1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the rising use of Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) schemes among young consumers (a) what regulations govern BNPL schemes to address the potential risks associated with easy access to large purchases; (b) how is appropriate credit assessment of young users ensured before approving their use of such platforms; (c) whether their outstanding BNPL payments are factored into total debt servicing ratio calculations; and (d) how are youths educated on responsible BNPL usage and financial prudence.
\tThe Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth and Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Sir, \"Buy Now, Pay Later\" (BNPL) transactions remain small, compared to other means of consumer payment, accounting for about 1% of the value of total credit card and debit card payments in the first half of 2024.
While the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not currently regulate BNPL firms, those operating in Singapore have committed to the BNPL Code of Conduct that was developed under MAS' guidance to mitigate the risk of debt accumulation and to protect the user interests. MAS provided details on the safeguards in the BNPL Code in our past replies to Parliamentary Questions in November 2022 and more recently, in February this year.
Under the BNPL Code, accredited firms can only offer BNPL services to customers aged 18 years and above, and are not allowed to extend more than $2,000 in credit to a customer unless they conduct an additional credit assessment. The credit assessment includes conducting income checks and credit checks against the BNPL credit bureau, which includes information on BNPL users' outstanding balances, missed payments and delinquencies amongst accredited firms.
The Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) includes monthly debt obligations from all credit facilities granted by financial institutions regulated by MAS. These account for 98% of all credit granted to Singapore households by commercial entities. MAS does not require financial institutions to include outstanding BNPL amounts when computing the TDSR requirements, recognising that BNPL outstanding amounts tend to be relatively small with safeguards to prevent snowballing.
MoneySense, our national financial education programme, shares content on the importance of money management and financial budgeting on its website and social media channels. These include advising consumers to beware of spending beyond their means while using BNPL schemes and other instalment plans. The national school curriculum from primary up to the tertiary level has incorporated key financial concepts, such as the effects of compound interest and the responsible use of credit. The efforts are complemented by talks and exhibitions organised for youths by MoneySense.
MAS continues to monitor developments in the BNPL sector and will review its regulatory framework as appropriate.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his response. I understand it is only 1% but considering the take-up of such services, and I am more concerned about youths and young adults, and the growing popularity of BNPL schemes, does MAS foresee the necessity for stricter regulatory frameworks beyond the existing Code of Conduct? And what proactive steps are being considered to adapt to potential future challenges posed by BNPL schemes?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Yip for his supplementary questions. I think we need to look at it in three parts. First, the responsibility of the regulator, in this case MAS, the responsibility of the industry and the responsibility of the individual borrower. On MAS' part, as the regulator, as I mentioned, MAS has provided guidance on the development of the BNPL Code. It has also worked with MoneySense, the financial education programme, to encourage users to spend within their means. MAS will continue to monitor the BNPL sector and its development, and review the regulatory framework, as appropriate.
On the industry's part, the code has already been in place since 2023. I have mentioned that in previous Parliamentary replies, but I also wanted to highlight that there is also a BNPL credit bureau which shares information on customers' outstanding amounts and delinquency status. I also wanted to let the Member know that all four BNPL firms are now accredited to the BNPL Code and they must ensure customers that fail to pay on time are not able to use their BNPL services to make additional purchases.
That is what the regulator can do. That is what industry can do. I think it is also important that borrowers and individuals also bear responsibility for their own individual purchases. There is a good CNA article about the BNPL issue and it spoke about the different purchases, particularly made by youths and young people in spending what they want and what they need. One big takeaway was this - many of the youths there who had BNPL purchases spoke of cost of living, but they also mentioned their choices of living in terms of expenditure and also living beyond their means.
So, in short: regulator must play their part; industry must play their part; but so too borrowers must play their part.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidies for School Bus Attendants for Phone and Mobile Data Plan Purchases if Their Work Requires Use of Apps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Dr Tan Wu Meng –
2 To ask the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has received reports about school bus attendants being required to install and use mobile apps for their duties, such as a school transport app, and not having been reimbursed for (i) mobile phone purchases or (ii) mobile data used for such duties; (b) if so, how many reports have been received; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider providing support to affected school bus attendants.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Question No 2.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, no school bus attendant has been required by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to install and use mobile applications for their duties.
As part of its efforts to improve work efficiencies and support the school bus sector, MOE had invited willing school bus drivers and attendants to trial a mobile web-based application to take attendance of the students taking their school buses. This trial is voluntary as we understand that school bus operators may have their preferred means to take attendance or would have other considerations such as cost of purchasing mobile phones.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging SMEs to Protect Their Intellectual Property Business Interests","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what steps has the Government taken to encourage small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to protect their intellectual property (IP) business interests for the Singapore and global markets; (b) what issues have the SMEs faced in their efforts to protect their IP business interests; and (c) what roles can trade associations and chambers of commerce play in assisting SMEs in this area.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, the Singapore IP Strategy 2030 (SIPS 2030) was launched by the Ministry of Law, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Trade and Industry in 2021 to grow Singapore as a global hub for Intangible Assets and Intellectual Property (IA/IP) activities and transactions, as well as to maintain Singapore's highly regarded IA/IP regime.
As part of SIPS 2030, the Government launched the GoBusiness IP Grow platform in 2023 to better support the enterprises' IP needs and to help them grow and expand globally. The platform connects enterprises with third-party IP service providers for assistance in areas like IP search and registration. Enterprises can also get help from IP Business Clinics through the platform. First-timers can receive a complimentary 45-minute consultation session with participating service providers to receive advice on IP strategy and matters concerning expanding into overseas markets.
To help enterprises leverage IP to drive business growth, the Government has set up more than 15 enterprise touchpoints island-wide at Startup Accelerators and Incubators, as well as SME Centres that are run by trade associations and chambers (TACs). The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) works with these touchpoints to support the IP needs of our SMEs. IPOS help enterprises with their IP needs and supports the TACs by training their SME Centre Business Advisors on IP-related topics and by integrating IP support into the TACs' programmes.
To address companies' feedback on the costs of IP protection, Enterprise Singapore's Enterprise Development Grant offsets the IP fees that the companies incur when developing innovative and new products, and the Market Readiness Assistance Grant covers IP registration costs in overseas markets.
The Government will continue to support our SMEs in leveraging IP for growth locally and internationally and to strengthen Singapore's position as a Global-Asia node for technology, innovation and enterprise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Financial Crime Cases with Confiscated Assets Returned to Victims and Forfeited by Government","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what percentage of financial crime cases that involve confiscated assets result in full or partial restitution to victims; (b) what proportion of seized scam proceeds in the past five years have been forfeited to the state rather than returned to victims; and (c) what measures are in place to ensure that all reasonably identifiable scam victims receive restitution before funds are transferred to the Government's consolidated fund.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): When investigating financial crime cases, the Police would freeze bank accounts and seize any assets suspected to be proceeds of crime or which constitute evidence. The Police do their best to ascertain the ownership of the seized property by examining bank transaction records. The seized property may often be needed for continuing investigations or subsequent court proceedings. If they are not so needed, the Police would apply to the Court for the property to be returned to the rightful owners.
Where the persons entitled to the seized property cannot be ascertained or found, the Police would publish a notice in the Government Gazette to request for persons to establish their claim to the property within six months. The seized property would only be forfeited to the state if no one establishes a claim after the six-month notice period.
It is operationally challenging to apportion and thus track the amount of scam proceeds returned to victims or forfeited to the state. This is because seized proceeds could be co-mingled with other non-scam-related activities, such as cases involving unlicensed moneylending proceeds. Seized proceeds may also not be directly correlated to crime committed in that same year. It would also be resource-intensive, given the high volume of scam cases. The Ministry of Home Affairs will explore the feasibility of tracking these amounts in the longer term.
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for her reply. In the case of the $3 billion money laundering case that was reported recently, has the Government Gazette been published to invite potential victims to submit their claims, and if not, when would that be?
Secondly, has the Government considered establishing a scam victim restitution fund which is financed by the proceeds of these confiscated money laundering proceeds so that local scam victims can also be able to make claims and get some restitution for, in many cases, the thousands of dollars that they have lost in scams?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his follow-up questions. Specifically, on the $3 billion case, as it is specific to that case, could I invite the Member to file a separate Parliamentary Question, because it is quite case-specific?
On his other proposal regarding whether or not there could be a consolidated fund of some sorts where victims could perhaps through the fund, be able to recover some of their lost amounts, I would like to say that various proposals are being considered to see how best to be able to compensate victims. But what I would like to add is the operational challenges that I had shared earlier in my main reply, which is that often times, the monies that are recovered by the Anti-Scam Centre, through the course of investigations, we are not able to ascertain specifically that all the monies recovered actually all pertain to scams. Because often times, the syndicates that run these scams operate a lot of various other crime business lines as well. I had mentioned illegal moneylending, for instance. So, the proceeds which are recovered by the Anti-Scam Centre are not just scam proceeds. There could be other proceeds that pertain to other forms of crime and therefore, there are other victims who may also similarly feel that they have a claim to those proceeds. So, that is the first point I would like to make.
The second point I would like to make is that it is often very difficult to be able to track whether this dollar that is part of the proceeds and monies recovered actually is that dollar which was lost to one particular victim. And that is because of the co-mingling of funds. I think people who understand the scam landscape know that this co-mingling and in the cases where cryptocurrency is involved because of the use of cryptocurrency tumblers and mixers, it is often very, very difficult to ascertain for that dollar recovered, from which victim that dollar has actually been scammed from.
As a result of that, it is thus going to be very difficult for us to be able to say, when you have a consolidated fund, which victim actually has a right to the monies that have been recovered.
The next point I would like to add is that, as you can tell from the latest numbers, total losses are $1.1 billion this year; monies recovered this year are $182 million. It is a fraction of the total amounts of monies lost. So, there are going to be far more claimants for the monies than there are actually proceeds in the monies that are recovered. So, at the end of the day, victims if they ever are to be able to recover some portion of their monies, it is going to be a tiny fraction of what they lost in the first place.
The very last point I would like to add is that we should also be concerned about how scammers, if they know that we have such a consolidated fund, how they may try to pivot and see how they could potentially entice other types of mules to participate in scam activities and potentially then, try to \"recover\" the monies from this scam recovery fund.
So, I am just trying to share with you that there are various, various difficulties and concerns that we have. But at the end of the day, principle-wise, I agree with you that we should do our very best to be able to find some way of recovering proceeds and of course, compensating victims. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Home Affairs\", Official Report, 28 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 155, Correction By Written Statement section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supply Chain Resiliency for Replacement Parts of Motorised Mobility Devices Covered Under Government Subsidy Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Dr Tan Wu Meng –
5 To ask the Minister for Health (a) whether vendors providing motorised mobility devices eligible for subsidy schemes such as the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund or the Assistive Technology Fund are required to maintain adequate supply chains for replacement parts such as device batteries; and (b) whether such vendors are subject to responsiveness standards for device repairs including parts replacements.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Question No 5.
The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) and Assistive Technology Fund (ATF) provide eligible seniors and persons with disabilities with means-tested subsidies of up to 90% for assistive devices, including motorised mobility devices, its replacement parts and repairs.
SMF and ATF beneficiaries can purchase their subsidised motorised devices from vendors via different touch points including the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), public healthcare institutions and social service agencies. We do not impose device repairs and replacements standards on every vendor working with these touch points today. Clients who need greater assurance can purchase devices from vendors who offer warranties that ensures repairs and replacements are completed within a stipulated time period. For example, all vendors appointed by AIC offer such warranties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Spot Checks to Ensure Drivers of Commercial Vehicles Hold Valid Driving Licences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how frequently does the Traffic Police conduct spot checks at work sites or workplaces to verify that drivers of commercial vehicles, particularly foreigners, hold valid driving licences; and (b) how many of such drivers have been found to be working without a valid driving licence in the past five years.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, the Traffic Police (TP) does not conduct spot checks at work sites or workplaces to verify drivers' licences. Instead, checks of commercial vehicle drivers, including foreign drivers, are conducted on public roads during patrol operations.
In the past five years, an average of 270 foreign motorists per year were found to have been driving a commercial vehicle without a valid driving licence. In 2024, there was a spike in the number of cases by 47%, to 292 cases. TP is concerned about this trend, and has been stepping up its enforcement and public education efforts.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State of his reply. My concern is really about road safety, especially when many of these drivers do not have valid driving licences. What measures are in place to hold employers accountable for ensuring that their commercial vehicle drivers possess valid licences? And has the Ministry considered implementing stricter penalties for companies that fail to comply with these regulations?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions and also for the suggestions he made relating to how we can work with the employers. Indeed, TP has already been working with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) on this issue and will continue to do so, such as through tapping on their outreach channels and also engaging industry stakeholders, such as those in the food delivery and goods delivery sectors.
This is regardless of whether it is the driver or the employer of the driver who committed the offence, because the penalties that are upon the driver also apply to any person who employs or permits another person to drive a motor vehicle on the road without a valid licence.
So, we continue to engage the employers and also would want to remind them that at the end of the day, it is about road safety as well. We are very concerned about this spike, so we will continue to engage the community, the stakeholders and at the same time, enhance our enforcement efforts and in reaching out to the people.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Position on Proposals for Resolving Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that will Lead to Displacement of Palestinians in Gaza","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether Singapore has taken a position on the unilateral proposals for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that involve the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza; and (b) if so, what are the key principles underpinning this position.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Singapore has consistently supported the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland of their own. We believe that this is the only viable path for achieving a comprehensive, just and durable solution to this long-standing and tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that the only path is a negotiated two-state solution, in particular, negotiations between Palestinians and the Isrealis. This principled position is consistent with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, can I ask the Minister if Singapore has sought the United States' (US') clarifications on what it intends to do to follow through with President Trump's proposal regarding Gaza? And would it seek to reflect the concerns of Singaporeans with the US as well, in this engagement with the US?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, no, we have not been consulted by the US on this specific proposal that President Trump announced some time ago. But our position is clear. I have just stated it just now. In fact, I have stated it repeatedly, over the years, and it is an unchanged principled position. Everyone is aware of our position on this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Promote and Nurture Young Golfing Talent in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what programmes are available to help promote and nurture young golfing talent in Singapore considering that access to public golf facilities and courses is now limited due to the reallocation and closure of such public facilities.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Sir, Sport Singapore provides the overarching framework to encourage an increasingly strong sporting culture and participation in Singapore, as well as the development and nurturing of high performance athletes at all levels. In the case of golf, Sport Singapore works closely with the Singapore Golf Association (SGA) to promote and develop the sport of golf in Singapore.
SGA identifies and grooms talented junior golfers through programmes such as the SGA Future Squad which provides a structured pathway into SGA's High-Performance programmes. For golfers in SGA's Junior Development, Development, Junior National and National Squads, SGA conducts weekly training for them at the Sembawang Country Club, Keppel Club and Sentosa Golf Club. Depending on training requirements, the Squads also have access to other private clubs such as the Singapore Island Country Club, Tanah Merah Country Club and Seletar Country Club which support SGA's national programmes.
SGA organises junior level tournaments such as the SGA Junior Inter-Club League and SGA-BFG Junior Golf Series which are held across various golf courses and clubs in Singapore throughout the year. These tournaments also provide young, aspiring golfers aged five to 14 years old a platform to showcase their skills and compete with peers.
In addition, the Singapore Sports School (SSP) also provides a further pathway to high performance in golf. SSP nurtures student-athletes in the national youth team and supports them on their academic and sporting development. SSP provides athlete-friendly academic and holistic development programmes that enable the student-athletes to focus on their sports commitments. SSP currently has seven student-athletes in golf, among whom is Chen Xing Tong, the youngest female to have won the Singapore Open Amateur Championships in 2024 at the age of 16.
For those looking to pick up golf, either recreationally or to develop high performance talents, there is a range of programmes offered at both public and private golf courses, including the programmes outlined above.
Whilst space constraints and competing land use requirements have limited the space available for golf courses, the Government recognises that it is important for the public to have continued access to the sport and is looking at expanding options by which to do so. We had previously extended the tenancy of Mandai Executive Golf Course until December 2026 and worked with Keppel Club to set aside the majority of slots at the Sime Golf Course for use by members of the public at an affordable price range, comparable to other public courses. The Government will continue looking into the provision of public golf facilities for the longer term.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Speaker. Punggol Town is home to one of three full public golf ranges in Singapore. On evenings that I am there on community visits, they run at almost full capacity with both men and women, as well as children and family playing the sports, pointing to its growing popularity in young towns.
Given that Singapore has seen some very good budding sports success with our golfing athletes qualifying for the Olympics and the US Open and Masters, how can the Ministry continue to keep the costs affordable for our budding sports talents, including those who have not turned pro golf, and to ensure that affordable access to golf practice facilities, even with the closure of the golf range?
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, the example that I mentioned earlier, in response to the Member's supplementary question is that we have worked with Keppel Club to provide or set aside a majority of slots for the public and to also keep costs affordable for these members of the public. Rest assured, we will continue to work hard to ensure continued public access to golf.
Mr Speaker: Incidentally, two of our young talents, Shannon Tan and Chen Xing Tong, are currently competing in the HSBC Women's Championship in Sentosa. I wish them all the best.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Magistrate's Complaints Filed and Proposal for Awareness Campaign on Use of Magistrate's Complaints","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Law (a) over the past three years, what is the yearly number of Magistrate's Complaints filed; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider implementing a public awareness education programme or campaign on the use of Magistrate's Complaints which may be used to aid criminal investigations by the Singapore Police Force.
\tThe Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) (for the Minister for Law): Sir, around 1,300 Magistrate's Complaints were filed yearly from 2022 to 2024.
The Courts have informed us that there are educational resources available on the Judiciary's website, which members of the public may refer to for information on, amongst other things, when and how they may file a Magistrate's Complaint.
The hon Member also referred to the relationship between Magistrate's Complaints and Police investigations. I should clarify that the Magistrate's Complaint process provides a framework for private prosecutions by any person, subject to the assessment of the Magistrate of whether there is sufficient reason for the complaint to proceed. The process is distinct from criminal investigations conducted by the Police following the filing of a Police report, which do not require the filing of a Magistrate's Complaint.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Speaker. A number of constituents who believe that a criminal offence has been committed against them have approached me at various times, with some confusion on when they need to apply for a Magistrate's Complaint, or when a Police report will suffice for Police investigations to commence against the alleged perpetrator. These offences include being slapped in public, damages to property, being cheated of money and breaches to Protection Orders. Some constituents shared that the Singapore Police Force had advised them to lodge a Magistrate's Complaint, especially if they would like to commence private prosecution.
While some have shared that the $20 fee for lodging a Magistrate's Complaint and the need to turn up in Court have dissuaded them on pushing for further redress. How can the Ministry assist to provide more clarity to the members of public on the use of the Magistrate's Complaint and the process of getting one? And are there resources available to public who are unable to pay for the fee or have difficulty representing themselves perhaps due to language or disabilities during this session with the Magistrate?
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Murali.
\tMr Murali Pillai: Sir, I know the guillotine time is up. May I seek your leave to just reply to her?
Mr Speaker: Go ahead. I took up one minute just now.
\tMr Murali Pillai: Thank you. Very well, Sir. Sir, I agree with the hon Member that members of the public should be clear on when a Magistrate's Complaint can be filed and how to go about filing a Magistrate's Complaint. There are resources on the Judiciary's website that cover these. These include guides and templates. There are also resources to support persons who may need assistance in filing a Magistrate's Complaint. If there is a difficulty in filing online, the person can call the State Courts' call centre to seek guidance or go to the State Court's Service Hub, or use the terminals in the business centre to file the complaint.
If the person has difficulty understanding the filing process or instructions in English, he or she can seek help from the counter staff. A student under the University Court Friends programme may also be assigned and can also help the person navigate the filing process.
I would also add, Sir, that in relation to translation issues, the Court website states that when filing a Magistrate's Complaint, the person may indicate their preferred language in the Magistrate's Complaint form and arrangements will be made to assign an interpreter if required.
On the issue of the filing fee, we will convey the feedback to the Judiciary.
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 [18 February 2025] [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 Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join the Budget debate. I thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance for his announcement of a very generous Budget. It is one that is inclusive and diverse and I support it fully.
My speech today will cover two key topics. First, the Culture Pass and second, a proposal to support Singapore's visual arts sector. This proposal takes inspiration from the strong financial backing that we have seen in this Budget for businesses that are seeking a listing on the Singapore Exchange (SGX). In this speech, I would like to suggest similar financial mechanisms to strengthen our local visual arts scene.
But first, the Culture Pass. It is a very commendable initiative that makes arts and cultural experiences more accessible to Singaporeans. Last year, I filed a Parliamentary Question after hearing from arts businesses about their challenges. I heard that even if they were located in the heartlands, not all arts businesses were eligible for the Community Development Council (CDC) Voucher redemption scheme. They would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. This raised concerns that the arts were not being recognised as an essential part of everyday life. With the Culture Pass now being issued broadly to every Singaporean aged 18 and above, the Government has sent a clear signal: the arts are essential to our society, just like any other basic necessity.
This money could have been spent in many different ways, but it has come to the arts and this is a very important and powerful message. Since the initiative was announced, some questions have emerged from the arts community and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight them here.
First, will the Culture Pass be transferable, or can unused credits be donated to arts charities, in the same way that can be done for CDC Vouchers? Can credits be shared among family members and friends? If not, what provisions exist for those who are unable to use the Culture Pass due to severe health or mobility issues? While the push for inclusivity in the arts has been very strong, some individuals, for example, those who are bedridden or who are in advanced stages of dementia and, therefore, they are unable to control their moods and behaviour, people in these groups may find it nearly impossible to attend events in person. Caregivers may then struggle to find suitable options. I recognise that there is a risk of profiteering if credits are made transferable and I also see how transferability could dilute the scheme's intent, which is, actually, to encourage personal cultural participation. But it would, however, be good to know if there is any plan at the moment for what will happen to unused or unusable credits.
Secondly, will the Government track average ticket prices before and after the implementation of the Culture Pass and will it intervene if necessary, if arts groups distort ticket prices? The concern here is that arts groups could inflate ticket prices, knowing that a subsidy is now available. If this happens, it could have the effect of reducing the impact of Culture Pass credits which, really, have been issued to make arts and heritage events more affordable to the general public and not less affordable.
Some artists have also expressed concerns about whether the Culture Pass funds will directly benefit them. Particularly, there is a question as to the proportion of ticket sales that will be allocated as artist fees, as opposed to being retained by arts intermediaries. This is not an easy question to address because it is very much an issue of commercial practice and relative bargaining power between artists and event organisers. In a perfectly ideal scenario, the Government could set guidelines to ensure fair distribution of ticketing funds across all players in an arts or heritage event. But this could also take away the autonomy of arts groups to plan their own affairs. It might create additional administrative burdens and reporting obligations for the groups involved. I hope, therefore, that the Government will continue, as part of its larger mission through the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), to educate artists about their legal rights. This way, artists will be empowered to negotiate for fair remuneration and to reject unethical practices, should they take place, in Culture Pass-funded events.
Another potential issue that has come up is that of ticket wastage. If credits are used to book tickets, but attendees fail to show up, valuable resources may be lost. Will the Government put in place a refundable deposit system, or will penalties be imposed for repeated no-shows, such that Culture Pass holders will be encouraged to use their credits responsibly?
I also hope the Government ensures that the benefits of the Culture Pass scheme are equitably distributed across diverse arts groups and not just dominated by the larger, more established institutions. The Government has announced that independent practitioners can also qualify for the Culture Pass scheme and I hope that they will be well-represented in the final selection of chosen entities. Smaller, independent arts organisations must have fair access to the scheme to promote a more vibrant and inclusive arts ecosystem.
Lest it sound like the arts community is less than supportive of this programme, with all the various questions that have emerged, let me be clear that everyone whom I have spoken to in the community is enthusiastic about this initiative. The excitement is palpable, such that additional questions I have come across include whether the scheme can be expanded, before it has even formally kicked off. Artists want to know if it can include, not just local events, but also purchases of local art. I see from guidelines that were issued this week that the scheme will eventually include the purchase of local books. So, will there eventually be an expansion as well to local art? There are also questions about whether the scheme will be reviewed before 2029 or 2030 and whether there is scope for it to be enlarged or topped up with more even credits before its expiry.
The Culture Pass is a very clever initiative, because it goes towards creating demand for arts and heritage performances and events. In a similar vein, I would like to take the opportunity now to float some ideas for demand-side initiatives that could also boost the visual arts sector. Here, we can draw inspiration from the suite of tax and financial incentives that were announced in this Budget to support and encourage corporate listings in Singapore.
From speaking to collectors, business owners, artists and other stakeholders several ideas emerged. First, would the Government consider the creation of a Government-backed art investment fund, with local artworks as underlying assets? Let me explain where this idea comes from and why it might work and, here, I declare my interest as a very occasional, hobbyist purchaser of art in my personal capacity.
Art is a valuable alternative asset class, has a low correlation to traditional markets and can act as a hedge against volatility. A 2021 Nomura report suggests that contemporary art as an asset achieved an annualised return of 14% between 1995 and 2020. Singapore's own artists are seeing extraordinary sales results. Georgette Chen's \"Still Life With Big Durian\" sold for S$2.47 million in 2024. This was a 40-fold increase in price from its last auction in 1998.
In Singapore Art Week this year, the works of Singapore women artists Kim Lim and Melissa Tan saw promising record-breaking sales. Our local artists are also making a splash internationally, with a record number of them being represented at the recent 60th Venice Biennale. Our local gallerists have also shown remarkable business acumen and the members of the Art Galleries Association Singapore and many other galleries and dealers have done plenty to raise the commercial profile of local artists both in Singapore and overseas.
Public endorsement of local art investment has the potential to strengthen the secondary market. Currently, art acquisition is costly, with added expenses for storage, framing and preservation. The Art Basel and UBS Survey of Global Collecting found that Singapore collectors are highly financially motivated. From the report, while the highest-ranking motivation for buying art was that of \"self-focus and pleasure\" in almost all markets surveyed, Singapore was the only market where financial motivations ranked even higher. So, we even beat Hong Kong in this regard.
According to the report, between 2019 and 2023, Singapore had expanded its share by value of artworks from 1% to 5% of the global trade. Singapore also had the highest proportion of new collectors, at 42% and spent the most on new and emerging artists' works in 2023 and the first half of 2024.
