-entry and transitional support for employees returning from extended caregiving;
(c) Clearer frameworks and tripartite guidance for fractional and part-time employment models; and
(d) Calibrated support for job redesign to make senior employment more productive and less administratively complex?
If we want Singapore to remain competitive in a structurally tight labour market, workplace design cannot be left to evolve slowly. It must become a deliberate national effort. How are we measuring and rewarding companies for the progress, not only in take-up of schemes, but in whether workplaces are becoming genuinely family-supportive and age-inclusive in practice?
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Chairman, supporting families in the workplace.
First, on Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs). FWAs must become workable norms, especially for SMEs. Many want to offer flexibility, but struggle with manpower constraints and workflow redesign. I therefore call for enhanced Budget support to help companies undertake meaningful job redesign for win-win FWA implementations. This should include stronger grants for human resources (HR) transformation, support for temporary backfilling and sector-based advisory teams to guide practical redesign. Flexibility cannot be layered onto outdated structures. Jobs must be redesigned so productivity improves alongside flexibility. That is how FWAs can become sustainable.
Second, we should deepen Singapore's expertise in job redesign. As AI and new technologies reshape industries, investing in a stronger pool of certified job redesign specialists and workforce advisors will strengthen both family support and economic resilience.
Third, childcare remains foundational. Through consultations with unions and our female workers, especially shift workers, we consistently hear that standard childcare hours do not match real work schedules.
I therefore call for more resources to restart and expand extended hours and weekend childcare, particularly in estates with higher concentrations of shift workers, with manpower and wage support to ensure sustainability.
These are workface enablers. If we align flexibility, job redesign and childcare with real work patterns, families will not have to choose between career and caregiving.
Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Chairman, Singapore's TFR fell below one in 2023. The year 2024 was the Year of the Dragon, which typically gives us a boost in the yearly TFR rate. However, the Dragon could only hold the fort for us by keeping the number steady at 0.97 in 2024.
Chairman, I still remain hopeful. Recently, South Korea's birth rate rose for a straight second year in 2025. Its marriage rates also went up. I hope we will soon welcome the same good news for Singapore. In this regard, I would like to ask PMO what is the TFR for 2025.
In light of Singapore's demographic challenges, it is more important than ever before that we keep those in our current labour force resilient and supported. To do so, we must strengthen workplace support for families.
Housework and caregiving remains one of the main reasons for persons to remain outside the workforce. This was cited in the report on Labour Force in Singapore 2025. The majority of caregivers outside the labour force are mothers taking care of children aged 12 and below. When you add in the caregivers caring for children above age 12, the number grows by more than one third.
Three in four of such caregivers are in their 40s or younger, and 66.5% held tertiary qualifications, including degrees. Caregivers have shared that FWAs and practices for more progressive and inclusive workplaces would encourage them to continue working.
From supporting employees who are undergoing fertility treatment, to understanding the pregnant mother and providing that flexibility to the working parent – workplace support for families would go a long way to ensure Singapore is truly Made For Families.
The Government has made commendable efforts in recent years to step up support through a multi‑pronged support framework, such as the introduction and enhancements of Government‑Paid Parental Leave and the tripartite guidelines on flexible work arrangement requests.
The private sector has also started leaning forward and the community has seen ground-up efforts. I would like to highlight the work done by Fertility Support Singapore, a non-profit social advocacy group started by a group of women in 2020. In 2025, they launched a guidebook as a practical resource to help company leaders understand and implement fertility support in the workplace and create a workplace culture that empathises with employees facing fertility challenges. Their aim for this is also to contribute towards a Singapore where \"no employee has to choose between career and family\". I ask that we do the same for all working parents. Guide the employers on what to do, how to be supportive.
To create a truly resilient workforce, a mindset shift is especially important amongst SMEs, which form the backbone of Singapore's economy, contributing around 50% of our GDP and employing about 70% of our workforce. The capacity to adopt progressive workplace practices varies across businesses and industries, given differences in industry characteristics, stage of growth, cost considerations and manpower needs. Larger and better‑resourced organisations, often MNCs, tend to have more established HR functions and larger teams, allowing them to implement family‑friendly measures more comprehensively.
In contrast, SMEs often operate with tighter resources and leaner teams. These structural realities mean that SMEs may find it more challenging to implement such practices and retain talent. This is precisely why additional support for SMEs is crucial, so that progressive workplace practices can take root more evenly across the whole economy. To do this, we should focus on shifting mindsets and reshaping HR practices. Beyond policy and legislative scaffolding, let us invest in changing how employers think about workplace support for families.
This is not to say that working parents should be given preferential treatment. We must also balance the needs of other employees at different life stages, including those who may not be planning to start families, those who are single and those who are caregivers to their parents. Each employee has their own needs. So, too, do employers, and we need to meet their business considerations and operational requirements. Fairness, for employers and employees, must remain a core principle.
How can we do this? I propose that we do this starting with HR practices. I believe that HR practitioners play a significant role in shaping workplace culture and norms. They are often the ones who translate policy into day-to-day practices and guide supervisors on how these policies should be applied.
The tripartite Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP), which administers our national IHRP Certification framework, has played an important role in shaping HR standards across industries. We can leverage this framework to further strengthen HR professionals and their management capacity, by placing greater emphasis on the consistent and fair implementation of family-friendly workplace practices.
For example, how should performance appraisals be conducted fairly for employees returning from maternity leave? How should managers respond appropriately to urgent childcare leave? How should supervisors support employees undergoing fertility treatment? How should HR facilitate conversations and present options to employees navigate challenging family situations?
For the longest time, Chairman, we have left it to private market forces to deal with a national issue. I ask the Government to take national action at a scale commensurate with the seriousness of the problem. A national problem needs actions to be taken at a national level.
Ms Kuah Boon Theng (Nominated Member): Chairman, several Members have spoken about our falling TFR. This is a pressing issue, not just for Singapore, but for many countries around the world. This is especially challenging because there are a myriad of reasons why we are seeing this falling birth rate.
I would like to focus on infertility as a contributing factor. First of all, I support the hon Member Ms Hany Soh's call to promote early fertility screening for couples who are starting their married life together. Her suggestion was actually to partner with ROM. If we are serious about creating greater awareness amongst younger couples that they should not take their fertility for granted, we should also make it easier for couples to pay for fertility tests.
Currently, there are no Government subsidies or MediSave coverage specifically for fertility screening, but there are means-tested subsidies of up to 70% for fertility tests at public hospitals if such tests are \"medically indicated\". What does that mean? This is primarily based on the duration of trying to conceive unsuccessfully and whether there are known underlying health conditions that warrant such testing.
The problem is that couples may not be trying to conceive in the initial years of marriage and by the time they are ready, it may take them a year or even longer to realise that something may be wrong. If they are only undergoing fertility testing for \"medical indications\", it means that any fertility issues are going to be discovered quite late.
So, if we are going to encourage young couples tying the knot to take early steps to undergo fertility screening – such as hormonal profiling and pelvic ultrasounds for women and semen analysis for men – we should extend generous subsidies and allow MediSave coverage to meet the costs if they are carried out within the first year of marriage, for example, whether or not the tests are performed at a public or private clinic.
This could lead to earlier discovery of any underlying health conditions that could affect fertility, such as ovulation issues, endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, low sperm counts or other structural abnormalities, and couples can then receive earlier intervention and treatment. It seems ironic to me that we are telling young couples we will only subsidise the cost of tests that could lead to the discovery that they have \"medical indications\" for infertility, if they already fulfil the definition of \"medical indications\" for fertility testing.
I further echo Ms Hany Soh's call to provide higher subsidies for ART treatments and this should be extended to cover treatment at private centres. Right now, Government co-funding for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) is for up to 75% for three fresh and three frozen cycles, but only if treatment is sought at our three public Assisted Reproductive centres at Singapore General Hospital (SGH), KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) and National University Hospital (NUH).
Even so, patients may have to pay upfront cash deposits of up to $5,000 or more, and the coverage varies depending on whether both or one spouse is Singaporean. Many couples have to undergo a number of cycles to successfully conceive and some may lack the financial resources to keep trying if they do not succeed right away. The stress of hoping for success before subsidies run out, can only make things worse.
An essential part of the strategy to reduce barriers to ART services must include the extension of subsidies to cover services provided by private Assisted Reproductive centres. If subsidies for ART services at public centres are to be increased, it could further overwhelm our public sector healthcare services, which are already stretched thin, and lengthen waiting times for IVF treatment.
Even if we provide a slightly lower subsidy for private care, it will mean giving a range of options for married couples – some may choose to seek treatment at a private centre with some subsidies because it is more affordable to them, whilst others who depend on maximum subsidies can access ART services at our public hospitals.
We can and must help those who want children but cannot conceive without help. We should strive to provide equitable access to ART, so that not only the better off can afford to overcome infertility.
Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Chairman, let me begin with this: there are Singaporeans who do not want children and that is entirely their choice. But there are also many who, in their ideal life plan, hope to have both a meaningful career and children at some point. The issue we face is not desire. It is timing. Structural pressures – long working hours, housing pressures, workplace expectations – are real and policy must continue addressing these.
Allow me to share a personal reflection. Ten years ago, when I was close to my mid-30s, a professional mentor and his wife gently asked me if I was considering having children. I smiled and said, \"Let me give birth to my journal article, before I give birth to a child.\"
In my case, publishing journal articles was my KPI. I felt I needed to stabilise my career first, because I was unsure whether I could give both my work and a child the attention they deserved. For many Singaporeans, it may not be journal publications – it may be a promotion, financial stability, a home or building up savings.
He shared with me a Chinese saying: 我们说成家立业，不是立业成家. We settle down first and then establish a career, and not the other way around. I did not appreciate what he meant then, but over time, I reflected on it differently.
I went on to publish my papers. I eventually started my family, but by then I was in my late 30s. And those who have had children later in life will know, it is simply more physically exhausting.
On hindsight, this was a classic example of the planning fallacy. The planning fallacy is our tendency to assume that future plans will work out smoothly, that constraints can be managed later and that we will have more time than we actually do.
In early adulthood, career milestones are highly salient. Our education system quite rightly trains us to pursue academic excellence, secure good jobs and build economic stability. Family formation, however, is often treated as something that can wait – something we optimise after everything else is in place. But biology does not operate on career timelines. Fertility declines with age. Assisted reproductive technologies exist, but they are not guarantees and their success rates declines as age increases.
This creates a mismatch between perceived flexibility and biological reality. This is not about blaming young Singaporeans. In fact, it is precisely because they are rational and responsible that many delay, wanting to be fully prepared before taking on parenthood. But when we delay family formation until we feel completely ready and overestimate the flexibility of future timelines, we may unintentionally narrow our own options.
So, my proposal is straightforward. Beyond financial incentives, we should address this behavioural blind spot directly.
First, integrate clear, evidence-based fertility education into existing young adult touchpoints – universities, workplaces and premarital programmes – delivered in a neutral and non-judgemental way.
Second, develop life-course planning tools that help individuals map career and family aspirations in parallel, rather than sequentially. In fact, I support the hon Member, Ms Hany Soh's proposal on fertility screening after couples go through ROM. The aim is not to pressure anyone. If someone does not want children, that choice must be respected. But if someone hopes to have children \"someday\", policy should ensure that \"someday\" is grounded in realistic and informed awareness of biological timelines.
Addressing the planning fallacy will not reverse fertility trends overnight. But good governance improves decision quality. And in a small nation where our people are our greatest resource, helping Singaporeans future-proof both career and family aspirations is not intrusion, but an effort to support informed life choices for the long term.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Chairman, fertility is often discussed as a demographic or economic challenge. But I would like to offer another perspective. It is also a public health priority as fertility challenges today are increasingly medical, psychological and financial, not merely social.
For many couples, fertility difficulties bring emotional strain, repeated uncertainty and significant financial stress. Our reproductive health pathways must therefore provide not only treatment, but sustained support through the journey.
Today, couples undergoing assisted reproductive techniques receive subsidies. However, the current structure reduces subsidies with successive IVF cycles – a model developed when clinical evidence was more limited.
Current medical evidence shows that the cumulative chance of achieving a live birth increases across successive IVF cycles. For many couples, multiple cycles are clinically appropriate rather than elective, although gains diminish over time and must always be guided by medical assessment.
Recently, I spoke with a community leader whose family conceived only after three IVF cycles and one Intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycle. They are now blessed with three children, but only after exhausting much of their savings. They were fortunate to persevere. Many couples may not be able to continue beyond one or two attempts, even when medically suitable.
This raises an important policy question: can our support framework evolve to provide more flexible and sustained assistance for clinically appropriate treatment journeys?
Not unlimited support, but calibrated assistance – guided by medical evidence, clinical judgement and long-term fiscal sustainability.
Beyond subsidies, we may also consider how healthcare financing and insurance frameworks can better support assisted reproduction. Today, the absence of meaningful risk-sharing mechanisms adds financial uncertainty to couples who are already in an already emotionally vulnerable state.
Mr Chairman, may I urge PMO and the Ministry of Health to work together and look at fertility from a public health lens, explore a more progressive approach to subsidies and can PMO also work with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to consider inclusive insurance schemes that could provide risk-sharing mechanisms.
If we view fertility through a public health lens, supporting parenthood becomes not just a social policy objective, but a long-term investment in Singapore's resilience, inter-generational balance and national future because when Singaporeans choose to have children, they are not just building families, they are building our future.
Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Chairman, Singapore's TFR remains below one. If we are serious about reversing this trend, we must strengthen the entire parenthood journey from preparing for conception to supporting couples through setbacks like miscarriages, to giving families the confidence to have more than one child.
I speak not only from policy discussions, but from lived experience. I personally journeyed through trying to conceive, experiencing loss and navigating childcare while working. I also draw deeply from conversations with Pasir Ris-Changi residents and fellow parents who shared candidly about their hopes and anxieties.
I want to acknowledge that the Government has done very well in supporting parents during the first year after a child is born through additional maternity leave, introducing paternity and shared paternal leave, parental leave and early child support schemes.
I will speak on three areas: pre-, post- and a child's first year. First, on fertility support; second, support after miscarriage; and third, childcare leave. The first two addresses why some couples struggle to have their first child and the third affects whether they go on to have more.
If we want to improve TFR, we must start upstream. Many couples discover fertility challenges only after years of trying when options are limited and emotional strain is high, especially since marriages are now happening later in life.
Currently, subsidised fertility testing is largely limited to medically indicated cases. Could we adopt a preventive public health approach? Countries like Denmark invest heavily in fertility education and subsidised treatment as part of a national demographic strategy.
Singapore could take a calibrated approach by subsidising early fertility health screening for both men and women at key life stages and integrating fertility education into public health efforts, like HealthierSG or workplace programmes. Reducing involuntary childlessness and delayed fertility discovery directly helps couples have their first child.
Miscarriage is more common than many realise yet often suffered in silence. A 2022 KKH study found 15 to 20% of recorded pregnancies ended in miscarriages. I have experienced this loss, twice, myself and many people I have spoken to have shared stories of grief, guilt and uncertainty about trying again.
Structured support is critical if we want couples to continue, or for some, start their parenthood journey.
Other countries provide good examples. India offers six weeks paid leave after miscarriage and the UK has amended its Employment Rights Bill for bereavement leave after a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. The UK, France and New Zealand offer access to hospital, based bereavement, midwives and mental health support.
Singapore could consider a dedicated miscarriage recovery leave entitlement, automatic referral pathways for counselling support, clear workplace guidelines to support employees experiencing pregnancy loss. Supporting couples through miscarriages is not only compassionate, it increases the likelihood that they feel emotionally ready to try again.
Even when couples have a child, many hesitate to have a second or third. The concern is not desire, but sustainability of their everyday life. Children do not fall ill in sync, and families juggle staggered school calendars.
Preschool children are especially vulnerable in their first year, falling sick frequently, adding pressure on working parents. While Shared Parental Leave has improved, structured support mostly ends after the first year, yet caregiving demands grow as families expand.
In my view, flexible work arrangement is not the right solution. While they may seem convenient on paper, for parents juggling childcare at home, they often prove impractical. Countries like Germany and Sweden offer substantial flexible parental leave over several years, recognising the support must extend beyond infancy and adapt to families with multiple children.
Singapore could consider incremental steps increasing childcare leave during preschool years, especially the first year when illness is most frequent.
Extending the concept of Shared Parental Leave beyond 12 months and a flexible childcare leave bank across multiple years to support multiple children and key school transitions. When parents feel support be beyond their first, they are more likely to have a second or third child.
Flexible ongoing leave is not just compassion. It is a pro-family, pro-fertility policy. If we build this continuum of care, we send a clear message for those who aspire to parenthood that Singapore stands firmly with them, not only at birth, but throughout the journey.
The Chairman: Ms Elysa Chen. Please deliver both your cuts together.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, supporting parents of young children is key to making Singapore a home for families and addressing our population decline. Strong postpartum and caregiver's support can make a real difference.
The founder of Safe Place, Ms Jennifer Heng, who works with women in unsupported pregnancies, shared that many consider abortion because they feel they lack the help to raise a child. I was also deeply saddened by reports of mothers with postpartum depression who took not only their own lives but also those of their newborns, feeling overwhelmed and alone.
While we already have follow-up healthcare after delivery, I propose enhancing this with structured in-home postpartum visits in the first year. Trained maternity nurses could provide guidance on newborn care, breastfeeding, physiotherapy and mental health screening. They could also identify signs of family stress, isolation or financial difficulty and coordinate follow-up support with health and social services.
What are the PMO's plans to further address the concerns of parents in having more children? Has the PMO considered plans to enhance postpartum care for parents as a means to support parenthood and address our TFR? Are there plans to consider such comprehensive and coordinated support programmes or expand community-based support programmes of young children?
Supporting parents does not end with the first year. Some parents leave the workforce to care for their children during these formative years. Many intend to return once their children are older, but career gaps often become barriers. Employers cite skills obsolescence and for those contemplating parenthood, this risk can influence their decision on whether to have children at all.
These parents have already adjusted to a single income and simpler lifestyle. They should not be penalised a second time when they seek to return. In truth, stay-home parents possess highly employable skills – they manage budgets, coordinate complex schedules, resolve conflicts and navigate crises daily. They are resilient, adaptable and resourceful.
A country in the region has instituted a Career Comeback Programme, providing mothers returning to work with job databases, career coaching and a 12-month income tax exemption. Companies hiring returnees may qualify for a 50% tax deduction on the employee's salary for up to 12 months.
May I ask PMO: what measures are being considered to support the economic reintegration of stay-home parents and caregivers? Will the PMO explore a career comeback tax incentive to provide relief for employers who intentionally hire them, signalling that both society and Government support their return?
Just as parents care for our next generation, it is our responsibility to care for them – with support at home, guidance in their journey and opportunities to return to work. When we do, we strengthen families, nurture children and secure Singapore's future.
The Chairman: Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Chairman, with your permission, Minister Indranee Rajah and I will take any clarifications after both our speeches.
The Chairman: Please do.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, earlier I spoke about the urgent realities of climate change. Now, I turn to a challenge equally fundamental to Singapore's future – our population.
Our people are our primary resource. In the early years of our Independence, demographics worked in our favour. While many of our forefathers were new immigrants, most had become citizens. We had a young and growing citizen population then, which helped grow our economy, build up our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and develop our nation.
Fast forward 60 years, this is no longer the case today. Birth rates are falling at an unprecedented pace and our population is ageing rapidly. We are not alone in facing these trends. Many developed and even developing countries are grappling with these same issues and I certainly hope we can learn from Korea, as Ms Cassandra Lee mentioned. However, Singapore's small size makes us exceptionally sensitive to demographic shifts. We must proactively manage these changes, to continue to thrive as a nation.
Last year, we welcomed around 27,500 resident babies. Every one, a precious gift and we celebrate with each and every child born to us. They are the future of our country. I meet many of them when I join Punggol activities. For a short while, I thought we had solved our problem! Unfortunately, that was because Punggol was a new town.
This is, in fact, the lowest birth number ever in our recorded history. The overall trend is also of grave concern. Marriage rates have come down. Those who are married have fewer or no children.
Our birth rate has reached a new low. Our preliminary resident TFR for 2025 is 0.87. This is a significant drop from the TFR of 0.97 that many of you quoted for the year before, and much lower than the TFR of 1.24 just a decade ago.
At the same time, our population is ageing faster than ever, with the Baby Boomer generation now in their 60s and beyond, and I am one of them. Last year, one in five citizens was aged 65 and above, compared to one in eight in 2015, just 10 years ago.
This is an existential challenge.
What does 0.87 mean? Well, let me try to illustrate. Assuming our TFR stays at 0.87 or thereabout, based on a simplistic calculation, just to keep it simple and to illustrate, for every 100 residents today, we will have just 44 children, and we will just have a mere 19 grandchildren. That is the third generation. That is the effect of 0.87.
Or put it in another way, this room when we fill it up, it is about 100. In the next generation, it will be less than half of us around, around the optics that we had during COVID-19 when we had to have safe distancing. And the next generation is just about the front row, one row. Not two rows. One of the front rows; 19 of us will be left. So, that is what 0.87 means.
Over time, it will be practically impossible to reverse the trend because we will have fewer and fewer women who can bear children. The Prime Minister said we have not given up and he emphasised that we will not give up. Let me add one more: we cannot give up. [Applause.]
Low birth rates and an ageing population will profoundly reshape our nation, our society and our economy in the years ahead of us. Even with immigration, the growth of our citizen population has slowed over the decade – falling from an average of 0.9% per annum over 2015 to 2020, five years, to 0.8% per annum over 2020 to 2025; 0.9% to 0.8% in the last five years. Last year, it grew just 0.7%.
So, just to recap – 0.9% in the first five years, 0.8% in the next five years, 0.7% last year.
That is our citizen population growth rate. If no new measures are taken, our citizen population will start to shrink by the early part of 2040s.
Fewer births today mean fewer young people over the next two to three decades. You cannot overnight give birth to young people. So, if you have fewer births, it means you have fewer young people for the next two or three decades. A smaller working-age base will have to support a rapidly growing elderly population. Familial support networks will weaken as family sizes shrink and each family member in the younger generation will have to carry a heavier load.
At the macro level, a declining population means less vitality in our city and our economy. Our economic growth and correspondingly, our income growth will slow. At the same time, our healthcare and social spending will have to increase to support our growing population of seniors. This tremendous strain will be felt at the national level but also at the individual households. And with fewer citizens, it will become increasingly difficult to meet our national security and national defence needs.
This raises the deeper question of what Singapore will be 50 or 100 years from now. Will we remain vibrant, liveable and relevant? Will we exist?
Our first and top priority is to continue to support Singaporeans in forming families. Over the years, we have consistently invested in our families. We have steadily enhanced support for families in housing, preschool, education and healthcare. To better support working parents in managing their work and caregiving responsibilities, we also recently introduced the new Shared Parental Leave scheme and doubled the mandatory Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two weeks to four weeks.
But we will need to do even more. The decline in fertility is a multi-faceted challenge. It reflects broader generational shifts in life priorities and mindsets. Attitudes towards marriage and parenthood are shaped by many factors – workplace norms, employer practices, availability of familial and community support and social attitudes towards having and raising children. We need to address these issues holistically and not simply blame it on any particular single factor.
We will do more to strengthen support for Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood journey. Minister Indranee Rajah will speak later about the whole-of-nation reset needed to support Singaporeans in starting families.
Let me speak plainly about the realities before us. Even as we redouble our efforts to support Singaporeans in starting families and having more children, we will still need a carefully managed immigration flow to augment our low birth rates.
Most Singaporeans recognise the case for immigration. A 2021 IPS survey found that over 75% of Singaporeans agreed that immigrants are generally good for Singapore’s economy and 62% agreed that immigrants improve Singapore society by bringing in new ideas and culture.
But we know that is not the full picture. While Singaporeans can accept the need for immigration in the abstract, they also have personal concerns and anxieties. Will bringing in immigrants mean fewer job opportunities for us? Will the Singapore that my children grow up in feel vastly different from the one that I grew up in? I understand these concerns, and we take these concerns over competition and our social fabric seriously. We will continue taking steps to address them.
We will maintain the broad ethnic balance of our citizen population and continue to carefully manage the impact of immigration on our population composition to preserve the overall texture of our society. We will carefully manage the pace of immigration and ensure we do not bring in immigrants faster than we can accommodate. This means making sure the development of public infrastructure, like housing, transport and services, keeps pace with the growth of our population.
We will also continue to be selective about who we bring in. As Mr Edward Chia noted, many of the immigrants we take in today either share family ties with Singaporeans or have studied, worked or lived in Singapore for quite some time. The majority of our immigrants are also of working age, contributing to our economy. We will continue to explore further ways to ensure that immigrants are committed to Singapore.
Mr Shawn Loh spoke about how we must place greater emphasis on integration, and we agree. We will step up integration efforts, creating more opportunities for citizens and immigrants to interact, connect and build relationships and trust.
There are ongoing efforts to help immigrants integrate and become familiar with local culture. All new citizens between the ages of 16 and 60 go through the Singapore Citizenship Journey, so that they understand our history, our norms, our values and build stronger ties with the local community. We also piloted a new Permanent Resident (PR) Journey programme last year to help new PRs settle in and integrate, and we intend to scale it up shortly.
The People’s Association is also working through its network of over 1,500 Integration and Naturalisation Champions to drive integration in local communities and foster good relations between new citizens and their Singaporean neighbours.
Our immigrants came from different cultures and traditions. It will take time for them to integrate. First-generation immigrants will need to adapt to our norms and customs, but their children are likely to integrate more easily, especially if they grow up in Singapore.
Take, for example, Bipule Jain, who arrived in Singapore in 2007 with his wife and six-month-old son on a work assignment. What began as a temporary relocation became permanent, as his Singaporean colleagues welcomed him and introduced him to our local culture. Bipule actively immersed himself in the local community – trying local food, picking up Singlish, volunteering at his son’s school and in the community, and making new friends along the way. In 2017, he took a significant step by enlisting in the Singapore Armed Forces Volunteer Corps, initially to teach his sons about National Service, but he soon developed a deep passion for defending Singapore. Today, Bipule’s elder son, that six-month-old baby who arrived in 2007, is following in his father’s footsteps and proudly serving his National Service. Bipule, his wife and his two sons are PRs, and have applied for citizenship.
Their story shows us what is possible when we open up our doors and hearts to newcomers. Over time, many of them become our friends and eventually fellow citizens, working together in one Singapore team to build a brighter, better home for all of us.
It is critical that we maintain a stable citizen core, hopefully one that is growing modestly over time, to keep our society and our economy dynamic and vibrant.
Last year, we granted around 25,000 citizenships. We expect to take in between 25,000 and 30,000 new citizens annually, over the next five years, depending on our demographic trends including our TFR.
We will also have to adjust our PR intake, as permanent residence is the pathway to work towards citizenship. Our PR population has remained stable over the past few years, at around 540,000. We estimate an intake of about 40,000 PRs annually in the next five years, slightly higher than the 35,000 PRs we granted last year.
That said, we will adjust the actual number of immigrants we take in year by year, depending on our TFR trends, other demographic factors and the number and suitability of applicants. We will also keep in mind our infrastructure and the society’s capacity to take in these immigrants.
With these adjustments, we hope to maintain a stable citizen population and perhaps, with a modest growth. Like I mentioned earlier, our citizen population growth has slowed down from 0.9% to 0.8%, to 0.7% last year, if you recall what I said just a while ago. Going forward, the citizen population will likely grow even more slowly, maybe about half a percent; that is what we are thinking about. But even at half a percent, this is going to be hard because it would depend on the TFR being held up. That is why we cannot give up. We will review again by 2030, taking into account further changes in our TFR and other demographic trends.
Our local workforce growth has also slowed. We will continue to need a diverse foreign workforce to supplement the local workforce and support our economic and social needs.
In the past five years, our foreign workforce grew at an average of 3.3% per annum, primarily driven by post-COVID-19 catch-up in construction. Excluding Construction Work Permit Holders, the foreign workforce grew more slowly, at an average of 2.5% per annum. But as our citizen population grows more slowly, we will keep a close watch on the growth of the non-resident population, which include foreign workers, to ensure that Singapore citizens remain the majority of our population. As we bring in foreign workers, our policies are designed to ensure they complement our Singaporean core.
As announced at Budget, we will increase our Employment Pass and S Pass qualifying salaries to keep pace with local wage benchmarks. The Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) also ensures that firms bring in Employment Pass workers that contribute to our economy while the firms continue to build up their local talent pipeline. We will continue to carefully manage the numbers and concentrations of Employment and S Pass holders and ensure that they complement rather than compete with locals.
We will also carefully manage the number of Work Permit Holders using levy and quota systems. We need skilled foreign workers to help fill critical manpower gaps, to help our companies build up new capabilities and to support the growth of our economy. This ultimately creates more jobs and opportunities for our people.
Take for example, aerospace company Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited (SAESL). This is Rolls-Royce’s largest global maintenance, repair and operations facility for Trent engines, which currently employs 1,300 local staff. With a $242 million expansion and a new training academy supporting its growth plans, SAESL expects to create 500 additional jobs for local skilled engine technicians over the next five years. SAESL is working with Singapore Polytechnic to align its training curriculum with industry needs to better prepare our students to take up these jobs. This expansion will be complemented by a foreign workforce undertaking specialised roles, such as non-destructive testing and plasma treatment.
There are many other companies like SAESL whose growth has generated new opportunities for Singaporean workers. Overall, in the past 10 years, the number of Singaporeans in professional, managerial, executive and technical (PMET) jobs has increased by 308,000 while the number of Employment and S Pass holders increased by 24,000. This is over 10 years.
But we understand the job anxieties Singaporeans have, especially in this time of global uncertainty.
The number of Employment and S Pass holders is small, making up less than a quarter of our foreign workforce. The issue, therefore, is less about total numbers, but about the issue of job competition and fair treatment at the workplace, as raised by Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Yip Hon Weng.
We are stepping up our efforts not only to create good jobs for Singaporeans, but to upskill Singaporeans so they can take up these high-value jobs. At the same time, we will strengthen measures to ensure fair hiring and employment practices and to ensure fair opportunities for Singaporeans. Last year, we passed the Workplace Fairness Act to strengthen protections against workplace discrimination.
Lastly, beyond legislative and policy safeguards, we can do more to make the workplace more conducive for all. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has partnered the business community via the Alliance for Action on the Integration of Foreign Professionals, to develop initiatives to better integrate foreign professionals into the workplace and the community. MCCY and the Ministry of Manpower will elaborate further on some of these initiatives at their own COS debates.
As Mr Edward Chia and Mr Yip Hon Weng noted, we also need foreign workers to meet our social needs, and they ask if we can have more flexibility. For example, migrant domestic workers help look after our young children and our aged parents, giving us peace of mind while we are out at work. We also need migrant construction workers for major infrastructure projects – they help build our flats, hospitals, roads, Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines and critical projects like Changi Airport Terminal 5 and the Tuas Port. These workers make up almost half of our foreign workforce population.
Demand for these groups will fluctuate, depending on economic and construction cycles. For example, post-COVID19, we had to catch up on a series of important construction projects, including Build-To-Order flats. This strong demand led to a 6% annual growth, or a 36% growth cumulatively, in the number of Construction Work Permit Holders over the last five years.
These migrant workers are transient and do not compete with Singaporeans for jobs. But it is important that we plan ahead to support their presence here, including catering for dormitories and housing, transport and recreational spaces. If we can do this well, it will give us more flexibility and capacity to allow for temporary surges in their numbers while minimising the impact felt by Singaporeans. At the same time, we will press hard to raise productivity in construction. MND set up an action team earlier this month to work with industry players to improve productivity and help companies save time, save costs and save manpower.
Across the board, we will do what we can to raise productivity to reduce our reliance on foreign manpower. The recent moves to simplify the levy framework, expand sources and raise the maximum age and period of employment for Work Permit Holders, will nudge businesses to hire and retain higher-skilled workers so that they can do more with less manpower.
Looking ahead, our total population for the next five years will hopefully still grow but most likely at a slower rate than over the past five years. And our total population will still be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030, as we have said earlier. Beyond 2030, if present trends continue, it will take us a considerable time to reach 6.9 million.
Let me be clear that we are not chasing growth for the sake of growth. Economic growth is the means to an end, which is to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Our overarching goal has been and will always remain to serve the interests of Singaporeans. We will keep close track of the population size and composition to ensure that the trends are sustainable, that infrastructure needs are met in a timely and adequate manner and that ultimately, Singaporeans benefit from our population policies.
To conclude, our falling TFR presents a serious and profound existential challenge to our society, our economy and our security. The Government must and will do its utmost to address this challenge. This is our commitment to all Singaporeans.
We will redouble our efforts to support Singaporeans to aspire to marriage and parenthood, and to realise their dream. This has always been and will continue to be our fundamental policy and priority. We must never let up in supporting Singaporeans to have families. We will also continue to review our immigration intake and approach, making sure to address the concerns of Singaporeans.
We will continue to study how we can further strengthen our investment in key areas for Singaporeans – education, housing, healthcare and jobs. This way, every Singaporean will have the assurances, opportunities and support needed to realise his or her aspiration in our shared vision.
But the existential challenge of our low TFR is not something that the Government can tackle on our own. Earlier someone asked the Prime Minister whether we have a target for TFR. It is extremely difficult to set a target on something that we do not control ourselves. We ask Singaporeans to partner us in this effort. We welcome all debate and fresh ideas on how we can do so.
Our path ahead will not be straightforward, but I am confident in our ability to adapt and thrive. Together, we will build a vibrant and resilient Singapore for present and future generations. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah): Chairman, as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated earlier, our preliminary resident TFR for 2025 was 0.87, lower than 0.97 in 2024. It is our lowest TFR to date.
Resident births across all ethnic groups decreased, with the decrease in Chinese births being proportionately larger, at a drop of 15% compared to 2024. This is due in part to the typical post-Dragon Year decrease.
The declining TFR means our citizen population growth has slowed. This is an existential challenge for us. Trying to raise our TFR has always been a priority but with the latest figures, this has acquired a new urgency. The Government is wholly committed to addressing this issue head on and we will spare no effort to arrest and reverse this decline. However, it cannot be the work of Government alone. We need all of society to play their part.
To ensure that our plans are targeted and effective, we must first understand the drivers and factors that are inhibiting marriage and family formation.
Declining TFR is not an issue unique to just Singapore. It is a global phenomenon. All over the world, more people are choosing to remain single or marry later, and those who marry are choosing to have fewer or no children at all.
As the Prime Minister pointed out earlier today, this issue is not simply economic. Some countries have spent a lot on a whole range of support schemes. Others provide very generous welfare systems. These measures can help at the margins, but they have not fundamentally reversed the trend.
Countries like France and the Nordic countries, which have long been held up as exemplars of higher TFR, continue to see declines in their birth rates. In China, the number of deaths now exceed the number of births. Even in the region, the TFRs of Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are on the downtrend.
South Korea, which currently has the world’s lowest TFR, recently saw an increase in marriages and births. This could be due in part to the large cohort of children born to South Korea’s Baby Boomers who are now entering child-bearing age. It remains to be seen if their recent more family-friendly policies will have a lasting impact. However, it still gives us hope that fertility trends could shift and sustained efforts across multiple fronts may yield results over time.
But what is really striking is if you look at the TFR of cities. As a city-state, Singapore's TFR may be more comparable to that of other metropolitan cities rather than other countries. In fact, the TFR of major cities tend to be much lower than their countries' overall TFR. In 2024, France's TFR was 1.62 but Paris's was 1.27. Japan's TFR was 1.15 but Tokyo's was 0.96. China's TFR was around 1.00 but Hong Kong's was 0.84 and Shanghai's was less than 0.8.
Without over-generalising, cities typically have a faster, more intense pace of life and greater competition and stress. As a small city-state, Singapore experiences these effects more acutely. This is reflected in our Marriage and Parenthood surveys, where besides financial cost, other concerns such as the stress of raising children and difficulties in managing work and family demands are the most common reasons cited by married respondents when considering whether to have children. But there are other factors at play too.
To unpack this further, I engaged various groups of Singaporeans at different life stages to hear their thoughts on this issue. And today, I want to share with you what I have learned from them.
First, there are the singles. The Millennials and Gen Zs shared that dating and marriage often took a backseat to their many other interests and goals. Some wanted to establish themselves in their careers before seeking a life partner. Others were looking for the right marriage partner but had yet to find the right person. Many shared they were looking for deeper and more meaningful connections but sometimes had difficulty meeting others and forging authentic in-person relationships after leaving school and entering the workforce.
Next, there were those who are married but hesitant to have children. This group felt anxious about becoming parents. They were worried about not being able to live up to the expectations of being a good parent. Some feared that having children meant trading off their careers and other life goals. Others were concerned about the financial, emotional and mental demands of parenthood. Some women were anxious about how they would cope with the physical and emotional changes that come with pregnancy.
Then, next there were the married, who want children but have fertility issues. On the flip side, these were married couples who very much want children but are unable to conceive. They spoke candidly about the challenges encountered in their fertility journey, including only realising the problem very late, not knowing where to get help, the fear of stigma, limited workplace support and difficulty in getting time off for fertility treatments, and the cost of fertility treatments.
Then we have the parents with young children. Without exception, everyone in this group spoke about the joy their children had brought to their lives. They did not sugarcoat the challenges and sacrifices of parenthood, but when they weighed these against the love and happiness they experienced, they were glad they had chosen to have children.
However, they also expressed their hope for more support for families and better balance between work and family responsibilities. This was especially so for those caring for both young children and ageing parents.
If we are to change our trajectory, these are the issues we must tackle. They cannot be addressed by policy measures alone. What we need is a Marriage and Parenthood Reset, by which I mean a reset across society, on the following.
First, how marriage and parenthood are viewed and supported. Second, how workplaces can evolve to better align work and family. And third, how everyone can play their part.
To achieve this, we will form a new Workgroup with the relevant agencies to look into these issues holistically and engage widely across members of the public, businesses and the people sector. I will chair this Workgroup and will share more details in due course.
But for now, let me set out the broad four-pronged approach that we will take. First, we will build on current efforts to enhance government support for marriage and parenthood. Second, we will cultivate positive mindsets about marriage and parenthood. Third, we will work with employers to foster workplace cultures and practices that are family friendly. And fourth, we will engage the whole of society in this effort.
On the first one, the Government will build on current efforts to enhance support for marriage and parenthood. In recent years, we have significantly enhanced our Marriage and Parenthood Package. These include: (a) the enhanced Baby Bonus Scheme and MediSave Grant for Newborns; (b) doubling paternity leave and making it mandatory; (c) the new 10-week Shared Parental Leave; (d) the Large Families Scheme; and (e) this year, we will provide another $500 of Child LifeSG Credits for every Singaporean child aged 12 and below.
Going forward, we will do more.
Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Andre Low and Ms Hany Soh raised concerns and gave their suggestions about the costs of raising children. The Government is committed to helping parents with the cost of child-raising. Four years ago, parents received up to $32,000 per child under the Baby Bonus Scheme and MediSave Grant for Newborns. Today, with the addition of the Large Families Scheme, it is up to $54,000 per child. On the education front, every Singaporean child can receive over $200,000 in subsidies from preschool through to secondary school. We will look into enhancing this further and consider the different ideas that Members have suggested.
On housing, as Mr David Hoe raised in his Budget debate speech and as Ms Hany Soh highlighted, we will enable couples who are ready to build a life together to secure and afford their own home. We are increasing the supply of BTO flats, with more Shorter Waiting Time flats so couples and young families can get their flats more quickly. MND has also reviewed how it can better support growing families who may need more space. We will share more at the MND COS.
For preschool and caregiving, MSF has progressively lowered fee caps at Government-supported preschools and expanded preschool places. These moves have improved accessibility and affordability.
In Budget 2026, the Prime Minister announced that the income thresholds for preschool and student care subsidies will be revised so more families can benefit. Government agencies are also undertaking a review of the student care sector to better meet the caregiving needs of families with primary school-aged children.
On work-life support, while take-up rates for the new Shared Parental Leave scheme are not yet available, initial feedback from parents has been positive. They appreciate being able to spend more time with their newborns. Some said that this has encouraged them to consider having another child.
But we know that beyond infancy, parents require additional time-off from work to care for their children. Many parents and Members in this House like Ms Valerie Lee and Mr David Hoe have asked for more childcare leave. Ms Lee Hui Ying also asked how we can better support the sandwich generation who are caring for their children as well as their ageing parents or other family dependents.
We will study the childcare leave suggestions carefully, bearing in mind the needs of employers, who are still adjusting to the recent parental leave enhancements. Even without any legislated requirement, many progressive employers have stepped up to introduce caregiving-related leave provisions as part of their strategy to attract and retain talent, such as adopting the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs. Beyond leave, FWAs are another sustainable way to provide employees with greater flexibility in meeting their diverse caregiving needs.
We also want to better support parents as they re-enter the workforce after taking a career break, as Mr Mark Lee and Ms Elysa Chen highlighted. Today, these parents can tap on broad-based employment facilitation and skills training as well as career guidance programmes, such as Workforce Singapore's Mid-Career Pathways Programme and Career Conversion Programmes, to gain industry-relevant skills and support their transition into suitable job roles.
The Government is also helping companies redesign jobs through initiatives like the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package. Such support can help lower the barrier of re-entry for caregivers who wish to return to the workforce by helping companies strengthen organisational capability to offer more adaptable workforce models, including various forms of FWAs for employees.
The Ministry of Manpower is also reviewing how we can better support job fractionalisation under the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment. Having more fractionalised jobs will be helpful to parents seeking part-time work.
Another important area spoken about is fertility health, as highlighted by several Members earlier, including Ms Kuah Boon Theng. Later marriages and births are becoming more common. In 2024, the median age of mothers at first birth was around 32 years old. As both male and female fertility declines with age, more couples may face fertility challenges. Today, about one in six people globally experience infertility. Many do not know where to seek help or are fearful of stigma attached to doing so.
To help those with fertility issues we will work with other agencies to raise awareness of fertility health, including improving accessibility of information on existing support, encouraging fertility checks and normalising the seeking of medical attention for fertility issues. Those in need can refer to the Made For Families website for current support measures.
We will review the financial and non-financial support couples receive throughout their fertility journeys and work with employers to improve workplace support for employees undergoing fertility treatments. For a start, I encourage employers and HR departments to refer to the Workplace Fertility Support Guide produced by Fertility Support SG, which Ms Cassandra Lee highlighted.
On Ms Valerie Lee's suggestion on support through miscarriages, psychosocial support like counselling is available in public healthcare institutions, but we agree that more can be done and will study her suggestions to see how we can better support those who experienced miscarriages.