So, what does these statistics show? They point to clear opportunities: the local art market is showing signs of growth, new collectors are entering, and buyers are financially driven. While art education and awareness remain crucial for long-term demand, we must also meet consumers where they are. And we could perhaps do this by recognising and leveraging their investment mindset to further develop Singapore's art market.
The lack of a vibrant resale market limits participation by buyers. The owners of the Teng Collection, a private art collection and authors of art investment guide Godalisation, as well as other collectors and business owners, have highlighted to me that the absence of a structured secondary market in Singapore is one reason why demand for local art has not yet reached its full potential. To this end, they would like to advocate for the establishment of a Government-backed art fund to support the sector.
There have been very interesting and dynamic recent entrants to the secondary art market, such as the startup Art Again, an online marketplace for pre-owned art, and We Are Art Collectors – the fractional art ownership platform of Artualize Gallery. Some galleries as well do engage in secondary sales. However, without greater liquidity, buyers hesitate to enter the market. After all, would we not be more motivated to buy art if we knew that it could be resold and that our capital could be recycled?
A useful analogy here is perhaps that of the second-hand designer handbag market. One reason why people do not hesitate to buy Louis Vuitton handbags is because they know that they can resell them easily. The same principle should apply to art. A strong secondary market would give buyers the confidence to invest more freely. If local art is seen as a good investment, buyers will be encouraged to acquire it and not just blue-chip pieces. There could be interest in spotting \"the next big thing\" as well, in terms of emerging artists. As more buyers see investment value in collecting Singapore art, resale activity would increase, making it easier for collectors to trade works. This cycle benefits not just artists and galleries, but also auction houses, dealers and visual art-related businesses, such as framing, conservation and art logistics entities.
The third point I would like to make is that sovereign wealth funds are already recognising art's value. In a similar but not fully identical point, Abu Dhabi's ADQ recently acquired a stake in Sotheby's, signalling institutional confidence in art-related assets. If other nations see strategic merit in high value art-related investment, why not Singapore?
If good returns are achievable, perhaps the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) or Temasek could consider creating a dedicated local art investment portfolio, perhaps parked in a fund structure and focusing on blue-chip works alongside some experimental pieces. Investment returns could then be derived from things like capital appreciation, leasing and financing models. Such a Government-backed art investment fund could catalyse institutional and private participation and send a strong market signal. It could be advised by expert advisory panels, comprising investment professionals, financial institutions, art and culture leaders and economists, to ensure that financial sustainability is coupled with proper corporate governance.
Just as the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme seeks to attract capital from institutional investors, family offices and private entities, an art investment fund could potentially do the same. It could position local art as a credible alternative asset class while ensuring that artists, collectors and galleries benefit from greater financial participation. If the art investments are successful, a percentage of profits can also then be channelled back into arts charities, adding a useful social mission as well to the investment concerned.
Beyond liquidity, MAS' focus on tax incentives, regulatory streamlining and research development grants to encourage local listings, mirrors the structural support that Singapore's art market could also stand to benefit from. We should take a closer look at our artwork appraisal and valuation capabilities as well as the incentives and reliefs that we can offer in terms of direct and indirect taxes. I have cited examples of what other countries have done in both of these areas in previous speeches, and there is no shortage of reference points to start a comprehensive review of the various financial possibilities for our visual art market.
There are, of course, existing measures that are and continue to be useful. The Global Investor Programme (GIP), for example, requires foreign investors to deploy a portion of their wealth into qualifying investments in order to be eligible for Singapore Permanent Residency. This ensures that investors' capital will directly benefit the local economy. GIP will be refined this year with the specific aim of strengthening the competitiveness of Singapore's equities market. The scheme actually already includes arts businesses within its scope of qualifying industries, which is an important inclusion, but more can be done to connect arts businesses, especially promising startups, with these potential investors. I do not think that many arts businesses are even aware of this option for fundraising. As I have previously raised in an Adjournment Motion, the Government could look to Creative UK as a case study. This network supports the United Kingdom's (UK's) creative industries by providing scale-up financing, connecting investors with arts entities and educating arts groups on securing funding through equity, debt and grants. A similar centralised networking portal in Singapore would help local arts entities to access investment opportunities and financial support more effectively.
I hope the Government will, at the very least, consider engaging with financial and arts institutions, gallerists, dealers, collectors, arts business owners and artists. Together, they could create a working group or a task force to embark on a more comprehensive study on how structured financial mechanisms can be put in place to better support Singapore's visual arts creative economy.
I will not deny that there are different views on this point, the idea of mixing art with commerce can always be a little bit controversial. But if viable, these measures can ensure that Singapore's art ecosystem is not just vibrant but economically robust. If it succeeds, it can provide arts workers with stability, opportunities and a strong foundation for long-term careers, one that is driven by genuine consumer interest and demand. Sir, I hope the Government can consider taking these suggestions on board and, with that, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, there is a colloquial saying in Mandarin: 钱能解决的问题，不是大问题。有钱都不能解决的问题，才是大问题。In English, it means that the problems that can be solved by money are not major problems; the problems that cannot be solved even with money are the real major problems.
I want to thank Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and his team for a generous, inclusive and empathetic Budget this year. It reaffirms that we have a leadership and Government that is committed to enable Singaporeans and to ease our burdens whenever required to do so, at the extent that is prudent and fair for all.
I rise today to address two pressing concerns that lie at the heart of our nation's future, which cannot really be solved by money: (a) the opportunity cost of our academic-centric education system on personal fulfilment; and (b) the concerning trend of declining fertility rates in our hyper-competitive society. These two issues, although seemingly distinct, are deeply interconnected, requiring not just fiscally generous grants but a fundamental shift in our policy mindset.
Let us take stock on what we have now: a tuition industry that is fueled by $1.8 billion a year from anxious parents, combined with a budget of $14.75 billion last year from the Ministry of Education.
Yes, Singapore has long prided itself on being a global leader in education. Our students consistently rank at the top of international assessments, which is a testament to our system's rigour and discipline. Yet, we must ask ourselves: is this really still the best way forward? Nearly a third of our young people aged 15 to 35 reported symptoms that included feeling empty, tense or upset most of the time, according to the National Youth Mental Health Study. These are signs of a generation that feel a lack of meaning in their lives, are high-strung and easily triggered.
Our total fertility rate is at an all-time low. Parenthood is daunting for most young couples, especially financially daunting. Imagine having to join that $1.8 billion rat race just to feel like you are being a decent parent, and you are not causing your child to lose out or letting them down. And this pressure flows downwards onto the children as well, because when parents are sacrificing so much of their own resources, time, money and effort, in the hope that they can at least catch up academically with their peers. All children want to live up to their parents' expectations and the more parents invest, the more pressure the child feels, regardless of whether they know to articulate it or not.
Our unwavering emphasis on academic excellence has created an opportunity cost, one that diminishes our youths' ability to discover, nurture and pursue personal passions beyond the prescribed curriculum.
Last year, in my Budget speech, I spoke about shifting from a performance-based culture to an appreciation-based culture, so that Singaporeans can feel the intrinsic rewards from what they do and derive motivation and satisfaction from contributing to something beyond delivering key performance indicators (KPIs). This year, I stress the importance of having a purpose-based culture.
History has repeatedly shown that excellence is derived through purpose rather than pressure. Walt Disney's creative empire was built on a purpose to create places where families could have fun together. Oprah Winfrey built a media empire from the purpose of empowering women and promoting positive self-image through her talk shows. Steve Job's passion and purpose was to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products. These examples highlight how intrinsically driven individuals pursuing their passion leads to long-term success.
Today, a child's schedule is filled with school, tuition and enrichment classes, leaving little room for unstructured exploration, creative thinking or simply being a child. The consequence is a workforce that is well-trained but often disengaged, with morale easily impacted by negative experiences that are bound to be encountered in the day to day. Without a strong anchor powered by personal purpose and intrinsic passion for what one does, this day-to-day unhappiness easily chips away at one's well-being and motivation.
Studies suggest that when children are constantly evaluated based on external validation, they struggle with low self-esteem, burnout and difficulty making independent life choices. Research in the International Education and Research Journal indicates that while extrinsic motivation, such as recognition from teachers and parents, can offer short-term incentives, intrinsic motivation is what fosters lifelong passion and excellence. It is important that children and youths are given time and opportunity to explore life, in order that they may discover their passion or purpose. Right now, too much of their mental and emotional bandwidth is spent on ensuring or worrying about whether they can perform up to par in standardised settings.
I acknowledge the Government's commendable efforts in recent years to introduce student-led learning in secondary schools, the shift away from mid-year examinations and the expansion of applied learning programmes. These are important steps in the right direction and I ask that we take another bold step forward.
To build on the progress made, I propose a further revamp of our education assessment models. A paradigm shift is needed, one that balances academic proficiency with opportunities for passion-based exploration. One, we can remove high-stakes examinations in favour of continuous, diverse assessments that factor in classroom participation, socioemotional skills, creativity and interpersonal skills, and we can start these in primary school; two, allow students to choose topics of interest for assessments, such as selecting preferred oral exam topics rather than answering pre-set questions; three, expand structured free time within school hours for students to engage in non-structured exploration, such as outdoor, community and cultural excursions without fear of falling behind their peers; and four, revamp the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) to lower a paper-based weightage in favour of alternative assessment methods, such as performance tasks, presentations and portfolio-building, based on real-world applications and personal interest.
Singapore's success has always been built on adaptability. So, let us adapt again to foster a generation that thrives not only academically but also holistically, where passion and pleasure fuel purpose and performance, not pressure.
With these shifts away from exam-based assessments, we can minimise the role and effect of \"money\" in children's educational outcomes, taking the pressure off young parents to avail their bandwidth and energy towards other personally meaningful pursuits that also make them positive role models for their children towards a purpose-driven life.
I will now address our low fertility rate. Mr Speaker, the Government deserves recognition for its extensive family support policies, including parental leave enhancements, increased childcare subsidies, the increasingly generous Baby Bonus and expanded housing grants for young families. However, the hard truth is this: financial incentives alone are insufficient.
I have been in some conversations with older Singaporeans about the dismal birth rate and I often hear young people being judged as selfish for, I quote, \"wanting to enjoy their own life instead of sacrificing for children.\"
I want to speak up for all millennial and younger Singaporeans, that wanting to have more joy and enjoyment in life is not selfish.It is human.
In the 1970s and 1980s, when we were still trying to develop our economy, there were not many options for entertainment, recreation or opportunities for activities to derive enjoyment from. Between work and home, ekeing out a living, home and kids afforded more joys. Having kids, nurturing kids and having the joyful companionship of growing kids were enjoyable. Life was simpler back then. There was less entertainment, less distraction, fewer options and less comparison.
Today, family life no longer conjures up the notion of joy. Having a family brings with it notions of obligations, duty, pressure and sacrifice. All of these do not seem pleasurable at all to the current generation who have different and higher aspirations for their lives. At the same time, a whole other host of pleasurable activities are now accessible. It is unnatural to ask people to choose pain over pleasure. The psychological barriers, such as fear of lost career progression, concerns over work-life balance and the daunting prospect of raising children in a hypercompetitive society, continue to dissuade young couples from embracing parenthood, and I say it is understandably so.
While financial assistance is crucial, we must redefine the experience of parenthood to align with the aspirations of young Singaporeans. Alongside financial support, we must reframe the narrative around parenthood. Rather than merely compensating for the costs, let us shift attention and resources towards promoting the joys of parenthood and helping people see the intrinsic rewards of raising a family.
As an imperative, depressurising the education system would allow young couples to feel better able to channel their finances to lifestyle and aspirational pursuits as a family rather than having to spend hefty sums on tuition and enrichment classes, which really makes for a very poor parent-child relationship.
We need to amplify positive parenthood stories that resonate with the aspirations of the current generation, for example, how lifestyle and travel experiences are more meaningful and fun when shared with a spouse and children than alone. We can help the public realise that the same skills honed through parenthood, such as socioemotional awareness and regulation, communication and negotiation skills, strategic decision-making for use of resources and fostering healthy teamwork with one's spouse, are all life and leadership skills that apply professionally, too, to help one thrive in their career.
Let us engage employers as allies to reshape workplace culture for better employee satisfaction and retention. Encouraging businesses to promote work-life reconciliation, such as family-friendly workplace cultures, \"right to disconnect\" policies or more \"Bring Your Kid to Work Days\", can make parenthood a compatible aspiration rather than a burden.
Lastly, we may need to slay the sacred cow of \"self-sufficiency\". This is a social compact narrative we have held onto the past decades as a cornerstone of our social support policies, when in reality, all the social transfers that the Government has been rolling out is actually speaking to the opposite.
If we adjust that mindset towards \"collective sufficiency\", Singaporeans can feel less like they need to go it alone. We need to invest in support networks for parents, where families feel connected, supported and less isolated in their parenting journeys. Having community spaces and informal childminding networks that parents feel safe to park their kids with – in the neighbourhoods – while they run errands or go on a short date with each other, can go a long way to create a sense of psychological security around raising children.
Our nation must acknowledge that fostering a more family-friendly society is not merely about easing financial burdens but also about building within society, the support systems that enable parenting to be less stressful, more joyful.
Mr Speaker, Singapore's future lies in a generation that is not only well-educated but also well-rounded in a people that are not just financially capable, but also emotionally fulfilled. The role of parenthood in providing emotional fulfilment is not talked about nor shared enough as yet. We need to take the lead in dialling down on pragmatism and amping up on the feel-good \"cuddle\" factor in our conversations around parenthood.
It is time to redefine our success metrics – from grades and rankings to personal fulfilment and well-being. It is time to reshape the narrative around family – from cost and sacrifice to joy and aspiration, to build a Singapore where both dreams and families can flourish. I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Sir, I declare my interest as managing director and senior partner of a global management consulting firm.
We are living in a time of geopolitical turmoil. Governments and businesses with global footprints are rushing to understand the impact of the new United States (US) tariffs and the responses of targeted countries, while watching for the next wave of actions. Headline-grabbing as they are, the US tariffs are but part of a broader America-first agenda.
At the same time, we see China pivoting from the West to strengthen its trade, military and diplomatic positions with the rest of the world. A global South gaining in confidence, forming and expanding alliances, like BRICS, and crafting their own paths in search of growth amid geopolitical fractures.
And finally, a Europe facing a reckoning, forced to re-evaluate its security posture and reliance on the US and Russia and its future role on the global stage.
Sir, what we have is a multi-polar world. An unbalanced multi-polar world. And this unbalanced multi-polarity is now playing out in new economic battlegrounds: one, tectonic shifts in global trade, trade fragmentation and regionalisation, slowing China-West trade while China-rest-of-world trade and South-South trade grows; two, a technology and artificial intelligence (AI) arms race, the semi-conductor wars, the AI diffusion rule, the arrival of DeepSeek; and three, economic nationalism, rising subsidies, tariff wars and trade barriers, a shift away from the World Trade Organization-led global trade governance.
We are also grappling with shocks from evolving conflicts, increasingly frequent and increasingly devastating impacts of climate change and polarised populations. A small, open trade-dependent economy, we have been committed to a rules-based trading system and a neutral and pragmatic principles-based foreign policy. And this instability, this increasing tendency of great powers to break rules, norms and long-standing alliances is disquieting.
What is at stake is not just whether we can grow the economy 1% or 3% this year or next year. It is whether we can sustain our hard-earned position in this world: a global trading and business hub, a financial powerhouse, a technology and innovation hub, a shining little red dot on the global economic and geopolitical stage.
Sir, we are in a good place. Four years after COVID-19, our economy grew 4.4%, real incomes are up 3.4%, corporate profits are up, inflation under control, income inequality lowest since records began in 2000. But we do not measure success by these numbers alone. We measure success based on the success of our people, on the degree to which our people are fulfilling their potential, on our ability to provide not just jobs, but better jobs, better opportunities, better lives for all Singaporeans, including seniors, ex-offenders, persons with disabilities or special needs and their caregivers. And this is why our new social compact matters.
The Budget advances Forward Singapore (Forward SG), with short-term measures to help all Singaporeans and investments for the future to keep our economy growing and our people thriving. Yet I believe a deeper treatment of the shifting landscape and what it means for Singapore is helpful. Singaporeans deserve a fuller understanding of what is going on, the potential impact on Singapore and what other countries are doing and what we might do in response to plan their own lives.
Some may say this is fearmongering. Some say that in spite of geopolitical headwinds, Singapore's value proposition would not suddenly become unattractive. Some say we need not worry, since we have a trade deficit with the US; and some say Singapore might even benefit, for example, from China Plus One.
Here is a rhetorical question. Did you ever imagine a day when the US would vote with Russia on a United Nations (UN) resolution backed by Europe? As former British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston once said, nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interest.
The fact is, these trends are changing fast and the outlook is uncertain. Uncertainty does not in itself suggest pessimism. Within each of these trends, there are challenges but also opportunities for Singapore. What uncertainty does do is compel us to reframe our strategies and build a new vision for the future. We must articulate how we will thrive in the shifting landscape and I say we must build a future founded on resilience.
Our financial strength, far-sighted leadership, good governance and stability and the successive generations of the People's Action Party (PAP) Governments have helped us weather and emerge stronger out of many storms. From the struggles of the early years of Independence to COVID-19, we must protect and not squander these. At the same time, there are facets of resilience that we need to develop or strengthen further as we confront a future of heightened uncertainty. Three, I will focus on in my speech: a supply chain resilience, climate resilience and above all, a resilient people.
But what is resilience? Resilience is not just about being strong and stoic. Resilience is about our ability and willingness to adapt, to innovate, to overcome, to turn adversity into advantage, recognising that our greatest strength is our unity, holding dear our foundational values of openness, multiculturalism and self-determination.
So, first, supply chain resilience. COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine and Middle East conflicts laid bare the impact of supply chain disruptions and the importance of resilient supply chains. This importance has only been accentuated. Trade disputes, sanctions, unexpected crisis and conflicts can ripple through economies.
The impact of the 1 February 2025 US tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada is estimated to increase tariff costs by a whopping US$250 billion, materially impacting company profits. The 10 February 2025 steel and aluminium tariffs suggest that all countries will be affected in time, with impact dependent on trade balances and country concentration. Industrial goods, energy, electronics and data centres are the sectors expected to be most exposed.
Geopolitics is not the only thing affecting global supply chains. Climate change, digitisation and AI talent shortages are also reshaping supply chain. All this affects Singapore on three levels: one, our own needs; two, as a global foreign direct investment (FDI) and business hub; and three, as a logistics and trading hub. It could have a profound impacts on cost supply and price volatility and inflation, on FDI and jobs, especially in key sectors, like manufacturing and the digital economy, and on trade, our lifeblood.
Take volatility. If the price of steel is very volatile, what happens to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and their Singaporean workers in industries, like construction, that have traditionally kept very little wiggle room in their contracts? Or if tariffs, export controls or data sovereignty requirements are placed on data centres and AI infrastructure, what happens to our digital and AI hub ambitions?
For countries and companies, the strong and stoic approaches to building supply chain resilience are stockpiling and onshoring or reshoring. But these can be expensive. And as geopolitical headwinds grow stronger, companies must diversify sources, rethink their logistics and supply chain strategies, refine their go-to-market, invest in new partnerships and try and shape policy and negotiation.
To help them reconfigure their supply chains, companies will need a deeper level of insight into their supply chain. For example, insight into the landed cost of components that go into the products they buy that will help them figure out optimal so sourcing strategies for each component and not just the finished product. They can also break up their manufacturing processes and move different processes to different sites to improve trade compliance and reduce cost.
Sir, the Government can help to open new markets and new supply with new trade deals and to negotiate tariff implementation, whether it is reshaping, delaying exemptions or other exchanges. The Government can also champion new partnerships and contracting models, focusing on collaboration. An ecosystem approach will benefit many sectors as supply chains around us reconfigure. Singapore can play a role now.
I think whether China Plus One will directly benefit Singapore is arguable. A lot of what is moving out is of lower value-add, too low for our relatively high-cost base. But there are indirect benefits in managing this new supply chain as a connector, as an orchestrator, enhancing our position as a trading hub. And so, we should build up supply chain and procurement centres of excellence here.
Next climate change. We know climate change is existential for us. We know that whether 40 degree-days become the norm or flooding in Woodlands or Bukit Timah will become more frequent or whether parts of Marine Parade will sink under rising sea levels, will depend more on what other companies do than what we do. But we still need to be build climate resilience, even if it is the strong and stoic kind.
I am glad Budget 2025 puts more in climate adaptation and resilience by topping-up funds for coastal protection, for example, alongside climate mitigation. In my Budget 2021 speech, I called for Singapore to act boldly on the green economy with President Trump's executive order to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement, US firms are awaiting clarity on the new administration's climate actions.
But climate change is not waiting and refuses to be ignored with extreme weather becoming more common. Europe remains steadfast in its commitment to its Green Deal while adapting for economic realities; while Asian companies are primed to seize opportunities with many doubling down on investments in green business build builds, electric vehicles (EVs), batteries, solar, green hydrogen, low carbon, agriculture technology – setting the stage for another revolution, clean energy.
Singapore's geographic constraints lead to a limited ability to deploy large-scale renewable energy sources and high cost. Importing energy and green and green hydrogen have their own high challenges. This not only has implications for our net-zero goals, but also limits economic development in growth sectors, like AI, advanced manufacturing, semi-conductors and biopharmaceutical.
Thus, the potential deployment of nuclear power in the form of small modular reactors (SMRs) is noteworthy. It could also have significant economic impact. One of the first SMR programmes in the world, the Rolls Royce SMR programme in the UK, when fully operational, is forecast to create 40,000 regional jobs in the UK by 2050 and generate £52 billion in economic benefit.
While critics say that SMRs are costlier than renewables and slow to deploy, the high cost of renewables in Singapore make us uniquely positioned to make the business case work. The $5 billion top-up to the Future Energy Fund to invest in nuclear electricity imports and hydrogen is timely. It must be complemented with strong regulatory support, capability build and very importantly, stringent safety regulations. To gain the political support needed to make nuclear energy a key pillar of our green economy, we need to assess and develop these conditions carefully.
Finally, a resilient people, a resilient nation is one built on the strength, adaptability and courage of its citizens. Sir, this is our SG60 year. At milestones like this, we often recognise the struggles and sacrifices made by our pioneer generations in building Singapore. Sustaining the miracle of Singapore is not about resting on our laurels. Every generation must struggle and sacrifice. Ours is no different.
The question is how we support Singaporeans. We need to invest in education and lifelong learning healthcare, including mental health and social well-being.
In my maiden speech in this House, I called for the Government, businesses and citizens to make us the nation that learns the fastest, to invest in our people and double-down on skilling and lifelong learning.
I am heartened by how SkillsFuture has evolved since then. Budget 2025 continues that evolution, extending support to those over 30 and training allowances to part-time programmes. We must make sure that these programmes are properly curated to improve the chances of participants landing a better job.
With SkillsFuture in full flight, the next area to focus on is economic empowerment. We need to continue to create job opportunities and push for fair wages to give Singaporeans financial stability. We need a national programme for career guidance and development that helps individuals navigate their career progression. And we need to do much more to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. Our people must dare to dream. They must want to work on moonshot projects: in AI, green energy and other critical areas. We must give them resources and support, across life stages. In Woodlands, we are launching a Youth Adulting Programme that will help young adults learn about careers, skills, entrepreneurship, technology and innovation, along with financial literacy, mental health and building relationships, which I jokingly tell my team it starts with a healthy date.
This next phase will require us to build a culture that is more open to failure, if you learn from it. We need to teach our kids and their parents that it is not just the bankers, doctors, lawyers, chief executive officers, Ministers with straight-\"A\"s and a fast-track career that deserve to be admired and emulated, but the business owner who overcame failures. We need to teach our kids that success is not a function of Tik Tok views and likes, but of hard work and discipline, struggle and sacrifice.
Sir, I must say a few words on global talent. I must. While we build new growth areas for Singaporeans, the skills required to jumpstart and grow these fields are currently in short supply globally, and countries are racing to build the same skills. The competition for highly skilled workers is shifting into the geopolitical sphere, leveraging tools like immigration policy.
Singapore has always been forward-looking in this area, attracting top science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) talents, reaching out to our diaspora, developing Global Innovation Alliances. Back in the mid-2000s, as the Economic Development Board's (EDB's) Boston Center Director, my husband supported Mr Philip Yeo, who was then building up the biomedical sciences sector in his meetings with some of the biggest names in life sciences. They came to set up labs here, grooming Singapore talents. Today, we are a biotech hub.
Now, we need highly skilled talents in AI, quantum, green energy, nuclear fusion, and people with experience commercialising and scaling these innovations in these areas. We should look at what more we can do to win the geopolitical competition for talent, such as better headhunting with network analysis, allocating global talent funds, tapping on remote talent and building global talent ecosystems.
A credible strategy to attract the best and brightest globally requires solid political support, and that starts with improving the conditions for all citizens to thrive. In tandem with skilling and job creation, we have done a lot to strengthen our social safety nets, make Singapore more family friendly, and promote physical and mental well-being.
In my Budget 2023 speech, I advocated for more support for Singaporeans who had lost their jobs, ex-offenders and those struggling with debt, after seeing some of my Woodlands residents in these situations. Each of these groups is now receiving more support and will receive more support under Budget 2025. I will continue to push for vulnerable groups, and for policy implementation to go apace, not get overtaken by cost increases or other events that reduce the real value of the support. In the Committee of Supply (COS) debate, I will speak on the need to ensure that policies land in a human-centred way on the ground, with those at the frontline empowered to deliver support consistent with the policy intent, and to make the calls for deviations for deserving cases.
On families, I have spoken for more paternity leave, flexible work arrangements and childcare leave for those with more children. The Large Family Scheme and lower childcare fee caps will help many families in Woodlands. In the COS debate, I will ask for more help for parents to cope with raising children, so they can enjoy the experience for the blessing that it is. And let us give more support to those who are trying so hard to have children.
Together with Dr Wan Rizal and others, we tabled the Mental Health Motion. I shared the stories of my Woodlands residents, including one who succumbed to suicide. Many reached out to me after that. I am grateful for their support and input. In the COS debate, I will push for elevating mental health, closing the gaps between mental health and physical health support.
Sir, undergirding all our strategies, we must continue to build a sense of togetherness and belonging, and reinforce personal and collective responsibility. Just as self-determination is a foundational value for Singapore, self-determination must remain a core value for Singaporeans, who must, in turn, be empowered and supported when they face job losses, health crises and personal setbacks. Collective responsibility breeds unity which breeds collective responsibility, a virtuous cycle.