On Ms Elysa Chen's suggestion to enhance postpartum support for parents, there are ongoing initiatives at the public maternity hospitals and polyclinics to provide perinatal and postpartum support, such as scheduled telephone check-ins and follow-ups post-discharge.
Mothers who require breastfeeding and lactation support can tap on services offered in polyclinics, such as the Breastfeeding Triple Support @NUHS polyclinics. They can also visit Family Nexus sites to find out more about parent-child bonding programmes and parenting support services.
To identify women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus for timely management, the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) has also updated the ACE Clinical Guideline to help healthcare professionals to assess the onset of pre-diabetes or diabetes post-partum.
Mr Foo Cexiang also highlighted in his Budget Debate speech the need to better support adoptive parents. Today, adoptive parents receive benefits like biological parents such as parental leave provisions. Nonetheless, we recognise that more can be done to improve and streamline the adoption processes. We will work with agencies to look into this.
The areas I just shared are part of the Government's broader efforts to better support Singaporeans through their marriage and parenthood journey. Besides consultations that the Workgroup will have with members of the public, businesses and the people sector, we will also enhance our Marriage and Parenthood Survey this year to gain deeper insights on how attitudes and perceptions towards marriage and parenthood have evolved. The feedback and suggestions will inform the Workgroup's recommendations and shape the next bound of marriage and parenthood enhancements.
Next, we will cultivate positive mindsets towards marriage and parenthood. Decisions on whether to get married and start a family are deeply personal. And as we have found in our engagements, mindsets matter a great deal when making these decisions.
When we say we want to change mindsets, it is not about pushing a single \"correct\" path. Rather, as Ms Nadia Samdin shared, it is about creating an environment where decisions surrounding marriage and parenthood can be viewed optimistically and positively rather than with fear and anxiety.
Mindset change has many aspects. But let me touch on two.
There was a marked difference in mindsets between those who were still weighing whether or not to have children, and those who had already decided to have children. Those who were hesitant looked at parenthood through the lens of what they might lose – being held back in their careers, inability to pursue other life goals and loss of personal freedom. Those with children or intending to have them, on the other hand, saw parenthood in terms of what they had gained – the joy of family and the fulfilment and personal growth that come with being parents.
In reality, finding a life partner, getting married and starting a family are major milestones that require time, energy and change. It is understandable and rightfully so, that entering into these commitments should be carefully considered. However, many Singaporean couples have demonstrated that having family and careers can co-exist alongside other life goals.
Parenthood does take real effort and commitment, and while there will inevitably be compromises along the way, what is gained in terms of family relationships, love and fulfilment is both precious and priceless. We hope that as many Singaporeans as possible can experience the joys of marriage and parenthood. Ultimately, it is a personal choice. But we need a mindset change to encourage couples to consider a more balanced picture when exercising this choice.
Mindset number two. In our engagements, another prevailing mindset was the immense pressure couples put on themselves to be the perfect parent. One young father, a doctor, felt guilty that he could not spend more time with his son because of his work schedule. He felt he was not being a good father. Another young woman, newly-wed, was hesitant to have a child because she was not sure if she could provide the best possible resources to ensure that her child would succeed in life.
Wanting more time to spend with your children or providing them with the right resources stem from good intentions. However, in hindsight, many parents reflected that parenthood was not about providing the best for their children or having all the answers right from the start. Rather, it was about being willing to learn, adapt and grow alongside their children, doing the best that they can within their circumstances and relying on community support where possible, as Ms Nadia Samdin noted.
For instance, the Families for Life Parents Telegram groups have enabled thriving online communities of parents within each local town. Through these local networks, parents can connect and exchange parenting tips, share about local family events and exchange pre-loved items with other parents in the community to help them better navigate parenting challenges.
Practical resources and programmes to support families on their parenting journey from birth to growing through adolescence are also available on platforms, including Health Promotion Board's Parent Hub, the Parenting For Wellness Toolbox, parenting resources in the Ministry of Education's Parent's Gateway and the Families for Life Parenting website. We will work with various agencies and partners to regularly update and refine the resources on the platforms to ensure they meet parents' evolving needs.
This pressure to be the perfect parent is perhaps most evident in the child's education. Many parents feel pressure to help their children excel academically, for fear that they may otherwise not succeed in life. They worry about coaching their children for major exams or finding the financial means to send their children to private tuition and enrichment programmes. If they are unable to do so, they feel that they have fallen short as parents.
I understand that this pressure largely stems from the fear that there is only a narrow gate to success and if their children do not make it through that gate, they will have poor life outcomes. These are real anxieties that we want to help address.
To cater to students' varied abilities and talents and help our children develop more holistically, MOE has been making progressive changes over the years to develop multiple pathways. MOE has also made multiple shifts to reduce over-emphasis on academic results. MOE will also conduct a series of Education Conversations with students, parents, educators, researchers and academics to explore ways to mitigate the education \"arms race\", including by reducing the stakes of examinations.
But these structural reforms will only work if cultural attitudes towards competition and success shift in tandem. We must move away from viewing education in Singapore as a competition for limited prizes and instead see it as an open highway with many lanes and many different prizes suited to each child's unique talents and abilities.
Parents who have high expectations of their children's academic performance may urge them to achieve good grades or over-react when they fall short of expectations, but such actions may cause unintended consequences, as a National University of Singapore study found in 2016. Children with intrusive parents tended to be overly critical of themselves and were at increased risk of developing depression and anxiety symptoms. Such pressure can therefore be detrimental to a child's well-being.
Some competition and stress is natural but we should do our best to remove unrealistic expectations or social pressures which add unnecessary stress on parenthood.
Third, we will work with employers to foster family-friendly workplace cultures and practices. As Ms Yeo Wan Ling noted, one of the top stressors for parents is trying to achieve a balance between work and family responsibilities. One parent described how frequent work travel made it difficult for her to be there for her children in their formative years. But not travelling would affect her career. Some found it difficult to request for flexible work arrangements, despite the Tripartite Guidelines. Others related having to choose between being present for important meetings or their child's key milestones, and difficulty in leaving work on time to pick their children up from childcare.
Despite the mandatory leave provisions we have introduced and employment protections, we still hear anecdotes of how some employees are subtly discouraged from taking leave or how female employees are nudged to resign once they are pregnant.
We fully recognise that employers have business objectives and financial bottom lines to meet. However, there is much more we can do to build progressive workplace cultures to align business priorities with family-friendly practices.
Having supportive employers and workplaces makes a big difference to parents. But being a family-friendly workplace is not just good for employees; it also makes good business sense. When people feel supported at work, they are more motivated, more engaged and more likely to stay.
An example is Mr Edmund Seah, whose employer allowed him to take his paternity leave in weekly blocks. Edmund took two weeks during his child's first month to support his wife's confinement and took the remaining two weeks of paternity leave together with his three weeks of Shared Parental Leave. This flexibility allowed him to be present for his wife and baby when it mattered. Having benefited from this flexibility, Mr Seah has paid it forward by covering his colleague's workload when she went on maternity leave.
There was also a Straits Times article last month on Hsinchu City in Taiwan. It houses Hsinchu Science Park and is often known as the Silicon Valley of Taiwan. While Taiwan's TFR is projected to have fallen below 0.8 in 2025, Hsinchu's has stayed stable at 1.0 for several years. Experts attribute the higher birth rates to more family-friendly benefits provided by employers, rather than the Government, to attract and retain the best employees in a competitive environment. These include hybrid work arrangements, onsite baby care, baby bonuses and hampers for employees with newborns. This sends a strong signal that having children is supported and encouraged, and will not be negative for one's career.
There are many other ways in which employers can be supportive, such as providing lactation rooms for nursing mothers, instituting systematic covering arrangements when an employee has to take time-off and holding regular dialogues with employees on how the workplace can be improved. I fully agree with Ms Cassandra Lee on the importance of investing in HR as they shape workplace norms and culture and support the last-mile implementation of family-friendly workplace practices, so that employees feel safe and supported to use these provisions.
The Institute for Human Resource Professionals' Body of Competencies already includes a key component of holistic well-being which entails HR's ability to drive best practices that support employees to thrive, such as the design of flexible work options and family-related leave. We want a family-friendly workplace culture to become part of the DNA of all local companies. It should also be a shared responsibility – from senior management and HR managers to line managers, co-workers and the parent-employees themselves.
We will continue to review ways to foster workplace cultures and societal norms that value and support families, including Dr Haresh Singaraju's suggestion of piloting a tiered workplace certification.
Beyond workplaces, we will encourage neighbourhoods, communities and businesses to be supportive of families. There are ground-up efforts to create conducive community spaces for families. The Caterpillar Library at the Taman Jurong Community Club established by the Ong family is one such example, where residents donate a book for every book they take. Starting out with just 100 books, the Caterpillar Library has now facilitated the circulation of over 10,000 books, creating connections between neighbours while helping children discover the joy of reading. I encourage more neighbourhoods to create such family-friendly spaces.
Community organisations and businesses also contribute by organising a wide range of activities – from the arts to sports – for families. The Families for Life website provides a list of such resources for families. Most of the activities are free or charge nominal fees. In addition, Families for Life has gathered corporate partners, like GetGo, Sofitel Singapore Sentosa and ABC Cooking Studio, to offer Large Families Deals with exclusive discounts and offers. I encourage more partners to come onboard to celebrate families.
Mr Chairman, in conclusion, the latest TFR figures have not deterred us from our quest to boost marriage and parenthood. If anything, it underscores the urgency of the task before us and it has made us even more determined to turn things around. The Government will redouble our efforts to address this existential challenge.
However, to buck the trend, everyone – parents, employers, businesses and community partners – need to be part of this endeavour. In the months ahead, we will work with stakeholders to develop concrete plans for the four-pronged approach I laid out earlier. We welcome all suggestions and fresh ideas on how we can better support Singaporeans' marriage and parenthood aspirations.
The Chairman: We have some time for clarifications. Do hon Members have any clarifications arising from the addresses by Deputy Prime Minister Gan and Minister Indranee Rajah? Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh: Thank you, Mr Chairman. In my COS speech, I had suggested that we should try to defer the day in which the number of new citizen immigrants exceeds the number of citizen babies born in Singapore. It looks like that day is fast upon us, from what the Deputy Prime Minister Gan mentioned.
To that end, given the update on the immigration rates, would the Deputy Prime Minister agree that any increase in the number of immigrants should focus more on assimilation, specifically, for example, prioritising families with young children so that the young children, who may not be born in Singapore, grow up in Singapore as citizens and can assimilate better into Singapore to build that next Singapore core?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The short answer is, yes, we will, of course, encourage younger new citizens to come and join us. But also, bearing in mind that many of them by the time they are well established, when they are looking at a place where they can trust to settle down, they may have been here working for some years and they have been here as PRs for some years, so they may no longer be that young. But hopefully, they have their own children here.
But sometimes, their children may not be born in Singapore: they will be new citizen babies, so I think we just have to strike a balance. At the end of the day. I think the ability to assimilate is one very important factor in our consideration, both for PRs as well as for citizenship.
The Chairman: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh: Thank you, Chairman. I understand from Minister Indranee's speech that there will be a workgroup that will be formed to engage and to come up with some recommendations on how to boost our marriage and parenthood. In this regard, I wish to find out, do we have some specific timelines in mind on when the engagements will take place and eventually, some implementations of the suggestions?
Bearing in mind that actually time is of the essence for us as we understand from the Deputy Prime Minister's speech that we will be doing a review in 2030, which is just a few years away from now. In the meantime, my suggestion is that we should emphasise and prioritise our resources towards those that, as Minister Indranee has mentioned, are actually keen to embrace marriage and parenthood, but at the same time are constrained by resources.
So, in regard to the marriage component, I wish to ask whether the Government is keen to consider reviving the Social Development Network to encourage more opportunities for young Singaporeans to network and find future partners. And two, in relation to those couples that are keen to be a parent in terms of the suggestions that we have put forward earlier, and those that have been highlighted by Fertility Support Singapore, whether the Ministry of Health is already in a pipeline to roll out some of this support initiatives?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for her clarification. In terms of timeline, let me put it this way, we will share details of the workgroup shortly. But the workgroup will be looking at the four areas that I covered and as the Member can see, those four areas are quite broad.
So, it is not going to be that we have to wait for everything to be ready in order to implement or put in place. I think where we can have some low hanging fruit, which can be ready to implement early, we should do that as soon as possible. Because the Member is right, time is of the essence. It is an existential issue; we cannot afford to sit back and wait.
But some things, particularly, if they are more complex policies, or which may need to engage more stakeholders, those might take a little longer. But really, in this term of Government, you can be assured that we will be preoccupied with trying to make sure that we have more Singaporean babies born.
The Chairman: Are there any further clarifications? Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Chairman. I did not file a cut under PMO, so I thank you for the indulgence.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Mr Pritam Singh: Deputy Prime Minister Gan was just referring to the higher number of new citizens that the Government is looking to bring on board for at least the next five years. Is the Government keen on looking at Employment Pass holders, for example, or individuals or PRs who have been applying many, many years for citizenship, but have not succeeded at the first instance, second instance and third. We see them all at our Meet-the-People Sessions. Is that a strategy – specifically to relook at some of these applicants? Because they may have actually assimilated into Singapore society quite well by now.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Again, the short answer is, yes. We are keeping all options open, so we will take a fresh look at many of these applicants. But some of them do have reasons why we had not granted them PRs or citizenship. So, I think we will continue to look at, but I think we take a fresh look this. We are quite serious about having to make sure that we are able to bring in more new citizens and new PRs.
With new citizens, we need to have more new PRs, because that is a pipeline the citizens will come through. So, this is something that we will continue to look at and we will also look at different sources, a variety of sources of these potential immigrants. But the key is really assimilability and there is a whole series of factors that we will need to consider, including our ethnic composition balance. We also want to make sure that we maintain certain balance among our population composition.
So, those are factors that we have to take into consideration when we evaluate the applications.
The Chairman: Mr Singh, you have a further clarification? Please proceed.
Mr Pritam Singh: Just on the ethnic compositions, to the Deputy Prime Minister. I mean, is there a deviation that the Government is prepared to look at in view of the nature of the problem?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. Again, the answer is yes. We will need to be flexible. But I think it is very important for us to ensure that we maintain the broad balance. I am not talking about the decimal digits, but it is important to maintain the balance so that we do not change the overall texture of the society. I think that is the main consideration.
The Chairman: Are there any further clarification arising out of the topics? If none, we will progress on with the cuts. Mr Louis Chua, would you kindly please deliver your three cuts together.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Chairman. First, for my cuts allow me to declare that I am an employee of a financial institution in Singapore.
First, in response to a Parliamentary Question I filed earlier this year, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong noted that over the past 10 years, banks in Singapore have been rationalising their off-premise automated teller machines (ATMs) and bank branches at an average rate of 2% annually due to the rise in digital payments.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Chairman, I agree that there is a clear rise in digital payments. However, even as ATM withdrawals fell by 13.6% from 2018 to 2024, dropping to $55 billion, the decline was modest. There continues to be 158 million ATM withdrawals in 2024, despite the proliferation of digital payments today. This suggests very strongly that demand for cash and ATM services continue to be resilient and important to Singaporeans.
Yet drawing from my experience in Rivervale Sengkang, an estate with over 18,000 households, ATMs are only found in two locations: Rivervale Mall and Plaza. This has been a challenge for existing residents for many years now and especially for particular communities such as seniors and persons with disabilities.
The concern is even more salient in the relatively new BTO cluster at Rivervale Shores, where there is a meaningful proportion of two-room flexi-flats, which typically house elderly residents. We have close to 1,100 two-room flexi-flats out of a total of 2,500 units for this BTO project, the largest HDB BTO project in Singapore to date. Even as there are existing commercial facilities in the project, including supermarkets and shops, the nearest ATMs at Plaza is thus more than a 20-minute walk away, likely much more for the elderly and less mobile.
Many residents have frequently shared feedback with me on the lack of ATMs in the vicinity despite the availability of digital payments for the food and beverage, and shops located. I had sought the help of Sengkang Town Council and the HDB in the past years to seek the support of all three local banks in installing an ATM, but to no avail. The reality is that the provision of ATMs is determined by the business decisions of the banks and their appointed service providers.
It is only earlier this year that, with the kind reconsideration of the management team of DBS, that they have responded favourably, sharing that, “We recognise the importance of convenient banking access for Sengkang residents”.
I am very grateful to the management team of FairPrice for exploring an ATM solution with DBS, and in particular, the bank of course, for responding to our appeal on behalf of our residents, and also to the HDB commercial team for according this project due consideration and support.
Returning to Deputy Prime Minister Gan’s reply to my Parliamentary Question, he said and I quote, “MAS will continue to work with banks to ensure there is enough ATMs and bank branches for the convenience of customers and also encourage customers to use digital banking services as an alternative.”
From a commercial point of view, I believe some of the factors considered by banks when locating their ATMs and bank branches include footfall, transaction volume, proximity to public transport nodes etcetera. However, there might be certain locations that may not fully meet these criteria and yet, have a sizeable population of residents that require such facilities.
Therefore, I believe that we ought to go further. MAS, HDB and banks should collaborate to actively identify underserved communities in existing and future HDB towns and ensure that there are banking facilities within easy reach through regulatory changes, if necessary, rather than simply having it dictated by the free market and banks’ interests.
Chairman, cash may no longer be king. From 2018 to 2024, the total value of Fast and Secure Transfers (FAST) payments has increased by 511% to $662 billion while the total value of credit and debit card payments have increased by 52% to $149 billion. However, as I shared earlier, the value of ATM withdrawals have not declined as much as expected.
Despite the proliferation of PayNow, PayWave and various forms of stored value payment options, this suggests that cash continues to be an important medium of exchange to consumers. Unfortunately, there has been an increase in the number of merchants, ranging from cafes to sporting goods stores that have stopped accepting cash payments.
While digital payments may be convenient for digitally savvy consumers and businesses, it disadvantages those who experience barriers when going cashless.
Some communities, such as seniors and persons with disabilities may find it challenging to adopt technologies such as digital payments as part of their daily lives. Furthermore, some children can only use cash as parents may deem children too young to own a bank card or smartphone. Some adults may also prefer cash to safeguard themselves against scams. For businesses, offering cash as a payment option does help to strengthen business resiliency should a disruption to digital payment services occur as well.
Under the Currency Act, businesses have the flexibility to determine their accepted payment modes, which must be indicated to customers via a written notice. Therefore, I hope that the Government would mandate physical merchants to accept cash in payments, in line with other economies such as China and Norway, or at least start with a pilot in existing residential neighbourhoods.
In particular, despite the ubiquity of digital payment options such as WeChat and AliPay in China, arguably the most advanced country in cashless payments globally, the Chinese authorities have in fact strengthened regulations recently, such as ensuring that entities that receive payments in person or provide face-to-face services must support cash payments.
In my Adjournment Motion speech earlier this year, I shared that the $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP) funding is an important means to encourage more third-party investments into the Singapore equities market, and I hoped it will not be a one-off measure. While the S$1.5 billion top-up in Budget 2026 is welcome, ensuring long-term sustainability is key.
In his Budget Statement, Prime Minister Wong stated that the reason for the top-up is to build on the momentum of the EQDP launch. Can the Government affirm its commitment to regular, sustained EQDP funding and if so, what are the conditions for determining the amount and timing of funding allocated?
Further, as I have shared last year, while MAS has taken the lead on the demand side, on the supply side, I urge the Government, via its investment entities to similarly take the lead for its companies to list on the Singapore Exchange.
This has been done before, such as through the Singtel Special Discounted Shares Scheme in 1993. MAS has taken the lead with the EQDP on the demand side and similarly, I hope Temasek holdings and various other entities can lead by example on the supply side as well.
Miss Rachel Ong (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, I previously asked about private insurance rejections affecting persons with disabilities, mental health conditions including autism. The Government’s reply was that this data is not tracked and that beyond MediShield Life, access to coverage depends on insurers’ own assessments.
I recognise that insurance works by assessing risk and insurers must be able to price their policies accordingly.
As we move towards a more inclusive society, families also need assurance that access to protection is fair. In 2024, MAS and the Life Insurance Association issued guidance on fair underwriting and clearer communication of exclusions. This is a positive step, but guidelines alone do not always change people’s experiences.
Families still report exclusions, higher premiums or rejection when adults with developmental conditions apply for life or critical illness insurance. Some are asked for assessments such as IQ or language reports and often, they do not receive clear explanations based on the data. Without better information, it is difficult to know whether these families are being fairly treated.
I have three questions.
First, will the Government work with MAS and insurers to track anonymised data on disability-related rejections and exclusions, so we have a clearer picture of what is happening?
Second, when exclusions or higher premiums are applied, will MAS require insurers, if challenged, to show that these decisions are backed by evidence and linked to real risk, as is already required in places like the UK, Australia and parts of the European Union?
Third, will there be an independent and accessible channel for families who believe decisions are unfair? At present, they are mostly told to appeal directly to the insurer, which often feels insufficient.
The Chairman: Minister Chee.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Chairman, I will start by addressing Mr Louis Chua’s cuts on maintaining cash acceptance and accessibility. My response will also address a similar Parliamentary Question raised by Mr Abdul Muhaimin for the Sitting on 3 March.
Sir, while digital payments bring efficiency and are more widely adopted, they do not fully replace cash. Our goal is to build a \"cash-lite\" society, not a cashless society.