Belanja-a-Meal@Woodlands, which has been running for five years, giving hawker meals to 300 beneficiaries, and Store@Woodlands, which has been running for four years, giving 400-plus families groceries of their choice, are funded almost entirely by sponsors, schools, preschools, residents and the general public, not by Government funds, because they believe in our cause. Volunteers from all over Singapore, including Sengkang, help us run the store. I am reminded of the words of former Senior Minister, President Tharman, here:
\"No one has a monopoly over compassion.\" No one, no party, has a monopoly over trying our best, overcoming hurdles, to help our residents. We all have to use our ingenuity, creativity and networks to make it a collective responsibility in our communities. We are in this together. In this way, we make our people more resilient in a shifting geopolitical landscape.
Will we be forced to pick a side?
Sir, few discussions on geopolitics do not involve US-China tensions and the inevitable question: will we be forced to pick a side? We have maintained our neutrality, acting in our national interest, and we must continue to do so.
But we must also recognise our geopolitical influence. Despite our size, Singapore is respected for pragmatic, principles-based strategic diplomacy, balancing relations between the US, China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Perhaps, Singapore now has a duty to step up, to be a bridge between China and the West, to reduce tensions and improve global cooperation and integration. We need Singaporean officials on global forums, and we need Singaporean talents to step up into leadership roles in companies that operate in the geopolitical arena, as their understanding of China and the US, uniquely positions them to add value.
In closing —
Mr Speaker: Ms Jaafar, you might want to round up.
Ms Mariam Jaafar: Yes, Sir. The years ahead could be stormy, where extreme weather patterns, disease outbreaks, protracted conflicts and great power competition converge to induce global disruptions of increased frequency and magnitude.
We must view every disruption as an opportunity – an opportunity to strengthen our supply chains, to protect our planet, to empower our people and to increase our international influence. Together, as one united people, let us commit to building a resilient future, a resilient Singapore. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.
The Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, I thank all Members who have spoken and supported the Budget.
Members have raised many suggestions. I will not be able to respond to all of them today. But I assure you that we have heard every suggestion and we will study them carefully. The detailed issues relating to specific programmes and schemes will be addressed later at the COS debate.
The questions raised by Members during this debate revolve around three main issues. First, how are we supporting businesses and workers to navigate our new economic reality? Second, how are we helping Singaporeans to cope with the strains and stresses of life? And third, are we overly conservative in our fiscal projections and plans? Let me address these three issues in turn.
First, how do we navigate a very uncertain global environment so that we can continue to create good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans? Quite a number of Members spoke about this, including Ms Foo Mee Har, Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Darryl David, Mr Edward Chia and Ms Mariam Jaafar just now.
Sir, the entire global system is changing. We can see it unfolding in real-time before our eyes. The multilateral trading system has been weakened by growing protectionist sentiments and unilateral measures. Countries are focusing more on their defence and security interests. So, it has become more about zero-sum competition rather than win-win cooperation. All these will disadvantage small and open economies like Singapore.
The major powers say they do not want to fight; they do not want conflict, but they are preparing for conflict. All of them realise that there is a need for a strong industrial base to sustain any war effort. In particular, the Western countries feel that they are at a disadvantage. It is not difficult to see why.
Twenty years ago, China accounted for just 9% of global manufacturing output. It accounts for one-third of global manufacturing output. That is more than the next three countries, the US, Germany and Japan, put together. China alone.
So, naturally, there is a huge attempt to rebuild manufacturing in America and Europe, and that is why competition for investments will only intensify.
So, we have to be prepared for tougher competition and do what we can to stay in the game. We are topping up the National Productivity Fund, which will provide us extra firepower to stay competitive and attract investments. We are taking steps to strengthen our infrastructure, enhance our enterprise ecosystem, as well as our innovation and technology engines. These moves will translate eventually and ultimately to better jobs and better opportunities for all Singaporeans.
We also have to brace ourselves for increased scrutiny of high-tech activities done out of Singapore, something which we discussed in Parliament last week and which several Members also highlighted.
We are an open hub. We welcome and harness technology from different countries. But the key countries, the key sources of technology, are now concerned about technology leakage. They want to keep their proprietary technologies controlled tightly within a safe ecosystem.
To be clear, we do not enforce the unilateral export controls imposed by any single country. But we will make efforts to address these concerns. We will lean forward and provide assistance where appropriate in accordance with our laws. Members may have read in the media today some actions we have taken.
We made these proactive moves because we want to ensure Singapore remains a reliable and trusted partner in global trade and commerce. In today's fragmented world, we must work even harder to stay open as a hub, where businesses from all over the world can operate with assurance and confidence.
As we navigate these external challenges, we also must continue to press on with productivity improvements in our own economy. Our labour productivity has been growing at around 2% per annum over the past decade from 2014 to 2024. Most of this is driven by the outward-oriented sectors of our economy. So, we can still do better to improve productivity for our domestic-oriented sectors.
I know many SMEs are concerned about the high costs of doing business. Several Members, including Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Lim Biow Chuan, reflected these concerns. But there are economic realities we cannot avoid.
Our land cost reflects its scarcity in our small island nation. As long as Singapore does well and there is strong demand for land, there will be upward pressure on land prices. Our energy costs are affected by global price levels. We import our energy and we have limited renewable energy options. Our labour cost reflects the wages of Singaporean workers. We all want wages to rise. But wage increases have to be matched by productivity gains.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim highlighted that wage increases in recent years have lagged productivity growth and there is scope for wages to go up further. But we should be looking at the data over a longer timeframe. Over the past decade, real wage growth has been commensurate with productivity growth. We will continue to push for this – to push for higher productivity as well as higher wages. That is why we opted for the Progressive Wage Model, which ensures continued skills upgrading for workers as they move up the wage ladder.
We will also keep an eye on costs and provide short-term help to companies where needed but without blunting the incentive for them to restructure. That is why we have corporate income tax rebates in this Budget. And we are increasing co-funding levels for the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme to help companies co-pay the wage increases for lower-wage workers.
We are also supporting companies on the regulatory front. Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong is leading the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review to review our regulatory processes and cut compliance costs. He will give an update on this work at the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) COS debate.
Our more important effort is really to help companies consolidate, restructure and transform. That is something the Government can encourage, facilitate and nudge. But in the end, the business owners themselves, the companies themselves, must be prepared to make the change.
Take retail as an example. Some retailers are concerned about the impact of the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone and the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link. But with e-commerce, competition is already happening and it is happening and taking place from all over the world. Today, Singapore consumers, all of us, can already purchase many items from abroad and have them shipped to our doorsteps at cheaper prices than the local retail price. There are many examples. You can look for yourself.
So, retailers have to adapt and re-think their business models. Some have done so successfully. Take the example of baking supplies company Phoon Huat. It started out in 1947 as a single shop in Middle Road. But with continuous transformation, it has expanded its operations significantly. It now has its own production facility, a distribution centre and 20 retail stores in Singapore. And with support from Enterprise Singapore, it has built a thriving e-commerce platform, which enables it to export to more than 20 countries. It has also adapted to changing consumer preferences, for example, by launching its own gourmet brand and refreshing its brick-and-mortar stores to provide experiential spaces for baking demonstrations and classes. So, this is how constant innovation and transformation can allow businesses to stay competitive and relevant.
It is not easy to make such transformations. But for firms that are willing to do so, the Government will provide our full support.
Mr Derrick Goh asked about the kind of support that is available. In fact, we have many schemes to help our SMEs. In this Budget, I have highlighted three new initiatives: the SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant, the refreshed SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit and the Enterprise Compute Initiative. These new initiatives arose out of our engagements with the trade associations and chambers (TACs) and the Singapore Business Federation. We continue to welcome their feedback and their important work in getting their members to transform their businesses.
At the same time, aside from the new initiatives, there are many existing initiatives for SMEs that remain part of our overall enterprise support efforts. For firms that fully utilise the support schemes, the total amount of help that they can get is, in fact, considerable.
In the past, the utilisation of many of our enterprise schemes has tended to be lower than what we had projected or hoped for. We have been discussing with the TACs to find out why, so that we can raise awareness amongst the SMEs and also do what we can to make the schemes more accessible. We hope the latest Budget moves will help. And if the utilisation of these schemes turns out to be higher than expected, and more funding is required, I assure you the Ministry of Finance (MOF) will be happy to provide additional resources.
Besides uplifting the overall SME sector, we are also developing a pipeline of promising enterprises, some of which will eventually grow to become global companies of the future.
The multinational enterprises (MNEs) we attract to Singapore support this enterprise development strategy. Because the smaller firms can partner with the MNEs and eventually expand to new markets abroad. As Mr Neil Parekh highlighted, such partnerships are beneficial and we will continue to create more opportunities for collaboration.
Some enterprises are started by global entrepreneurs or founders from abroad who are keen to use Singapore as a launchpad and we welcome more of them to come here and to launch their next big idea here.
There are also homegrown companies emerging from our research and development (R&D) ecosystem, which Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat mentioned yesterday. And more young Singaporeans are now prepared to take the plunge into entrepreneurship.
So, on the whole, if you look at our enterprise ecosystem today compared to 15 years ago, I would say things have improved considerably. But there is still much more that needs to be done and we will press on with our efforts.
With constant industry transformation, we can expect more churn in workplaces – existing jobs will be redesigned and new jobs will be created. Understandably, all these will contribute to anxiety and concerns amongst Singaporeans about jobs. Several Members, like Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Faisal Manap spoke about this; and Ms Denise Phua and Ms Jessica Tan also highlighted the disruptions that could be posed by rapid technological advances.
These concerns are real and I acknowledge them. But we have to understand the underlying reasons and avoid pinning the blame on foreigners. Because we can see this happening in so many other countries, where foreigners are blamed and the public discourse ends up spiralling into very negative, toxic and xenophobic directions. That is not what we stand for in Singapore and we must never allow that to happen here.
Our approach towards foreign workers is clear. We welcome them to work here, but we do this in a controlled manner and ensure they complement Singaporeans. And we have continued to finetune, over time, our system of controls. For example, we have introduced the Complementary Assessment (COMPASS) framework for Employment Passes. We have introduced new measures, like the Workplace Fairness Act, to protect Singaporeans against workplace discrimination. This approach has contributed to positive outcomes, including low overall unemployment rates, good employment outcomes and rising real incomes for Singaporeans.
But we are not resting on our laurels. The Government will do more to better support Singaporeans, young and old, to better equip everyone for the changes in our economy.
That is exactly why we are taking decisive steps to strengthen SkillsFuture. It has been 10 years since we started, as some Members highlighted. We have made several significant changes. Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan and others highlighted this too.
We have introduced the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for mid-career workers and the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme to support those who are involuntarily unemployed and need help to get back to work.
In this Budget, we are making further moves, including to nurture more promising Singaporean corporate leaders and we will do more. Several Members also spoke about this, including Miss Cheryl Chan about a talent development strategy. We want to develop Singaporean talent and we want to see more Singaporeans take on leadership positions in the corporate sector.
We are also supporting in this Budget senior worker employment. That is something close to the heart of many labour Members of Parliament (MPs) and many of them spoke about this passionately – Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman. We are convening the Tripartite Workgroup to dive deeper. There will be many issues to work through and I look forward to making progress with all of them with our tripartite partners.
So, while we have made progress on SkillsFuture, we know that there is still much more to be done. Because you can compare our adult education and training system with all the investments and established infrastructure we have in the formal schooling years. That is still so much to do to fully build up our SkillsFuture system. This is not just in Singapore. If you look around the world, in countries everywhere, generally, governments have invested more in pre-employment training than in adult education and training. But compared to other countries, in fact, Singapore is already at the forefront in many respects.
So, there are no ready models for us to look to. We have to experiment, innovate and find our own way forward. But we are fully committed to this endeavour and I expect to put in additional resources in the coming years to further strengthen SkillsFuture. Sir, we cannot save every job, but we will support every worker in Singapore. We will create even more opportunities and better jobs for all Singaporeans. [Applause.]
This leads to the second issue, which is, how is the Government providing enough support to help Singaporeans cope with other stressors and strains in life?
Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Leong Mun Wai said Goods and Services Tax (GST) increase has made it worse by adding to inflation. In fact, Mr Singh said that the GST increase \"turbocharged\" inflation.
But let us be clear. As a small and open economy, our inflation was driven primarily by global factors – wars, supply chain disruptions, and rising energy costs. As Mr Saktiandi Supaat noted, even before the GST increase, prices were already going up globally and in Singapore. And here in Singapore, the central bank, MAS, had assessed that the effect of the GST increase on inflation would be \"transitory\".
Indeed, this was the case. In 2022, Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation was 6.1%. Then, the GST went up by one percentage point on 1 January 2023 and another one percentage point on 1 January 2024. What happened to CPI inflation? It moderated to 4.8% in 2023 and came down further to 2.4% in 2024. Where is the turbocharging? Look, I know elections are approaching, but this Chamber is not an election rally. Let us not get carried away by the hyperbole, but have a debate based on facts.
The fact is inflation has eased, both globally and in Singapore. But people are still concerned about cost pressures. It is not unique to us. It is felt across many other advanced economies, where the headline economic indicators are positive, but sentiments are poor. In the US, they even coined a name for it. They called it \"vibecession\". But there is a reason for the negative vibes. It is not just about feelings and sentiment. It is because price levels remain high even though inflation has eased and these create real pressures, and it takes time for people to adjust to these new price realities.
We understand these concerns. That is why we are continuing to provide temporary help measures through the CDC Vouchers and other measures. And for the one-off SG60 surplus sharing package, we decided that a key plank would also be in the form of vouchers, so that they can also provide some relief on the cost front.
As I said in my Budget Statement, we will continue to provide cost of living support for as long as needed and within our means.
The Workers' Party (WP) and the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) appear to be unhappy and displeased that the Government is providing vouchers to help Singaporeans with the cost of living. They suggest that the Government is relying solely on vouchers to help with the cost of living. But we have never said that.
These are temporary help measures. They are not long-term solutions. In fact, they only make up a small part of our overall Budget. The cost-of-living measures and the SG60 Package account for about 5% of our Budget. A much larger part of our spending is in structural programmes, especially to equip and empower Singaporeans through education, skills training, skills upgrading, job training and the significant moves we are making on SkillsFuture which I highlighted just now. All these will ensure Singaporeans do not just receive help but are able to stand on their own feet and seize better opportunities for themselves and thrive in a rapidly changing world.
As we have repeatedly emphasised, the more durable and sustainable way to tackle cost of living is to ensure that Singaporeans enjoy higher real incomes, and that must be supported by a strong economy and productivity gains. That remains the key thrust of our approach.
And objectively speaking, we have done relatively well. Singaporean households, across different income levels, have experienced sustained real income growth over the past decade. And what we have achieved has outperformed many other advanced economies, as we can see from this chart. [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
I show these statistics not to blow our own trumpet, but so we know what the facts are and how we compare with other economies. But I fully recognise that even with a strong and growing economy, the day-to-day lived realities for Singaporeans may be different. Life in a compact city like Singapore, with no hinterland, can be competitive and it can be stressful – something which Members on both sides of the House were quick to bring up in their speeches over the last two days.
And that is exactly why as part of Forward SG, we have been taking steps to strengthen our social support system. We want to provide greater assurance to Singaporeans across every life stage on their basic needs, like education, retirement, healthcare and housing. We want to provide more support for the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. We want to ensure that no one is left to fend for themselves in Singapore. And if anyone faces setbacks, we have a system in place to help them recover and bounce back stronger.
These are desired outcomes which I am sure we can all agree to. The question is how do we achieve them?
Members have offered many suggestions. Ms Hazel Poa said we need to put more emphasis on social rather than economic considerations and that we are overly reliant on the price mechanism, citing land as an example.
But pricing all resources properly is not about giving more weight to economic over social considerations. It is simply about getting our policies right and doing things the right way. If we do not price properly, then we are giving a hidden subsidy. A subsidy means someone has to pay. If it is not paid by consumers, it is paid by taxpayers. If it is not paid today, it will have to be paid tomorrow. Because at the end of the day, there is no free lunch.
So, our approach must be to get the price right, then, we decide how much to subsidise.
Take public housing as an example. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has to pay the market price for the land when it develops a new flat. But when it prices the new flat for sale, it does not recover fully the cost of the flat. Instead, it prices it on the basis of affordability, as we have said time and again.
I will give you a concrete example: a 4-room Build-To-Order (BTO) flat in Sengkang. This was in the October 2024 BTO exercise. After accounting for grants, a resale flat nearby in that area, is around $545,000. Five years ago, it was about $360,000. So, resale prices have gone up nearly $200,000.
What about the sale price by HBD for the new flat? The BTO price has not gone up by that much. Instead, it has increased in line with median income over that period and was sold at about $370,000.
So, resale prices have gone up a lot. BTO, yes, but not as much and in line with median incomes. The difference is a subsidy that is borne by the Government. That, together with the higher cost of construction, is one of the key reasons why HDB's deficit has increased sharply. If you look at its annual statements in FY2018, the deficit was $2 billion. In FY2023, it was $6.8 billion. The Government's funding to HDB to cover its deficit has correspondingly increased over the years to cover the deficit.
Some of you may ask and this is the right question to ask: is this sustainable? It will not be sustainable if overall property prices keep rising faster than incomes and the financing gap keeps growing year after year. But this will not happen, because we keep a close watch over the property market and we ensure it does not happen.
That is why we have introduced cooling measures where necessary, by increasing the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) for multiple property and foreigner purchases and we have significantly increased BTO supply as well as Government Land Sales to make up for the disruption that occurred during COVID-19. These measures have helped and will eventually stabilise the market.
More specifically, when you look at the HDB market, in the short term, resale prices can be up, they can be down. In localised popular areas, they will generally be higher than the less-popular areas. That is why we introduced a new classification system with the Plus and Prime flats. But overall, in the longer term, we are confident that HDB prices will remain affordable. Why? Because only Singaporeans can buy HDB flats. We can and we will build enough housing for every Singaporean household.
For now, we have focused on ensuring that the new flats are available for first-timers, especially young married couples and parents with young children. We are already seeing concrete improvements. The application rate for first-timer families across all flat types has stabilised. In fact, it has come down from 3.7 times in 2019 to 2.1 times in 2024. This is the application rate. So, application rates are now below pre-COVID-19 levels.
With a sustained and robust supply of new flats and as the overall market stabilises, we will have scope to consider how to adjust our policies to meet the needs of other groups, including second-timers and singles.
There have also been calls for us, for the Government, to make bolder moves on social policies.
You can look around the world. There are many examples of social support arrangements that started with the best of intentions, but only ended up with more problems. For example, some promise sizeable pension payments funded by younger generations, but now have problems paying for them. Others offer free universal healthcare, but now face rising costs and an overburdened healthcare system.
To be clear. This is not about Government spending. We are prepared to spend more, where necessary. But it is equally if not more important to get the policies right and to ensure the overall system is fiscally sound and sustainable.
On that basis, we have been taking steps to progressively strengthen the key pillars of our social system and our social compact.
We started in Singapore with the basics: universal access to primary school for education, Central Provident Fund (CPF) for retirement, Government subsidies and the 3Ms – MediSave, MediShield Life and MediFund – for healthcare and HDB for housing. We have progressively enhanced these pillars. We have got Workfare Income Supplement for lower-wage workers, Silver Support for the more vulnerable seniors and SkillsFuture to support all our workers.
Take retirement as one example. Our CPF system will be 70 years old this year. In a time where many pension systems are struggling with sustainability, we continue to provide assurance for Singaporeans' retirement adequacy in a sustainable manner.
At its core, the CPF enables Singaporeans to save for their own retirement, with support from their employers. But we do not just leave this to individuals alone. Families are encouraged to help their loved ones save more and we provide avenues for them to do so, with matching grants from the Government.
The Government provides risk-free interest rates, with extra interest for lower balances to boost savings. We support lower-wage workers to earn more and save more through Workfare and progressive wages. And for seniors who had lower incomes during their working years and so less in retirement, we have Silver Support to cover them.
These improvements have been made to CPF over the years, and more recently, when we looked at the data, we saw the need to do more for two groups. First, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) graduates whose wage trajectories were not rising fast enough compared to their peers in polytechnics and universities; and second, young seniors in their fifties and early sixties who could use more support for their retirement.
That is why we introduced the ITE Progression Award last year, which will support ITE graduates to pursue a diploma and provide a top-up to their CPF accounts when they complete their diploma studies. We also introduced the substantial Majulah Package for young seniors, which included the one-time Retirement Savings Bonus, the MediSave Bonus as well as an ongoing Earn and Save Bonus.
Several Members of Parliament, in particular, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Saktiandi Supaat, spoke at length about retirement adequacy. I have listened to them carefully and we will consider all your views and suggestions.
On the recommendations of the CPF Advisory Panel, many have, in fact, already been taken up. There are now various low-cost funds included under the CPF Investment Scheme, which members can choose to invest in.
The question is whether there is scope for a low-cost life cycle fund done in a more comprehensive and structured way, beyond just leaving CPF members to choose for themselves. Because these options exist. They can choose but whether there is scope to do it in a more structured way. If we were to do that, that fund must be able to earn better returns than the prevailing Special Account rate, not the Ordinary Account rate. That is 4% on a risk-free basis and up to 6% based on the extra interest.
Actually, that is not easy to beat on a consistent basis. Sure, you can opt to take more risks for higher returns. Mr Louis Chua mentioned an 80:20 portfolio promising above 7% returns. But that is, I think he qualified, potential returns. If you are lucky, you may get 7% or more. What happens if you are not so lucky? What happens if you retire at a time of market downturn? How do we provide assurance to Singaporeans?
So, these are issues we will have to consider carefully. But we will certainly continue to review, finetune and improve the CPF system to better meet the needs of our seniors and to prepare for a future with increased longevity and life expectancy.
This same approach applies to other areas too, which many Members spoke about. For example, many MPs, Mr Vikram Nair, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Alex Yam, Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Carrie Tan, amongst others, spoke about more support for families. And support not just in terms of financial support, but leave arrangements was a popular refrain in the speeches. We will have to look at all of these suggestions.
Others like Ms Denise Phua, Mr Don Wee, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Sharael Taha have highlighted the need for more inclusive hiring practices and employment support for persons with disabilities. I agree. We must do more for people with disabilities. In my Budget Statement, I said we are embarking on a comprehensive study to look at post-18 pathways for people with disabilities. We will want to do more for them.
Many Members, such as Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Dennis Tan, also spoke about the need to help our seniors age well and ensure they are not left behind in their silver years. In fact, we have made significant moves over the past one to two years to support these groups, including in this Budget. But our attitude is we are never satisfied with the status quo and we will continue to review and study how we can make things better.
Likewise on the subject of caregivers, which many Members spoke about too, including Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Joan Pereira and Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Caregiving arrangements vary from family to family. Some have sole caregivers while others will share the responsibility over several family members. We recognise the crucial role that caregivers play and the sacrifices they make, such as leaving employment to care for family arrangements or forgoing their careers in order to spend more time to take care of their family members. We want to provide support for those who have to take up this role as it is not easy for them.
It is difficult to put a monetary value on caregiving. Furthermore, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to support caregivers. So, our approach has been to provide support for the family as a whole.
In this Budget, we have significantly enhanced the Home Caregiving Grant and increased subsidies for care services in nursing homes and in the community. But this is not the end of our moves. In fact, we will study more to see how we can further strengthen our support for caregivers.
Members also had suggestions covering different areas. Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Xie Yao Quan had suggestions on means testing.
This is something we grapple with all the time because there is no perfect means testing criteria. Even on incomes, we can decide on per capita household income, family income, but we do not have the data, lifelong earnings income, a whole range of criteria to use. And we know that, increasingly, it is not just about income as a means test but also wealth. Several Members of Parliament spoke about wealth inequality. Then, you have to look at wealth measures and how do you look at that? What measures do you use? That is why we have Annual Value (AV) as a proxy.
So, these are issues we will continue to finetune in terms of the means testing criteria.
Ms Jean See, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Gan Thiam Poh highlighted other groups that may need more support, like freelance and agency workers as well as working mothers.
Ms Usha Chandradas earlier championed for the arts. Mr Ong Hua Han reminded us to ensure our arts and sports scene remains inclusive. Dr Wan Rizal and Miss Rachel Ong advocated for mental health issues.
These are some of the key points that Members have raised. We keep an open mind and we study all your suggestions carefully.
Beyond ideas shared in this House, we continue to engage widely and hear views from all Singaporeans. We do so through various participatory platforms – something which Ms He Ting Ru talked about, like citizen panels, youth panels and Alliances for Action (AfAs).
These platforms are resource intensive. They take a lot of time, but we find them useful and we will plan to do more. We may not be able to do implement every idea, there will be differences of views. And if we cannot implement, for whatever reason, we will explain why.
Our commitment, the Government's commitment, is that we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that every Singaporean feels supported at every life stage. And the numbers, what we spend on, reflects this commitment. [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.] In fact, we spend more on social development than on the economy and security. Actually, social spending is already greater than what we spend on both the economy and security combined.
So, we are not just saying we will do. We have done so in concrete terms and we expect social spending to continue to grow in the coming years. It is partly driven by our ageing population and rising healthcare costs. It is also because of our efforts under Forward SG to strengthen our social compact. We have fleshed out many programmes in this Budget and the previous one. But as I said, there will be more to come, as this is a multi-year effort.
Ultimately, a strong social support system should not be reliant on the Government alone – even though the Government will do more, but it cannot be reliant on the Government alone. We will do more but our actions must also be complemented by individual and community responsibility. And we very are fortunate to have charities and social service agencies doing excellent work on the ground. We appreciate and thank all of them. [Applause.]
In this Budget, we are supporting them further with more matching grants for their fundraising efforts, something which Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Keith Chua welcomed. And we will continue to work with all of them as partners to uplift our fellow Singaporeans.
I should also add that many of the issues we are dealing with requires changes, not just in policies, but also in our attitudes and mindsets. The Government will spend more on healthcare, but Singaporeans also have to do their part to stay active and maintain a healthy lifestyle. The Government has and will continue to invest in SkillsFuture, but Singaporeans must want to improve their skills, and businesses must give their workers the time and space to go for training.
And that is why Forward SG is about strengthening our social compact. It is about our shared responsibility – how we support one another, care for those in need and lift each other up. That is how we build a more inclusive, and a stronger and more united Singapore.