Due to increasing adoption of digital payments, ATM withdrawals have declined by more than 30% from 2015 to 2024. ATMs with consistently low utilisation have gradually been removed, so banks could prioritise their ATMs for areas with higher utilisation.
To meet the needs of consumers, including the elderly and those who are less mobile, MAS also works with banks to ensure sufficient cash withdrawal points in the community. ATM locations include the vicinity of major town centres, transport hubs and key amenities such as supermarkets.
Banks will consider proximity to residential estates when siting their ATMs. New ATMs have been installed in areas with growing demand, for instance, at community nodes in new towns. Earlier, Mr Chua mentioned about the ATM that he has asked for on behalf of his residents. This is, I believe, the one at Rivervale Shores. And on 13 February, DBS submitted an application and I am pleased to inform Mr Chua that HDB has given the go-ahead for DBS to proceed to set up this ATM.
Sir, consumers can also withdraw cash when they shop at certain retail stores such as 7-Eleven, Giant and Sheng Siong. A small number of merchants, such as some food and beverage outlets that target younger customers, may decide to accept only digital payments. This is a commercial decision by the business owner.
Most merchants, based on our observations, including supermarkets and heartland businesses, continue to accept cash because there is demand from their customers to pay in cash. They do not want to lose customers by refusing to accept cash.
Our policy position is clear: cash should remain an accessible payment option for consumers in Singapore, even as digital payments gain popularity and acceptance.
MAS is monitoring the trends and developments in this area and will carefully assess if and when intervention is needed. This includes the possibility of making cash acceptance mandatory by law. At the same time, we have to carefully consider the impact on small businesses, as a mandatory requirement may impose additional handling costs for them.
Mr Chairman, Mr Chua also asked about the EQDP.\tThe EQDP aims to develop the local fund management capabilities and it is designed to broaden investor participation and catalyse third party capital flows into Singapore-listed equities. It is one component of a broader suite of measures, including having a pro-enterprise regulatory stance, enhanced investor recourse, a Value Unlock programme and the upcoming Singapore Exchange (SGX)-Nasdaq Global Listing Board.
We want to see sustainable outcomes. The current EQDP top-up reinforces the positive momentum and it enables us to support more strategies that invest in Singapore equities including in the small and mid caps. But, Sir, we should not rely solely on Government measures or EQDP top-ups. Growing the equities market is a multi-year effort that requires discipline, sensible innovation and also all market participants to play their part. We think of EQDP as a catalyst to get the momentum of the flywheel going. And the early market reception has been positive, and we should allow time for these different measures to work.
Mr Chairman, this morning, Mr Kenneth Tiong spoke about the need to take calculated risks so that we can make bold moves and do so with greater speed. I share these objectives and that is in line with the approach that we took for the equities market review together with our industry partners. And I shall do the same for the growth capital work group.
Sir, if we want Singapore as a country and society to take more risks, and for our people to be willing to take calculated risks to try new ideas, this must be a collective effort by all of us as Singaporeans, including Members of this House.
Importantly, how do we react and respond when we take risks and we try something new and some of the initiatives fail and when something goes wrong? Do we take the approach of learning from the experience and then picking ourselves up and try again? Or do we come down on the people involved like a tonne of bricks and look for somebody to blame?
I think how we respond makes a difference to whether we can set up this culture of risk taking in our society.
My experience as a Minister at the Ministry of Transport and MOF previously, and now MND and MAS, is that many of our public officers, including our younger colleagues, are supportive of taking risks and trying new ideas. They are also very open to working with industry partners and with fellow Singaporeans on this endeavour.
Many of the positive policy moves and also the pro-enterprise rules and reviewed changes could not have been done without the ideas and the hard work of our public officers.
Mr Chairman, I see our public officers as valued partners in our efforts to build a world-class Public Service for Singapore – one which is responsive and open to taking calculated risks while being anchored on integrity, service and excellence.
Let me now turn to Miss Rachel Ong's cut. Miss Ong asked about insurance accessibility for persons with disabilities. She has been championing this and advocating for this consistently.
MAS expects insurers to make objective assessments of insurance applications based on reliable information or data relevant to the risks, in line with MAS' Guidelines on Fair Dealing. We have reminded insurers that they should give due care to assessing applications from persons with disabilities and to base their decisions on coverage, pricing or exclusions on objective information and data pertaining to risk. Insurers should also clearly communicate and explain their decisions to the applicants.
The circumstances of each case has to be looked into to ascertain if the insurer has followed a data and risk-based process to assess the application. The key is to ensure that the insurer had followed the proper process in conducting its assessment before deciding whether to approve or turn down an application.
In the past three years, MAS received one complaint relating to insurance coverage for persons with disabilities, compared to a total of eight complaints in 2021 and 2022. This is a positive development. MAS has carefully reviewed all the nine cases and we have not found unfair underwriting practices to date for the nine cases. In some instances, the insurers could have better communicated the rationale of their underwriting decisions and they have since followed up with the applicants to explain their position.
MAS will study Miss Ong's suggestion to collect and monitor relevant data from the insurers.
Sir, persons with disabilities with concerns about the outcome of their insurance application can appeal through their insurer's feedback channel. Insurers need to maintain robust processes for handling customer complaints independently and effectively.
But I recognise the point that Miss Ong mentioned earlier, that from the applicant's point of view, this may not be adequate. So, should customers remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the review, they can write to MAS and we will investigate. Where there are lapses, MAS will take the appropriate supervisory actions against the insurer.
The Chairman: Any clarifications for Minister Chee? I do not see any. Can I invite Mr Foo? Would you like to withdraw the amendment?
Oh, sorry. Minister Gan, you have a clarification to make?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you, Chairman. Let me make a correction.
I spoke earlier on green procurement and said that the Government has set aside up to 4% of tender evaluation criteria for environmental sustainability considerations. That was incorrect. It should be 5%. Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman: You are most welcome, Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Foo, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Foo Cexiang: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Chair, earlier on when I heard Minister Indranee mention that our education and career options should be like an open highway, I could not help but think of a famous song by Jon Bon Jovi, \"It's My Life\". Incidentally, this is a definitive comeback song that revitalised his career in the 21st century. I hope similarly, our great reset of attitudes towards parenthood and marriage will also experience a great revitalisation.
There is actually another song by Jon Bon Jovi that he wrote in 2024, which is termed the most emotional song he has ever written. It is the song called \"Kiss the Bride\". And the lyrics? \"I used to be your Superman, my whole world in your little hand. Now, he's your world, that's right, I'll step aside. Now, she's your world, alright, I'll step aside. 'You may kiss the bride'.\"
Mr Chair, I hope as many Singaporeans will be able to experience the joy of parenthood and bringing up their child and be able to join me in this journey of parenthood.
Sir, PMO has its work cut out for it – from ensuring that our public officers understand the world, understand our people, understand technology well, to ensuring that we continue to attract top-tier talent and anchor a strong scientific base in Singapore, to pressing on with climate mitigation and adaptation strategies, even while ensuring our competitiveness as a climate realist, to ensuring this great reset on marriage and parenthood, and to building a strong equities market.
I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Gan, Minister Chan, Minister Indranee and Minister Chee for their responses. I would also like to thank the Head of Civil Service, the Permanent Secretaries, the Deputy Secretaries, and Directors and staff of PMO for their hard work. As I mentioned, they have their work cut out for them, but I have every confidence that they would do their best and do us proud. With that, I would like to withdraw my cut.
The Chairman: Because the debate on this Head was so efficient, I gave a bit of liberty for you to make that speech. But that liberty will not be given to the rest of the Members going forward. [Laughter.] I can see that you are a fan of Bon Jovi. Two very nice songs indeed.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $716,873,400 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $123,553,300 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head M (Ministry of Finance)","subTitle":"A forward-looking government, a confident Singapore","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head M, the Ministry of Finance (MOF). Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, I move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
Mr Chairman, in his Budget speech, Prime Minister Wong highlighted that we are entering a post-SG60 chapter of Singapore's development in a world that is becoming more uncertain and more contested. In such an environment, stewardship of our fiscal resources becomes even more critical.
Singapore's fiscal credibility remains one of our strongest foundations. Maintaining prudent budgetary policies and effective governance ensures that we preserve a strong financial base not only for ourselves, but for future generations. This is especially important, giving rising structural spending pressures from ageing, healthcare, climate resilience and security. Globally, many governments are also facing increasingly constrained fiscal positions as these pressures build.
Mr Chairman, but stewardship is not only about restraint. It is also about ensuring that every dollar is used effectively. Prudent governance must therefore be continuous, not episodic.
In this regard, I would like to see clarification from the Minister. How is MOF strengthening scrutiny over high-value projects and deepening programme evaluation frameworks to ensure major initiatives deliver measurable outcomes over time? Beyond the initial approval, are there structured review mechanisms to allow resources to be re-allocated dynamically, particularly where programmes no longer meet intended objectives or where priorities have shifted? It would be useful if the Ministry could share concrete examples of such re-allocations in recent years.
Mr Chairman, finance should also be a catalyst for innovation and transformation. I therefore welcome efforts to support community partnerships and new delivery models, including through the Singapore Government Partnerships Office. In areas such as ageing, mental health and family resilience, early and preventive interventions can reduce significantly higher downstream costs.
Could the Minister share how MOF evaluates the long-term fiscal impact of such investments? Are there frameworks that go beyond immediate expenditure to capture medium- and long-term cost avoidance as well as broader social returns?
Mr Chairman, as part of responsible fiscal stewardship, we must also periodically review structural features of our tax system. Our system has served us well and we should preserve its fundamental strengths. At the same time, structural parameters should evolve alongside economic realities.
During the recent People's Action Party (PAP) Policy Forum discussions, participants suggested reviewing the income tax relief structures against updated median incomes.
In that same spirit, let me turn to one specific aspect of our tax system – the long-standing provision that effectively exempts the first $20,000 of chargeable income from tax. This framework was introduced in Budget 2002, at a time when GST-related rebates and personal reliefs were consolidated into the tax system to protect lower- and middle-income Singaporeans as we shifted towards greater reliance on indirect taxation.
More than two decades on, the context has changed materially. Median incomes have more than doubled, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has increased and cost structures have shifted significantly. Yet the $20,000 threshold has remained unchanged.
In real term, its value has eroded. As incomes rise while thresholds remain static, bracket creep occurs gradually. More lower- and middle-income earners enter the tax space, not necessarily because they are significantly better off, but because the system has not been recalibrated. Otherwise, bracket creep becomes a silent shift in the tax burden – one that is not always visible but is nonetheless felt.
The point is not to call for tax cuts. It is to consider calibration. A periodic review of such structural thresholds can help ensure that the original policy intent of protecting lower- and middle-income earners remains intact. Any adjustments, if considered, can be calibrated and phased and implemented in a fiscally responsible manner. In this way, we preserve both fairness and sustainability.
The Prime Minister already mentioned in his round-up speech that MOF will be looking into it. I really thank him for that. I would therefore encourage the Ministry to, beyond this, periodically assess whether such structural parameters remain appropriately aligned with today's income distribution and tax structure going forward.
Mr Chairman, strong fiscal stewardship requires three things – discipline in how we spend, rigour in how we evaluate, and adaptability in how we design our systems. If we continue to strengthen this, we will not only preserve our fiscal position, but also reinforce trust in our system across generations.
I look forward to the Minister's response.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Mr Victor Lye.
Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, as a capital exporter, Singapore should manage our national capital to build a network economy, shifting from a gross domestic product (GDP) to a gross national product (GNP) mindset.
What can our capital, enterprises and people produce for Singapore across the world? The recent restructuring of Temasek Holdings provides a timely opportunity to manage this capital more effectively and strategically.
I propose three pathways.
Pathway one – strategy investing in global norms. Let us invest in sectors where Singapore lacks the natural advantages. Emerging domains like space technology are prime examples. By positioning ourselves as a critical node in these high-value ecosystems through targeted research and development, and global partnerships, we secure our position and our relevance in the future economy.
Pathway two – hunting as a pack. We must leverage the new Temasek-Singapore restructuring as a portfolio to create a Singapore pack. Our national champions should act as anchors, pulling our smaller enterprises into global supply chains and opening doors that our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) cannot knock on alone.
Pathway three – placing Singaporeans overseas. As we invest globally, can we build structured overseas pathways for Singaporeans? Not student exchanges, not internships, but good jobs from early career to mid-career, leveraging the host country networks that our sovereign investments can help create. Placing Singaporeans overseas seeds the nodes of our global network, returning with relationships and experiences to drive our network economy.
In closing, Mr Chairman, as a small city-state, we must capture value across global networks. By managing our capital exports strategically, we strengthen our future economy, we grow our enterprise ecosystem and generate good jobs for Singaporeans at home and abroad.
The Chairman: Mr Kenneth Tiong, you may take your two cuts together.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Sir, on property tax valuation for owner-occupied homes.
A constituent I visited is a retiree in his home for decades – asset rich, cash poor. His landed home is one of the most basic in the area. His neighbour tells a different story – rebuilt into a multi-storey house; three units, three entrances, three tenants and a very high rental yield.
Under the Annual Value (AV) system, his property tax is set by comparable rentals, including his neighbour's. His neighbourhood gentrified around him while he stayed put. A retiree who never rented and never will is taxed as a landlord.
In February 2024, the same concern was raised – how the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) assesses AV for asset-rich but cash-poor owners. The response was that IRAS considers \"improvement works last done.\" But his problem is not his property's condition. It is his neighbour's rental income. The AV system yokes an owner-occupier's tax to his neighbours' self-interested actions.
Sir, there is a better method. Capital value – based on sales, not rentals. It would better reflect the position of owner-occupiers who derive no rental income. The Government rejected this, citing fewer sales transactions and greater price volatility. Why does this reasoning not apply to the Chief Valuer's other function?
When the Chief Valuer prices state land for Build-To-Order flats, the methodology references resale flat transactions – this was confirmed by the Government in November 2025. Can the Minister explain this inconsistency? Will the Government consider capital value for owner-occupied property tax?
Last year, my colleague, Louis Chua, asked whether the administrative concession allowing hotels and restaurants to display prices excluding GST and service charge was still relevant. The Minister replied that he did not think consumers would be confused. But in 2022, IRAS had to clamp down on restaurants that were imposing nominal service charges – as low as 0.1% – specifically to exploit this loophole and avoid displaying GST inclusive prices. These establishments were gaming the system to advertise lower prices while adding the charges at the end. If consumers were truly not confused by this practice, why did IRAS need to take enforcement action?
The real problem is that this exemption creates a perverse incentive. Restaurants that impose a service charge can advertise prices almost 17% lower than what customers actually pay. It is a competitive advantage that comes at the expense of price transparency.
IRAS justifies this concession by saying it helps restaurants manage pricing differences between dine-in and takeaway orders. But this rationale does not hold up. It is just as easy to display a full price and subtract a 10% discount for takeaway as it is to display a lower price and add a 10% service charge for dine-in. The arithmetic is identical, only the direction changes. And this takeaway rationale cannot explain why hotels also enjoy the same exemption. There is no such thing as a takeaway hotel room.
In an age of electronic menus and ordering systems, it is anachronistic to cite the cost of printing paper menus as justification for denying consumers basic price transparency.
I urge IRAS to conduct a proper public feedback exercise. First, assess consumer demand for clear display of GST-inclusive prices. Second, estimate the actual cost to hotels and restaurants of modifying their menus and ordering systems. Let the evidence, not assumptions made three decades ago, determine whether this concession still serves any public interest or whether it simply allows businesses to advertise artificially low prices at the expense of consumer clarity.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Chairman, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Over the past few months, SME owners have told me that it is not that there are no orders, but the customers are placing orders more cautiously with shorter cycles. They also say that what worries them most is not the hard work, but the uncertainty. Therefore, prudent fiscal policy is not just a macroeconomic principle but also foundation for providing stable expectations for businesses.
Over the years, the Government has accumulated national reserves and made good use of the Net Investment Return Contribution (NIRC) to support national development and helping families and businesses to weather difficult times. This fiscal resilience is itself the greatest support for SMEs.
This year we have achieved a fiscal surplus. I believe the key is not just the numbers, but how we utilise this space to strengthen the business confidence to support SME upgrading and transformation whilst reserving buffers for potential future risks.
Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify two points. First, when utilising the fiscal supplies, how will the Government balance replenishing reserves and maintaining discipline while also increasing support for SMEs for transformation, digitalisation and internationalisation, so that businesses become more competitive in an uncertain environment? Second, within the framework of emphasising intergenerational equity, how do we ensure that today's fiscal decisions not only avoid burdening the next generation but also preserve sufficient policy flexibility and response capacity for future businesses?
Mr Chairman, prudent fiscal policy is not just about safeguarding the books but about safeguarding business confidence and also employment stability as well as Singapore's long-term economic resilience.
The Chairman: Ms Tin Pei Ling, you may take your two cuts together.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Thank you, Chairman. Regulations set clear boundaries for businesses. They protect consumers, deter unfair and illicit practices and support healthy industry development. But compliance carries costs.
In Singapore, our strong regulatory framework upholds integrity, safety and fair markets, yet compliance also imposes direct expenses, administrative burdens and slower decision cycles. For instance, complex or changing regulations often force companies to recruit additional compliance specialists, roles that can be hard to fill, raising recruitment and headcount costs while still leaving compliance challenges unresolved.
These reduce operational flexibility and lengthen wait times. Smaller firms and fast‑moving businesses are hit the hardest.
At a time when companies are already squeezed by rising costs and fierce competition, streamlining regulatory requirements would materially ease these burdens. I therefore ask whether the Government will undertake a review of rules across industries and verticals to identify opportunities to increase operational flexibility and shorten processing times for regulatory outcomes.
Businesses face real hurdles in cross‑border trade – divergent rules and standards across countries, cumbersome paperwork, limited access to trade finance, fragmented and inefficient payment systems and incompatible data standards and systems. These frictions are amplified by a volatile geopolitical environment – unilateral measures, such as the sudden US tariff changes are a stark example.
Time is money. Firms need swift movement of goods and settlement of payments. They cannot afford to be hit by unexpected sudden policy changes or tariff shocks while their cargo or cash is in transit.
Singapore SMEs are particularly vulnerable. With a limited domestic market, they must internationalise. Cross‑border frictions, however, add to their cost pressures and constrain their ability to scale.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Single Window was thus welcomed. It enables secure electronic exchange of trade documents, speeds up cross‑border clearance and supports deeper economic integration. Hence, could the Government set out what more will be done to expand cross‑border trade and reduce friction through the ASEAN Single Window?
The Chairman: Mr Ng Shi Xuan, you may take your two cuts together.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Chairman, much has been said about our recent Budget surplus and how we can share this gain with Singaporeans. But the MOF Occasional Paper released earlier shows that about 35% of Singaporeans and PRs do not pay personal income tax, and our personal income tax system is already largely progressive. In Budget 2016, the relief cap was reduced from $100,000 to $80,000 from Year of Assessment (YA) 2018 to ensure that higher-income individuals pay more tax.
Today, the Personal Income Tax is the third largest source of Government revenue. So, fairness in structure matters.
Through our PAP Policy Forum engagement as Mr Saktiandi, and from what I see in Naval Base constituency, many dual-income middle-class families feel stretched. They pay tax, may not qualify for direct transfers, yet support children, ageing parents and fulfil national duty. They ask me, can we do something about it?
So, I would like to suggest tax credits for two groups of Singaporeans: National Servicemen (NSmen) and caregivers. Under our current release and using a median dual-income household earning about $12,000 per month as an example, one spouse earning $72,000 may claim about $24,000 to $31,000 in parent, child and NSman reliefs, depending on how many dependents one may have. Tax falls from about $2,800 to about $550. But deductions depend on marginal tax rates. A $1,000 deduction saves $115 at 11.5%, but only $70 at 7%. For a single-income household earning about $12,000 a month, after claiming the reliefs, tax payable would still be around $6,000 to $7,000.
I suggest a modest $2,500 tax credit, comprising $1,500 for an NSman and $1,000 for a caregiver instead of tax relief. And these would provide meaningful and equal recognition regardless of our tax bracket.
With SAF60 approaching in 2027, this could be an appropriate juncture to recognise our NSmen and with the Budget surplus, it is a timely window to pilot such calibrated credits.
Moving to businesses. With the recent Budget surplus, we have an opportunity to make careful reinvestments that raise productivity across our economy. Some businesses have shared that they are adjusting to cost pressures from increases in Local Qualifying Salary and foreign worker levies. These are important structural moves to uplift wages and productivity. But we must also help businesses bring in more revenue and compete more effectively.
One practical way to do so is through how to leverage AI in Government procurement. But this is not to say that all the work must be done by the Government. We will be giving AI subscription support for individuals in this Budget. In this same spirit, could we also pilot —
The Chairman: You are out of time. Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Mr Chairman, I will try to do better with time. I declare my interest as Group Managing Director of Commonwealth Capital Group. While the vast majority of our conglomerate’s revenues are with retail customers and private businesses, there may be occasions where some of our investee companies serve the Government as a customer.
In my engagements with the private sector, including with the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), it is clear that our Government is a key player in our corporate ecosystem. It spends close to $30 billion a year on procurement, contracting with close to 8,000 vendors. It also disburses significant sums in the form of grants, much of it goes to SMEs.
Given its heft, the Government can shape the rules of the game to support our local enterprises: one, by taking a leadership role in adopting new technologies to improve efficiency; two, by shaping market norms and business practices, and three, by reducing unnecessary frictions when interacting with the Government.