Finally, on the third issue, are we overly conservative in our fiscal projections and plans, especially in light of our surplus position?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the treatment of the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act (SINGA) and how it contributed to the surplus. Under SINGA, we borrow for major and long-term infrastructure projects. The spending for such projects is capitalised, which allows us to spread the expenses across the useful life of the asset. This, as we have explained, is more equitable as the asset will benefit both current and future generations. This accounting treatment has been in place since FY2021.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked about the assets linked to the $3 billion money laundering case, which have been surrendered to the state. These assets are progressively being liquidated and, when they are liquidated, monies will be added to the Consolidated Fund. These funds are not earmarked for specific purposes but will be part of our overall revenues to fund the Government's Budget.
Several Members, including Mr Singh, the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leong Mun Wai, questioned the need to increase the GST, given our strong fiscal position. I should remind Members that we are in this strong, fiscal position precisely because the Government took the necessary steps early in this term to raise revenues.
But if we were to rewind the clock and consider our situation, imagine what our situation was at the beginning of this decade? We were in the thick of battle, fighting COVID-19. I know it feels like a bad dream and a distant memory to all of us, but those were truly tough times.
In 2020 alone, we had five Budgets. In 2021, we had three Budgets. We sought the President's approval five times to draw from Past Reserves. And this was in 2020 and 2021. We had no way of knowing when the pandemic would end, how the virus would mutate, how many more new waves of infection we would face, how many more restrictions we have to impose and how much deeper a fiscal hole we would end up with.
But we already knew for sure that spending needs would rise over the horizon. It was coming, year after year. We could see it happening. Healthcare spending was rising, especially with our rapidly ageing population. We looked at different ways to raise revenues, including through property and income taxes. But these moves were still not enough to cover the expected increase in expenditure, which was sure to happen.
So, what should we do then to plug the funding gap? That is why we had to consider the GST increase. It was a difficult decision. It was a difficult choice. It is never easy to raise taxes and certainly not a tax like the GST. But governance is about making responsible choices, not just popular ones. We must ask ourselves: do we want short-term populism or long-term stability? Do we want to kick the can down the road or take the hard but necessary decisions?
So, once there were signs that the economy had stabilised, we decided to proceed with the GST increase. But we also rolled out a comprehensive Assurance Package, which effectively delayed the GST increase for the vast majority of Singaporean households. Essentially, once we decided to move, the GST rates were locked in. But with the Assurance Package, we could be more responsive to changing circumstances and we could push back effectively the impact of the GST increase.
And that is exactly what we did. We had multiple rounds of enhancements to the Assurance Package to tackle cost of living concerns and to ensure that the majority of households will not feel the impact of the additional GST for at least five years.
At the same time, we also have a permanent GST Voucher scheme, which we also enhanced. And this ensures that the GST and the GST Voucher Scheme, combined together, will support the lower-income groups and will protect them, not just over the next five or 10 years, but on a permanent and ongoing basis.
So, with that in place, together with the other revenue moves we made, we are in a better position now. And now, the additional GST revenues have started to come in. And the revenues are mostly from those who are better-off, foreigners as well as tourists. And it will give us the resources we need to improve our healthcare infrastructure and take better care of our seniors.
What would have happened if we chose to avoid the GST increase because it is unpopular? Or if we did not enjoy the unexpected upsides in corporate income tax collections, which emerged only in the last two years? We would have ended FY2024 in a deficit. The projected balance in FY2025 would also have been a deficit. And that would have meant less funding for essential services, less support for our seniors and fewer resources to invest in our future.
Basically, Singapore and Singaporeans would have ended up in a much weaker position.
Several Members, I know, criticised MOF's fiscal marksmanship. Look, when I started work in MOF decades ago, one of my main tasks was to provide fiscal projections, as an economist. That was what I did. I was one of those who would run the models and churn out the figures. So, I know exactly what this work entails and how difficult it is. I will not defend the figures if they are off the mark. But I will speak up for our MOF officers who do this work with dedication and professionalism against any unfair criticisms. [Applause.]
Ultimately, a Budget is a projection. It is based on the best available information at that point in time. We have to plan ahead. We have to make assumptions and we have to decide how we deal with uncertainties.
In a crisis, when there is greater volatility in the economy, it is inherently more difficult to predict the turning points. But if you set aside unexpected crises like COVID-19, our operating revenue projections have generally not been far off the mark. The average deviation over the 10-year period from FY2010 to FY2019 was within a reasonable range of 5%. In the latest two financial years, FY2023 and FY2024, the deviation has been larger, but still around 7%, which is comparable still to other jurisdictions like the UK and the Netherlands.
Let us dive deeper into the FY2024 projections because there were some questions raised about that.
Mr Louis Chua had filed a written Parliamentary Question in September asking about the overall fiscal position. Our reply referred to the figure reported in the Budget Book, which was also the figure provided in the Budget Statement. In fact, MOF only starts to put together the revised fiscal estimates around the December and January period, when we start to get more data to update our estimates. And as I have explained in the Budget Statement, one key reason for the revenue upside was the unexpected increase in corporate income tax collections.
Another reason, more generally, is that our economy performed better than expected, the Singapore economy. Remember, in early 2024, MTI started the year projecting that the economy would grow at 1% to 3%. We ended 2024 with gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 4.4%, well exceeding our expectations. But it is not just us. It is also the forecasts of many, in fact, I would say, virtually all private sector professional economists. So, when you have higher growth, it means higher incomes, which drives consumption and that shows up in higher collections – for GST, for example, and the Certificates of Entitlement (COEs).
Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that the COE collections were driven by Government policy which kept prices high. But, in fact, it was the opposite effect. The higher collections were a result of Government action by injecting additional COE quota. This helped to bring prices down by 10% to 30% from the peaks in October 2023. But it also meant more motor vehicle sales; and then, with more sales and more quantity purchased, that is why you have more revenues. So, it is not a price effect, it is a quantity effect.
In most other countries, poor budget marksmanship is when a government severely overestimates the revenue it will collect and underestimates its expenditure. That is what poor marksmanship is about. Then, the government makes unfunded promises that it cannot see through because there is no money or it borrows funds from somewhere else and kicks the can down the road, and leaves behind a growing burden for the next generation. But this is not the case in Singapore, where we practise responsible and prudent budgeting.
Ultimately, it is not just the matter of good marksmanship or poor marksmanship. It is a question of the right values and the wrong values, the correct fiscal principles and the wrong principles. And the WP and PSP may think we are being overly cautious in our projections. But this Government will never take risks with Singaporeans' lives and future. [Applause.]
We keep our public finances healthy year after year. We spend within our means. And if there are new or additional areas of need, we raise revenues to meet these new demands. We always ensure that we have enough, rather than risk falling behind and falling short. And should we have surpluses, that is good news. The money is not squandered, because it helps to fund future needs and allows us to provide more support for Singaporeans. And the fruits of Singapore's progress will be shared with everyone – as we are doing in Budget, to recognise the collective efforts of all Singaporeans.
Sir, that is the responsible way to steward and manage our nation's finances. We have 60 years of history to show that Singapore has abided by the right values and principles and Singaporeans can continue to count on this Government to continue doing the same. [Applause.]
We are in a fortunate position to have surpluses in FY2024 and FY2025. But on the expenditure side, I fully expect our spending to increase in the coming years.
Mr Leong Mun Wai commented that the monies are going into more and more endowment and trust funds. But, in fact, the majority of these funds are drawdown funds. In other words, the monies within these funds are going to be withdrawn and spent for upcoming needs.
Take, for example, Changi Airport. The monies that we set aside will be spent very soon, as construction on Terminal 5 (T5) begins this year. Changi Airport is owned by the Changi Airport Group (CAG). It is not owned directly by the Government. So, the T5 project is not eligible for SINGA borrowing. Instead, CAG will borrow for the project and the Government will be providing a guarantee to help lower borrowing costs, as I explained in my Budget Statement. But if we want Changi Airport to remain competitive as a global air hub, CAG cannot rely on borrowing alone to cover the full costs of the project and that is why the Government is providing significant support and funding through grants.
Even as our spending goes up, we will continue to keep within our means and maintain a balanced Budget over the medium term. That is why I do not see us being able to put back the amount we had drawn from Past Reserves during COVID-19, something which Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about.
But we will continue to be responsible and prudent with our finances. And if we maintain this approach, our reserves should be able to keep pace with our economy and we can continue to benefit from a steady stream of Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) in our revenue stream.
Compare this with the fiscal situation in so many other advanced economies around the world, especially in the West. They are running record levels of fiscal deficits, and their national debts are growing faster than their economy. So, the fiscal space they have to sustain their higher levels of welfare, while continuing to invest in defence and the economy, is shrinking. And at some point, the reckoning will come. You do not even have to go far afield to look at western countries. Look nearer to home at what is happening in Hong Kong, which several Members also talked about. It used to have a healthy fiscal position. But look how quickly the situation can turn and how they are grappling with deficits now and have to take such drastic steps to consolidate their position. So, really, we should appreciate all that we have here in Singapore.
In contrast to so many other countries which are using their revenues to service interest payments, we have the opposite. We receive a boost to our revenues from our investment returns. Just think about it. Countries that have this luxury of investment returns are the ones that are endowed with oil and gas, or some other natural resource. They have been blessed by the heavens with these endowments. We have nothing, and yet, we are in this position. It is truly unique, and it is a Singapore miracle. [Applause.]
Our fiscal strength is a vital source of competitive advantage in these turbulent times. It is going to get worse. The ride ahead will be bumpier. There are dark clouds over the horizon. No one can predict what the next few years will bring.
But the risks have risen sharply. We have already seen wars in Europe and the Middle East. We may yet see conflict in Asia. We have to be prepared for a whole spectrum of possible global disruptions and threats. And in today's environment, sadly, global responses to these threats may not be as well-coordinated and effective as before.
But in Singapore, we know that if such shocks were to arise, we have the ability to respond swiftly to them, like we did during COVID-19. Our reserves and our fiscal strength will enable us to protect Singaporeans when it matters and to turn adversity into opportunity, to turn our vulnerabilities into strength.
Sir, our system has also enabled us to achieve good and equitable outcomes. The Government will continue to focus on accountability in spending, to ensure value for money in everything we spend. There are existing mechanisms in place to scrutinise our spending plans. I will not go through all of them, but we have well-established mechanisms to do so.
The Government continues to put out regular reporting of outcomes in the Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review as well as KPIs in the Budget Book. And as Mr Pritam Singh himself noted, we have put out occasional papers wherever relevant, for example, MOF's occasional paper on our COVID-19 measures, our occasional paper on medium-term projections, which I said we will be updating, as well as MTI's report card on the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). So, we will continue to do so wherever useful.
On the whole, we have achieved outcomes that reflect our values as a society, one that is fair and equitable, prudent yet progressive, where those who have more contribute more to uplift those with less.
In this Budget, we did extend some measures to private property residents, arising from feedback from the residents themselves as well as from many Members. Mr Pritam Singh says it is \"ironic\" that they should receive climate vouchers. But why is that so? This is not the cost-of-living support. It is an effort to encourage everyone to do their part to be more energy-efficient.
But more importantly, let us look at the overall picture. [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3.]
We continue to have a highly progressive tax and transfer system. Members are familiar with the benefits and tax ratios which we highlight every Budget, and it is worth going through them again.
The bottom quintile of households receives $4 in benefits for every dollar of tax paid. Middle-income households also get more benefits than tax paid, as we go through the income thresholds and levels. In fact, it is only the top quintile of income earners who receive less in benefits, or 30 cents, for every dollar of tax paid. So, this is what our system has achieved, and these outcomes are a culmination of years of deliberate moves to enhance the progressivity of our overall taxes and transfers system.
There is no fiscal system in the world that can deliver perfect precision and equity. But I think we have found an approach in Singapore that works for us. It is not perfect, but we continue to make it better. Here, everyone contributes to taxes. The lower and middle-income will receive more support, while the higher-income and wealthier segments of the population will contribute more. It is a fair and progressive tax and redistribution system, anchored on our values of a fair and just society.
And the strength of our fiscal system is internationally recognised. A recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report commended Singapore on our robust fiscal system. This is hard-earned credibility that we have built up over many, many decades. It is not something we should take for granted, because that same credibility can be quickly destroyed in the wrong hands.
And so, at the end of the day, on something as fundamental as this, Singaporeans will decide. Will they prefer a government that underestimates our needs, spends more from our hard-earned reserves, and leaves us weaker? Or will Singaporeans prefer a government that steadfastly upholds fiscal responsibility and discipline, and ensures we have enough resources for current and future generations to handle unexpected challenges?
Sir, the PAP's approach is clear. We take our duty as stewards of the country seriously. We remain true to our mission and manage our finances carefully for the benefit of all Singaporeans, now and in the future. We will continue to do our best to convince Singaporeans that ours is the right approach. It has served us well these last 60 years and it will continue to keep Singapore on the right track in the years ahead.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, the world is going through unprecedented changes. We are contending with tectonic shifts on multiple fronts: geopolitics and trade, technology and energy, demographics and culture.
Thriving amidst adversity is never easy but that is what the Singapore story is all about from the very beginning, and we have strong foundations today that give us confidence to move forward. We have a strong fiscal footing built up over years of careful stewardship by our forefathers. We have a clear plan for the road ahead, anchored on our Forward SG agenda. We are grounded in our shared values of solidarity and unity.
This year's Budget paves the way for us to chart Singapore's next lap, to navigate uncertainties with gumption and strength, to address immediate challenges decisively, and to secure our long-term future with confidence. It is a Budget put together by Singaporeans, with Singaporeans, for all Singaporeans. So, let us write the next chapter of our Singapore story and move onward together for a better tomorrow. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to Prime Minister and Finance Minister. I assure him that my clarifications will not be with an eye on election rallies.
Let me just take two points the Prime Minister made in his speech with regard to some points I raised in my speech.
First, on the question of Climate Vouchers for individuals who are living in private household residences, the irony here is that the cost of living affects people across the board, including those in private dwellings. And giving them assistance also makes the point that the issue cuts across all segments of society, which was the metapoint that I made when I addressed the subject before I made that point in my speech.
The second issue, the Prime Minister asked about \"Where is the turbocharging?\" on the matter of inflation. I took reference from the reply that was given by the Government in early 2024. I think it was referred to by Member Saktiandi as well, where the MAS set out a projected number. With regard to core inflation for 2024, it was 2.5% to 3.5%, and it estimated that the GST rate increase would contribute slightly less than 1% to core inflation. So, if you take that figure with the lower end of the estimate at 2.5%, that is 40%, and that is the contribution of the GST hike. That is how I read it. Hence, that explains my characterisation of \"turbocharged\".
On the matter of the third subject, which was covered by the Prime Minister in his round-up speech, if I can just bring back what was mentioned at last year's Budget – when the Prime Minister was then Finance Minister – brought up in his round-up speech. He confirmed that OECD estimated that the investment hubs, Singapore, being one of them, would stand to see corporate tax revenue gain ranging from $5 billion to $11 billion. But that, on a more conservative estimate, this was $2 billion to $11 billion, and these increases would only materialise from FY2027. MOF was making assessments and detailed projections and would come back with detailed revenue updates. It has been a year. So far, we have not received these updates, and I hope the Prime Minister can share with us what these numbers are.
In 2023, the Prime Minister also spoke, towards the end of his speech, about the occasional papers. MOF released an occasional paper in 2023, covering the medium-term fiscal outlook up to FY2030. But that paper did not include corporate income tax revenues that would accrue arising from BEPS. The Finance Minister said also in his last Budget reply speech and I quote, \"the occasional paper that we published last year may not be so occasional after all. We will keep on updating it from time to time so that everyone will have a sense of how our fiscal trends are unfolding, not just on a year-to-year basis, but over five-year and 10-year horizons.\" Can I confirm that MOF will be releasing this occasional paper on the medium-term outlook with BEPS reflected in its projections shortly?
And, finally, Sir, in the course of our last Budget debate as well, I remember a senior PAP backbencher saying that he was pleasantly surprised about what he had said only two three weeks earlier in the context of the Motion that we had in Parliament on the reserves, he had hoped that our corporate tax collections would overtake NIRC within a 10-year time frame. And merely two weeks later, during the 2024 Budget debate, that that overtaking had occurred: NIRC became the second top revenue source and corporate income tax overtook it.
The Prime Minister said that it was not so clear cut whether that trajectory would continue and that it was too early to tell whether it can be sustained, so we will continue to monitor. Can I ask the Prime Minister whether there is some clarity now, on that point?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the opportunity to clarify these points.
On Climate Voucher, I should just reiterate, I understand his explanation. I was just making the point that this is not a cost of living support measure, the Climate Voucher. It is meant to encourage everyone to go for energy efficiency. Members have asked for this, residents themselves have asked for this and we think that, in the broader scheme of things, it is a move we can make. I mean, the WP is free to object to it if they feel like it is not worth doing. And if they feel that they do not want to support this, please say so. But we think it is a worthwhile move to make to encourage energy efficiency.
On \"turbocharging\" of inflation and the explanation that Mr Singh provided, I think he would have also, if he had read the reply he cited, read other MAS statements, which stated very clearly the impact of GST on price levels is once-off and it is transitory. The impact on inflation is transitory. And the explanation he gave that the impact of GST on inflation, the once-off effect or the transitory effect, is high as a proportion of the base inflation, actually does not make sense. Because if I take that view, then I really should be raising GST at the time of very high inflation, then the proportionate impact would be quite small, because the 1% on a very high inflation base means that there is very little impact. But if that is the case and that is what the WP feels, then really there should not be any concern about the timing of the GST increase.
The third set of questions around corporate tax, they are related. Let me explain what the situation is. Go back to the beginning of the decade when we started looking at tax revenues. Actually, at that time, there was no certainty at all that corporate income tax would go up, even with BEPS. Because, remember, a stated objective of BEPS, the explicit-stated objective, one of it, is to transfer and re-allocate profits to market jurisdictions – large economies, markets.
We are going to be impacted by that very move. We would have profits re-allocated from us and we would be suffering. It has not worked out or it still has not been implemented, this part of BEPS. But that was the beginning, what they wanted to do. That is why we were concerned and that is why we did not think that we would be able to get more revenues from corporate income tax.
Later on, BEPS evolved and people started talking about having a minimum corporate tax of 15% applied across all countries. Yes, but that did not mean that competition would disappear and everyone would just operate with a 15% corporate income tax. As I have explained, even with a consensus earlier struck on a minimum corporate income tax, countries were already carving out manoeuvring space for themselves to introduce all sorts of different kinds of incentives in order to attract investments. This was the reality that we were faced with.
So, even if the domestic top-up tax yields more revenue, we are very likely to have to also spend more to maintain our competitiveness.
Thirdly, the situation today has gotten a lot fuzzier because the US has pulled out of the OECD consensus and we have no clue at all how this will emerge in the coming years. And that is why it is so difficult to say, let us give an updated projection. We do not even know what the global tax arrangement will be like in the next one, two years, given the unpredictabilities we face now. Even the Europeans are worried. The consensus has frayed. What is going to happen? What is the next move going to be? Will it be more tit-for-tat-type taxes or will there be some global cooperation? It is really unclear.
And that is why we are unable to provide any immediate updates to our corporate income tax revenues from BEPS in the near term. But certainly, as the situation gets clearer, we remain committed to providing further updates on our medium-term fiscal position, including revenues from BEPS, if any, pluses or minuses, and we will continue to publish these figures.
But in the meantime, we are fortunate that even before the domestic top-up tax, the minimum corporate income tax, has kicked in, companies have started to do more substantial activities out of Singapore and our corporate income tax collections have gone up. That is a big plus for us. But as I have explained, it is too early to tell whether this is a lasting trend. But whatever it is, it is good that we are in such a position and we will make good use of the revenues to ensure that Singaporeans benefit, to ensure that we continue to advance our goals.
Next, on the occasional papers, I mentioned that we will be committed to publishing and updating them. There are no significant updates that we have been able to make in recent times given the very complex global situation. That is why we have not given an update to the occasional paper recently. But as I have said just now, when we get better clarity around our revenue position, in particular, we will certainly be committed to providing an update to the occasional paper.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I have two clarifications for the Prime Minister. Firstly, on the SINGA capitalisation of $4.2 billion and $4.6 billion for the two financial years. The Prime Minister mentioned this is because of the bond that we issued to fund the infrastructure and then it comes in as part of the fiscal position.
So, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether we should remind Singaporeans that this is actually a sum of money that we need to pay over a period of time through depreciation of the assets? Because it comes in as cash now and if we were to use it for our current expenditure, we have to remind ourselves that this is an amount of money that needs to be paid over a period of time. And therefore, we should not see it as surplus, as in, like revenue surpluses. So, that is my first clarification.
Second clarification is, last year, the Prime Minister, the then-Deputy Prime Minister mentioned about the $5 billion that is expected to be spent on the Forward SG policy moves as a first instalment. Then he also mentioned that close to $40 billion is expected to be spent on the Forward SG policy moves by the end of this decade. So, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, for this financial year, what is the estimated amount that is attributable to the second instalment of the Forward SG policy moves, whether he anticipates this subsequent instalment to be an even higher amount and whether the $40 billion that was mentioned earlier, is it still the amount that we envisage will be spent?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I agree with Mr Liang's first point. Because as I said, there is no free lunch. The capitalisation of these large projects is the right thing to do for inter-generational equity. It is not just to generate near-term fiscal space for us, so we will do more to explain to Singaporeans the treatment of SINGA and why we should not assume that because we are doing this capitalisation accounting treatment, that there is somehow some additional freebie in the near term that allows us to spend more. That is not the motivation from SINGA.
On Forward SG expenditures, in last year's Budget, we said it was $5 billion. This year, we will probably spend about $5 billion as well. But overall, if you look at the social initiatives that we are putting together. And a lot of the Forward SG agenda will be on the social spending and the chart I showed just now clearly showed that social spending is rising. So, we fully expect more to be spent on this front – on Forward SG and on social development. It probably will go beyond $40 billion.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, I appreciate the Prime Minister's explanation that the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is one approach and indeed, perhaps the Government's preferred one for uplifting wages at the lower-end of the income distribution. But as I said in my speech, where I think the squeeze is felt most acutely is by those in the middle, those who are sandwiched by commitments to their parents and children, but who do not happen to work in one of the eight sectors that the PWM currently covers.
So, the first question I have is what is what is being done to help these workers realise wage increments that are commensurate, both with their contributions to greater productivity and the high cost of living?
Related to this, the Prime Minister emphasise that skills upgrading and re-training is key to elevating nominal wages and I do not disagree with this in principle. But as I explained in my speech, real wage gains over the past five years have not kept up with increases in productivity and the cost of living. So, the question that begs to be asked is, how can the Government assure Singaporeans who do choose to re-train and reskill and upskill, that those efforts will ultimately be rewarded by actual wage increments when the unfettered labour market does not seem to already be doing so?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, we are focused not just on the lower-wage workers. We are pushing their wages through progressive wages, Workfare and many other initiatives. But we are also focused on the middle-income and on the broad middle to ensure that Singaporeans do enjoy continued real wage increases.
Generally speaking, we have been able to achieve positive outcomes. I know Assoc Prof Jamus Lim talked about the last five years of data where wages seem to lag behind productivity growth. But you can slice data over any shorter-term period and look at the lags or when sometimes wages will be lagging behind, sometimes wages will be ahead of productivity.
Certainly, in the last five years, wages have not caught up with productivity. But if you look at the longer-term time frame, we want to ensure wages do match productivity increases and it has been so. It has been so. And we will continue to ensure this remains. The best way to do that is to ensure a strong, vibrant economy. But not just leaving it to market forces alone, but to support workers with all the investments we are putting into SkillsFuture, which is not only benefiting the lower-wage workers, but supporting the broad middle of our workforce. And that is why we are redoubling efforts, investing more in every worker through a whole range of incentives and schemes and programmes through working with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), our brothers and sisters in the Labour Movement through the Company Training Committee (CTC) grants, working with enterprises who are prepared to do work workforce transformation. We are putting in place all the building blocks that are necessary to strengthen our SkillsFuture system and to make sure that Singaporeans continue to enjoy sustained real income increases.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I have two questions for the Prime Minister. The first question is, with the generous support measures, including the SG60 vouchers, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what impact these measures will have inflation on inflation? The second question is, I think what the Prime Minister spoke about the uncertain environment globally that is actually unfolding; actually, that is really real. I would like to ask whether the Prime Minister can, indeed, elaborate more, what would be some of the worst-case scenarios that the Government is preparing for and how we, as a nation, should prepare ourselves?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on inflation, MAS certainly will do its assessments in due course. The Government will also do the same. But we think it is manageable. As far as the Cost-of-Living Support Package is concerned, this is not new. We have been providing it in previous Budgets. In fact, if you look at the overall amount provided for cost-of-living support in this Budget, it is smaller than in previous years' Budgets – overall amount, not just vouchers alone. If you look at the overall amount, it is smaller. And one reason why it is smaller, is precisely because inflation has eased and we think it is correct to taper the overall size of the Cost-of-Living Support Package.
But this year, because of SG60, we have a special package to share the fruits of a nation's progress with all Singaporeans. It is once-off. It is SG60. It is not going to be year after year. And within the parameters and the amounts that we are giving out through SG60, overall, there should be a manageable impact on inflation.
The second question on worst case scenarios, I mean, there is a whole range of them that we will have to prepare for. As I have said, it can go from something as extreme as conflict in Asia, which we have not seen for the most part in decades, but we have to be prepared now. The risk is not insignificant; it has certainly gone up. You have hotspots in our part of the world where accidents, miscalculations can happen and it will certainly have a knock-on impact on sentiment, confidence and the whole economy.
But you could also have other kinds of emergencies and threats, cybersecurity, pandemics, supply chain disruptions, a whole range of things can happen, and even if they do not happen nearby, within Asia itself, something that happens far away can have knock-on impacts here in Singapore.
So, we just have to be prepared. Brace ourselves for a bumpier ride ahead. But at the same time, draw confidence from the fact that our fiscal strength allows us to respond swiftly to any emergency.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): First of all, let me clarify that PSP is not displeased with the vouchers, because we believe that they will help Singaporeans in the short term, but not over the long term. The Prime Minister has said that he has concrete plans for the future. So, can I ask if his plans include plans to lower our high cost of living with measures that have longer-term effects rather than vouchers?
Secondly, the Prime Minister, in response to questions about CPF investments, asked what happens if a person happens to retire at the point of market downturn? Does the Prime Minister not agree that this problem can be managed if we have differentiated rules based on age, for example, giving younger CPF members greater leeway in investing in higher risk, higher return instruments, and for older workers to limit their exposure to such investments?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I will take the second question first. Indeed, there are Lifecycle Funds, Target Date Funds, which provide that kind of glide path that Ms Poa talked about. If you are young, you take higher risk, and then as you get older it, the portfolio becomes a sort of a safer portfolio in order to minimise the risk. Actually, these funds are already available in the market. They tend not to be very popular with Singaporeans for some reason, but they are available and we hope that we can make them more accessible to Singaporeans.
But the question that I said just now goes back to not just having choices and options, but whether, on a more structured basis, is there some possibility of looking at redesigning or updating the CPF system? And even with the kind of glide path, Target Date Fund that we talked about, it is not easy to achieve a better outcome across the board on a consistent basis than the risk-free Special Account rate of 4% and up to 6% with extra interest. It is actually very hard. But anyway, as I have highlighted the considerations. We are studying the matter and we will look further into it.
On the earlier question on whether we are doing more in terms of structural programmes and schemes to help Singaporeans cope with the cost of living, yes, of course, we are. As I have mentioned just now, and all that I have said in the round-up speech, the bulk of our Government spending is in this, it is directed towards these structural longer-term programmes: in education, SkillsFuture, job training, upgrading Singaporeans, in ensuring that our economy is strong, so that Singaporeans earn higher incomes on a consistent basis, but at the same time, providing a social support system to provide greater assurances on the basics in life and to make sure that if anyone suffers a setback, we are there to catch them and help them recover stronger. Those are the things we are doing. Let us try not to put a wedge between the Government and the people.
There is no point in saying the Government is rich and has strong fiscal position and then painting this as being detrimental to the well-being of Singaporeans. A strong fiscal position for Singapore is not at the expense of Singaporeans. In fact, it benefits Singaporeans in so many ways because we are able to invest more in Singaporeans. We are able to provide them with more support. We are able to help them with so many different areas of life and ensure that everyone benefits from a higher standard of living.
It is easy to talk about spending more, sailing closer to the wind. You know, we have so much money, let us just be a bit more cavalier and relaxed about our fiscal rules; do not have to be so tight. But at the end of the day, who bears the price? Who pays the price?
If something were to go wrong, if a crisis were to hit, if we end up physically weaker as a country, who pays the price? It is not politicians. It is Singaporeans. It is our children and our grandchildren. Let us not gamble with Singaporeans' lives and future. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.
Ms Usha Chandradas: I thank the Prime Minister for his assurance that he will consider my suggestions for the visual arts sector. I also raised a number of questions about how the Culture Pass is going to be administered. Could I ask if the Prime Minister has a response to those questions?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I think those specific questions on the Culture Pass are best answered by the Minister in charge of MCCY at the COS debate, and I am sure he will be happy to give a comprehensive response.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Speaker, just one clarification, but a bit of a long one. I mentioned the point about the top-ups to endowment and trust funds, about how just in these two years, we can set aside close to about $42 billion. I mentioned, not in the context of earnings management of companies, but how if you look at it in the context of transparency and the matching principle, in the sense that if you look at these top-ups to the funds, they are to meet our spending needs in the future, similar to how if you look at our SINGA expenditure, our development expenditures, these are also spendings that are meant for longer-term needs and purposes.
But in the sense that if you have the spending made from the endowment and trust funds, we get a lot less granularity versus the regular expenditures. I mean, those who go to the Budget website can see the whole full Heads of Expenditure under the different Ministries, under different spending categories. So, in that context, under the whole premise of greater transparency and the matching of the expenses against the periods in which they are incurred. Would the Prime Minister be able to share the rationale behind this?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, the funds that we have set up are for specific purposes. They are well-established. We highlight what they are and if there is a need for more information on the spending and expenditure associated with each of these funds, we will take a look at how we can put out more information.
Mr Speaker: Are there any more clarifications for the Prime Minister? Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. At your instruction that I should ask all the questions in one go, and I have a lot of questions, so I have actually waited until the last one. If any other Members want to raise questions, I would encourage them to raise them before me.
Okay, I have questions in three categories: one, on the Budget structure, I have two questions; two, on the NIRC, I have three questions; and on public housing, I have four questions.
On the Budget structure, first, I want to highlight or emphasise that PSP is all for fiscal prudence. However, I think the Prime Minister and Finance Minister and the Government have always been taking the attitude that for the surpluses, the \"more the merrier\". So, what I want to say is that surpluses are not always the \"more the merrier\". There must be a balance.
My first question is, the Leader of Opposition has pointed out that this term of Government will have a Budget surplus of $14 billion. So, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: is the Government aiming to run a balanced Budget over its term, or as much surpluses as possible, because we are of the view that surpluses coming from over taxation and overcharging are the drivers of structural inflation in Singapore?
My second question is, does the Government believe that there is still a need to put back into the reserves for the $40 billion we spent on COVID-19? Because we all know from the statistics, from the data provided by MAS, that we have already accumulated more than $300 billion more in official foreign reserves over the last few years. And some of this has been transferred to GIC already. So, these are the two questions for the Budget structure.
Mr Speaker: You can move on to your next three questions.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. So, my next three questions are on the NIRC. The Government has repeatedly highlighted that NIRC contributes 20% of the Budget resources, implying that this money was spent on the current generation of Singaporeans. To determine whether this is actually the case, I would like to ask the following questions.
One, can the Prime Minister confirm that, indeed, on average, Budget resources equivalent to about 80% of the NIRC every year are being transferred to endowment and trust funds, which will not all be spent in the allocated year, but reported as an expenditure in that year?
Two, what are the total assets under the funds as of today? I think it is about $70 billion or $80 billion, but I would like the Prime Minister to confirm. In other words, these are the NIRCs that have been allocated to the Budgets over the last few years, not spent and still remaining in the endowment and trust funds.
Third question, we already have the SINGA framework which can be used to fund important infrastructure like Changi Airport and coastal protection at a much lower cost to the people than raising revenue from GST hike or COEs. Can the Government re-examine the need to divert so much resources from the NIRC to endowment and trust funds, so that we can redirect these Budget resources to fund social spending increases or to relook at the need for the hike in GST and property tax increases?
My last category, Speaker, is on public housing and I have four questions. PSP has presented the Affordable Homes Scheme and Millennial Apartment Scheme as viable solutions to our current housing problems. The Government has been criticising our ideas without much basis because it does not seem to have done research on them, and at the same time, the Government is not offering enough explanation as to how it is going to solve the ongoing problems that we are already experiencing today.
First question, what is the latest update on the solution for the lease decay problem?
Second question, can I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government has a better solution than the Affordable Homes Scheme to the lease decay problem, which threatens Singaporeans' retirement security because their retirement funds are tied to the value of their flats which may soon decay for those living in older flats?
Three, how is the Government going to ensure that the BTO price will stay below $1 million, as the land cost continues to increase in line with property price increases?
Four, what safeguards does the Government have in place if the resale market price collapses in the near future because of the increase in supply from the ramping up of the BTO supply in recent years?
And, sorry, Speaker, since you said I should ask all my questions, there is one more question I want to ask. This is actually the 10th question.
I would also like to chip in on the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition on turbocharging inflation due to the GST increase. I think the information provided by the Prime Minister is not enough to describe the situation because: one, the ground inflation is actually much more than what is reflected in the statistic. I have lived in Singapore for more than 60 years and in my personal experience, even including the experience in the 1970s when I accompanied by mother to go to the community centre to buy cheap rice from NTUC, the recent few years, really I can feel it, the prices are just leapfrogging, especially for cooked food. So, the ground inflation is different. I think the word \"turbocharging\" is not too far from the truth.
Secondly, the statistical inflation data that the Prime Minister has quoted – around 6% in 2022 but when GST was increased, the reported inflation actually came down to 4% in 2023 and around 3% in 2024. But he is an economist, I am an economist. We know that there is such a thing as anticipatory behaviour. A lot of the merchants were already raising prices in 2022. So, the 6% is a more of, a better reflection that people are anticipating that GST is coming.
Anyway, so, combining all three years, we have more than double-digit increases in inflation. That tells the story better.
Sorry for the long clarification. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: It was nine minutes for you.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I will attempt to reply to all the points that have been raised.
First, on the Budget structure, I think Mr Leong has mischaracterised the Government's position. It is not the bigger the surplus, the merrier. We do not just look at it from that point of view.
We adopt a responsible and prudent fiscal approach in budgeting. We are prepared to spend more if they are good ideas.
As I said, the issue is not about spending more. The issue is about getting the policies right and making the right decisions to support Singaporeans. And if this entails more spending, we will. As you have seen in our social development spending, it is rising. And I fully expect it to rise further.
The issue at hand is really about the approach towards thinking about budgeting. Our approach is one where we recognise that there are fiscal rules. And if there are fiscal rules, let us respect the rules. Let us not just keep thinking about changing the rules the first time we run into trouble and need more money. Let us stay disciplined, operate within these fiscal rules and, if we need more money, we raise the revenues to support and cover the additional spending needs. That is the fundamental approach that we adopt.
I think PSP may have a different approach. And they are fine to have a different approach. But as I say, have a care about what you want and how you want to manage our country's finances. You may think it is not a big deal, just spend more, disregard the rules. But step by step, these are sure ways to weaken Singapore fiscally. And when that happens, it is Singaporeans who suffer.
He talked about whether we will put back into reserves. I thought I made that clear in my speech: we will not be putting back into the reserves. We will not be able to because we do not expect structural surpluses. We expect to run balanced Budgets over the medium term. Okay, that answers the first part on the Budget structure.
Next on NIRC. All the NIRC revenue goes into the Consolidated Fund and then we spend from the Consolidated Fund. Mr Leong's objection appears to be some of the spending goes into these funds, the endowment and trust funds, and that these are not real spending. But that is not the case, as I have tried to explain just now. Most of them are drawdown funds. In some instances, like the Changi Airport Fund, we are going to expend, spend the money quite soon when we build Terminal 5. In some cases a bit longer, but certainly within this generation, we will be spending a lot of that money. So, they will be spent. And there are good reasons why we set them aside now in order to spend and make sure that we have the resources we need for these near-term and longer-term expenditures, which will be spent.
Mr Leong says better to fund these projects through SINGA. They are, I think he said, lower cost. Actually, SINGA is not lower cost at all. SINGA costs money. It is just that SINGA is a different way of financing. For very large, long asset life projects, we think from an inter-generational equity point of view, it is better to spread it out. And so we have SINGA. So, we are going to do both. We are going to have real spending needs which will be covered through these funds and we will have projects that are funded by SINGA.
That is on the NIRC. And overall, if you look at the revenue moves that we have made – GST, as well as the other revenue changes, tax changes we made in this term of Government – as I have explained, we are now in a good fiscal position. But it gives us the ability to move quickly and to do things for Singaporeans.
Having this strong fiscal position does not come at the expense of Singaporeans. If you look at the tax burden, if you look at what we impose as taxes relative to many other advanced economies, our tax burden is in fact quite low. And that is objective data; you just have to compare.
And we intend to keep our overall tax burden low. But we will maximise effectiveness from every amount that we spend in order to make sure we maximise the benefits and outcomes for Singaporeans.
Thirdly, on public housing and lease decay, what is our solution? The solution is the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS). We have explained the broad outlines of VERS already and we will provide more details in due course.
On BTO flats, how do we ensure affordability? We do so by making sure that the pricing of BTO flats will be done in such a way that Singaporeans will always be able to afford them. So, the pricing will have to look at Singaporeans' incomes. And as I had illustrated with a concrete example, the BTO price for that particular example has been updated in line with median incomes. So, that will be the way we ensure that BTO and HDB will continue to be affordable.
Are we worried that we are over building? Here, I am a little puzzled. I thought Mr Leong and PSP are worried about not enough flats. And we had this debate with the WP a few years ago about are we over building and therefore we are going to have a property market crash.
So, are we concerned about high prices? Are we concerned about the opposite? If we are concerned about high prices, then we need to build more, particularly because we have to catch up with the disruption in supply that happened during the COVID years. And that is what we are doing. We are catching up with supply. And it is because of that disruption in supply that has created that imbalance in the market. That is exactly why we have to build more now to restore that balance, and as I said just now, we can be assured that we will be able to restore balance because HDB flats are only purchased by Singaporeans. And we will be able to build enough HDB flats for every Singaporean household.
Finally, on inflation, that is the last point that Mr Leong mentioned and he says the statistics are misleading or does not reflect the reality on the ground. But statistics are what they are. Unless Mr Leong is accusing the Department of Statistics of not collecting CPI data properly. It may happen in other countries. It certainly does not happen in Singapore. We have a proper system of collecting CPI, updating the basket, the inflation basket and the data is what it is. I stand by the data. It has come down. There is no basis to say that GST increase has \"turbocharged\" inflation. And even MAS itself, in its assessment, would have reflected that in its monetary policy statements.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Sir, I appreciate your indulgence. Just a quick clarification. The Prime Minister mentioned earlier on that had there not been a GST increase, we would have run a deficit over the past two years. I recall, during our debate on the GST that the fiscal hole that would have been met by the GST increase would have been something in the order of $3.7 billion. I understand that last year, we ran a very small surplus, but this year we appear to have run a significant surplus. So, were GST receipts substantially larger than we expected this year?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I mentioned that we would have been in deficit in FY2024 and also FY2025 because of both factors: if we did not do GST; and the unexpected upside in corporate income tax. So, it is both factors, not just GST alone. As I said in my Budget Statement, if we were to plan on previous assumptions for corporate income tax, it would be about 3%-plus of GDP. It has gone up to 4%-plus of GDP now. And when we plan for Budget 2025, we have assumed the higher base.
But without that unexpected increase on corporate income tax, without the GST rate increase, certainly FY2025, based on whatever we are proposing to spend in the Budget, would end up in a deficit.
Mr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I find it strange that we have spent all this time trying to defend a surplus, while most developed economies in the world are begging for a surplus. [Applause.]
So, I had to stand up and say this. In my view, we have benefited a lot through the reserves that we have had, not just the NIRC, but the fact that we have been able to maintain such high quality credit ratings, which make people want to lend to us, which make people want to invest in our country and which make global companies want to come here and pay corporate income tax to us. So, I think we should be thankful of where we are. We should be thankful to our preceding generations for putting us where we are and we should make sure that we keep up the good work that has been done by our preceding generations for us and keep on adding to that.
I would also like to add a question for the Prime Minister. Corporate income taxes are quite fragile. They are here one year, they are gone the next year, largely because of profitability, largely because of the fluidity of capital today. What strategies do we have in place to keep Singapore attractive as we deal with a very complex world where many people are competing for investment dollars and consequently, new projects, which can be a source of significant corporate income tax on the revenue side?
On the employment side, we are investing a lot in SkillsFuture. But many of the skills that will be needed in a few years, especially because through the advent and the expansion of AI, we do not know as yet. So, how do we plan for the unknown? If I may say, it is very hard to do. But what plans do we have in place other than what we are good at it already, which is being nimble?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I thank Mr Parekh for his comments, especially the point about how we should be appreciative of everything that our forefathers have built and what we have inherited here in Singapore.
On the point about how we make our investments sticky, which is really what Mr Parekh talked about, how do we anchor these investments, recognising that they have many options and the MNEs do have leverage.
The simple answer and the only answer is that we have to up our game. We cannot just compete on costs. We have to improve our capabilities, offer a value proposition to them. And that is why we are investing in R&D, we are investing in capabilities, we are investing in Singaporean workers, so that the MNEs come here and they see in Singapore an ecosystem which they can plug into and which adds value to their operations. They will say, \"Look, this is useful. This adds value to me and I want to do more out of Singapore.\" That is something we will continue to do.
Having good local companies help too, something that Mr Parekh talked about. Because when they have good local companies based here, they supply to the MNEs, they form partnerships with the MNEs, it strengthens the ecosystem. It makes the investments stickier. So, that is what we are committed to doing. That is what all the initiatives in the Budget seek to do.
On SkillsFuture and training for future skills, it is inherently a very difficult topic. No one can tell what the new requirements of the future are. But I think there are some basics which we can already train for, there are some fundamentals we can train for, and we are doing that.
And in designing many of our programmes and courses, the course providers, our IHLs, the partners we work with, do not just design these courses in a vacuum. They often engage industry partners and understand what the latest business trends are, what are the latest requirements, and then customise skills programmes accordingly.
So, that is a fundamental approach we take which hopefully will enable us to be quick, nimble and to be able to adjust to new and shifting trends.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: I wish to make another pitch to the Prime Minister to consider measures to lower cost of living. Does he not agree that if we lower cost of living, it will benefit all Singaporeans, whereas if we take the approach of investing in education and training, to raise wages, then, not everybody can benefit from that, especially older Singaporeans and retirees?
Second clarification, since the Prime Minister mentioned that our CPI data is collected correctly, can I ask how our CPI calculations take into account shrinkflation – that means the price may remain the same, but the portion is smaller?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, it is not as though we are doing nothing to manage cost of living pressures. I mean, if we have talk about some of the big items of cost of living, what are they? Housing is one of them with, which we have discussed. And I have described exactly how we are helping to manage cost of living pressures precisely by pricing the BTO flats different from what is in the resale market, with growing subsidies, precisely to keep it affordable for Singaporeans.
Our approach is, let us get the pricing right. Because if you do not get the pricing right, basically, you are giving a subsidy. Somebody has got to pay. We get the pricing right, then, we will subsidise where there is a need to, and we have, on housing, for example. We can debate how much subsidy is correct, but we are, and we are doing more.
And so, all of the measures that we are doing, it is not just about equipping, training, empowering Singaporeans with skills to get better incomes. It is also to strengthen our safety nets. It is also to strengthen our safety nets. It is to make sure Singaporeans are able to afford the basics, be it healthcare, retirement, housing or education, and it is to make sure that we are able to help those who suffer setbacks and enable them to recover and bounce back stronger.
On CPI, the Department of Statistics has its methodology. Shrinkflation is a different matter. I think there are different ways in which we can address that. Mr Melvin Yong mentioned some of that, through Price Kaki and also through maybe getting retailers to put out unit prices. These are some measures we can think about. But it is a constant battle to make sure that we ensure Singaporeans have the ability to cope with cost pressures which we know exist.
So, we recognise the concerns are real. Setting aside the headline statistics, setting aside the fact that CPI inflation is easing, we do recognise that there are real concerns because Singaporeans have to adjust to new price realities. And that is why we are doing more to help them through cost of living support. That is why we are doing more to make sure that Singaporeans will have enough in this Budget to address their concerns on cost of living.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I must commend Prime Minister for impressively answering my 10 questions, although I have said that giving out 10 questions in one shot is unfair for the person who is replying to me. I have a few more clarifications arising from what he has replied just now.
First of all, the difference between PSP and PAP is that PSP prefers to put more money into the pocket of Singaporeans. Government can reduce some expenditures but also reduce the taxes. So, my first question is, can the Prime Minister answer my question as to what is the total amount of assets they are now being kept under the endowment and trust funds?
Next question on public housing. Can VERS be a solution anymore, because the lease decay itself has already set in, as demonstrated in the Ang Mo Kio Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) case. The economics of SERS has totally changed as a result of the lease decay. And so, we would have expected that the same economics will be applied to VERS. Given the economics have changed, will VERS continue to be a viable solution?
Anyway, the Government owes Singaporeans a clear answer. Since my housing Motion, when the Government promised to update us on VERS, it is more than two years already. And the lease decay problem has surfaced for more than seven years. Till today, there is no clear answer about lease decay.
The next question, is it possible that without introducing the Prime and the Plus schemes, the BTO price would have already gone above $1 million? The Government is using the Prime and the Plus schemes to slow down the increase to $1 million, but on the other hand, increasing the HDB deficit, which, in turn increases the burden on the Budget. That is something that is not sustainable.
Last question, on whether the ramp-up of this BTO supply now will eventually lead to an adjustment of the resale market. Actually, PSP's stance has always been, we are not in favour of just ramping up the supply. We have said in our Housing Motion that we should also increase the supply of quality rental flats so that this does not become a supply in the hands of owners but is a rental flat supply. Because if we increase the number of owners owning flats, then, there will be a point where all the Singaporeans have owned flats already, and the next thing will be a downward adjustment in our HDB prices.
Okay, my last question is, will we reach a point when Singaporeans are faced with no choice but to increase our population faster to 10 million, in order to arrest the decline in our HDB price?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I would disagree with Mr Leong's characterisation of the PAP Government's policy as refraining or denying Singaporeans from funds, or keeping the funds and not leaving it in the pockets of Singaporeans, as he put it.
That is not the case at all. Whatever we collect, we put it back to benefit Singapore and Singaporeans directly. That is what the Budget is about. It is not about the Government holding back something. It is about making sure that all that we collect goes back to Singaporeans in different ways. Some, of course, are direct transfers, but not all of it. After all, the PSP itself says that you should not do so much because this will create entitlement.
So, yes, some part of it goes into direct transfers, short-term measures. But a lot of it goes into a whole range of different programmes which benefit Singaporeans. We are putting back the funds to benefit all Singaporeans. That is our approach.
On the size of the endowment trust funds, I do not have the figures off-hand. We can deal with that separately in the COS or in a separate Parliamentary Question.
On VERS, yes, we know that it is something outstanding and we will provide details. Because the first flat for VERS is not due anytime soon. But eventually, the time will come when we have to do VERS and as we approach that date, we will certainly provide more details.
The issue around Plus and Prime flats, let us be very clear. Why did we have to do Plus and Prime flats? Because for Standard flats, we know that the resale market moves up and down in the near term, but we will price the BTO flats not based on resale market alone, but we look at incomes and price for affordability. So, there is a subsidy there.
But if we apply that same subsidy to localise popular areas, the flats will be more unaffordable, and can we make the subsidy more? Well, we can, but then, you have a problem where there will be a lottery effect. People will immediately know the subsidy is greater in these popular areas, \"Let us go for that. And when I win the BTO, I will strike lottery\". And that is not good. That is not equitable.
So, the right thing to do is to have a Plus and Prime framework where we provide more subsidies in order to bring down the headline price, make it affordable but, at the same time, when the person sells that flat, the additional subsidies is returned to HDB. I think that is a fair and equitable way and that is why we have the Plus and Prime framework.
On rental flats, do we want to have home ownerships for all Singaporeans? That has always been a policy. That is what Singaporeans want and I think that gives every Singaporean a stake in our nation's success.
So, we will continue with home ownership. It has been the foundation of Singapore society, the foundation of Singapore's success. I think it continues to be a very important key pillar for nation building. We want to ensure a nation of home owners and we will continue to finetune and improve HDB policies to make sure that every Singaporean who wants to, can own their own homes.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, one final one. Just get straight to your clarification.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: I hope it is not an old clarification, a repeated clarification.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I just want to clarify one last point with the Prime Minister. He did not really quite answer my question. Without the Prime and Plus scheme, do you agree that our BTO price, in certain areas, would have gone above the $1 million?
Mr Lawrence Wong: That is hypothetical. I would not know. But let us put it this way. When my parents bought their Marine Parade flat in the 1970s, it was $30,000 or $30,000 plus. At that time, will they ever, ever imagine that they could sell the flat for $500,000 in the 1990s? No, not at all.
But why have flats gone up? It is because of incomes. It is because Singapore has succeeded. It is because our standards of living have gone up. That progress, that success has benefited every homeowner in Singapore. That is what homeownership provides. A concrete stake in our nation's progress and not just that, but eventually, a home and a nest egg which you can tap on for retirement.
It is a sound and a key pillar of our social compact, which we will continue to improve, enhance and build upon. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: One last clarification. When will the Government be able to let us know the details of VERS?
Mr Lawrence Wong: I do not have the answer now, but you can ask the Minister for National Development at the COS. I am sure he will give you a response.
[(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 2025 to 31 March 2026.\" (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 propose to take a break now and will resume Sitting at 2.55 pm.
I have revised —
[(proc text) Hon Members began to rise from their seats. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Hang on, hang on. [Laughter.] I know we are all hungry and tired.
I have revised the commencement time of the Committee of Supply. With the change in commencement time to start our Committee of Supply at 2.55 pm, the revised guillotine time for Head U, Prime Minister's Office, is 5.45 pm.
Hon Members will be notified of the revised conclusion times for the subsequent Heads of Expenditure. Order, order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 2.34 pm until 2.55 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates for the Financial Year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 32 of 2025","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 2025 to 31 March 2026, contained in Paper Cmd 32 of 2025. 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 FY2025 on pages 6 and 7 respectively of the Command Paper.
A total of 600 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 as indicated against their amendments. I would urge hon Members both from the front and back benches to adhere to their time limits, as I will be stringent in my time-keeping.
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.
Head U, Prime Minister's Office.
","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: Ms Poh Li San,
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Chairman, I move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
In 2022, the Government announced its plans to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. It aimed to reduce Singapore's emissions to around 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030. This year, the Government announced that it will reduce emissions to between 45 and 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035.
I would like to ask if we are on track to meet our 2030 target, which is just five years down the road. How much clean energy and carbon credits will we need to depend on in order to meet this target? The Government had indicated in its target submission to the United Nations (UN) that it will implement regulations, pricing and market policies to incentivise and enable all sectors of our economy to decarbonise. Would the Minister please elaborate on these plans? What has been the response from the business community so far? What is the expected impact on our economy and competitiveness, considering that Singapore is only one of the 13 countries which had submitted climate change targets to UN?
Currently, 95% of Singapore's electricity production comes from liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the remaining is dependent on oil, coal, solar and waste supply. At the same time, 97% of our primary emissions come from our power, industrial and transport sectors. What are the expected cost increases to businesses and consumers associated with carbon emissions reduction and which industries and types of businesses are expected to bear the bulk of the cost burden?
To achieve our longer-term 2035 and 2050 targets, will we be making any pivots from our current decarbonisation strategy? And lastly, would the Minister provide updates on the import of clean energy, the progress of solar panel installations and the studies on the viability of hygrogen and small modular nuclear reactors?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Sir, when we refer to the circular economy in terms of our reduce, reuse and recycle targets, our concern typically comes from when is the day that Pulau Semakau is no longer able to take any more refuse. But I would like to ask the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) coordinating the whole-of-Government response about interaction between our circular economy outcomes, plans and targets with our national climate change targets.