To this end, the Ministry could consider the following.
First, rethink how the Government interacts with businesses. Let us not ask companies to navigate the Government but instead ask how the Government can proactively use technologies to guide companies in the right direction. At the front-end, GoBusiness and the Business Grants Portal are good first steps. But they still require companies to sift through a smorgasbord of policies and pick out the relevant ones. Instead of relying only on SME Centres, can we go further with AI?
For example, imagine a “GovAI Enterprise Assistant”. Based on their parameters, such as scale, industry and markets, companies could receive bespoke recommendations on applying for upcoming tenders or relevant grants; get customised real-time updates on how policy changes impact their business; and ask questions about how investment or hiring decisions would impact their payouts from the Government under all relevant policies.
Second, on the back-end, it currently takes between four to 10 weeks to process grant applications. Could our public servants use AI tools to expedite these assessments?
Third, adopt more pro-business payment terms and disbursement schedules, which should be at negligible cost to the Government. Some grants, like the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme, can be paid earlier and more frequently, instead of only once a year. This would have an immaterial impact on the Government’s cashflow but could make a difference to our cash-strapped local companies.
Mr Chairman, the Government operates at a scale which no local enterprise can match. It is best placed to invest in the right technology and processes to support our local enterprises to succeed.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Chairman, let me speak on two areas where MOF can lead meaningful transformation: inclusive procurement and AI-enabled fiscal governance.
On inclusive procurement, beyond its current emphases on transparency and quality, MOF can better support SMEs with three refinements.
First, faster payments through quicker payment cycles for smaller contracts and milestone-based payments for larger ones, including more regular payments for Progressive Wage Credits. This addresses cash-flow pressures preventing capable SMEs from bidding.
Second, smarter contract packaging by avoiding monolithic tenders where feasible. Disaggregating components like cybersecurity or design allows SMEs to compete in their strengths whilst maintaining programme coordination.
Third, recognising social value in contracts through a points system similar to weightage in sustainability contracts. Modest weight could reward verifiable contributions like skills transfer, disability employment or SME participation. Hence, differentiating proposals that strengthen our societal ecosystem.
On AI-enabled fiscal governance, MOF can harness AI to meet rising transaction volumes and accountability expectations.
First, better forecasting using machine learning to analyse economic indicators, demographics and trade trends for more accurate budget forecasts.
Second, improved compliance through AI-powered smart forms and real-time compliance checkers, strengthening governance whilst reducing administrative workloads.
Third, sharper resource allocation by analysing which programmes deliver greatest public value per dollar.
By refining procurement and harnessing AI, we can strengthen enterprises, embed social value recognition and ensure fiscal system robustness.
The Chairman: Ms Yeo Wan Ling, you may take your two cuts together.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Chairman, if we want businesses, especially SMEs, to work well with Government, their experience on GeBIZ must be efficient, transparent and fair. I propose that we refresh the Government Electronic Business System (GeBIZ) to streamline documentation, reduce repetitive submissions and make procurement more user-friendly. Lower friction encourages broader participation and stronger competition.
Second, can the Ministry trial AI tools to strengthen procurement finance, audit and administration? AI can flag anomalies, speed up verification and reduce manual processing, while maintaining strong governance. The system should also automatically check that bids comply with the Progressive Wage Model and Local Qualifying Salary requirements before awards are made, ensuring responsible contracting.
Finally, procurement should move more decisively towards outcome-based key performance indicators, accessing impact, not just lower costs. By modernising GeBIZ, we can make Government procurement faster, smarter and more aligned with our economic and social priorities.
Government procurement must not only deliver value for money, it must also create fair opportunities for our SMEs. I would like to ask for an update on the expansion of the TenderLite to infocomm technology (ICT) contracts. Many smaller tech firms have strong capabilities in digital solutions, cybersecurity and AI, but struggle to compete in large, bundled ICT tenders due to scale and track record requirements.
As agencies accelerate digitalisation, expanding TenderLite into ICT can lower entry barriers, allow smaller firms to build credentials progressively and strengthen our local tech ecosystem. At the same time, clearer project scoping and sensible risk allocation will help SMEs participate with confidence, without overextending themselves.
By widening access to ICT procurement opportunities, we support enterprise growth, deepen competition and build greater resilience into our public sector's digital transformations.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, I rise to speak on two areas under MOF's purview. First, several Statutory Boards, including JTC, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and our polytechnics host substantial financial resources to support their long-term missions. While each operate within its own governance structure, differences in scale and investment capabilities may lead to uneven outcomes over time. Is there scope for a stronger shared support, for example, pool investment platforms or enhanced central advisory capabilities could help smaller boards achieve better risk-adjusted returns, while preserving their autonomy and mandates?
Second, I wish to address grant disbursement timelines that directly impacts businesses' cash flow. The Progressive Wage Credit Scheme is an important measure supporting lower wage workers. However, annual disbursements may create interim cash flow pressures for SMEs. Businesses have shared that more frequent payouts, such as quarterly disbursements aligned with GST cycles, would ease cash flow without increasing overall fiscal requirements. I hope the Ministry can consider this.
Mr Chairman, I declare that I serve as advisor to both the Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professional Association, and the National Instructors and Coaches Association. In that capacity, I wish to convey feedback on Government procurement practices. In the creative and media sectors, payment upon project completion remains common. While administratively straightforward, this places significant cash flow strains on smaller firms and freelancers.
In Government projects, the impact is amplified. Subcontractors and freelance professionals often bear financial risk despite delivering interim milestones. I would like to urge the Ministry to consider moving towards milestone or progressive payments, as a default for larger Government projects. These will help ease cash flow pressures and support industry sustainability.
A related issue concerns compensation for material scope changes, where revision substantially expand deliverables, recognising these as legitimate grounds for additional payment would set clearer standards and reduce disputes.
Mr Chairman, fiscal prudence is also about timing and structure. Strengthening reserve stewardship, improve disbursement timing and promoting fair procurement can enhance both stability and fairness on the ground.
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members for their cuts.
Mr Chairman, sound public finance is not just about balanced budgets, fiscal rules and safeguards. For us, it is something more, and that is captured in MOF's motto which is: to create a better Singapore through finance.
Nothing can get done without finance. The flip side of this is that public finance has to be handled with great care and responsibility, because how it is used determines how the country moves forward and how the lives of Singaporeans can be improved.
Hence, let me touch on the principles that underpin our approach to public finance.
First, fiscal prudence and sustainability. We must spend wisely and within our means. This is not only to meet current needs, but also to maximise our fiscal space to seize new opportunities for growth and have the ability to deal with future challenges or crises.
Second, value for money. Every public dollar represents the hard work of our people, that has been entrusted to the Government to use for the national good. We will continue to achieve more and deliver better outcomes for Singaporeans and Singapore.
Third, finance as a catalyst. Public funding should do more than fill gaps. It should drive new directions, accelerate growth and unlock momentum. Our goal is for finance to enable impact and catalyse innovation and transformation.
We are in a position of fiscal strength today, because of decades of careful stewardship and forward fiscal planning.
I agree with Mr Lee Hong Chuang that our fiscal decisions today should preserve sufficient buffers and policy flexibility for future generations.
We regularly review our tax system to strengthen our revenue base to meet rising needs, while ensuring that the system remains progressive. Our tax system is supplemented by the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) framework that allows part of our investment returns to be taken into the annual budget in a sustainable way. Taken together, our fiscal system strikes a balance between supporting short-term needs, and growing our reserves in line with the economy to provide a steady stream of income over the long term, as well as acting as a buffer against future shocks.
As the Prime Minister has mentioned in the Budget debate, our revenue upsides have been used to address both our current and future needs. In addition to permanent schemes, we have provided significant one-off support to Singaporeans in the past few years to deal with cost-of-living pressures and also funded investments across many areas, ranging from social needs to our economy. As announced in Budget 2026, these include additional support for companies, especially our SMEs, to internationalise and build AI capabilities.
Ultimately, our revenue and expenditure considerations are anchored on fiscal responsibility. MOF remains committed in ensuring that our current and future needs can be met in a fiscally sound and sustainable manner.
I thank Mr Edward Chia for his suggestions on stronger shared support to help our Statutory Boards achieve better returns for their reserves.
Statutory Boards may hold some reserves to support their capital investment and working capital needs. MOF reviews the financial positions of Statutory Boards to prevent excessive build-up of reserves. Where Statutory Boards have reserves, they invest their reserves in accordance with their liquidity needs and risk appetites.
The Accountant-General's Department (AGD) has developed schemes to allow Statutory Boards to enjoy economies of scale and easier access to appointed fund managers and investment consultants through AGD's Demand Aggregation Programme. We will continue to review ways to enhance our central support.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how MOF strengthens programme evaluation and scrutiny over high-value projects. These processes continue to be key in delivering better, value-for-money outcomes.
First, we work with agencies on programme evaluation and review. Agencies are required to map how interventions and underlying assumptions translate to the desired outcomes. Agencies are also required to develop evaluation plans with indicators that track implementation, outcomes and costs. Besides enabling systematic tracking through these metrics, the evaluation plans specify clear milestone-based reporting. These help us to understand whether a programme is achieving its objectives, whether improvements are needed and facilitates resourcing decisions.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked if there have been reviews that allow us to re-allocate resources dynamically. As our operating environment changes, MOF works with agencies to redesign programmes and pivot resources to new priorities when appropriate.
The Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package is one example. Technological advancements are increasingly transforming business models and jobs. We saw a need to encourage companies to undertake enterprise and workforce transformation in tandem. However, the support for workforce transformation programmes could be better coordinated and the utilisation of initiatives, such as the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit improved.
We worked closely with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Trade and Industry to review our existing programmes and announced the key changes in Budget 2025. This included the SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant that consolidates workforce transformation schemes under a single application channel to provide more holistic support to companies. Under the Workforce Development Grant, we will also provide more support for job redesign. We also worked with MOM to redesign the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit to make it easier for companies to use the credits and strengthen incentives for companies to upskill their employees.
For high-value projects, MOF applies an additional layer of scrutiny across the whole of Government, to evaluate their worthiness and cost-effectiveness. Specialised committees support the review of big-ticket information and communications technology and smart system, and cybersecurity projects. Under the Gateway Process, larger-scale and more complex infrastructure projects are reviewed by MOF and the Development Projects Advisory Panel (DPAP). These committees include independent third parties, such as industry practitioners and experts, with deep technical expertise. In 2025, Government agencies, working together with MOF and DPAP, were able to achieve a total cost avoidance of at least $1.4 billion in development costs. The Gateway Process remains an integral part of how we ensure value-for-money. As part of our efforts to continuously improve, MOF has recently streamlined the Gateway Process to speed up project approvals while retaining the rigour that has helped us achieve value for money.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also aptly spoke about the role of finance as a catalyst. Mr Chairman, MOF uses public finance to catalyse growth and innovation. In every Budget, we deploy our fiscal resources strategically to drive effective change – we have invested heavily to build Singaporeans' long-term capabilities, through lifelong learning and the adoption of AI, as well as strengthened our enterprise ecosystem.
MOF will continue to develop new solutions, working in partnership with the community and businesses, to address current and future challenges.
An example is how Tote Board supports community-driven innovations in social services, health and community care. Last year, we announced the third tranche of the Tote Board's Enabling Lives Initiative Grant to support innovation for the disability sector. Working with SG Enable, the first grant call has seen a diverse slate of proposals receiving support, ranging from community and independent living initiatives, to training and employment programmes for persons with disabilities.
Mr Kenneth Tiong raised a cut on property tax valuation. As I understand it, he is suggesting that the valuation of an owner-occupied residential property for property tax purposes should be derived differently from non-owner-occupied property. His proposal is that while valuation of properties that are rented out should be using AV, which is based on rental transactions, owner-occupied properties should instead be based on \"capital value\" derived from sale transactions.
That would not be an appropriate approach. One should adopt the same valuation basis for all residential properties, regardless of whether it is owner-occupied, rented out or vacant. That is so that there is a common yardstick to assess properties for property tax purposes.
So, having regard to the need for a common yardstick, the real question is whether one should use rental data for all residential properties or sales data for all residential properties. It is not a question of using AV for rental properties and capital value for owner-occupied properties. So, on this, the use of rental data to determine AV keeps property taxes, which are assessed annually, more stable and predictable for homeowners.
This is because there are more rental transactions than sale transactions, which provides a more accurate and stable picture of comparable properties to determine the valuation of a given property.
Rents are also generally less volatile and subject to less variability compared to sale prices, as the rents are locked in by the lease agreements over a period of time, and hence, they are less impacted by market sentiments and the property cycle.
So, just because a neighbour may have a better or a more nicely developed home that commands a higher rental or AV does not mean that the neighbour who has a simpler home will have the same AV because, obviously, when valuing, adjustments will have to be made to take into account the necessary attributes.
Next, it is also important to distinguish between the valuation and the property tax rate in the determination of property tax payable. While the valuation for all residential properties is determined using a common yardstick, we can and do apply different property tax rates for owner occupied and non-owner-occupied properties. As a concession to owner-occupied properties, property tax rates for owner-occupied properties are lower compared to non-owner-occupied properties. From time to time, we also provide one-off property tax rebates for owner-occupied properties to help cushion the impact of the property tax. This means that the retiree is also not taxed as if he is a landlord while the neighbourhood gentrifies.
In any case, shifting to capital value as the basis for property tax assessment does not necessarily lower the assessment. The fact of the matter is that when a neighbourhood is revitalised, the attractiveness of the retiree's property would increase, and one can expect both rent and sale prices to increase, that is, both the AV and the capital value will go up.
Mr Kenneth Tiong also cited the use of sales data for sale of state land. Sales data is appropriate for use where there is a sale of land or property, as sales data would be more directly relevant. This includes the sale of state land to HDB for public housing development. For AV, rental data is more appropriate for the reasons explained earlier.
Mr Chairman, we are stewards of our reserves, assets and resources. As Singaporeans, it is our collective responsibility to make the best use of our resources for ourselves and for future generations, just as the previous generations did for us. Let us create a better Singapore through finance together.
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Jeffrey Siow.
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Jeffrey Siow): Mr Chairman, let me start by addressing Ms Tin Pei Ling's question on the Government's efforts to support businesses by streamlining regulatory requirements.
The Economic Strategy Review (ESR) committees have engaged many business leaders to gather feedback on Singapore's long-term economic strategy. Many business leaders, here and abroad, have emphasised the importance of Singapore's reputation as a well-governed, stable place for doing business. Our clear and consistent rules and laws are a competitive edge for us, especially in today's uncertain global economic environment.
Besides the ESR, I am also part of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Pro-Enterprise Rules Review chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, which oversees efforts to improve regulatory efficiency.
MOF agencies are strongly supporting the Inter-Ministerial Committee’s efforts. For instance, Customs is considering extending the validity period of certain licences from three years to five years, so that businesses need not renew them as frequently. Customs is also shortening the time for businesses to obtain some licences to within 30 working days, so businesses have greater certainty in their planning and operations.
The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) will consult businesses and the audit community later this year on whether to exempt more small enterprises from having to audit their financial statements. This will reduce their cost burden and improve cash flow.
While we do want to keep compliance requirements proportionate, some regulations which balance between business and consumer interests require a little bit more careful consideration.
So, for example, Mr Kenneth Tiong asked if IRAS can review the concession for F&B establishments and hotels to display prices that exclude GST.
The purpose of this concession is to simplify processes for establishments that impose service charges, which includes both F&B establishments as well as hotels and this is because service charges are variable and may be waived or reduced. This concession has been in place for the last 30 years and it has become the accepted norm. Making an industry-wide change will require such businesses to incur additional costs when the industry is currently facing cost pressures. Nonetheless, we will review this in the future, to take into account technological improvements as well as business and consumer preferences.
Mr Edward Chia and Mr Shawn Loh suggested that the Government review the frequency of the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme payouts, citing how annual payouts may result in cashflow constraints for smaller businesses.
MOM annualises Progressive Wage Credit Scheme payouts because the wages of workers in the Progressive Wage Model sectors can vary throughout the year. Smoothening the payout on an annual basis ensures that we provide sufficient, fair and consistent support to companies that are implementing wage increases to uplift our lower-wage workers. So, it is not a technical issue, it is a policy issue.
We, nevertheless, recognise that smaller businesses face cost pressures and cashflow constraints, which is why we have provided the Corporate Income Tax Rebate and Cash Grant to support more companies in this year's Budget.
Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about the ASEAN Single Window and I managed to hear all of her cuts before her mic was cut off. The ASEAN Single Window enables the exchange of documents for cross-border trade across ASEAN member states.
The onboarding of ASEAN Member States to the ASEAN Single Window has reduced paperwork, shortened clearance times and improved predictability and transparency for traders and exporters. This has facilitated trade by reducing cross-border friction.
Singapore chairs the Steering Committee for the implementation of the ASEAN Single Window. We are now exploring ASEAN Single Window 2.0, to strengthen interoperability and to expand electronic trade-related document exchanges to partners, such as China, Japan and South Korea and this could include adopting standardised technologies that allow for more types of electronic documents to be exchanged.
These improvements to cross-border clearance processes will make it even easier for businesses to use Singapore as a launchpad to grow and expand internationally – in line with the recommendations from the ESR.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about how the Government can help businesses catalyse innovation and enhance processes to be more productive.
We encourage businesses to use more technology to increase productivity. For instance, SMEs that do not have large back-office teams can digitalise their processes to reduce paperwork and errors. A recent study by Deloitte estimated that using digital invoices can save small businesses up to $20 per invoice.
To support this effort, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) launched InvoiceNow, Singapore’s e-invoicing network, in 2019. Today, over 63,000 businesses are on InvoiceNow. One such business is I Interior Design. By using InvoiceNow, this business can automatically issue e-invoices and populate accounting records, without having to spend time on manual data entry. Many businesses and trade associations have given us positive feedback that they were able to reduce invoicing errors using InvoiceNow.
For businesses with overseas operations, cross-border B2B transactions will also be easier through InvoiceNow as its underlying e-invoicing standard is internationally accepted.
For these reasons, the Government has been nudging more businesses to use InvoiceNow. We provide newly incorporated businesses with one year of free InvoiceNow services. Since 1 November 2025, newly incorporated companies that voluntarily register for the GST are required to transmit invoice data to IRAS via the InvoiceNow network. Such companies have benefited from faster GST audits and refunds.
As more businesses come onboard the InvoiceNow network, the network benefits and efficiency gains will only increase further and so in consultation with SBF and other trade associations, we are now ready to take the next step to push for greater adoption of e-invoicing.
We will require all GST-registered businesses to submit digital invoices to IRAS via InvoiceNow by April 2031. This will bring on 90,000 more businesses to the InvoiceNow network.
We will do this progressively. We will prioritise the onboarding of smaller businesses so that we can support them better in their transition. First, we will make a suite of InvoiceNow-Ready software: solutions available to businesses free-of-charge. Second, we will provide new cash grants to defray any operational costs of adopting InvoiceNow-Ready software up to $1,000 for smaller companies and up to $5,000 for larger companies. More details on the timeline and support provided will be released by IRAS and IMDA.
Turning to personal taxes, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about reviewing the $20,000 threshold for personal income tax exemptions. While the personal income tax exemption threshold has not been changed for some time, this threshold should be seen together with our overall system of tax rates, tax reliefs and rebates that applies to all individuals.
Under our current system, one in three resident workers do not pay any personal income tax at all. And among those who do, about eight in 10 have an effective tax rate of less than 6%.
So, I would like to reassure Mr Saktiandi that we will regularly review our income tax system to ensure that it is progressive and resilient, and that the tax burden is kept low, particularly and especially for middle- and lower-income.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan suggested providing tax credits to recognise our NSmen and caregivers. As Mr Ng pointed out, we do have various tax reliefs in place to recognise NSmen and caregiving, or caregivers. To complement the tax reliefs, both NSmen and caregivers are also eligible for cash grants and credits. Cash grants and credits are administratively simpler and more progressive than tax credits which are tied to payable taxes.
For example, we provide up to $18,500 in LifeSG credits and top-ups to CPF and Post-Secondary Education accounts via the NS Home Awards for operationally-ready NSmen, and we also have provided one-off NS LifeSG credits in 2022 and 2024. Caregivers can also apply for the Home Caregiving Grant to defray the cost of caregiving.
We will continue to review the support provided to NSmen and caregivers, whether through tax deductions, cash grants, or other means to recognise them for their contributions and sacrifices.
Finally, Mr Victor Lye spoke about strategically leveraging Temasek's global investments to create more opportunities for Singaporeans. Temasek's mandate is to deliver good, sustainable long-term returns. Their returns contribute to the annual Budget via the Net Investment Returns framework.
As a principle, we want Temasek to operate on a commercial basis and optimise their returns. As Mr Lye acknowledges, the Government does not prescribe specific areas of investment or dictate Temasek's individual investment decisions. Nonetheless, Temasek is indeed a valuable partner for the Government in our economic growth strategies. And we work together whenever there is alignment on the three pathways that Mr Lye highlighted: identifying strategic areas for investment, growing our local champions and developing Singaporean talent.
Mr Chairman, in an increasingly competitive global landscape, being pro-enterprise is essential to Singapore's continued economic relevance. MOF is systematically improving our regulatory environment to reduce compliance costs and respond to business needs. We will continue to closely partner businesses, industry associations and unions to maintain Singapore's position as one of the best places in the world to do business.