First, I understand that products not made in Singapore, like agricultural imports, electronic imports, car imports and so on, are not counted under our carbon budget and, as such, are not covered under our nationally determined contribution (NDC). Does the Government have any mechanism to track this outsourced carbon? Is reducing these emissions covered under any Government strategy, like the Zero-waste Masterplan? From reading our NDC, it seems that the Government is working to calculate some degree of carbon abatement via recycling, but does this reflect that we track our outsourced carbon?
The built environment sector analyses and aims to reduce such carbon in the embodied carbon calculations, which are key to determining the greenness of a green building. Are other carbon intensive sectors, like marine and manufacturing, subject to such scrutiny? The European Union (EU) carbon border adjustment mechanism broadly targets goods and precursors that seem to be carbon-intensive and prone to carbon leakage. While I am not advocating for such a tariff, are we doing the analysis?
In view of this, I hope that we can fundamentally change our whole-of-Government key performance indicators (KPIs) to shift the focus from gross domestic product (GDP) growth to development KPIs, which include the compatibility of our country, where 1.5°C warming, in accordance with the Paris Agreement.
If we are to use the term \"green growth\", it must be warranted. Not only do we as a country need to reduce the resource footprint per unit of GDP, we need to continuously reduce our resource footprint altogether and this includes not simply exporting pollution to other countries we trade with.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): The demand for AI, especially generative AI, has been increasing exponentially in the past two years. With this comes a staggering increase in the energy intensity and by extension, carbon emissions intensity of AI-related activities. The Government should look into regulating the carbon footprint of the use and development of AI.
To put things in perspective, just one query with ChatGPT uses up to 10 times as much energy as a Google search query, enough to power a light bulb for 20 minutes. Generating a single image using an AI model can take as much energy as fully charging a smartphone, thousands of times more energy-intensive than generating text.
However, not all AI models are the same. Using large general-purpose models, such as large language models like ChatGPT can consume up to 30 times more energy than a smaller model created specifically for the task. The issue arises when companies of different sizes rush to integrate general purpose AI into their products and services, leading to such general-purpose AI models being deployed in an indiscriminate manner millions, if not billions, of times a day for tasks that users do not require the use of general-purpose AI, thereby causing emissions to add up quickly.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) if there is an estimate of how Singapore's energy demand, especially for industries, may increase with a push for widespread adoption of AI. As Singapore is positioning itself to become an AI hub, as well as a data centre hub, has this been taken into consideration in the 2035 NDC commitments?
The Government should start to look into developing voluntary guidelines and eventually mandating the reporting of energy consumptions by AI models. This has already been recommended by the United Nations Environmental Programme and governments, including those in United States (US) and the EU, are actively discussing similar regulations. This would encourage developers to explore and adopt energy-efficient practices to reduce the carbon intensity of their products. AI developers will be pushed to use smaller task-specific AI models instead of large general-purpose models.
Such regulation would also have ripple effects within the AI ecosystem. Like the sustainability reporting landscape, there will be increased demand for products and services that help support such disclosures. Data centres in Singapore may start looking at developing hardware that can more easily show AI developers their energy consumption. There will be greater innovation. Downstream businesses would also be more discerning about the AI models they adopt, taking into account their energy consumption and emissions. By being an early adopter of such regulations, Singapore can enable local AI developers and related businesses to integrate carbon conscious practices early and stay ahead as global demand for sustainable AI solutions grows.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Sir, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit, is one of the first international treaties on the topic, which stipulated that parties should meet regularly to address climate change at the Conference of Parties (COP). The UNFCCC secretariat is the UN entity tasked with supporting the global responses to the threat of climate change. Singapore ratified the UNFCCC. We have been an active player in the international climate change negotiations and signed and ratified the Paris Agreement in 2016.
In February this year, Singapore committed itself to reduce emissions to between 45 and 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2035. This is part of our 2035 NDC submitted to the UNFCCC.
In its statement accompanying the submission, it is said that Singapore is a small low-lying island state, climate change is an existential challenge to us. For our 2035 NDC, and I quote from the statement, \"reflects both our commitment to climate action, as well as the significant uncertainties we face in our decarbonisation journey.\" The lower bound of 45 MtCO2e keeps us on a linear path towards our net-zero target in 2050.
Singapore has also committed itself to continue to work on \"the range of mitigation measures available to us and explore other mitigation options to drive emissions reductions.\" These solutions have the potential to grow the green economy, create new jobs and generate new opportunities in the low-carbon world.
In 2022, we announced our climate targets to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and reduction of emissions to around 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030 after peaking emissions earlier. May I ask how the Government decided on these targets, and what steps will Singapore take to achieve them?
I would like to highlight, this year, the Government announced a 2035 climate target to reduce emissions to \"between 45 and 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035\". Are we on track to meet our 2030 target? Will we be making any pivots from our current decarbonisation strategy to achieve our longer-term target in 2035 and 2050?
How will the recent global developments, such as the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement, affect Singapore's climate goals?
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Chairman, let me begin by declaring that I am a senior executive with a local enterprise and I deal with matters related to sustainability.
Despite impeding global climate action due to geopolitical uncertainties, I am encouraged that Singapore remains committed towards climate action, taking critical and bold steps to shift our nation towards a low-carbon society. Climate change is evidently impacting our lives today. As a nation, we must be steadfast in our actions to fight against this existential threat.
Singapore's recent submission on our 2035 NDCs states that we target to reduce our emission to 45 to 50 million tonnes by 2035. This target puts us on the right trajectory for Singapore to achieve net-zero by 2050. However, achieving this level of carbon abatement is no mean feat. To put it in perspective, to achieve 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide abatement from today's emission level, Singapore would need to either halve our primary emissions from the industry sector or reduce the emissions from our power sector by around 70%. Achieving such a level of abatement would require significant structural shifts in our infrastructure, economy and technological landscape.
We are already witnessing such a transition due to the Government's push to increase adoption of solar power and electric vehicles in Singapore. While these activities do contribute towards our decarbonisation efforts, similar deployment efforts would need to be needle-moving in other sectors as well to achieve the level of abatement mentioned earlier. I would like to ask Minister what the Government's deployment strategy for Singapore are to achieve our 2035 NDC target.
I acknowledge the Government's push to significantly increase electricity imports to Singapore by 2035. Based on preliminary estimation by the Energy Studies Institute at the National University of Singapore (NUS), importing an additional four gigawatts of green electricity could abate about 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. However, beyond electricity imports, does the Government aim to implement any significant initiatives or mandate the industrial sector to further support our decarbonisation targets? How can our local industries contribute towards such efforts to enable structural shifts beyond just relying on the reduction of Singapore's grid emission factor? Further, how can the Government support them in such activities?
For Singapore to become a low-carbon economy and with limited access to low-cost renewable energy, we need to heavily rely on low-carbon energy technologies. Yet, many of which are still nascent or not at full commercial scale. I commend the Government for continuously monitoring, developing and testing new low-carbon technologies, including in bolder areas, such as nuclear energy, to ensure Singapore pursues optimal pathways to achieve net-zero. As we explore all these new technology frontiers, there are benefits to take stock of earlier studies and to reflect as a nation how we can collectively leverage upon these learnings.
Among the multiple studies on low-carbon energy technologies the Government has undertaken, can Minister share some of the key opportunities and challenges identified? Within this portfolio of technologies studied, are there any promising ones which can be further scaled with partners and piloted before end of the decade?
Beyond technology considerations, many low-carbon solutions, including electricity imports, carbon capture and carbon markets, would require international cooperation before deployment can take place. I note that Singapore has been pursing discussions with multiple countries over the past few years, regarding these cooperation activities. Will the Government be able to provide an update on the status of these cross-border discussions and whether they are progressing as expected, and aligned with our infrastructure plans and timelines?
Sir, the impact of climate change is evident today. Inaction would only make things worse. Despite the global headwinds and geopolitics, I am heartened that Singapore remains fully committed to climate action, guided by science and facts. The steps we are taking today would be the cornerstone for our future low-carbon economy, where Government, industry and citizens can work collaboratively to achieve a greener Singapore.
The Chairman: Senior Minister Teo.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Chairman, Sir, I speak as Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC), which coordinates our policy and measures across all sectors. And with your permission, Sir, I will take clarifications immediately after this speech.
I would like to thank our hon Members, Ms Poh, Ms He, Mr Tan, Dr Lim and also Miss Chan, for their interest in this subject, which has a very long-term bearing on Singapore's development and growth.
Sir, it is a difficult time to talk about climate action. The Paris Agreement in 2015 marked a breakthrough in global climate action, with countries pledging to keep global warming within 1.5°C. Although there has been unevenness in implementation, we were generally pulling in the same direction as a global community.
However, the US has recently pulled out of the Paris Agreement, for the second time. This has prompted other countries, like Argentina and Indonesia, for example, to question the wisdom of maintaining their climate commitments. Dr Lim Wee Kiak has asked how these global developments will affect Singapore's climate goals. It is quite natural for countries to ask why they should continue to make these difficult changes when others are not and whether their efforts will even result in any meaningful change, without the participation of bigger players.
Singapore's Climate Ambassador, Mr Ravi Menon, gave a speech a week ago at Temasek's Ecosperity Conversations. It provides a succinct and clear assessment of the global state of play on climate change, and I recommend that Members read it. Ambassador Menon points out that the main drivers of climate action are politics, economics and nature. I have touched on the political headwinds. So, let us examine the other two.
First, the economics. Green technology has advanced dramatically in the last two decades. Several of these technologies are now mature and mainstream, and make economic sense. They are not just cleaner but lower cost. The average levelised cost of solar energy globally, for instance, is now 50% lower than that of fossil fuels. This explains why two-thirds of global energy investment in 2024 went to clean energy technologies and infrastructure.
Countries and businesses realise this, which is why despite political perturbations, there is now much greater momentum for decarbonisation than just a decade ago. Most of the world's advanced economies have been investing in decarbonisation and steadily reducing emissions. They recognise that the green transition is an increasingly important driver of growth and therefore crucial not just to the health of the globe, but also to the prosperity of their people.
This brings us to nature. Climate change is no longer a future threat. It is already here, with us. Every country, all of us, can see this – drought, fires, floods, loss of crop yields, more severe storms. The last 10 years have been the hottest years ever on record. In short, the timeline to respond and adapt is being set, not by us, mere humans, but by nature.
Countries and businesses which lag behind will be forced to act eventually. The longer they wait, the sharper and more disruptive a transition they will have to make. This is why Singapore remains fully committed to effective climate action. We want to put ourselves in the best possible position for the long-term challenge and the opportunities that arise.
Earlier this month, Singapore submitted our 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We are among just 13 countries to do so on time, out of a total of 195 countries. We have committed to reducing our emissions to between 45 and 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2035.
Our 2035 NDC is an ambitious commitment. It builds on our previous target to peak and then reduce emissions to 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030. Forty-five million tonnes keeps us on a straight-line trajectory from 60 million tonnes in 2030 down to net zero by 2050, aligning with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
It is heartening that Members from both sides of this House have expressed support for our ambitious climate action plan and in particular, this downward trajectory of emissions, which is going to be a major challenge.
Our 2035 NDC also signals our resolve to help our economy stay competitive in a low-carbon world. Having an ambitious target generates demand for new green investments and gives Singapore-based companies an edge in developing new low-carbon solutions. It also allows us to remain attractive to companies that are looking to decarbonise their operations, which are aligned with our own national goals.
At the same time, as an alternative-energy disadvantaged nation, having a target range reflects the practical reality that our pace of decarbonisation depends heavily on technological developments and international collaboration. This range also recognises that we need some flexibility to manage the impact on our households and businesses while aligning with the pace of transition in the rest of the world.
Miss Chan, Dr Lim and Ms Poh asked about progress toward our 2030 NDC and new measures for our 2035 target.
With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an infographic. This summarises where we are now and our journey to get to net zero by 2050.
Mr Chairman: Yes, proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: We are on track to meet our 2030 NDC. Let me provide two examples of the progress we have made.
First, on clean energy. Despite our limited land area, we have pushed hard on solar, which remains our most viable domestic source of renewable energy. I am pleased to announce that at the end of last year, we achieved our goal of 1.5 gigawatts-peak of solar deployment by 2025. This is ahead of schedule and more than triple where we were in 2020. This puts us on track to meet our target of at least two gigawatts-peak of solar deployment by 2030.
To put this in context, our electrical power consumption today is around eight gigawatts. Of course, eight gigawatts is not the same as gigawatts-peak, but this puts it into context.
Second, on land transport. We are working towards all vehicles running on clean energy by 2040. As of this year, we have ceased registrations of new diesel cars and taxis. Electric vehicle (EV) charging points have been installed in about half of all Housing and Development Board (HDB) carparks. Members would have seen them sprouting up all over your HDB carparks. A third of all new car registrations are electric cars. We are also on track to electrify half of our public bus fleet by 2030.
We will redouble our efforts on such measures. The Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment will say more about this during their respective Committees of Supply (COS).
Beyond these measures, we will need to step up efforts to study and advance a fuller suite of potential decarbonisation solutions – something which several Members asked about.
One key enabler is our carbon tax, which was raised to $25 a tonne last year. The carbon tax shapes behaviour across our economy, from consumers to businesses. The carbon tax, in a way, is a proxy for the cost of emissions by users. It reflects the cost to the economy and to the users for emitting carbon.
This applies across the board, whether it is industry, or whether it is AI data centres. This then puts some inhibition on whether or not they will continue to have high emission levels and it applies a cost to the eventual users of all these services.
At the same time, we do not just collect the carbon tax, we plough these tax revenues back into supporting businesses and households so that they can become greener. One example is the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) existing buildings incentive scheme for owners to retrofit their buildings to Green Mark energy efficiency standards.
We are doing other things as well. It does not come from the collection of carbon tax, but we are doing Climate Vouchers as well. The Leader of the Opposition made some comments about that.
Our current trajectory is to progressively increase the carbon tax to $45 per tonne in 2026 and 2027, with a view to reaching $50 to $80 per tonne by 2030. Of course, we will have to watch what happens on the global scene.
I am heartened that both sides of this House have expressed support for a broad-based carbon tax, with the Workers' Party advocating even higher carbon taxes even sooner. We take such feedback seriously and look forward to their continued support when we adjust our carbon taxes in the future. We will continue to assess where the optimal range is. Our current tax rate is carefully calibrated to give our businesses and households time to adjust and to account for the maturation of green technologies that will allow us to decarbonise more efficiently.
We will also need to tap on cross-border solutions to overcome the limitations of being a dense and alternative-energy disadvantaged city-state. Miss Chan asked about our collaborations on electricity imports and carbon credits. We have made steady progress on both. We recently increased our indicative need for electricity imports from four gigawatts to eight gigawatts [Please refer to clarification later in the debate.] by 2035 and have awarded conditional regulatory approvals to potential partners in Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia for 5.6 gigawatts of low-carbon electricity imports.
However, there is no transition without transmission. This is why we have been laying the crucial groundwork for the development of an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) regional power grid, which will facilitate cross-border electricity trading and increase regional energy resilience for all the countries in ASEAN.
Next, carbon credits. Unlike electricity imports, credits are not limited by proximity, by distance and by physical connections. At the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) last year, we co-facilitated negotiations that delivered the full operationalisation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. And Minister Grace Fu played a major role in that.
We have also signed Implementation Agreements on Article 6 carbon credits with Papua New Guinea and Ghana and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with more than 15 other countries. Just this morning, we signed a new Implementation Agreement with Bhutan. These win-win agreements will promote the development of carbon mitigation projects in these countries while helping us meet our emissions targets.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) represents another pathway for us – one that is necessary to reduce emissions from hard-to-abate sectors. We are currently working with industry players to study the viability of cross-border carbon capture and storage projects.
Achieving our longer-term targets will also require new and innovative solutions. And several of these new technologies are showing promise. We have begun to deploy biofuels, such as sustainable aviation fuel, which can be produced from food and agricultural waste. From next year, all flights departing Singapore will be required to have a 1% uplift of sustainable fuel, with the goal to raise this to 3% to 5% by 2030, subject to global developments.
We are also studying the potential for wider adoption of biofuels in sectors such as electricity generation and transport.
We are also building capabilities to deploy hydrogen and ammonia, including through small, pilot-scale projects, as we wait for these fuels to become commercially viable at scale.
In the longer term, as the Prime Minister stated in the Budget Speech, we are studying the potential deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies that, while nascent, could be safer than conventional reactors.
We had previously announced our plans to build a pool of around 100 nuclear energy and safety experts. We already now have over 40 such experts whose priority in the coming years is to work with our partners to assess the potential for deploying advanced nuclear energy technologies safely in Singapore.
In this transition to a low-carbon future, we will have to explore multiple, sometimes overlapping pathways so that we can find the right mix for ourselves. This is why we are topping up $5 billion to the Future Energy Fund to make critical infrastructure investments and support solutions that are the most appropriate for us.
Taken together, the measures I have mentioned constitute a holistic set of decarbonisation efforts. They maximise what is currently possible domestically, technologically and economically, while we work to advance the technologies and partnerships needed for the later phases of our decarbonisation journey.
The next question is how to help our businesses transition to this new economy.
Ms Poh Li San, Mr Dennis Tan and Ms He Ting Ru asked about costs, opportunities and the circular economy. Ms He, in particular, talked about consumption-based emissions versus production-based emissions. I should explain that currently, the world operates on a production-based emissions system. The entire United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) architecture is based around that. This is the way that we count, officially, carbon emissions for each country. And also, the methodologies for this are very well developed.
For consumption-based emissions, the methodologies are not standardised and they are not widely applied. And in any case, they will not be directly applicable to our carbon account under the Paris Agreement.
But we are encouraging companies to start accounting for these things because, eventually, if carbon emission costs around the world rise, this will affect them also through their supply chain. So, they ought to know where their supply chain risks are. We are working with the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and a consortium of partners to launch the Singapore Emission Factors Registry. This helps businesses in Singapore track and report their carbon emissions more accurately by using a database of emissions factors developed based on Singapore's context. Prior to this, most Singapore businesses had to rely on emission factors from international sources for emissions reporting, especially for Scope 3 emissions.
But to remain competitive as an economy, we must take steps towards decoupling growth from emissions. That means, if we want to grow, we must decouple that from higher emissions. We must find a way of growing without the concomitant higher emissions that growth brings.
As we move towards a low-carbon future, businesses and economies that remain emissions intensive relative to their competitors will become less attractive. So, while there are costs in decarbonisation now, it is an investment in long-term survival and growth for our companies and also for Singapore's economy.
We are helping businesses decarbonise by supporting efforts to improve their energy efficiency. For instance, we have enhanced the Resource Efficiency Grant for manufacturing facilities and data centres, by lowering the minimum qualifying criteria to support more emissions reduction projects. We have also launched schemes to support businesses in sustainability reporting.
In addition, we have been working closely with the private sector to develop sectoral roadmaps to decarbonise each sector, seize new opportunities and remain competitive in the low carbon transition. For example, we launched the Singapore Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint last year and, more recently, announced the Marine and Offshore Industry Plan. These will guide us as we work together with companies in our key sectors in the years ahead.
We also want to become an AI hub. The Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) will say more about how we plan to green our data centres to achieve both economic growth and decarbonisation. The transition also presents new opportunities. As the demand for low-carbon goods and services increases, we can benefit by moving quickly to capture new markets.
One opportunity is offshore wind. We have traditional strengths in marine and offshore. Most of that has been in the oil and gas industries. And now, there is a huge new opportunity in offshore wind.
The global offshore wind market is expected to grow to US$126 billion per annum by 2030. With the support of Enterprise Singapore, Singapore companies in the oil and gas sector are already finding success in pivoting towards providing critical products and services across the offshore wind value chain. Cyan Renewables is a new local company set up in 2022. It has now grown to become one of the largest offshore wind support vessel owners globally, supporting clients across Asia Pacific and Europe.
There will also be new opportunities in resource efficiency and circularity. For example, we are supporting research to explore the use of captured carbon dioxide to produce building materials. Singapore is also one of the world's leading producers today of sustainable aviation fuels.
While we have a broad suite of plans to get ourselves to net-zero, keeping global warming below 1.5°C will depend on other countries doing their part. We emit 0.1% of the world's global emissions but we are affected by 100% of the emissions. The transition will not be straightforward and is likely to be messy and uneven. The reality is that we, as a global community, will make progress but may not collectively meet the 1.5°C goal.
As a low-lying island nation, we must therefore prepare for the reality of rising sea levels. We are starting now and expect this will require something in the order of $100 billion in the coming decades. We are putting aside $5 billion in this Budget to top-up the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment will say more about adaptations to rising urban heat, disruptions to food supplies and other impacts, which will be needed too.
Mr Chairman, over our 60 years of Independence, we have always placed emphasis on a clean and green environment even as we developed and grew. With climate change, this challenge has now taken on a global dimension. Nature is setting the timeline.
Sir, we are neither climate zealots nor climate sceptics; we are climate realists. We cannot be sure what other countries will or will not do. But we will secure Singapore's future, by doing our part to reduce emissions, by partnering our households and businesses in this transition, by taking steps to protect us from the effects of climate change, so that Singapore remains a sustainable, liveable and thriving country for all our citizens, ready to grasp the new opportunities in a low-carbon world. So, let us all work together and travel this journey together. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Are there any clarifications for Senior Minister Teo? Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Senior Minister Teo for his update to the House. Sir, I have three clarifications. I am not so sure whether these clarifications will be answered by the Senior Minister Teo, but I will leave him to explain.
Regarding the cut that I just delivered on the regulations for AI, I heard the Senior Minister Teo referring to MDDI. Is MDDI going to reply to my cut on carbon emissions regulations for AI? That is one.
In my Budget debate speech. I also asked about the concern that I have after Terminal 5 opens, when our Changi Airport flights may increase quite considerably and which will lead to an increase in aviation emissions. Yes, the Senior Minister Teo mentioned about the 1% sustainable aviation fuels. But of course, compared to some other places, for example, I believe, Heathrow, I think it is about 10%, if I am not wrong. Actually, I am just wondering, is the Senior Minister going to address that question I have? Essentially, it is how will our sustainable air hub blueprint be stepped up in the next few years to mitigate the likely increase in aviation emissions after Terminal 5 opens? That is my second clarification.
My third clarification, where in my Budget debate speech, I sought the Government's update on the green transition or the transition of our petrochemicals industry. Where do we stand now in our journey, especially in light of the sale of the Shell assets in Jurong Island and Tuas last year? Related to this is actually about the manpower transition for our workers in the petrochemical industry, but I am not sure whether the Ministry of Manpower will be dealing with this.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Yes, indeed, Minister Chee will take the Member's questions on Terminal 5 and sustainable aviation fuels in the COS. And also, for AI, MDDI will take that up with the Member.
On industrial sectors and how we approach that, there has been a plan on what we intend to do there. And what our intention is, is to make sure that our petrochemical plants in Singapore always are in the top quartile of emissions efficiency. They are not all there today, but that is the trajectory on which we are moving. And as I mentioned, we are not just talking about the traditional petrochemical plants anymore. We actually have one of the largest, if not, the largest sustainable aviation fuel facilities in the world in Singapore, which has recently expanded as well.
So, we are a serious player in the sustainable aviation fuels area, but we must also understand that the pace at which we proceed should be aligned with the pace which the global players proceed and which our regional partners or competitors proceed, and we should not be too out of line with what they do.
On manpower transition, I will also leave that to the Ministry of Trade and Industry when they deal with that particular industrial sector.
The Chairman: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: Sir, I just have a couple of clarifications in relation to the initiative of SBF, in terms of the consumption-based emissions initiative.
First, I would like the Senior Minister to clarify about whether there are any further details about timeline, for when this will be up and running. I know that it has been launched, but also the details of when we are going to onboard various industries.
Second, whether the Senior Minister can give a bit more details about which sectors will be prioritised for this. For the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism that I highlighted earlier, they target carbon intensive sectors, such as electricity, steel, cement and so on. So, I am just wondering whether we have a similar approach.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Chairman, I do not have the details on the timelines. It is something which is in the early days, and they are working on it. But we do have to take into cognisance carbon border adjustment taxes, and that is another reason why we need to put in our own measures and our own carbon tax and other measures in Singapore. Because if we do not, what will happen is, when our exports reach the borders of those countries which have a carbon border adjustment mechanism, they will get taxed there. And so, this has also been the reason why some of our neighbours have recently introduced their own carbon taxes, in order to make sure that they conform.
The Chairman: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San: Mr Chairman, I have a question for Senior Minister Teo. The Senior Minister mentioned that the carbon tax is an important enabler to incentivise businesses to go green and we know that the carbon tax has been projected to reach between $50 to $80 per tonne of carbon dioxide in the next five years. But five years is not a very long time for businesses to plan ahead.
I would like to know when will the Government announce the schedule of carbon tax increase so that we can better help businesses make mid- to long-term plans and, more importantly, for them to make significant business decisions to invest in green solutions or even to pivot their businesses to greener options.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is why we have indicated when we are increasing from $25 to beyond that in 2030, and then beyond that. So, that is why we have that indication that we are going to increase and also the range to which we are likely to increase it too. So, I think that will give businesses an opportunity to make their own assessments within the range that we are able to forecast right now. I hope that that is sufficient for the time being, because those are sort of further out. But as we approach those times when we are going to increase the carbon taxes, we will give them adequate advance notice, as we have done in the past.
The Chairman: I believe that is all the clarifications for Senior Minister Teo. We move on. Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Couples often cite concerns about managing their work and family commitments. While flexible work arrangements and the introduction of Shared Parental Leave have helped alleviate some stresses related to managing work and family commitments, in a recent survey by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) of more than 1,000 married individuals, less than half of parents surveyed found the financial requirements of raising children manageable. This points both to the need to provide more affordable access to caregiving resources, such as childcare and migrant domestic workers (MDWs), as well as equipping couples in dual income families to perform well at work to maximise livelihoods. In this respect, how can the Government do more to support working parents with their caregiving needs?
The Chairman: Ms Ng Ling Ling, you can take your two cuts together.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, Singapore's total fertility rate (TFR) reached an all-time low in 2023. Can I ask what is the latest TFR in 2024? Did it increase with the effect of the Dragon year last year?