The Chairman: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong): Mr Chairman, I will speak on how MOF is making Government procurement more accessible for businesses and how technology can enhance public service delivery and accountability.
When procuring goods and services, the Government selects solutions that provide value for money so that we can achieve more and deliver better outcomes with public funds.
When considering value for money, we take a holistic assessment of both benefits and costs, which can encompass economic, social and environmental outcomes.
I appreciate Ms Denise Phua's and Ms Yeo Wan Ling's suggestions to embed social value and look into outcomes beyond cost in our procurement. Our holistic approach towards value for money allows us to do so. To illustrate, in a tender for contact centre services by the Public Service Division, the awarded contractor was required to hire persons with disabilities and seniors for at least 10% of the jobs created by the contract. We will continue to look for opportunities to reap positive economic, social and environmental outcomes, while achieving value for money and avoiding excessive compliance costs for businesses.
Mr Shawn Loh and Ms Denise Phua spoke about making Government procurement more accessible for SMEs. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked for an update on extension of Tender Lite to ICT procurement.
To improve accessibility, Government agencies ensure our procurement opportunities are appropriately sized to allow SMEs to participate while ensuring it is sufficient for suppliers to invest in innovative solutions or technology that improve productivity.
Last year, we announced two initiatives to make procurement opportunities more accessible: expanding Tender Lite to construction and ICT procurement; and introducing the new Innovative Procurement Partnership. Let me share updates on each in turn.
Tender Lite was first introduced in April 2024 to simplify the contract conditions of tenders up to $1 million, making them more accessible to SMEs. We implemented Tender Lite first for the procurement of general goods and services and then expanded to construction procurement in May 2025.
MOF has been working closely with industry stakeholders to expand Tender Lite to ICT procurement. We have incorporated feedback from SBF, the Association for Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) and SGTech.
First, we will streamline the number of contract conditions so that businesses find it simpler to participate.
Second, we will share risks with businesses. We will remove clauses on liquidated damages where possible or cap the liquidated damages for late delivery and service performance at 10% of the relevant contract value. MOF will also remove the need for security deposits. These changes will ease businesses' cashflow and reduce the risks that they bear.
MOF will be launching Tender Lite for ICT procurement from April 2026. With the expansion of Tender Lite to ICT contracts, Tender Lite will cover all procurement with tender value up to $1 million. With Quotation and Tender Lite, around 90% of Government procurement opportunities will benefit from simpler contract conditions, making procurement more accessible to businesses, especially SMEs.
MOF recognises the need to foster innovation and has been supporting the procurement of innovative solutions. Last year, we have taken this further and introduced the Innovative Procurement Partnership.
This initiative enables public agencies to collaborate with businesses to test innovative solutions and provides assurance to businesses of the opportunity to scale up if the pilot testing is successful.
To make the Innovative Procurement Partnership more accessible to SMEs and startups, established track records are not a requirement. The Government will also share risks with businesses by removing the need for security deposits and liquidated damages by default during the pilot testing phase.
In addition, the Innovative Procurement Partnership is conducted via open sourcing. In other words, any business can participate.
I thank Mr Edward Chia and Ms Denise Phua for their suggestions to ease cashflow for smaller firms and freelancers.
MOF provides Government agencies with contract templates and guidelines on payment milestones, including increasing the number of payment milestones where appropriate to ease cashflow. These templates and guidelines are developed with inputs from businesses and Government agencies to reflect industry norms.
For example, when procuring design services, Government agencies are required to specify the expected iterations of changes to allow the supplier to better price their bids.
Ms Denise Phua and Mr Shawn Loh asked how MOF agencies are harnessing technology, such as AI, to strengthen governance and improve the experience for businesses and citizens when transacting with Government. Ms Yeo Wan Ling also suggested refreshing GeBIZ, our centralised e-procurement portal for Government agencies and Mr Ng Shi Xuan suggested incorporating AI into our procurement processes.
We are committed to continuously making improvements and one such opportunity is with GeBIZ.
GeBIZ was introduced in 2000 to digitalise procurement processes and consolidate Government quotations and tenders. Businesses can access Government procurement opportunities and submit their proposals.
Over the years, we have continuously enhanced GeBIZ. For instance, we implemented GeBIZ Supplier File Repository in 2024 to enable suppliers to use a single set of documents across multiple bids, reducing duplicative work.
Moving forward, we will tap on the latest technology to comprehensively refresh GeBIZ system. The refreshed GeBIZ will go beyond the sourcing stage, covering pre-sourcing and contract management stages. This will consolidate systems that are currently operating separately and make procurement even more transparent, effective and efficient. This will be a multi-year effort.
MOF will work with SBF and ASME on the modes of engagement with businesses to ensure the refreshed GeBIZ system meets the needs of our Government procurement and business community. We invite businesses, who are interested, to sign up for the engagement when we send out the invitations.
A development that we will harness is the increasing capability of AI systems, which are becoming more widely used across businesses. AI can significantly improve productivity if well implemented. MOF is committed to integrate AI tools into the refreshed GeBIZ system where possible.
Beyond procurement, we are also leveraging AI in other areas of finance and governance. For finance and audit, we trialled the use of AI, on top of data analytics, to obtain insights from large volumes of data. Through these tools, ACRA, AGD and Customs officers will be better able to identify trends and detect anomalies, such as non-compliance or fraud, that may not have been detected as quickly via more traditional methods.
We will continue to harness technology and leverage appropriate AI tools to enhance public service delivery and accountability. Mr Chairman, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): MOF will ensure that the Government procurement processes remain fair and transparent. We will continue to introduce measures to assist enterprises participate more easily in Government tender activities. In addition, we will make good use of technology to make business transactions with the Government more efficient and simpler.
We will continue to work with trade associations, chambers of commerce and industry players to collect feedback and continuously optimise the transaction process between enterprises and the Government, helping the businesses save money, effort and time.
(In English): Mr Chairman, MOF remains committed to create a better Singapore through finance. We will continue to ensure fiscal prudence and sustainability. Advance a pro-enterprise environment where regulatory requirements are streamlined to reduce compliance costs. Improve access to Government procurement; and leverage technology to improve efficiency and strengthen governance. These efforts will enable us to serve Singaporeans and businesses better.
The Chairman: We have time for clarifications. Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Thank you. One clarification for Senior Minister of State Siow. The Senior Minister of State said that the GST concession is because the service charges are \"variable and may be waived or reduced\", which it may very well be, but then there is nothing stopping a coffee shop from charging 0.1% service charge to charge GST exclusive prices, which it did in 2022.
So, that is not consistent with what IRAS subsequently did, which was to enforce it and clarify the rules because it updated its guidelines to state that the pricing exception does not apply to businesses that levy a nominal service charge without a genuine business reason, other than to avoid displaying GST inclusive prices. So, what determines nominality, if that is the standard for qualifying for concession? F&B businesses and hotels need certainty too.
And that IRAS has to police this at all suggests that the concession creates more complexity than it resolves, which brings us back to the question of whether it truly serves consumer interest.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank Mr Tiong for his clarification. I think he is referring to a specific case in 2022 against a specific F&B establishment. Indeed, IRAS takes a firm stance against businesses who levy nominal service charges without genuine reason, other than to avoid displaying GST inclusive prices.
However, it does not mean that the existing concession is no longer relevant to businesses. As I explained in my speech, we will indeed review this and do a discussion and exploration with businesses as well as consumers, on whether or not they would prefer for us to move in a different direction.
The Chairman: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan: I would like to clarify. I had a point in my second cut, which was not delivered, on whether MOF would consider extending AI subscription tools for businesses in the same spirit as for individuals. Because AI business tools are naturally different from that for individuals.
The Chairman: Who would like to respond to Mr Ng? Senior Parliamentary Secretary Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: Thank you to Mr Ng for the clarification. That is something that we will definitely look into.
Firstly, we are working with the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) to study what are some of the AI tools that can be used within the Statutory Boards, agencies and Ministries. If found useful, we will definitely then open it for use and allow other businesses to use it as well. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance\", Official Report, 26 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 20, Correction By Written Statement section.] This will definitely save on the development cost and also the use cost as well, and we will most certainly take that suggestion as well.
The Chairman: If there are no further clarifications, I would like to invite Mr Sakiandi Supaat to withdraw your amendment.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to be prudent and efficient.
First of all, I am convinced that there is discipline just now in the replies on how we spent, rigour in how we evaluate and adaptable in how we design our systems, so I will take this opportunity to thank Minister Indranee, Senior Minister of State, Acting Minister Jeffery Siow and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang for answering all our questions, 14 cuts and 10 speakers.
And on that note, I also would like to thank the Permanent Secretary, MOF, and all the MOF staff behind the scenes who have been helping out to make this possible as well. On that note Chairman, I seek to leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,252,309,600 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $68,615,100 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported and leave be asked to sit again?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported and leave be asked to sit again.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2026/2027 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.48 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Overweight Students in Schools and Weight Management Programmes to Help Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"7 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) in the last five years, what is the number of overweight or obese students in primary and secondary schools; (b) whether an update can be provided on the programmes in place to help these students manage their weight issues; and (c) what are the success rates of these programmes in helping these students get to their ideal weight range.
Mr Desmond Lee: In the last five years, the proportion of students who are overweight and severely overweight1 across primary, secondary and pre-university levels have gradually dropped from 16% during COVID-19 in 2021 to pre-COVID-19 levels of 13% from 2023. This has remained stable since then. This proportion remains low compared to many other countries.
Our schools adopt a holistic health promotion approach to improve the well-being of students and promote active and healthy lifestyles. Through Physical Education (PE) lessons, students are taught good health habits, such as healthy eating, how to exercise and learn a wide range of sports and outdoor activities. Through inter-class games, camps, unstructured play during recess, PE lessons and Co-curricular Activities, students have the opportunity to be active in school and cultivate habits for an active lifestyle.
To complement efforts in schools, Grow Well SG, a multi-ministry health promotion strategy, was launched in January 2025. It promotes the formation of healthy habits, such as good nutrition, sleep, screen use and physical activity. Doing these well can help children maintain a healthy weight and, importantly, a healthy lifestyle beyond their time in school.
As part of this strategy, every child receives a personalised Health Plan, which provides lifestyle prescriptions to raise awareness and drive behaviour change. The Health Promotion Board guides each child to consider key health behaviours as part of its annual School Health Screening programme and supports parents with resources and practical tips to cultivate good habits in their children.
Successful weight management requires gradual and consistent lifestyle modifications. We will continue to work closely with parents to help students lead an active and healthy lifestyle.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : BMI-for-age at or above 90th percentile"],"footNoteQuestions":["7"],"questionNo":"7"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Otter Population Control and Management Strategies in Residential Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"8 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development in light of destructive activity by otters in private residential areas (a) what direct population control measures are currently being assessed or implemented; and (b) whether the Ministry will implement a comprehensive management strategy that relieves residents of the financial and logistical burden of implementing their own defensive measures.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The National Parks Board (NParks) adopts a science- and community-based approach for the management of otters. To manage human-otter conflict and ensure public safety, NParks works closely with community partners, like the Otter Working Group (OWG), which includes academic experts, members of the nature community and other Government agencies.
We have jointly developed measures to trap and relocate otters away from areas with heightened potential for human-otter conflict and used olfactory deterrents to guide otters away from residential areas. NParks is also studying sterilisation as a possible long-term population control measure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Singapore-headquartered Global Technology Champions, Strategic National Capabilities and Locally Anchored IP as Outcomes from Government's R&D Spending","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"9 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what national outcomes the Government expects from Singapore’s public R&D investments over the next five years in terms of Singapore-headquartered global technology champions, strategic national capabilities and locally anchored intellectual property; and (b) how the Government will measure and track success to ensure these investments deliver meaningful national and economic impact.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): I have addressed Parliamentary Question No 9 in my Prime Minister's Office Committee of Supply speech on 26 February 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Children of Unwed Mothers Excluded from Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Working Mother's Child Relief","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"10 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many children of unwed mothers were excluded from Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Working Mother's Child Relief in each of the past five years; (b) what would extending both benefits to these children cost annually; and (c) whether the Ministry has compared this cost against downstream expenditure on alternative support pathways including ComCare, ComLink+, KidSTART, and public housing for these families.
Ms Indranee Rajah: From 2020 to 2024, there were on average, about 745 non-marital live births per year to Singapore Citizen mothers in Singapore.
The Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Working Mother’s Child Relief were designed to encourage parenthood within marriage. Hence, they were not extended to single unwed parents. It is not an issue of cost. Therefore, we do not track how much it would have cost to extend these benefits to unwed parents, nor do we compare this against expenditure on other programmes that may support these families.
Nevertheless, single unwed parents are eligible for Government benefits that support the growth and development of their children. These include leave provisions as well as subsidies for infant care, childcare, education and healthcare. They are also eligible for the Migrant Domestic Worker Levy Concession and the Child Development Account (CDA) benefits, which include the CDA First Step Grant and Government Co-matching.
Single unwed parents who require additional support can apply for financial assistance via the SupportGoWhere portal, and approach family service centres for holistic support, which may include help through programmes like ComCare and KidSTART.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Muslim Couples Attending Marriage Preparation Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"11 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) since 2021, what proportion of first-time newlywed Muslim couples have attended the Cinta Abadi Marriage Preparation Programme; and (b) whether MUIS offers additional fee waivers or rebates for couples who are in full-time education.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: On average, about one in seven first-time Muslim couples attended the Cinta Abadi Marriage Preparation Programme.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development provides a rebate of $170 for eligible Singaporean couples who are attending their first approved marriage preparation programme. Full fee subsidies are also available for eligible couples from low-income households, regardless of their education status.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate for LPA since August 2025 and Proposed Extension of Fee Waiver","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"12 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the take-up rate for the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) has increased since August 2025; and (b) whether the Government will consider extending the deadline for the fee waiver for registration of LPA Form 1 applications.\n
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The number of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) made increased from 350,000 in August 2025 to 410,000 in January 2026.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development has no updates at the moment on a further extension of the waiver of LPA Form 1 fees. We encourage all Singaporeans to make their LPA as soon as possible to take advantage of the waiver before it expires on 31 Mar 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data Centres' Use of Fresh Water Supply","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"14 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what percentage of our freshwater supply was used by data centres in the past year; and (b) where such figures are unavailable, whether the Ministry can provide the latest estimates in (i) absolute volume and (ii) proportion to the national freshwater supply.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Most of the water supplied to data centres is met through the supply of NEWater instead of freshwater sources.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Support Provided to Sino-Singapore Jilin Food Zone under Bilateral Cooperation Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what forms of Government support have been provided to the Sino-Singapore Jilin Food Zone under the bilateral cooperation framework since its inception in 2008; (b) what food security outcomes Singapore has achieved from this project; and (c) whether the Ministry will provide an update on the project's current operational status.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Sino-Singapore Jilin Food Zone (JFZ) was established in 2008 as a private sector-led project. As part of bilateral cooperation to support the JFZ, the then-Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) had provided technical assistance and training for food safety and animal health matters. This included supporting the initiative to establish and maintain a Foot-and-Mouth Disease-Free Zone for meat production. We do not have further updates, given JFZ remains a private sector-led project.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjusting Labour and Urban Planning Policies to Mitigate Heat-related Productivity Losses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower given projections in a study by National University of Singapore that heat-related productivity losses could reach $2.22 billion by 2035 (a) what specific labour and urban planning policies have been adjusted based on these models; and (b) whether the Ministry will transition from providing heat stress advisories to imposing mandatory work-rest cycles for indoor and outdoor sectors identified as high-risk under future climate scenarios.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is committed to protecting workers from heat-related risks while supporting business continuity and productivity. In consultation with tripartite partners and industry, MOM updated the heat stress management framework in September 2024 to ensure outdoor workers are adequately protected.
The revised framework is not just an advisory. It includes specific mandatory measures that are essential for mitigating the risk of heat stress at different temperatures, including work-rest cycles where necessary. For example, when the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature reaches 32°C and above, workers performing heavy physical work activity outdoors must be given hourly rest breaks of at least 10 minutes. Beyond these mandatory requirements, the Workplace Safety and Health Council's (WSHC's) WSH Guidelines on Managing Heat Stress in the Workplace provide guidance on mitigating heat-related risks for both outdoor and indoor workers, including scheduling of work and rest periods.
Under the WSH Act, it is also mandatory for employers to report work-related heat illnesses to MOM. From 2021 to 2025, there were no fatalities and a total of 24 non-fatal cases were reported, ranging from one to 13 cases annually. Out of the 24 cases, 22 cases relate to outdoor work. Less than half of the 24 cases resulted in hospitalisation, and less than half resulted in medical leave exceeding three days.
MOM will review and enhance our measures as part of the Government's ongoing approach to tackle heat stress through a proactive and science-based heat resilience strategy. This includes heat mitigation measures, such as environmental modelling, to identify wind corridors and planting trees to provide shade along key pedestrian routes and public spaces. It also includes adaptation measures to strengthen community resilience to heat, such as the Heat Stress Advisory, which provides the public with information on how they can minimise the risk of heat stress and heat-related illnesses. These are supported by ongoing research and development efforts to better understand the impacts of heat and develop new cooling solutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion and Career Progression of Female Foreign Service Officers, and Request for Publication of Gender-disaggregated Appointment Data","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in each year since 2022 (a) how many Ministry of Foreign Affairs officers have been women; (b) how many percent of officers at superscale grades have been female; and (c) at which career stage does the sharpest gender divergence occur.
20 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) in view of previous statements that overseas postings are especially disruptive for women officers, what specific changes to posting and appointment processes have resulted from the Ministry’s reviews; (b) whether selection criteria such as willingness of a diplomat's spouse to relocate have been assessed for gender impact; and (c) whether the Ministry will publish annual gender-disaggregated appointment data.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Since 2022, about half of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) employees are women. The proportion of women in senior appointments has remained stable at about a quarter.
We recognise that overseas postings are disruptive for officers with families, especially female officers who bear greater caregiving responsibilities. The Ministry regularly reviews human resources policies to better support officers' career aspirations and family obligations, including considering personal circumstances for overseas postings and providing support for spouse and children accompanying officers overseas. All new hires are fully aware that an MFA career involves periodic relocations.
The Ministry selects and deploys the best candidate for each position based on merit. We remain committed to fostering an inclusive workplace that provides equal opportunities for all officers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extent of GenAI Use among Muslims to Obtain Religious Information and Instruction","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the MUIS’s assessment of the extent and nature of generative AI use among Muslims in Singapore to obtain religious information and instruction; and (b) whether MUIS (i) intends to develop a proprietary generative AI platform for religious information and (ii) intends to fund or support the development of such platforms by external technology providers.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Generative AI (GenAI) offers benefits and convenience to users, such as ease of access. However, there are risks when it is relied upon as the primary source of religious guidance. In particular, complex Islamic religious matters may require additional contextual understanding and scholarly interpretation. For these issues, our qualified asatizah remain essential to deliver sound religious guidance to help our Muslim community navigate contemporary, real-life challenges. The MuslimSG platform also continues to be a trusted resource for the community to seek religious guidance.
The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) therefore adopts GenAI judiciously, after putting in place the appropriate safeguards. For instance, IftaSG, an initiative under MUIS' “Fatwa Lab”, utilises prompt engineering and curated datasets to tailor a Large Language Model that enhances the accuracy, depth and speed of Fatwa research that is suited for Singapore. At the same time, our asatizah continue to maintain oversight on final religious rulings. MUIS will review its learnings and glean learning points and insights from the initiative.
As the use of GenAI grows, equipping the Muslim community to use AI tools wisely and confidently remains a priority. In recent years, MUIS has stepped up capability and capacity building in AI and digital literacy across mosques and madrasahs, which include training programmes for staff and volunteers. Mosques have organised programmes that support initiatives, such as \"Langkah Digital” by MENDAKI, to enhance AI and digital literacy standards, and enable the community to be discerning in the use of GenAI. To enhance learning, madrasahs are also exploring the use of AI to supplement efforts to teach Arabic, aid student assessment and learning support and streamline lesson planning processes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Behind 36.2% Increase in Young Inmates in Singapore Prisons in 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what factors drove the 36.2% increase in young inmates in Singapore prisons in 2025; (b) how is the Ministry addressing the corresponding 41% rise in prison assaults linked to adjustment issues among younger inmates; (c) what specific early interventions target at-risk youths before incarceration; and (d) how is the effectiveness of psychology-based programmes being measured to ensure successful rehabilitation and low recidivism.
Mr K Shanmugam: The 36.2% increase in the population of young inmates under the custody of the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) was largely driven by the increase in the number of young inmates incarcerated for commercial crimes, such as unlicensed moneylending and money mule offences.
SPS's assault rates remain low compared to other jurisdictions. Nonetheless, SPS takes every assault incident seriously, and uses a multi-pronged approach to prevent and manage such incidents. This includes Restorative Practice activities which help inmates proactively address sources of inter-personal tension. SPS also leverages technology to detect and respond to incidents swiftly.
SPS recognises that young inmates can face unique challenges, including adjustment issues upon incarceration and weaker self-control, which can result in them resorting to violence more easily. Young inmates with identified risks and rehabilitation needs may undergo tailored psychology-based correctional programmes. These evidence-informed programmes equip them with life skills, such as regulation of emotions, and resisting anti-social peer influence. They also deal with thinking patterns related to violent behaviour and crime.
The programmes are reviewed periodically to ensure that they remain relevant. Their effectiveness is measured based on outcomes, such as the inmates’ motivation to change and attitude towards crime.
Upstream, the National Committee on Preventing Offending and Re-offending steers and coordinates whole-of-Government efforts to reduce crime, including among at-risk youths. For example, under MSF's YouthGO! Programme, staff engage and build rapport with at-risk youths while incorporating interventions to reduce their risky behaviour and bring on board their parents where necessary. Youths arrested for minor offences can benefit from diversionary programmes to rehabilitate them in a community setting. They receive interventions to help them understand the consequences of and take responsibility for their actions, identify triggers and develop self-management plans to control their impulses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Homeowners who Have Taken Three or More HDB Loans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of homeowners who have taken three or more HDB loans; (b) how many appeals has HDB received for a third HDB loan in each of the last three years; and (c) whether HDB will consider the total tenures of the earlier two loans taken when deciding whether to grant a third HDB loan.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) provides up to two housing loans to eligible households. On a case-by-case basis, HDB exercises flexibility to provide another HDB housing loan for households who have exhausted their financing options and are in urgent need of housing. As at end December 2025, there are about 11,000 households who are servicing their third or subsequent HDB housing loan.
Between 2023 and 2025, about 1,000 households per year approached HDB for a third or subsequent housing loan. HDB does not consider the previous loan tenures in its assessment, as these do not affect the household's current credit standing and whether they are able to afford the monthly mortgage payments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Show of Proof of Vaccination against Diseases by S Pass Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Government will consider making it compulsory for all Pass holders to show proof of vaccination against diseases listed in the Fourth Schedule of the Infectious Diseases Act 1976.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under section 46 of the Infectious Diseases Act, the parent or guardian of every child in Singapore must ensure that the child is vaccinated against diphtheria and measles.
Foreign-born children aged 12 years and below who are applying for long-term immigration passes in Singapore are also required to submit documented proof of vaccination or evidence of immunity for diphtheria and measles to the National Immunisation Registry for verification.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Operational Protocols to Safeguard Local Healthcare Workers in Light of Overseas Nipah Virus Infections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of recent reports of Nipah virus infections overseas (a) what operational protocols are in place to safeguard healthcare workers if a suspected or confirmed case arises in Singapore; (b) whether public hospitals have sufficient isolation capacity and protective equipment; and (c) how workforce training, deployment, and service continuity plans are being strengthened to ensure staff safety during a potential outbreak.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Singapore's public and private hospitals have established infection prevention and control protocols and programmes to detect and manage infectious diseases. These were developed over the years, through the experience of pandemics, such as SARS, H1N1 and COVID-19, and will be applicable against the Nipah virus. They include the provision of isolation facilities and the maintenance of adequate supply of personal protective equipment. In addition, further contingency measures can be activated quickly, under the Infectious Diseases Act, to further protect healthcare staff. The Ministry of Health will continue to review and update our disease outbreak response plans and conduct regular exercises with healthcare institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Progress in Placement of Fresh Graduates under Graduate Industry Traineeships Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the placement of 350 fresh graduates under the Graduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) scheme as of February 2026 is in line with the Government's original projections; (b) when all 800 available places are expected to be filled; and (c) what percentage of these 350 placements are with small and medium enterprises.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may refer to the reply to Ms He Ting Ru's written Parliamentary Question on GRIT for the Sitting on 25 February 2026, which also addressed this question. [Please refer to \"Challenges Affecting Uptake of Graduate Industry Traineeship (GRIT) Scheme and Successful Job Placement Outcomes\", Official Report, 25 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 19, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Amount Paid to Foreign University Partners on Curriculum Development and Licensing in Past 25 years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the total amount of Government spending to foreign university partners for curriculum development and licensing across all international university partnerships in the past 25 years; (b) what metrics are used to evaluate success beyond initial curriculum transfers for such spendings; and (c) whether the Ministry has conducted cost-benefit analysis comparing maintained partnerships like Duke-NUS versus terminated ones like Yale-NUS.
Mr Desmond Lee: Our Autonomous Universities (AUs) collaborate with a wide range of international partners in education and research. This allows our AUs and students to benefit from the experiences of reputable universities around the world, while also contributing to knowledge creation in areas of mutual benefit. Over time, these collaborations progress, evolve and mature. In some cases, they come to a natural end when both parties no longer find it mutually beneficial.
Some collaborations have associated costs to pay for the resources committed by overseas university partners towards such efforts. The AUs and the Ministry of Education are mindful that the amount of funding required by AUs to enter into such partnerships should be commensurate with the value obtained, including developing in Singapore capabilities or opportunities that had not previously existed and positioning our AUs well for the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost-benefit Analysis for Transitioning from Incinerating Recyclables to Smart-bin System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given that 40% of the items in blue recycling bins are contaminated (a) whether the Ministry has conducted a cost-benefit analysis comparing the high operational costs of smart bins against the current financial losses from incinerating contaminated recyclables; and (b) what specific logistical benchmarks must be met before transitioning the National Recycling Programme to a segregated smart-bin system.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency has introduced various source-segregated recycling schemes to encourage the aggregation of clean-stream recyclables. This includes deploying smart bins as part of our Public Waste Collection contracts and extended producer responsibility schemes for e-waste and beverage containers, where producers are responsible for collecting and recycling their products at their end-of-life. These efforts complement the blue bin system, encourage proper recycling behaviour and, combined with public education initiatives, help to reduce contamination in recycling bins.
We will continue to explore ways to enhance our recycling ecosystem, including partnering with the community on localised solutions to collect more clean-stream recyclables over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhanced Funding or Subsidies for Elective Egg Freezing, IVF and Other Fertility Treatments for Older Couples","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider subsidising (i) Elective Egg Freezing and (ii) Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) procedures for older couples; (b) whether further policies, such as enhanced co-funding for In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) and Intrauterine Insemination (IUI), are planned to support the diverse family-planning aspirations of Singaporeans, especially older couples; and (c) if so, what these policies entail.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Prime Minister's Office is working with the Ministry of Health to review various fertility health policies, including financing support for Assisted Conception Procedures. More details will be shared when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government's Assessment of Social Media's Efforts to Detect Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Livestreams","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is Infocomm Media Development Authority's assessment of social media platforms' efforts and capabilities to detect child sexual exploitation and abuse in livestreams, which are known to be more difficult to detect than in uploaded material; and (b) what measures are being taken currently to address this risk.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government has put in place measures to address child sexual exploitation and abuse online. Under the Broadcasting Act and Online Criminal Harms Act, the Government can issue directions to social media services or internet service providers to disable Singapore users' access to child sexual exploitation and abuse material published online.
Under the Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services (Code), designated Social Media Services are required to minimise Singapore users' exposure to child sexual exploitation and abuse material on their services, including livestreams. The designated two services must put in place technologies and processes to proactively detect and swiftly remove such material. They must also take steps to protect users from child exploitation and abuse activity, such as online grooming.
The Code additionally requires designated services to submit annual online safety reports to the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), which detail their measures to combat harmful content, including child sexual exploitation and abuse material, and improve users' safety. The reports are published on IMDA's website, alongside IMDA's assessment on each designated service's performance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Increase in Goods Vehicle Permit Fees for Foreign-registered Goods Vehicles is Not Passed to Consumers and Producers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has assessed if the increase in Goods Vehicle Permit fees for foreign-registered goods vehicles from 1 January 2027 is likely to borne by consumers or producers; and (b) whether the Government will take any steps to prevent retailers from opportunistically passing any increase in cost to their consumers.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The increase in the Goods Vehicle Permit (GVP) fee is intended to narrow the cost difference between the Singapore-registered and foreign-registered goods vehicles due to ownership and usage costs in Singapore. We periodically review the fees for foreign-registered vehicles entering Singapore to account for changes in ownership and usage costs of Singapore-registered vehicles. Whether companies bear the increase in the GVP fee or pass this on to their end users is a commercial decision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Linking Carbon Tax Increases to Technology Readiness or Regional Carbon Price Movements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given global adjustments to carbon pricing, (a) why has the Ministry maintained the planned trajectory of $50 to $80 per tonne by 2030 instead of linking increases explicitly to technology readiness or regional carbon price alignment; and (b) what specific indicators will justify moderating the pace of increase in carbon tax to safeguard jobs while sustaining climate ambition.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Tackling the complex challenge of climate change requires long-term planning and staying the course on a clear set of directions. As the world transits towards a low-carbon future, businesses and economies that remain emissions-intensive relative to their competitors will become less attractive. Singapore is alternative energy disadvantaged; our decarbonisation solutions are therefore more expensive and require longer lead times to study and implement. Consequently, our carbon tax rates need to reflect Singapore's higher costs of decarbonisation, to provide an economy-wide price signal to improve energy- and carbon-efficiency in all sectors and to enhance the business case for investing in low-carbon solutions.
The Government provides advance notice of the carbon tax trajectory to enable businesses to act early and adapt their operations. At Budget 2022, we announced a target carbon price of $50 to $80 per tonne by 2030. Nonetheless, we remain alert to the evolving near-term cost impact, especially on businesses. We will continually assess Singapore's post-2027 carbon tax trajectory carefully, in the light of international developments.
We will continue to calibrate our carbon tax trajectory to strike a balance between spurring decarbonisation to secure Singapore's longer-term resilience and competitiveness in a low-carbon future and managing the nearer-term cost impact on our businesses and households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Advanced Practice Nurses in Workforce and Plans for Their Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the current number and percentage of Advanced Practice Nurses in the workforce; (b) what targets have been set for their development over the next 10 years; and (c) whether new clinical specialties and roles are being considered for Advanced Practice Nurse certification.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Advance Practice Nurses (APNs) are at the apex of the clinical nursing track, having post-graduate training, empowered to make certain clinical decisions and work collaboratively with doctors and other healthcare professionals to provide complex nursing care.
As of 31 December 2025, there were 419 APNs in active practice, which works out to 1% of the nursing workforce in Singapore. The Ministry of Health aims to train 700 APNs by 2030.
With the transformation of the healthcare system to shift more care to the community and non-hospital settings, APNs can lead or play a major role in the delivery of a broad spectrum of care in diverse settings, including acute and community hospitals, mental health services, primary care, community health posts, home care and in nursing homes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Electric Vehicle Training for Bus Captains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport in light of LTA being on track to replace 50% of our public bus fleet with electric buses by 2030, whether LTA will regulate the electric vehicle training curriculum for bus captains and mandate a compulsory minimum number of training hours.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: In addition to the existing training provided by bus operators, the Land Transport Authority will require all bus captains to go through a new course on operating electric buses safely and confidently. The course is being developed by the Singapore Bus Academy and NTUC LearningHub, with input from the National Transport Workers' Union and bus operators, and will be launched later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reason for Change in Government's Definition of Household Income in Key Household Income Trends Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the redefinition of household income in the recently published Key Household Income Trends report (a) what motivated the change; (b) how this definition compares with practices of major national statistical agencies internationally; and (c) whether the revised methodology was applied retrospectively to ensure time-series comparability.\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The changes to the Key Household Income Trends (KHIT) report were made partly in response to Singapore's changing demographics. With our ageing population, there is a growing proportion of retiree households who do not have employment income but may have income from non-employment sources, such as annuities, including from Central Provident Fund, rental, investments and regular allowances from their children. Expanding the household income definition and household coverage ensures a more complete representation of resident households and their income trends.
The changes made to the household income definition and coverage in the KHIT report are now aligned with international practices and follow longstanding efforts to improve data on non-employment income, which can be challenging to measure. In particular, Singapore's Department of Statistics took reference from the Canberra Group Handbook on Household Income Statistics, an international guidance manual for the compilation of household income statistics that is widely used by other major national statistical agencies.
For better comparability in the KHIT 2025 report, the revised household income definition and coverage have been applied retrospectively to annual household income statistics from 2015 onwards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Introducing Locally Offered Degree in Veterinary Science","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry plans to work with autonomous universities to introduce a locally offered degree in veterinary science in Singapore, in view of a growing demand for veterinary services, animal welfare needs and the current reliance on overseas-trained veterinarians.
Mr Desmond Lee: Courses at the Autonomous Universities (AUs) are planned and regularly reviewed in consultation with relevant Ministries and agencies. New undergraduate programmes are introduced after assessing various factors, including industry demand, national manpower needs and resource requirements.
The Ministry of Education will continue to work with the AUs and sector agencies, such as the Ministry of National Development and the National Parks Board, to monitor and assess how best to meet Singapore's long-term veterinary manpower needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of TR76 E-commerce Guidelines for Social Commerce Transactions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the scope of the Technical Reference 76 (TR76) on Guidelines for electronic commerce transactions extend to social commerce transactions; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry plans to amend TR76 or create a new Technical Reference for social commerce transactions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Technical Reference 76 on e-commerce transactions (TR 76) has been progressively enhanced to address emerging consumer protection concerns in e-commerce transactions. Most recently, it was updated in September 2025 to strengthen guidelines on enhancing consumer trust, promoting fair competition and reinforcing anti-scam measures. For instance, the updated TR 76 provides further guidance for e-commerce players to ensure accurate product listings, tackle fake product reviews and promote transparency in communications with merchants.
Social commerce transactions, which involve the purchase of products or services through social media platforms, have emerged as a growing mode of e-commerce. The TR 76 does not specifically cover social commerce activities currently. However, many of its recommended practices are applicable to social commerce transactions. These include ensuring transparency in product listings and presenting information in a clear, accurate and fair manner. In addition, the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice, administered by the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore under the Consumers Association of Singapore, sets out guidelines on ethical advertising practices which social commerce content creators need to abide by.
The Government will continue to closely monitor developments in social commerce and work with relevant stakeholders to assess whether further guidance on social commerce transactions is necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"LPA Form 1 Applications Aborted Due To Office of the Public Guardian's Online Portal Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many Lasting Power of Attorney Form 1 applications were aborted or unsuccessful due to issues with the Office of the Public Guardian’s online portal or SingPass; and (b) what measures have been or will be implemented to ensure such issues do not prevent applications before the fee waiver expires on 31 March 2026.\n
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is unable to track the number of aborted or unsuccessful Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) Form 1 applications. Members of public may not report to OPG when they abort an application or encounter technical problems. If the OPG Online system (OPGO) is unavailable for prolonged periods, donors can submit a hardcopy LPA application. If needed, they can seek help in filling up the forms at ServiceSG centres.
To improve system resilience, OPG has implemented measures, such as building OPGO on the Government Commercial Cloud and increasing database capacity, in anticipation of surges in application volume before the fee waiver expiry. We will continue to explore measures to improve system resilience as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Structural Load Capacity of Multi-storey Car Parks Given Greater Adoption of EVs which are Generally Heavier","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development in view of the increasing adoption of electric vehicles, which are generally heavier than comparable internal combustion engine vehicles, whether Housing and Development Board has assessed the structural load capacity of existing multi-storey car parks in public housing estates to ensure that they can safely accommodate a higher proportion of heavier electric vehicles.
42 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the design live load standards applied to Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks; (b) whether these standards provide sufficient safety margins for current and projected vehicle weight trends; and (c) whether older HDB multi-storey car parks constructed under earlier design codes differ in load capacity from newer ones.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: All Housing and Development Board car parks are designed in accordance with prevailing building codes and design standards, based on passenger vehicles with unladen weight not exceeding 2,000 kilogrammes. Based on current weight trends, existing car parks are still within safety margins.
The agencies are reviewing how the structure of our car parks can be enhanced to accommodate potentially heavier vehicles in future. More information will be announced when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Registering Employees Affected by Sudden Business Closures as Creditors to Recover Owed Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what direct assistance does the Ministry provide to employees affected by sudden business closures to properly register as creditors to recover owed salaries; and (b) whether the Ministry's investigative process determine if a parent company is the true employer of employees hired by its subsidiary company and to hold the parent company liable for unpaid wages.\n
Dr Tan See Leng: When a company is under bankruptcy, judicial management or liquidation, employees who face salary arrears should file a Proof of Debt with the company's liquidator in accordance with the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act. To help such employees do so, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) has published a comprehensive Judicial Management Guide. Employees requiring additional support can also access the TADM Chatbot or consult with TADM's advisory officers who will assist claimants to complete the necessary proof of debt documentation to facilitate submissions, as well as link them up with the appointed liquidators.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will investigate and take action against errant employers who willfully breach employment legislation when winding up. As part of MOM's investigations, MOM will ascertain the party who is liable for unpaid salaries. The party liable is the one which employs the worker under a contract of service and is responsible for the management of the work in which the person is engaged. Even if a subsidiary company is the legal employer, MOM may still investigate the parent company if evidence shows that they had instigated, conspired or intentionally aided an offence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Hub-and-spoke Models for Mental Health Triaging in Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what are the government's plans to strengthen hub-and-spoke models for mental health triaging in hospitals, including clearer protocols for routing patients from emergency departments and specialist outpatient clinics to appropriate community-based or primary care services, so that patients with varying levels of need can receive timely and stepped-up support without over-straining acute hospital resources.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy, a Mental Health Tiered Care Model has been established where services are tiered based on care intensity. The Practice Guide for Tiered Care Model for Mental Health was developed to guide service providers to deliver appropriate and effective care to individuals based on their needs.
To improve access and ensure care at appropriate settings, the Ministry of Health has introduced First Stops for Mental Health via the national mindline 1771, mindline.sg and Community Outreach Teams and CHAT services. These services provide assessment of mental health needs, brief support, triage and if needed, referrals to more suitable services. This ensures that those seeking mental health support are referred to the appropriate care settings, reducing unnecessary attendance at Acute Emergency Rooms and Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs).
For individuals with more severe or urgent needs who present at the hospital emergency departments, psychiatrists will assess the need for admission. Suitable patients at the SOCs can continue care at primary and community care settings by trained counsellors and social workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Analysis of Wealth Distribution Breakdown by Age Cohort","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in respect of the Ministry's Occasional Paper on Income Growth, Inequality and Social Mobility Trends (a) why the Ministry did not publish a decomposition of wealth inequality by asset class; and (b) whether the Ministry will provide such a breakdown by age cohort.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: This question has been answered in the answer to Question Nos 1 and 2 in the Parliament Sitting on 25 February 2026. [Please refer to \"Differentiating between Wealth Held by Households in Public Versus in Private Housing, and Measures to Sustain or Improve Upward Mobility Rates\", Official Report, 25 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 19, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Role for Singapore in Global Space Economy and Developing Local Talent Pipeline for Space Systems and Satellite Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Victor Lye asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry over the next decade (a) what strategic role Singapore intends to play in the global space economy beyond domestic launch capability and how it will leverage Singapore's comparative advantages; (b) what specific space-related activities Singapore expects to develop as core growth areas; and (c) what are the expected economic value-add and skilled jobs for Singaporeans.
3 Mr Victor Lye asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what steps will be taken to develop a local talent pipeline for the space sector, including university programmes, mid-career pathways and opportunities for Singaporeans to gain hands-on experience in space systems and satellite operations.
4 Mr Victor Lye asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry how Singapore intends to position itself in international and ASEAN space cooperation, including whether Singapore aims to play a role as a neutral convenor for space data sharing, standards-setting or dispute resolution.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Space technologies have the potential to strengthen Singapore's open and highly connected economy. Our strong foundations in space-adjacent sectors, such as aerospace, microelectronics, precision engineering and artificial intelligence, position us well to participate in the rapidly expanding space economy, valued at US$630 billion in 2023 and projected to reach US$1.8 trillion by 2035.
Singapore has established niche capabilities in selected satellite technologies and applications. These include small synthetic aperture radar satellites, satellite quantum secure communications, inter-satellite data relay systems as well as downstream satellite applications supporting the maritime and sustainability sectors. We will continue to invest in next-generation space capabilities, such as advanced Earth observation and communications satellite technologies, geospatial applications, as well as in emerging areas, such as climate-related and space sustainability technologies.
These are high-growth segments of the global space economy and have the potential to generate economic value-add for Singapore and good jobs for Singaporeans in engineering, data science and geospatial analytics.
Mr Lye also asked about developing a talent pipeline for the space sector. As space is an inter-disciplinary field, the sector offers multiple pathways for Singaporeans to build meaningful careers. The talent needs for the space sector are generally met by graduates trained in disciplines, such as electrical and mechanical engineering, computer engineering, computer science and data science. Our Institutes of Higher Learning also offer relevant programmes that enable students to learn about, design and build satellite systems and space-related applications. For example, Ngee Ann Polytechnic recently announced a space technology specialisation for third-year engineering students. Similarly, our universities also offer courses covering satellite-related systems and applications.
Mid-career professionals with experience in adjacent industries, such as aerospace, microelectronics, precision engineering and artificial intelligence form an important part of the talent pipeline for the space sector. In addition, professionals with backgrounds in domains, such as finance, maritime, aviation and sustainability, possess valuable domain expertise for companies developing satellite data and space applications.
For talent development, the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) and Enterprise Singapore administer the Industrial Postgraduate Programme (IPP), which companies can tap on to train their employees. The Office for Space Technology & Industry (OSTIn) currently administers the Space Technology Development Programme (STDP) which supports the training and employment of researchers, scientists and engineers under qualifying research and development programmes. The STDP will be overseen by the National Space Agency of Singapore when it is set up from 1 April 2026.
Lastly, outer space is a global commons where international cooperation is essential. Singapore is keen to contribute constructively towards international and regional space cooperation and has been an active participant in international platforms that discuss space governance, rules and norms, such as the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. We have also hosted events, such as the recently concluded Singapore Space Summit 2026, which brought together international representatives of space agencies and companies, as well as researchers and investors to strengthen partnerships and advance collaboration across the space value chain.