If TFR has improved in 2024 due to the Dragon year effect, besides having more hopes for more babies for Singapore, will the Government consider commissioning research psychologists and behavioral scientists to conduct a study with interviews of parents who have had Dragon year babies to better understand and distill what are the underlying root beliefs that lead to the unusually better TFR in most Dragon years, despite all other circumstances, for example, high cost of living, lack of time, work and life stress, remaining the same in such years?
How can the Government use such studies to better design public messaging and conditions that will be more conducive for Singaporean couples to have more babies?
While major urban and developed nations and cities have all seen declining TFR over the past years, Israel's TRF has remained relatively stable over the past decade, with a slight decrease to 2.85 births per woman in 2023, despite high inflation and a high cost of living also being a problem for that country.
Can the Singapore Government do a more thorough study on the factors contributing to Israel's stable TFR and consider what can be adapted for Singapore?
According to the World Bank, Singapore's age dependency ratio for the dependent population is reported as 33% in 2023. This is a lower value against the global average of about 58%. A lower ratio indicates less financial stress on working people and greater political stability. The total age dependency ratio that the World Bank uses is the ratio of young and elderly dependents who are generally economically inactive, compared to the number of people of working age. Despite this good data from the World Bank, with an ageing population and declining TFR, there is still cause for concern.
I would like to ask: one, how can supportive stakeholders, including employers, religious bodies, such as churches and mosques and grassroots organisations across the society, be better connected and coordinated to enable the key population strategies of the Government to reach their best outcomes?
Two, where can young Singaporeans, grassroots advisors like me, grassroots organisations and educational institutions interested to support marriage and parenthood find accurate, age-appropriate and contextual information about fertility health of both women and men to increase public awareness and education on this important health topic?
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, our resident TFR reached an all-time low of 0.97 in 2023. What is the latest TFR? Did we have more births from the Year of the Dragon? What is the updated data on the number and ratio of working citizens to those who are retired?
I am heartened that the Government is providing greater support for parents who desire more children. Will there be incentives to encourage and support young couples to have more children earlier? What is the Government doing to help and support singles who are interested in marriage to meet potential partners?
For children of single mothers, I urge the Government to admit them into the Baby Bonus scheme and update legislation for their inheritance rights to their mothers' assets.
The Chairman: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, a Singaporean whose wife is a Permanent Resident (PR) and having their first pregnancy is having a very stressful time trying to get a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) for his mother-in-law for long enough to provide both emotional and physical care to his wife who is having health and pregnancy complications.
The soon-to-be mother is terrified, this being her first pregnancy and by a health situation that requires her to have a prolonged period of recovery postpartum and more intensive care of the baby post-birth. The couple worries about the well-being of both mother and child and financial inadequacy if they cannot find suitable childcare and the wife needs to quit her job. They are not alone in such anxieties.
With later marriages and pregnancies increasing the risks of complications and the absence of family members around to care for them, parenthood can be daunting and scary. Transnational couples, especially, contend with less familial support with one spouse's parents overseas.
I urge the Government to facilitate the visit passes of parents of foreign spouses, so that transnational couples can have better access to familial support during pregnancy and for the first three years of a child's life. There should be a category of visit passes for parenthood support for at least three years, so that overseas grandparents can be present to support the new parents while they find their footing as a new family.
The Government has valid concerns about aged grandparents having extended stay in Singapore, as it adds on to the country's potential eldercare burdens and costs if they are not financially supported. To mitigate this, we can require mandatory savings be put aside in one's Central Provident Fund (CPF) account as a \"ParentCare Fund\", for those who wish to renew their foreign parents or in-laws' visit passes past the grandchild's third birthday. Contribution amounts can be tiered according to the elderly parent's age and health condition – those with no chronic illnesses contribute less, while those with chronic illnesses contribute more. And put in place annual mandatory health checks for each extension of the visit pass.
This way, foreign grandparents can continue being in their grandchildren's lives and be motivated to keep healthy. Those who are financially able can also contribute to this ParentCare Fund themselves. When they do return to their home countries in their last years, they can withdraw this fund for their own care.
This will provide a pool of funds should healthcare costs need to be incurred during their stay here or add to their retirement fund if unutilised, and allow couples and children to benefit from the presence and support of grandparents for as long as their health allows them to contribute.
I urge the Government to study this and make a win-win solution possible for transnational families.
The Chairman: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Sir, balancing work and family responsibilities is a key concern for many Singaporean parents. As families juggle demanding work schedules and caregiving duties, more substantial support structures are essential to help them manage both effectively.
What additional measures is the Government considering to ease caregiving pressures for working parents, especially those with young children? Are there plans to enhance childcare accessibility, parental leave policies or flexible work arrangements (FWAs) to support families better?
Beyond workplace policies, how can we strengthen community-based support networks to assist working parents in areas, such as after-school care, parental coaching or peer support groups? As we continue to encourage parenthood while supporting career aspirations, how will the Government ensure that working parents have the resources and flexibility to balance family and work commitments?
The Chairman: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Sir, working couples often cite struggles in managing their work and family commitments. The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests were a welcome step. My other colleagues and I in this House have asked about childcare leave, especially for families with many children.
The Large Families Scheme is a step in recognising the increased financial burden on larger families. When might this be extended to recognising the increased childcare burden, that is, childcare leave? How can the Government do more to support working parents with their caregiving needs?
The Chairman: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Chairman, Members have called for additional childcare leave for parents with more children. But I also note the Government's position that we have already made major moves like the Shared Parental Leave recently, so we should give employers and businesses time to adjust to these moves first.
I myself have constituents who are employers and also constituents who are employees covering for colleagues on parental leave. So, it does take a whole village to support Singaporeans to start and raise families and I understand the need to strike a careful balance with any move.
Yet, I wish to make a push today for just a bit more childcare leave and with a slightly different consideration. My suggestion is to increase our Government-Paid Childcare Leave from six to eight days, to align with the eight days of annual centre closure that the Early Childhood Development Agency allows childcare operators. Because these eight days of annual closures are actually wonderful opportunities for young parents to use the time to bond with their young children. So, we should really try to support our young parents to make full use of these opportunities.
And this increase to eight days of childcare leave should apply to all parents, regardless of the number of young children they have. In fact, for couples with more than one child in preschool, it is likely that all the young children will be attending the same preschool, with the same annual closure dates. So, it becomes all the more valuable for both parents to be able to align their childcare leave with the closure dates and allow the whole family to come and spend time together.
As for supporting parents with more young children, I think the crux is actually the amount of flexibility that parents have today to balance work and ad hoc childcare demands as they arise, rather than the adequacy of leave entitlement per se. And so, we should push for FWAs as the dominant solution to support parents with more children.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, you can take your six cuts together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, eight years ago, I delivered my first Adjournment Motion, sharing my painful experience of my premature twins Katie and Poppy's 10-week stay in hospital. I spoke up calling to extend parental leave for parents with birth of multiples and of pre-term babies.
I am glad the Government responded positively and introduced The Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs offering up to four weeks of unpaid leave for parents with births of multiples and of pre-term babies. Minister Josephine Teo shared in her reply that, \"He spoke from the heart and won us with not just the strengths of his arguments but also the intensity of his conviction.\"
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
Sir, my conviction over this issue has intensified over the years and I also remember that Minister Josephine Teo once told me that, \"All good things will be considered.\" It is time for us to upgrade the Tripartite Standard to Tripartite Guidelines so that it is no longer voluntary and every employee will get to benefit from it. This is a good thing to consider.
I took all my paternity leave and I know how important it is to be there for our children when they are born. I treasure that few weeks I could spend with them to welcome them into this world.
The Government has sent a clear signal that parental leave is important. We have increased paternity leave and introduced a new Shared Parental Leave. But only about one in two fathers take their paternity leave and not all mothers take their maternity leave. We all know that part of the problem here is workplace culture and support. As the Prime Minister said, \"Employers and businesses are concerned about managing manpower gaps when their employees are away for an extended period.\"
Can the Government do more to support employers, similar to how the Ministry of Defence supports employers when it comes to reservist obligations? Can the Government work with companies more closely and consider more incentives for businesses to ensure their employees use their parental leave?
Three years ago, I asked the Government to provide more support for lower-income fathers to take their paternity leave. I shared that a National University of Singapore study study found that fathers in more labour-intensive jobs, such as machine operators and cleaners, were half as likely to take their paternity leave, as compared to fathers working as legislators, senior officials and managers.
I am asking again that the Government conduct a targeted study on the barriers to taking paternity leave for lower-income workers, look into policies to increase their usage of paternity leave and also look into incentivising, again, the employers who support their employees to take their paternity leave?
Can we finally do more to help lower-income fathers take their paternity leave? Why should they be denied the time to spend with their babies?
I love my three children, Ella, Katie and Poppy, and as I have shared in this House, without in vitro fertilisation (IVF), I actually would not have kids today.
IVF is not for the faint-hearted and as I shared in my Adjournment Motion four years ago, \"Going through IVF was like being on an emotional roller coaster ride. It was a journey filled with pain and anguish, excitement and disappointment and hope and happiness at times. It was financially, physically and emotionally draining.\"
The Government is providing the much-needed subsidies for IVF but we can do so much more to help. IVF is a very time-consuming procedure and couples need time to go through IVF and time to support each other. But many are not given time off work. Many face unsupportive employers and this adds stress to an already stressful journey.
I am calling again for the Government to legislate gender-neutral fertility leave. This will support couples, send employers a clear signal and trigger mindset shifts in the workplaces.
Many Singaporeans are getting married later and we should not penalise those who find true love later in their lives. But the reality is that we do penalise them.
The age criterion for the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) co-funding scheme is currently set at below 40 years of age. As the Ministry of Health (MOH) has shared, \"This is based on current clinical evidence, which shows that the chance of conception for a woman who undergoes ART treatment decreases with age, with the success rate being significantly lower after 40 year of age.\"
I understand this rationale for this policy, but we must also understand the impact this has on many couples who are affected by it. Science is important, but we should also do all we can to help couples who are trying so hard to have children.
Can the Government consider providing a lower percentage of co-funding for ART treatments for those who get married when they are 40 years old or older? A Singapore Made for Families must also include those who get married later in their lives.
Lastly, we all want to be there for our children when they are sick, but many simply do not have enough childcare leave to be there to look after our loved ones. I understand the Government's concern when it comes to giving more childcare leave, but surely, childcare sick leave backed up by a medical certificate is a lower hanging fruit and is a necessity.
I know the Government agrees with childcare sick leave and that it is needed. After all, we provide all civil servants with this and the Minister recently replied to me that, \"The utilisation for childcare sick leave has remained steady at around 50% over the years and remains relevant for officers\" – \"officers\" meaning Public Service officers. The time has come for us to legislate childcare sick leave for everyone and not just civil servants.
As promised by Minister Indranee, I look forward to all her sympathetic responses to my cuts.
The Chairman: Ms Hany Soh, you can take your two cuts together.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Chairman, in my Motion titled \"Supporting Singaporeans in Starting and Raising Families\" that was debated and passed in this House last month, the issue of Singaporeans having children when they are older was one of the concerns raised as this means more couples would likely face increased difficulties in conceiving. How will the Government further increase awareness of this risk and support Singaporeans in this area?
Fertility Support SG, a non-profit self-help group, has shared with the People's Action Party (PAP) Women's Wing Policy Group, some best practices globally. In Japan, the government provides counselling and support services for all couples facing infertility, including emotional support and guidance on treatment options. Australia has a national infertility support organisation that provides information, resources and peer support to couples and individuals. Its various states have also integrated both public and private sector initiatives to support fertility treatments, often including financial subsidies as well as robust counselling services. Certain states in the US, including New York, have mandated insurance companies to cover infertility treatments.
Drawing inspiration from these examples, will our Government consider providing even more support with or by:
(a) upstream fertility education to help Singaporeans plan their fertility journeys early. Agencies can work with support groups like Fertility Support SG (FSS), who have offered their support by hosting relevant resources and information on their website for easy access, especially by aspiring parents;
(b) the introduction of grants for pre-IVF or general fertility testing to help identify issues and allow for appropriate solutioning early, thereby improving the chances of success;
(c) expansion of public sector grants to cover more IVF cycles as families may want more than one child or face complex cases that require additional rounds of treatment; and
(d) allowing grants to cover the cost of treatments in private clinics as well, giving couples more options, particularly so when time is of the essence in many of such cases.
Additionally, in specific instances where the woman undergoing treatment is below the age of 40 and the fertility medical team at public hospitals have recommended that she continues treatment beyond her subsidised assisted conception procedure cycles, will the Government consider extending the coverage of subsidies up to the point when the patient successfully conceives or when the fertility medical team advises her to stop?
This is the situation that my Woodgrove resident, Tina, is in. Her medical fertility team has advised her to continue with her treatment even after the existing subsidies have been fully utilised as each cycle actually brings them closer to finding the optimal combination of medication and timing for successful conception.
Couples considering or expecting their first child would invariably feel overwhelmed or anticipate getting lost along their parenthood journey. Can the Government better support these parents and aspiring parents in their prenatal and parenthood journey? I repeat my request for the Government to introduce, amongst other support schemes, a \"Mommy's Milestone Booklet\" to keep track and support an expectant mother's holistic well-being.
In our continuing drive towards being a smart and smarter nation, this booklet could also be issued in electronic format, comprising a side guide that updates parents about new developments in the parenthood journey, including getting value-for-money deals from parenthood-friendly businesses and perhaps even include a live chat function with human expertise or AI support where appropriate.
I look forward to the Government's response, please.
The Chairman: Mr Yip Hon Weng, you can take your two cuts together.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Chairman, raising a large family is rewarding but challenging. As a father of five, I understand the sacrifices parents make. While I support the Large Families Scheme, financial incentives alone will not reverse demographic trends.
That is why I advocate a whole-of-society approach. Families need more than money. They need affordable housing and childcare, FWAs and strong community networks to share caregiving.
A major concern is competition. Parents fear a third child might stretch resources, disadvantaging their other children. Policies should turn large families into an advantage, not a burden.
We can: (a) set aside more primary school vacancies for their children; (b) enhance the Third Child Priority Scheme to provide them with more chances to secure the Build-To-Order (BTO) of their choice, including 5-room BTO flats if they wish; and (c) better match flat types with family needs.
Beyond policy, we must foster a culture that values large families. Workplaces can offer tax benefits for employees with three or more children. Housing supply should accommodate growing households. Small efforts like family-friendly parking, restaurant accommodations and mentorship programmes signal support.
Investing in big families means investing in Singapore's future. Let us build a society where families of all sizes thrive.
It is a thoughtful initiative shaped by feedback from parents who emphasised the need for practicality, usefulness and aesthetic appeal. As the Minister highlighted, parents do not want just beautiful but impractical items. They want something they could use and treasure. This approach is certainly a step in the right direction.
However, while the gift is a meaningful gesture, we must ask: will it be enough to move the needle on our total fertility rate? What are the deeper barriers – housing costs, childcare affordability, work-life balance – that prevent young families from growing?
Additionally, can we have more clarity on the gift's nature? What is in the package? Who is eligible? When and how will parents receive it?
Let us ensure that this initiative is part of a broader effort to make raising a family in Singapore truly sustainable.
The Chairman: Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Chairperson, with your permission, I will take any clarifications after my speech, subject to the availability of time.
The Chairman: Noted.
Ms Indranee Rajah: This year, we celebrate 60 years of nation-building. We have come a long way as a people and a nation, and, together, we have built a Singapore that we can be proud of. To ensure that Singapore continues to thrive, we must address two demographic challenges which are also faced by many other societies around the world – a rapidly ageing population and a low fertility rate.
Last year, there were 24,800 resident marriages. We also welcomed 30,800 resident births, a slight increase from 30,500 in the previous year. Our preliminary TFR for 2024 was 0.97, unchanged from 2023. The Dragon year effect has been diminishing over the years, reflecting the generational shifts in attitudes and priorities among young couples.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the updated ratio of working adults to retirees. A decade ago, there were six residents aged 20 to 64 years old supporting every elderly person aged 65 years and over. The resident old-age support ratio has almost halved from six in 2014 to 3.5 in 2024.
A low fertility rate and an ageing population have significant implications on our economy and society. As our local workforce growth slows, it will be increasingly challenging to sustain economic growth and maintain a dynamic economy. There will be fewer young people to support a growing elderly population. Addressing our low TFR remains a national priority.
Ms Ng Ling Ling suggested working with academics and studying other countries' practices to tackle low fertility. We are doing so and also regularly engage Singaporeans to develop policies that fit our local context.
As shared during the Motion on families earlier this month, we have a comprehensive suite of measures to support Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood journey – from housing, healthcare, preschool and education to financial and work-life support.
We have made significant enhancements in recent years. In 2023, we enhanced the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and contributions to the Child Development Account (CDA). We have reviewed and will be expanding the uses of CDA to better support parents. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will share more at their COS.
In 2024, we launched the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests. The enhanced Government-Paid Paternity Leave and new Shared Parental Leave announced by the Prime Minister last year will start from 1 April this year. This month, in Budget 2025, the Prime Minister announced the new Large Families Scheme.
But for these policies to work, we need mindsets and culture to shift in tandem. This requires support from everyone across society, as highlighted by Ms Ng Ling Ling. A key area is workplace support. Employers, supervisors and coworkers can all contribute to fostering a family-friendly workplace culture.
After the new Shared Parental Leave is fully implemented next year, parents will have 30 weeks of paid parental leave to care for their infants in the first year after birth. This will foster the parent-child bond and it is good for the child's development, too.
We know it is not easy for employers to manage when their employees are away for an extended period. This is why it is so important for employees and employers to build mutual trust and play their part in making the leave provisions work for both parties.
Employees should discuss their leave plans and covering arrangements with their supervisors and coworkers as early as possible. At the same time, managers and coworkers ought to be supportive and facilitative so parents feel reassured about taking time away from work.
As Mr Louis Ng highlighted, fathers should be encouraged to fully utilise their paternity leave. One key step we have taken is to introduce employment protection for fathers on paternity leave from April this year. We will study utilisation patterns and see how to better support fathers who encounter challenges in using their leave.
Various Members asked for further support for working parents. Suggestions include providing more leave for parents of preschoolers, those with pre-term and multiple births, larger families, as well as those seeking fertility treatment.
At present, each working parent with a youngest child aged below seven years old has six days of paid childcare leave a year. This means a working couple would have a total of 12 days to tap on – more than the number of preschool closure days that Mr Xie Yao Quan mentioned.
We have also doubled Unpaid Infant Care Leave since 2024, where each working parent will have 12 days per parent per year, in the child's first two years.
These parental leave provisions are provided on top of the parents' annual leave provisions.
We will continue to review our parental leave provisions in consultation with parents and tripartite partners. While we understand the desire for more childcare leave, any further leave enhancement has to be carefully considered and must strike a balance between the needs of different caregivers and the operational impact on employers.
More broadly, however, we do need employers to embrace more family-friendly workplace practices.
For instance, FWAs are an important form of support for parents with young children and other workers with caregiving responsibilities. When implemented well, FWAs enable employees to balance their responsibilities both at work and at home. With the implementation of the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests from December last year, I hope that more employers will embrace FWAs as part of their core HR strategy.
Employers are also encouraged to go beyond the legislated leave provisions to position themselves as employers of choice. For example, more than 4,000 employers have adopted the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs.
Mr Louis Ng suggested incentivising businesses, to ensure their employees take parental leave. In reality, new workplace norms are emerging and the younger generation of workers value greater work-life balance.
If employers want to continue to attract and retain talent in their companies, their workplace practices will have to evolve. For example, Adecco Group APAC Pte Ltd has an employee who will be eligible for the new Shared Parental Leave. They plan to hire temporary and contract staff as covering manpower so that the employee can take her parental leave with peace of mind. When the employee returns to work, Adecco will also make available suitable FWAs. This will allow the employee to balance her work and family commitments while still ensuring the company's work gets done.
Mr Louis Ng can rest assured that we will continue to work with employers to foster more family-friendly workplaces and encourage those who can, to go beyond what is mandated. The wider community can also play a part in supporting working parents, as Dr Wan Rizal highlighted.
Madam, the Large Families Scheme is a significant move. Our Marriage and Parenthood Surveys show over a third of married couples aspire to have three or more children. However, fewer married couples are having more than two children. Some worry about having less time for each child. Others may be daunted by the prospect of higher expenses.
Our existing support measures recognise this. For example, parents receive more under the Baby Bonus Scheme and Parenthood Tax Rebate for each subsequent child they have.
But we want to give greater assurance to couples who wish to have larger families. The Large Families Scheme will provide more financial support for large families for a start. Families will receive an additional $16,000 for each third or subsequent child, born on or after 18 February this year. The CDA First Step Grant will be doubled from $5,000 to $10,000, and the families will receive a new Large Family MediSave Grant of $5,000, and $6,000 in Large Family LifeSG Credits. Existing large families will receive $1,000 in Large Family LifeSG Credits annually, for each third or subsequent child until the year the child turns six.
The LifeSG credits will provide sustained support for large families. Parents can use these credits to buy groceries at major supermarkets, or to top up the family's SimplyGo cards for public transport. They can also be used to pay for rides from transport operators that accept NETS QR payment, like TADA and ComfortDelGro taxis. We will provide more information on how to access and use the credits later this year.
We recognise large families also face other challenges, as highlighted by various Members during the Budget debate. For example, they may require larger housing, face difficulties getting around as a family, or worry about the costs of higher education that increase with more children. We will study Members' suggestions on how to further support large families.
Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted the need for whole-of-society support to shift norms and encourage larger families. We agree. We hope the Large Families Scheme will kickstart a societal movement to celebrate and support these families. We have been engaging corporates to support the Large Families Scheme by offering privileges and deals for families with three or more children. I am happy to share that more than 30 corporate partners spanning different sectors have come on board, including food and beverage, retail and transport.
For example, to help larger families travel around more easily, private-hire services like Grab and Gojek will be offering discounts on bookings with their larger vehicles. Car-sharing services like Tribecar and GetGo will be offering discounts on car rentals. HomeTeamNS will be offering bundle promotions for tickets to their clubhouse family events, adventure and children's facilities, as well as discounted membership fees. FairPrice Group will also be offering value bundles for large families to provide savings on essential groceries. These will be provided later this year.
I would like to thank all corporate partners who have committed to providing deals to support families with more children. We encourage more corporates to join us in this movement. Together, let us make Singapore a conducive place for large families to thrive.
Ms Hany Soh and Ms Ng Ling Ling highlighted the importance of raising awareness on fertility health issues. I agree. Fertility health can be a difficult topic to broach. We need to change mindsets and normalise conversations about fertility health and support couples who have fertility health concerns to seek help without fear of stigma. The wider community can play an important role in this. Ground-up efforts by groups like Fertility Support SG provide a safe space for couples facing infertility to share their experiences. It also recently organised a fertility fair to raise awareness of the fertility health resources and support available.
To address the myths and misconceptions about fertility health, we collaborated with the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Society of Singapore to publish an article titled \"Debunking 5 Myths of Fertility Health\" on Health Hub. It contains information on commonly faced fertility issues and provides useful resources for couples seeking help.
Let me assure Ms Hany Soh and Mr Louis Ng that we will continue to support those who are tapping on fertility treatments. Today, eligible couples can receive up to 75% in co-funding for ART treatments for up to three fresh and three frozen cycles at public healthcare institutions. They can also tap on their MediSave for the treatment costs, up to a lifetime withdrawal limit of $15,000 per patient.
We have made some progress in supporting fertility issues in Singapore, but more can be done. With more Singaporeans marrying and having children later, as Ms Hany Soh and Mr Louis Ng pointed out, we may need to relook our support on this front. I thank Members for their suggestions and we will study these ideas with MOH.
Ms Hany Soh spoke about providing more support for those who are expecting. The antenatal journey can be daunting, especially for first-time parents. Expecting couples today can access the Health Promotion Board's Parent Hub, a one-stop online portal with health-related resources and tips for their pregnancy and parenting journey. The Child and Maternal Health and Well-being Strategy and Action Plan also provides enhanced support for pregnant women and couples, such as the introduction of mental health screenings and support for pregnant women and new fathers at antenatal and postnatal stages at KK Women's and Children's Hospital and National University Hospital. More antenatal education programmes have also been rolled out at community touchpoints to help couples better prepare themselves for pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood. I have taken note of Ms Hany Soh's suggestions and we will look into them. We welcome further suggestions on how we can make the antenatal journey more positive for expecting couples.
This year, we celebrate our 60th year of Independence. As the Prime Minister mentioned at the Budget debate, all Singapore-citizen babies born in 2025 will receive a special SG60 Baby Gift to celebrate their birth. Mr Yip Hon Weng will be happy to hear that the gift represents our commitment towards building a Singapore Made for Families. It is also a symbol of our hopes and aspirations for our future generations.
Many people have been asking about the SG60 Baby Gift. Mdm Chairperson, with your permission, may I show an image on the LED screens to give Members a preview of the SG60 Baby Gift?
The Chairman: Yes, please. I think it will address some of the curiosity that everyone is having. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]
Ms Indranee Rajah: The gift comes with a specially designed trolley bag which can double up as a travel case for the baby and contains a specially curated set of 10 commemorative and useful items, sourced from local brands and companies. They include practical items like the straw cup set from local brand, Hegen, which comes with their patented adaptor cap to meet the babies' needs as they gain more independence feeding themselves. There are educational items like storybooks by local authors featuring Becky Bunny, our mascot for the Families for Life movement, as well as a plushie of Becky Bunny. We encourage parents to bond with their babies over these books and inspire a love for reading through them. Other items include play items that will help their babies in their growth and development, as well as items for parents to mark their precious moments with their little ones.
Students from LASALLE College of the Arts designed the artwork that you can see on the SG60 Baby Gift items. Each gift set comes with a congratulatory letter from Prime Minister Wong. We hope parents will find the gift meaningful and useful – to inspire their child in discovering the world around them, and to support parents in nurturing and caring for their child.
Parents whose babies are born in 2025 will be able to register online for the gift. We will launch the distribution of the gift at various community events in April and May 2025. We hope that families will be able to join the event in their neighbourhood and get to know other young parents. For those who are unable to collect the gift at these events, or who register for the SG60 Baby Gift after 15 March 2025, we will arrange for the gift to be delivered to your homes from mid-May 2025.
As we celebrate SG60, allow me to highlight two values which have served us well over the last 60 years: openness and multiculturalism. These are fundamental aspects of who we are and key strengths that help us to make our way in the world.