Within the Association of Southeast Asia Nations, we have had decades of cooperation in space technology applications to address common challenges, such as food security, environmental monitoring and disaster management. We will build on these strong foundations to explore new avenues for cooperation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Complaints Towards Festive Surcharge Pricings by F&B Establishments over Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry has received public complaints about unfair festive surcharges by retail and food establishments; and (b) what are the number of such complaints for each year over the past five years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From 2021 to 2025, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) received a total of four complaints on the quantum and/or transparency of festive surcharges by retail and food establishments, with two received in 2021 and two in 2022. Where relevant, the consumers were advised to seek assistance from the Consumers Association of Singapore. No further follow-ups were required from MTI or CCS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline of Hydrogen-Ready Power Plant Adoption and Resulting Impact on Household and Business Electricity Tariffs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry based on the current carbon tax trajectory and the Ministry’s engagement with local power producers (a) when will it be cost-competitive for Singapore's first hydrogen-ready power plants to begin adopting hydrogen as a fuel for electricity production; and (b) what is the anticipated impact to consumers, in particular, the projected impact on average household and business electricity tariffs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Hydrogen is not viable as a substitute for natural gas for electricity production in the near term, due to its high costs of production and transportation. We will continue to monitor global hydrogen market developments, before making any decision to adopt hydrogen for electricity production.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Positive Outcomes from Restriction Orders Issued since July 2025 and Expanding Scope to Other Financial Service Providers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many Restriction Orders have been issued since the Protection from Scams Act took effect on 1 July 2025; (b) how many Restriction Orders resulted in positive outcomes; and (c) what is the status of the Ministry's review on whether the scope of Restriction Orders will be expanded to entities, such as (i) cryptocurrency exchanges, (ii) remittance companies or (iii) e-wallet providers.
Mr K Shanmugam: As of 15 February 2026, 12 Restriction Orders (ROs) have been issued. Of these, one had been lifted as the individual was assessed to no longer be at risk of transferring money to the scammer, two had ceased as they had reached the statutory maximum of five extensions, while nine remain in effect.
ROs apply only to bank accounts and credit facilities, which are the primary means by which individuals may access funds and transfer money to scammers. There is no need to expand the scope of ROs to other payment channels for now, as the restrictions on bank accounts and credit facilities already significantly reduce the risk of the victims transferring money to the scammers. We will continue to work with the Monetary Authority of Singapore to monitor the scam situation and consider expanding the scope of the RO, if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Report Publication of Non-Profit Healthcare Clusters for Public Access","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given that the financial results of the public healthcare clusters are no longer made public since the early 2010s (a) whether the Ministry will work with the clusters to again publish revenue and expenditure details in their annual reports; and (b) how the public can currently verify the Ministry's position that public healthcare institutions operate on a non-profit basis.\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Public healthcare clusters have always operated on a not-for-profit basis. They incur substantial deficits to provide subsidised healthcare services to Singaporeans. The deficits are then covered by Government grants. Post-grant, they may break even or have a slight surplus, which will be ploughed back to improve the healthcare system, such as through infrastructure and service improvements.
While the accounts are not published, the public may obtain the financial reports of public healthcare clusters through the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Alternative Pathways and Bridging Nursing Programmes for Qualified Singaporean Applicants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether stringent academic criteria for nursing diplomas have resulted in otherwise qualified Singaporeans with strong interest in nursing being denied places; and (b) whether the Ministry will review these criteria and provide alternative pathways, such as bridging programmes, to meet healthcare needs.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Having the passion to serve in healthcare is always the top-most criteria for nursing education programmes. At the same time, we need to ensure that nursing students are able to cope with the rigour of the programme. The current entry requirements try to ensure that, without being too stringent. The O-level cut-off point for the polytechnic nursing diploma programmes is ELR2B2 aggregate of 28 points. Through the Early Admissions Exercise, the polytechnics also take in applicants primarily based on their aptitude, motivation and a strong interest in nursing. There are also alternate pathways, such as going to the Institute of Technical Education to be trained as an Enrolled Nurse, before working and upgrading to become a Registered Nurse or mid-career switches, through our skills re-development programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection Measures for Vaccination-ineligible Infants Against Measles Outbreak in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's latest assessment of the rise in measles cases in Singapore, including possible undetected local transmission; and (b) what additional measures are being taken to protect vulnerable groups, such as infants too young, for vaccination from the serious health complications posed by measles.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Member may refer to the replies to oral Parliamentary Question No 17 for the Sitting on 24 February 2026 and written Parliamentary Question No 11 for the Sitting on 26 February 2026. [Please refer to \"Data on Measles Cases by Residency Status and Sufficiency of Local Herd Immunity\", Official Report, 24 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 18, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and \"Maintaining High Measles Vaccination Coverage Through Enhanced Vaccination Programmes\", Official Report, 26 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 20, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The recent increase in measles cases in Singapore is largely driven by a global resurgence of measles. Singapore remains vulnerable to imported cases and small clusters due to pockets of unvaccinated individuals and high travel volumes from measles outbreak areas. Nonetheless, there is currently no evidence of sustained community transmission of measles.
To protect vulnerable groups, particularly infants under 12 months who are not yet due for vaccination, we rely on maintaining high population immunity. We continue to maintain robust surveillance systems to detect and respond to cases and monitor vaccination coverage closely to maintain high immunisation rates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintaining High Measles Vaccination Coverage Through Enhanced Vaccination Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what steps is the Government taking to ensure high measles vaccination coverage continues to be maintained in Singapore, including outreach to those not fully vaccinated and making catch-up vaccination efforts in light of the health risk posed by measles.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the Infectious Diseases Act, measles vaccination is compulsory for all children aged 12 and below residing in Singapore. All foreign-born children aged 12 years and below applying for long-term immigration passes in Singapore also have to be vaccinated or be immune against measles.
For children who have yet to receive the vaccinations, we send HealthHub notifications and reminder letters to parents, reach out during preschool enrolment where proof of immunity is required, and provide catch-up vaccination in primary and secondary schools.
In some countries, the trust in clinically proven vaccines have unfortunately waned. This explains the spike in measles infection worldwide as societies start to lose their herd immunity. Ultimately, to remain resilient against measles, the Singapore population needs to continue to subscribe to scientific evidence and the benefits of vaccines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Population Threshold Parameters for Placement of HDB Estate Dialysis Centres Across Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the current distribution of subsidised dialysis centres by planning area; (b) what are the planning parameters or population thresholds used by the Ministry to determine the distribution of subsidised kidney dialysis centres in HDB estates; and (c) if no such parameters exist, whether the Ministry will consider developing them.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of February 2026, there are 56 community dialysis centres (DCs) providing subsidised haemodialysis (HD) services across Singapore. The distribution by planning area is based on the projected demand of patients who require subsidised HD in the area. The Ministry of Health also considers several other factors in siting DCs, such as site availability, accessibility via public transport and co-location synergy with other community facilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Funding in Lab-grown Seafood and Cultured Meat Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of lab-grown seafood firm Avant Protein and other lab-cultured meat companies winding up (a) how much funding from the Government has been invested into this sector; and (b) what is the Government's updated strategy for this sector, if any.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The global alternative protein industry, including lab-grown and cultured meat companies, has faced hurdles in scaling up due to higher production costs and weaker than expected consumer acceptance. Nevertheless, there is potential in the sector. Hence, agencies remain committed to supporting the sector, such as through commercialisation and research and development (R&D) efforts.
The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) supports the sector through investments in R&D of higher learning and research institutions, to build capabilities in process development and nutrition and functionality of alternative proteins. SFA has awarded a total of $64 million to 21 multi-year projects since 2024 under RIE2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retention of International Carbon Credits Limit and Risks of Industrial Relocation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with key industrial decarbonisation technologies still maturing (a) why has the Ministry retained the 5% limit on the use of international carbon credits rather than allowing time-limited flexibility; and (b) how does the Ministry balance environmental integrity concerns against the risk of firms relocating before viable domestic abatement solutions scale up.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The International Carbon Credit (ICC) Framework provides a complementary pathway for carbon tax-liable companies to address hard-to-abate emissions, through the use of high-quality ICCs that meet Singapore's eligibility criteria. ICCs are capped at 5% of taxable emissions at the facility-level, to ensure companies continue to prioritise reducing emissions through domestic abatement efforts. The 5% limit also aligns with other comparable jurisdictions, such as South Korea.
The Government is mindful that the pace of Singapore's transition to a low-carbon economy will need to consider the availability of cost-effective low-carbon solutions and time for companies to decarbonise and transform their operations while maintaining competitiveness. Eligible companies in the Emissions-Intensive Trade-Exposed (EITE) sectors have transitory carbon tax allowances to help alleviate near-term competitiveness concerns. Allowances are conditional on efficiency targets and companies' decarbonisation plans, to ensure that businesses are incentivised to transition. Separately, companies can also continue to utilise existing schemes, such as the Singapore Economic Development Board's Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions and the National Environment Agency's Energy Efficiency Grant, to embark on energy efficiency investments.
The Government will continue to monitor international developments to manage this transition in a calibrated manner that balances Singapore's climate ambitions and our economic competitiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Formal Training in Restorative Practices to Address Bullying in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Education in respect of the ongoing review to better address bullying in schools, whether the Ministry plans to provide teachers and school staff with formal training in restorative practices.
Mr Desmond Lee: All teachers are trained to foster positive classroom culture, including strategies based on restorative approaches. This includes building positive peer relationships, effective classroom management to address challenging behaviours and facilitating conflict and relationship restoration. Key school personnel are trained to oversee and implement prevention and intervention measures to create a peer support culture, address bullying incidents, engage parents and facilitate restoration of relationships.
These training programmes are delivered through pre-service and in-service courses. Some schools may also engage external service providers for additional professional development for their teachers in these areas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Direct School Admission Intake by Household Income","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Education what percentage of students admitted through the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme come from (i) bottom 20% (B20) (ii) bottom 40% (B40) and (iii) bottom 60% (B60) families, respectively, in terms of household income.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education does not track the household income distribution of students admitted via the Direct School Admission scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difference in Requirements for European Third Language Versus Asian Third Language Options Offered to Secondary 1 Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Education (a) what considerations determine the significantly more stringent eligibility thresholds for Japanese, French, German and Spanish as third languages offered to Secondary 1 students, compared to Chinese, Malay and Bahasa Indonesia; and (b) whether this differential is due to resource constraints, curriculum intensity or a deliberate policy decision.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Foreign Language programme, students can learn French, German, Japanese and Spanish as a third language. The programme aims to nurture a pool of Singaporeans who can tap into opportunities in economies which use these languages. It is designed so that students can have the foundation to access undergraduate courses conducted in these languages. The curriculum is intensive and places a high demand on students. Hence, it is offered to students who demonstrate the ability to cope well with their core subjects.
The Ministry of Education also offers Malay, Chinese, Arabic and Bahasa Indonesia as a third language. The objective is to enable students to understand the language and cultural heritage of communities in Singapore and of the region. These programmes focus on language skills for day-to-day interactions, which is less intensive. This is why the eligibility criteria for these third languages is relatively lower.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"NIE's Bachelor Programmes Acceptance Rate and Safeguarding Subject-specific Teacher Supply Shortages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) what has been the average acceptance rate, by decade, for applicants to the National Institute of Education's Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science programmes; (b) whether current selection criteria adequately balance teaching quality and teacher supply; and (c) what safeguards exist to prevent subject-specific teacher shortages.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Bachelor of Arts/Science (BA/BSc) programme at the National Institute of Education (NIE) is one of the avenues for teacher recruitment. Over the past five years, the percentage of applicants offered admission has increased from 12% to 18%. Successful applicants are selected based on academic merit and teaching aptitude to meet our manpower needs in the different subjects. In addition to the BA/BSc, the Ministry of Education has other recruitment pools, such as fresh graduates and mid-careerists who complete professional training (Diploma in Education and Postgraduate Diploma in Education) at NIE before joining as teachers.
To meet our recruitment objectives, we employ various strategies including early talent development through elective programmes, green-harvesting via the Teaching Internship Programme and Teacher Training Sponsorship and the Teaching Scholarships/Teaching Award. Targeted strategies, such as establishing new recruitment channels and enhancing outreach efforts, are adopted for subjects with greater needs.
19 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower what assessment the Government has made of rising concerns over job losses in the labour market amid rising AI-driven automation across a range of sectors and what plans are being considered to preserve jobs and livelihoods in the long-run for Singaporeans.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Government is paying close attention to the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on jobs. So far, Singapore's labour market remains resilient amid concerns over AI-driven job losses. Resident employment growth in 2025 was stronger than in 2024 and unemployment and retrenchment rates in 2025 remained low at 2.8% and 1.5 retrenched per 1,000 employees respectively.
The Government is preparing our workforce for the impact of AI, which is advancing at a remarkable speed and will transform existing roles. We cannot resist this change, but we will go through this with Singaporeans. Our strategy rests on three key pillars.
First, we work closely with employers and unions to promote responsible AI adoption and help them harness AI to create better and higher-value jobs. The Government has set aside over $400 million for the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package (EWTP) to help businesses undertake workforce transformation in tandem with enterprise transformation. Through the EWTP, companies can receive funding support to redesign job roles, reskill workers and adopt AI-powered technology solutions. Such measures support enterprises to create good jobs and help workers transit to new jobs, even as old jobs are transformed.
Second, we will equip workers with the skills to work with and alongside AI at different levels. For students, the Ministry of Education is refreshing the core curricula of our Institutes of Higher Learning to ensure graduates are equipped with practical skills for harnessing and complementing AI at the workplace. For the broader workforce, SkillsFuture Singapore will make AI learning pathways easier to navigate, so that working adults can quickly find courses that that match their needs and proficiency levels to meet desired employment outcomes. We will also empower all Singaporeans to use and experiment with AI tools regularly. We will offer Singaporeans who take up selected AI training courses six months of free access to premium AI tools.
Finally, we are strengthening our ecosystem and infrastructure for supporting career transitions. As announced in Budget 2026, SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore will be merged into a new statutory board. This is a decisive step forward to empower Singaporeans to proactively plan for and navigate career transitions. The new agency will provide more seamless support for Singaporeans for career guidance, skills training and job matching and will also work more closely with employers to reskill and upskill their employees for growth roles and career progression within companies. In line with this, we have also been expanding programmes, like Workforce Singapore's Career Conversion Programmes and career coaching services, to help more workers transition into growth sectors and stay adaptable in a changing labour market.
While the impact of AI on jobs will change as the technology evolves, we will support both employers and workers to adapt and stay nimble.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Premature Work Permit Cancellations in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the last five years (a) what is the percentage of work permits that have been cancelled before their expiry dates, as a proportion of total work permits issued or valid in that year; and (b) of these premature cancellations, what are the percentages of premature cancellations as broken down by six-month bands before expiry.
Dr Tan See Leng: Work Permits (WPs) are valid for up to 24 months upon issuance or renewal. Employers may cancel WPs before they expire for various reasons, such as if the worker is found to be unsuitable, or if the worker needs to return home for personal reasons. The breakdown of WPs that are cancelled before they are due for renewal, as a proportion of total WPs issued or renewed between 2021 and 2025, is shown in the table below. About one third of WPs are cancelled before they are due for renewal.
21 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has studied the extent of discriminatory practices in the private residential rental market, including cases where Singaporeans are excluded; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider stronger legislative or regulatory measures to address such discrimination.\n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: For rental transactions facilitated by property agents, the Council for Estate Agencies' (CEA's) regulatory guidelines require property agents to be sensitive to the multi-cultural nature of Singapore's society. Property agents should refrain from placing advertisements that discriminate against any nationality, race, religion or group. Property agents who are found to have breached these guidelines will be subject to enforcement action by CEA. Members of the public can lodge a complaint with CEA if they come across any potentially discriminatory advertisements by property agents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding Support and Capability Building Initiatives for Muslim Student Societies in IHLs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether MUIS provides direct or indirect funding support to Muslim student societies in Institutes of Higher Learning; and (b) whether MUIS supports such societies in the development of their (i) leadership capabilities, (ii) student outreach and (iii) welfare initiatives.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Grants from the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) are available to Muslim student societies in Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to conduct youth development programmes. For instance, the Youth Programmes Grant can be used to conduct Islamic learning and community religious programmes. This is part of MUIS' broader efforts to support youth development.
MUIS also works with Government agencies and community organisations to engage Muslim students and youths in various settings. For example, MUIS organises an annual dialogue with Mufti for IHL students, and provides support to mosques to hold regular talks as well as leadership development programmes for Muslim youths. MUIS, alongside MENDAKI and the People's Association, has also been supporting the Malay/Muslim Youth Taskforce, which focuses on identifying career development opportunities, equipping youths with essential skills for the future, fostering greater cultural and social identity and encouraging participation in national initiatives.
These engagements allow MUIS to better understand the needs and concerns of our youths and support their development and welfare.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Facilitating Islamic Legacy Planning Workshops Tailored to Indian Muslim Community","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) how does MUIS currently work with Indian Muslim Organisations (IMOs) to facilitate Islamic legacy planning workshops tailored to the Indian Muslim community; and (b) whether MUIS plans to collaborate with IMOs to organise Indian Muslim community-specific editions of the Islamic Legacy Planning Village.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) encourages the Singapore Muslim community, including Indian Muslims, to start Islamic Legacy Planning (ILP) early. MUIS has appointed the Islamic Legacy Planning Workgroup, which includes a member representing the Indian Muslim community, to work with relevant agencies to raise awareness of the ILP through campaigns, such as the Islamic Legacy Planning Village.
MUIS also works closely with Indian Muslim Organisations and Indian Muslim leaders, through the Indian Muslim Community Steering Committee, to raise awareness of ILP programmes in the Indian Muslim community. This includes training Indian Muslim ambassadors and mosque officers to provide guidance on ILP matters. Later this year, MUIS will introduce the Tamil version of the ILP guidebook, \"The Final Amanah\", to improve accessibility of ILP resources to the Indian Muslim community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Fees Collected for Vehicle Entry and Goods Vehicle Permits in 2025 and Estimated Annual Collection after Fee Increase in 2027","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what has been the total amount of Vehicle Entry Permit and Goods Vehicle Permit fees collected in 2025; and (b) what is the estimated annual amount that will be collected after the increase in these fees from 1 January 2027.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: In 2025, about $130 million of Vehicle Entry Permit and Goods Vehicle Permit fees were collected. The fees collected vary year-on-year, depending on the number of foreign-registered vehicles entering Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons Learnt from ETA System Disruption to Prevent System Failures to Other Critical Systems in Public Transport Infrastructure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Transport in view of the recent disruption to the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) system, whether the LTA will be using the lessons learnt from the disruption to prevent system failures to other critical systems in our public transport infrastructure.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Learning points from the recent disruption to the Expected Time of Arrival system will be used to strengthen the availability and accuracy standards of the system. The defective software which caused the recent disruption has been fixed and the system has stabilised.
Critical systems that directly affect train and bus operations must meet higher reliability standards and undergo more rigorous testing before being deployed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data Integrity of Bus Waiting Time and Occupancy in ETA System Following January 2026 Glitch","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Transport in light of the recent digital system glitch affecting the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) system in January 2026 (a) whether any data used prior to compute average bus waiting times and bus occupancy rates are affected; and (b) if so, whether any rectification has been done on retrospective data in order to re-assess the strategic planning of bus services.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Data used to support bus planning, including travel times and occupancy rates, is generated by a different fleet management system. This system was not affected by the recent technical issues involving the Estimated Time of Arrival system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementing Additional Measures to Enhance Road Safety in Areas with High Pedestrian Footfall","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Acting Minister for Transport in light of the recent traffic tragedy in Chinatown, whether the Ministry is considering implementing additional measures to enhance road safety, particularly in areas with high pedestrian footfall.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority will review if additional road safety measures are required after the outcome of the Traffic Police's ongoing investigations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Prime Minister and Minister for Finance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was in the reply provided by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) during the Debate on the Annual Budget Statement at the Sitting of 26 February 2026: (proc text)]
The Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Once you make the DRC for F&B lower, you can be sure there will be many F&B foreign workers in Singapore doing non-F&B jobs. [Please refer to \"Debate on Annual Budget Statement\", Official Report, 26 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 20, Budget section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Lawrence Wong circulated with the leave of the Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5). (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given following the Round-Up Speech during the Debate on the Annual Budget Statement at the Sitting of 26 February 2026. My reply should read as follows:
The Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Once you make the DRC for F&B looser, you can be sure there will be many F&B foreign workers in Singapore doing non-F&B jobs.
","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 the Minister for Finance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made in a reply given by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) during the Committee of Supply for Head M (Ministry of Finance) at the Sitting of 26 February 2026: (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong): Firstly, we are working with GovTech to study what are some of the AI tools that can be used within the Statutory Boards, agencies and Ministries. If found useful, we will definitely then open it for use and allow other businesses to use it as well. [Please refer to \"Committee of Supply – Head M (Ministry of Finance)\", Official Report, 26 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 20, Budget section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong circulated with the leave of the Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5). (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Committee of Supply for Head M (Ministry of Finance) at the Sitting of 26 February 2026. My reply should read as follows:
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong): Firstly, we are working with GovTech to study what are some of the AI tools that can be used within the Statutory Boards, agencies and Ministries. If found useful, we will definitely then open it for use and allow other businesses to use it as well as appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}