Immigrants help to moderate the impact of low birth rates and ageing on the size and age profile of the citizen population. We will continue to carefully manage the pace of immigration, taking into account factors, such as the falling TFR. In 2024, we granted about 24,000 new citizenships, including 1,400 to children born overseas to Singaporean parents. We also granted around 35,000 new Permanent Residents, or PRs. The average number of new citizenships and new PRs granted annually over the past five years is slightly higher than that over the preceding period. We remain committed to ensuring that our new citizens and PRs are well-integrated into our communities.
We can all play our part to embrace the newcomers in our midst and help them to better understand our local norms and culture. Over time, many of them become not just friends but also family. Over the last decade, more than one-third of citizen marriages every year were transnational, meaning marriages involving a Singaporean and a foreigner.
One such transnational family is Kiren T and Angela Bueno's family. Kiren, a Singaporean Indian, and Angela, a PR originally from the Philippines, met while working in the same children's ward in the National University Hospital. They fell in love working and doing their in-house advanced diploma together and got married in 2016. Today, they have two children, a boy and girl, aged nine and seven. There are many such stories. Many transnational couples make Singapore their home and over time, these foreign spouses become one of us.
Ms Carrie Tan asked whether the Government could facilitate long-term visit passes, or LTVPs, for foreign parents of transnational couples, to help with the couple's parenting journey. Today, Singapore Citizens and PRs can apply to sponsor their own foreign parents for an LTVP, subject to the prevailing criteria. These LTVPs come with a validity of up to five years and can be renewed. This relatively long period provides some certainty to help transnational couples in planning their caregiving arrangements.
We will continue to review our population strategies to ensure that they remain relevant in meeting our needs. As we look to the next 60 years and beyond, let us work together to build stronger families, a more united society and a brighter future for Singapore.
The Chairman: Clarifications. Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Madam. I have pushed the issue of childcare leave for a number of years now, but can I just have two requests for the Minister? One, can the Government do a public consultation to see how much support there is for the increase in childcare leave and how much is needed by families with children? Two, whether we can do a consultation with businesses to understand again what concerns they have with regard to increasing childcare leave and what kind of support they hope from the Government when it comes again to increasing childcare leave?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mdm Chairperson, in the course of work in the Prime Minister's Office as well as in Forward SG, there have been ongoing consultations. I think there is no doubt that if you ask parents, they would definitely like to have more childcare leave. It is when you speak to the employers that they have some concerns, not because they do not want to give childcare leave, but they are also grappling with the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests, as well as the new Shared Parental Leave that we have also asked them to accommodate.
So, I think, let them have some time to work through the Shared Parental Leave and the FWAs and it is not that additional childcare leave is a never, but it is really more a question of letting the employers and the businesses adjust and arrive at some equilibrium, before we start adding on to the things that they need to do.
The Chairman: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling: Mdm Chairman, I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive updates. I just have one question. I remember during the debate of the Motion for support of marriage and parenthood, the Minister explained the rationale of why the Government is reluctant to set a TFR target.
But having been a public and civil servant myself for almost 20 years before I stepped into a political role, I know well the culture of what gets measured, gets attention, gets resources and gets done. So, I am wondering whether the Prime Minister's Office is open to setting a TFR target of bringing it back to 1.0 in the next five years.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mdm Chairperson, I appreciate the sentiment and I genuinely wish that it was so easy. Because we could set the target. I could go and tell every newly-married woman, \"I expect one child from you\" or \"Give me another child\". Or if you work it out, it will end up like 2.5 children or something like that. But they also have their concerns and they have their needs, they have their worries and they have aspirations.
So, what we have tried to do is to approach it from the viewpoint of, \"What are your concerns?\" Your concerns are cost, your concerns are time, your concerns are housing, your concerns are work-life balance. Let us see how we can address each of these concerns, whether it is through enhanced Baby Bonus; enhanced CDA; or with housing, apart from ramping up, also the new classification framework; the Tripartite Guidelines on FWAs. Each one of these things step-by-step. And then asking everybody to come on board – corporates, employers – to make Singapore more conducive.
Then, I think, if we send out a general call and we say, \"Please have more children\", then at least they feel a lot more assured in having children rather than just assigning them. It is not like a homework assignment to have a baby.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Chua. Sorry. Senior Minister Teo.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: May I take the opportunity to make a correction in my replies just now. I had indicated that we are increasing our indicative need for green electricity imports from four to eight gigawatts. I meant to say, \"four to six gigawatts\".
I just wanted to make that correction for the record, please.
The Chairman: Noted. Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Chairman, as late as May 2024, I asked the Prime Minister about the Government's assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of existing measures to increase the attractiveness of the Singapore equities market, and whether the Government will take the lead in promoting our equities market by encouraging the privately-owned companies in which it holds equity through its investment vehicles to list in Singapore.
Back then, Prime Minister Wong responded that notwithstanding the Government's efforts, the conditions remain challenging for the Singapore equities market, as they are for stock exchanges in many other countries, and that we have to be realistic about what we can do to change them. It was a disappointing response, but I was comforted to hear in August 2024 that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has set up a Review Group to recommend measures to strengthen equities market development in Singapore.
Chairman, capital flow is more mobile and global than ever, seeking the best return wherever it may find. Our measures must be bold enough to bring our equity markets into the future, in order to give us the best chance of success.
I welcome the measures announced thus far but have some clarifications for the latest measures announced in February 2025.
On the launch of the $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme ddressing demand issues, it is a case of better than nothing. As we all know, the Government has long held that directing GIC to invest in locally-listed firms is \"not the solution\" to improve the attractiveness of the local equity market and its mandate specifically excludes the Singapore market. This is unlike Malaysia's Employees' Provident Fund (EPF), which is the largest investor in its domestic market, supporting Malaysian companies' capital needs and the economy as a whole.
In the grand scheme of things, $5 billion is just a small fraction of the free-float market capitalisation of the Singapore market. How does MAS intend to use this seed funding to draw in investments from other investors? Moreover, the number of Singapore-focused equity funds have dwindled over the years. Singapore represents just a small percentage of the Asia ex Japan and World indices. How does MAS intend to evaluate and allocate the funds to the fund managers, and how will these funds be disbursed? Will there be sustained funding and cash injections for continued support of the equities market over the medium to long term?
I also wish to propose two key reforms to ensure long-term sustainability.
While MAS has taken the lead on the demand side with the Equity Market Development Programme, 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 (SGX). This has been done before, through the listing of various Government-linked companies in the early years. Even the Singtel Special Discounted Shares Scheme in 1993, aimed at making Singapore a share-owning society by giving Singaporean CPF members the opportunity to buy discounted Singtel shares. For all intents and purposes, the scheme worked well.
We can give this current generation of Singaporeans a stake in the country via a meaningful Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the next wave of various private companies held by Temasek and encouraging them to list on the Singapore exchange. Top of mind is PSA International, which pulled the plug on its IPO in 2002 after years of preparation and this plan was never revived. Recently, Saudi Global Ports, in which PSA co-owns, is said to be aiming for an IPO worth up to US$1 billion in Riyadh too. Many families are excited to visit the new Mandai boardwalk and the upcoming Rainforest Wild Park. I am sure many will be excited to own a part of Mandai Wildlife Group. Especially when we are looking at the long-term expansion of Changi Airport and Terminal 5, tapping the global capital markets is a key avenue in which we can fund Changi Airport Group in an efficient and sustainable manner.
More importantly, as MAS moves to move towards a more disclosure-based regime and a supposed pro-enterprise regulatory stance, it is imperative that we strengthen corporate governance standards and double down on investor education.
In 2023, Japan introduced what The Financial Times called a radical \"name and shame\" regime to drive better corporate governance and stock market valuations, particularly at listed companies with a price-to-book ratio of less than one. Corporate reform since March 2023 following Tokyo Stock Exchange's directive for all companies to take \"Action to Implement Management that is Conscious of Cost of Capital and Stock Price\" has led to almost 90% of companies taking some kind of action by end-2024.
Similarly, since 2024, South Korea has also started to tackle the \"Korea discount\". Singapore can certainly take a leaf or two from them, by focusing on broad-based corporate governance reforms and implementing our own \"value up\" programme. This will go hand in hand with a disclosure-based regime and address longstanding concerns on corporate governance.
Further, Singapore investors, especially retail investors, need to be better equipped to make sound investment decisions and to question the board and management teams of the companies they have invested in. This can only happen with a purposeful effort to strengthen investor education and empower retail investors to make informed investment decisions in a \"buyer beware\" regulatory regime.
Chairman, we need to do all we can if we want to revive our equity markets and this is our best chance, maybe our only chance.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Madam, access to a bank account is essential in daily life in Singapore. In response to a cut filed in 2022 by my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, then-Deputy Chairman of MAS Mr Lawrence Wong had spoken on the Limited Purpose Bank Accounts, which was then in its pilot phase. These accounts are meant to help ex-offenders to access basic banking services, including receiving their salaries and Government payouts. I seek an update on how many local banks are offering such accounts for ex-offenders and whether MAS has data on the take-up rate for such accounts by ex-offenders.
Madam, one of my constituents recently approached me for assistance with opening a bank account. My constituent is an ex-offender and needed a bank account in order to receive her salary. I sent appeals to six different local banks, which were all unsuccessful. I also sent an appeal to MAS. MAS offered to forward my constituent's appeal to DBS, UOB and OCBC but stated they were unable to compel any banks to open an account for my constituent. I urge MAS to work with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Singapore Prison Service in ensuring ex-offenders can open bank accounts.
The Chairman: Minister Chee Hong Tat.
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Madam, with your permission, I will address both cuts for MAS and take clarifications after this reply if there is available time. Let me start with Mr Louis Chua's cut on the equities market.
A key challenge which many exchanges face is that global capital is heavily concentrated in the US and US-listed stocks currently account for around two-thirds of global stock market capitalisation.
The Review Group is clear about our objectives and realistic about our goals. Based on industry consultations, there are companies with a strong presence in Singapore and the region that might not be large enough to sustain investor interest post-listing if they were to list in the US. These companies represent one key segment we could attract. The Review Group focused on strengthening the elements of our ecosystem to enhance its competitiveness and provide a well-functioning market for companies, including technology startups, to raise capital for their expansion.
The first set of measures span three mutually reinforcing pillars covering demand, supply and regulations. On demand side, we introduced measures to increase investor interest and deepen trading liquidity, such as the launch of a $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP).
On the EQDP implementation, MAS will start evaluating eligible fund managers and strategies in the next few months. The EQDP will invest in a range of funds with a focus on Singapore stocks, including non-index component stocks. These funds will be managed by fund managers with strong investment track record and capabilities in Singapore. The fund strategies should be actively managed and commercially viable to attract capital from other investors. MAS has experience in running programmes with both investment and market development objectives, and this is an extension of our approach in developing fund management capabilities in Singapore.
The feedback from the industry, so far, has been more encouraging than how Mr Chua has described it. He said, \"better than nothing\". I think other industry participants and stakeholders have given more positive comments about this move. But whether it works or not, let us see. We will do our best and see whether this will help to grow the local fund management industry and also attract more investor liquidity.
Madam, the Government and SGX will continue to encourage companies to list in Singapore, and we have recently introduced tax incentives for this. However, listing decisions will be made by the companies based on their commercial objectives. We should allow this and not impose requirements for the companies to list on SGX, as it is more important for our overall economic competitiveness to preserve Singapore's attractiveness to the founders of these companies and the global investors who invest in them.
On the regulatory front, Mr Louis Chua's description of the Review Group's approach does not represent the full picture. I hope this is not deliberate as it would otherwise be rather unfair to the Review Group and our workstream members, who include eminent industry leaders, such as Mr Neil Parekh.
Madam, the Review Group has recommended taking a regulatory stance that is both pro-enterprise and pro-investor confidence. While regulation will be more focused and facilitative of listings, we will continue to uphold high corporate governance standards. We stressed this a couple of times during our media conference and also in our reports. The Review Group also said that in the next phase of our review, we will look at initiatives to uplift companies' capabilities in shareholder engagement and sharpen their focus on shareholder value. We will enhance avenues for investor recourse and will take robust enforcement action against market misconduct. In addition, research coverage will be enhanced, to support investors to make better informed investment decisions.
As we embark on the next phase, the Review Group will continue to seek feedback and work closely with industry partners to co-create solutions and strengthen our foundations to give Singapore the best chance to attract listings and grow investor interest.
Madam, Mr Faisal Manap asked about bank accounts for ex-offenders. MAS does not prohibit banks from opening accounts for ex-offenders. However, banks may choose to offer accounts with more limited functions to ex-offenders of financial crimes to manage the higher risk of them being misused.
To promote financial inclusion, MAS has worked with major retail banks to offer Limited Purpose Bank Accounts (LPBAs). From January 2022 to June 2024, banks have offered more than 3,600 LPBAs. These address the basic banking needs of most ex-offenders and other persons whom banks have assessed to pose higher financial crime risks.
With LPBAs, individuals can receive salaries and government payouts, and make payments. Banks monitor LPBA use more closely to ensure only funds from agreed sources are received and to detect suspicious transactions.
Banks will assess each case individually to decide whether to offer LPBAs and they have offered LPBAs to ex-offenders of serious financial crimes where the risks are manageable. Banks may also decline to open an account for individuals who are assessed to pose unacceptable risks that cannot be mitigated by the LPBA's safeguards, such as those who repeatedly allow bank accounts to be misused, have violated financial sanctions or are unwilling to cooperate with the bank's due diligence.
We encourage individuals to provide the necessary information to banks to allow proper due diligence to be carried out. This balances financial inclusion against the risk of our financial system being abused, which would then be to the public's detriment.
Mr Faisal Manap's resident was convicted of money laundering offences and sentenced to 20 months' jail. She had continued to use her bank accounts to receive funds from people she did not know, despite repeated warnings from the Commercial Affairs Department not to do so. The banks have rejected the appeal because the appellant's bank account is still subject to a seizure order, and she has not provided the necessary information and supporting documents to the banks.
MAS will continue to work with the banks to see if more can be done to help the appellant. Members can also refer affected residents who require assistance to MAS.
The Chairman: Clarifications? Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Just a few clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, I look forward to the next phase of the review. Hopefully, we will have our own value-up programme.
Specific to the Equity Market Development Programme, I asked whether there will be sustained funding and cash injections for continued support of the equities market over the medium- to long-term. Just to get a sense of this $5 billion in terms of, are we looking at something upfront? Is this something that will be providing continued liquidity support over the medium- to long-term for it to be sustainable?
Second, the Minister mentioned the direction towards non-index components. In terms of the actual implementation, how does the MAS plan to ensure that the funds are directed to the Singapore markets, specifically to this area that the Minister mentioned? And at the same time, given the current liquidity of the small mid-cap space, ensure that there is not a subsequent bubble or even a popping of the bubble if, let us say, certain counters became concentrated?
Lastly, I think the Grant for Equity Market Singapore Research Talent Development Grant previously was actually focused on and at the same time developing local research talent. With the Equity Market Development Programme, is there also a similar requirement to develop the local fund management talent?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Madam, the EQDP is a programme that we will start. We will assess the outcomes before we decide on whether there will be further moves. As many industry players have noted, this is a good start. It will help to develop our local fund management industry.
As to the specifics of how we design it, I think MAS has explained it. We do want to set a focus on the local equities market, for these funds to focus on the local equities market. Not to just invest in the index stocks, because those are already quite well-researched and well-traded, but to look for opportunities in other stocks as well – the mid-caps and the smaller companies with potential.
But all this, as I mentioned in my main reply, would have to be done commercially, because at the end of the day, you still want to balance that objective of having investment returns with a development objective.
GEMS. Yes, I think I mentioned this or the Review Group mentioned this in our announcement as well. We will also look at how we can support the research ecosystem. This is an important part of the effort to be able to raise awareness amongst investors and also to have more information about the companies be made known.
The Chairman: Ms Hazel Poa. Sorry, I could not see you.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): As bank accounts have now more or less become a necessity, is there any recourse for any individual or even business if they are unsuccessful in their application for bank accounts with all the banks?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Madam, I mentioned it in my reply earlier that Members are able to refer their residents to MAS if they require further assistance. We will have to look at these on a case-by-case basis, because it really depends on the risk of that particular appellant. I did explain, in my main reply earlier, that there are valid situations, and I hope Ms Poa will agree with me that we need to strike that balance between providing the convenience for the individual and the company versus protecting the wider public.
The Chairman: Ms Hazel Poa, your next cut.
Ms Hazel Poa: Chairman, as is the usual practice, the Prime Minister set the terms of reference for the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) when he recently convened it.
EBRC has a history of adhering closely to the terms of reference set by the Prime Minister. In 2011, for example, when the terms of reference stated that \"there should be at least 12 Single Member Constituencies (SMCs)\", EBRC created exactly 12 SMCs. In the past three General Elections in 2020, 2015 and 2011, EBRCs were directed to reduce the average size of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and/or to increase the number of SMCs.
This time, the Prime Minister directed that the EBRC \"should seek to keep the average size of GRCs, the proportion of Members of Parliament (MPs) elected from SMCs and the average ratio of electors to elected MPs, all at about the same as that in the last General Election\". This means that the average size of GRCs should be kept at around 4.65 and about 15% of the seats should be elected from SMCs.
We think it is important to understand the reasons behind his decision. Specifically, why he did not instruct EBRC to reduce the average size of GRCs further or explicitly increase the number of SMCs, unlike the past three General Elections. Does he believe that it would be in the voters' best interests not to reduce average GRC sizes below 4.65 or increase the proportion of Members of Parliament elected from SMCs beyond 15% and, if so, why?
In addition, why did the Prime Minister not see the need to direct EBRC to provide greater transparency on the reasons for boundary changes? Does he not agree that this would be conducive to building public trust and, hence, beneficial for the country?
The Chairman: Ms He Ting Ru. You can take your two cuts together.
Ms He Ting Ru: Madam, Singapore's research and development (R&D) landscape has a reputation for efficiency and the announcements in this year's Budget undoubtedly add to our strengths in physical infrastructure. However, there is room to nurture truly visionary scientific research backed by the idea that detours and exploratory science can yield the most disruptive impact with a longer horizon.
Some might ask, why invest in exploratory research given our resource restraints?
The goal is not to supplant applied research but to increase our offerings to create a fertile ground to encourage potential breakthroughs that may only emerge years after. In this vein, Switzerland's Spark scheme offers lessons. The scheme explicitly minimises bureaucracy and encourages high-risk, unconventional ideas comprising four main points.
First, focus on novelty and originality. It welcomes proposals that challenge existing norms or lacks extensive data and expressly accepts projects that traditional schemes may deem too speculative. Second, rapid and flexible funding. Grants of ₣50,000 to ₣100,000 are given over a six- to 12-month timespan to allow room to fail fast and pivot quickly. Third, double-blind proposal evaluation where applicants and evaluators remain anonymous, guarding against bias that may result from individual or institutional prestige overshadowing each proposal's intrinsic merits. Fourth, tolerance for negative results. In Spark's eyes, even projects that fail can may mined for valuable insights, noting the explorations are essential even when outcomes are unclear.
In Singapore's context, adopting a Spark-like model means carving out a dedicated stream for high-risk, early-stage exploration where high-risk research is explicitly insulated from more traditional performance measures. A possible pilot would be to create open problem platforms with prizes, like global cryptography or single-cell biology competitions.
After all, the essence of science is uncertainty and real breakthroughs rarely proceed linearly. Our system has to accommodate exploration and dead ends and to allow impossible experiments.
I also hope that we could consider two further measures in Singapore: allowing principal investigators (PI) to use PhD students for high-risk projects and permitting PIs to use a proportion of grant funds towards exploratory work. The aim here would be to stimulate original ideas rather than confining researchers to incremental pursuits.
Meanwhile, the 2024 Frontier Competitive Research Programme grant call announced in May 2024 focuses on use-inspired basic research. Could the Minister clarify how substantial the commitment is, which projects have secured support and how is this publicised to all scientists? Is this a sustained initiative or a one-off call?
To be a truly world-leading R&D research hub, Singapore has to invest in exploration that may time to bear fruit or even fail. I hope that the ideas above will contribute to policies that reflect the thinking necessary for Singapore to sustain our competitive edge in an uncertain global innovation race.
Quantum computing promises exponential improvements in simulating physical systems and solving complex problems faster than classical computers. Last year, Singapore made available nearly $400 million to quantum research, with MAS promoting quantum key distribution (QKD) for the banking sector. I seek greater clarity on our quantum roadmap.
First, Singapore is currently focused on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) machines, which rely on many short, error-prone runs and statistical processing of noisy outputs. Yet, the industry is moving toward fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC), as illustrated by Google's December 2024 Willow chip demonstrating exponentially decreasing errors as qubits increase and Microsoft's 2025 Majorana 1 processor aiming for a million qubits on one chip. Such breakthroughs could revolutionise physical sciences. Are there plans to pivot or also pursue FTQC?
Second, under the photonics and control electronics vertical of the National Quantum Processor Initiative (NQPI), how does the National Quantum Office plan to develop auxiliary industries, namely controls, readout and hardware-based error correction, to support next-generation quantum processors?
Third, NQPI's science verticals focus on trapped ions and neutral atom arrays. Could the Minister clarify why superconducting qubits promising synergies with our semiconductor industry's cleanroom fabrication processes were excluded?
Fourth, QKD has been strongly promoted by the Government and Temasek. However, QKD requires specialised, expensive hardware, whereas post-quantum cryptography (PQC) needs only software updates. The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recently finalised post-quantum standards, which function like current public-key encryption and are expected to be adopted universally. In this light, what is the view over our continued significant investments in QKD? Does the Government foresee regional QKD networks, possibly via low Earth orbit satellites and how would such efforts compare against simpler, cheaper PQC solutions?
The Chairman: Mr Melvin Yong. I can see you are very eager to move your cut.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Madam, time is of the essence.
In my Budget debate speech, I touched on how Singapore is operating in an increasingly challenging geopolitical environment. I have regularly highlighted, in this House, that it is important for Singapore to ensure that our Public Service officers have broad perspectives so that they are equipped to take on not only today's challenges but challenges of the future. This is even more crucial now, with rising tensions between big global powers and the threat of impending trade wars.
I would like to ask how does the public sector intend to prepare its workforce and foster greater collaboration within and across its agencies to effectively address the multifaceted challenges of the future? What critical cross-cutting and diverse capabilities should the Public Service prioritise in developing its officers to ensure that they are future-ready?
Madam, a future-ready Public Service must have in its DNA, a culture that prioritises innovation and regular upskilling. I would like to ask how does the Public Service intend to create a learning ecosystem that fosters innovation and agility across its different agencies?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Madam, with rapid tech changes, shifting geopolitical dynamics and existential challenges, such as climate change and national security, the need for a globally aware and adaptable public sector has never been more critical.
For the private sector, the Government has stated that more Singaporeans need overseas exposure to take on leadership roles in global firms. And to achieve that, there are initiatives, such as the Institute of Banking and Finance's International Postings Programme (iPOST) and Workforce Singapore's Overseas Markets Immersion Programme (OMIP) for financial institutions and employers to send their workers for overseas exposure.
How is the Public Service enhancing its officers' international exposure, competencies and understanding of global trends? What opportunities exist for officers to gain international experience through overseas postings or exchanges?
At the same time, what are the Public Service's strategies to foster engagements and build relationships with international partners? What opportunities are there for regular dialogue and collaboration with foreign public service counterparts, to anticipate global shifts?
Mr Yip Hon Weng: Chairman, our citizens' needs are becoming more complex and interconnected, crossing traditional Government boundaries. While we have developed new services, the main challenge is integrating them. We must ensure help is accessible without obstacles and bureaucracy, providing solutions and support instead.
In previous debates, I spoke about the sheer number of Government apps and systems, about how, for too many Singaporeans, finding the right service feels like navigating a maze. I emphasised the necessity of transitioning from an agency-centric approach to a citizen-centric model, because no one should have to struggle through Government silos just to get the help they need. No one should be left wondering where to turn when services should already be meeting them where they are. So, how do we achieve this integration? How do we move from complexity to clarity?
The answer is this. The Public Service cannot just provide services. It must orchestrate them. It must understand that our citizens' needs do not exist in isolation and neither should the solutions. This means bundling services across multiple agencies, proactively connecting the dots at every stage of life and it means more than just adopting new technology. It means adopting a new way of thinking, a mindset shift, a commitment to breaking down silos so that no Singaporean is left behind.
That is how we build a Government that is not just effective, but responsive; not just efficient, but compassionate; a Government that does not just serve the people, but truly empowers them.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Singapore faces significant demographic changes in the years ahead. Singaporeans are living longer and we will soon become a super-aged society. Our workforce is rapidly ageing, alongside rapid economic and technological changes.
In the face of these demographic changes, the Government has announced that the retirement and re-employment ages would be raised to 64 and 69 respectively in 2026. This is in recognition that with higher life expectancy, many older officers may wish to stay active, including being meaningfully engaged at work for longer, though in different ways.
To support officers who wish to continue serving Singapore and Singaporeans, the Public Service announced that it would take the lead to raise the retirement and re-employment ages to 64 and 69 respectively from 1 July 2025, one year ahead of the national timeline.
While policy changes are being enacted to enable officers to continue working for longer, how can the Public Service ensure that individual officers on the ground feel confident, well-equipped and adequately prepared for their extended careers as job demands will change in the future? What specific programmes and resources are being put in place to empower public officers as they navigate longer working lives? How can we help officers build good transition skills and strike a balance between leveraging their wealth of experience while remaining able, agile and adaptable in a rapidly-evolving work landscape?
The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Chair, we thank Members for their various questions and suggestions on how our Public Service can do better.
Let me first address the cut by Ms He Ting Ru. She asked how we support exploratory scientific research and about our approach to quantum research. Chair, R&D is a long-cycle endeavour and any payoffs will be more appropriately assessed over the long-term, rather than the short-term, as Ms He has suggested.
In any research, particularly initial research, there will be many competing ideas. For instance, the mRNA vaccines that were crucial to fighting COVID-19 are a good example. The vaccines were enabled by decades of work in mRNA therapeutics, which many initially regarded as unpromising. No one knew then the role it would eventually play in a global pandemic. This is the nature of R&D.
In R&D, success requires carefully balancing continuity in commitment and investment, with the ability to pivot decisively when the need arises. Our National Research Foundation takes a portfolio approach, supporting R&D across fields and at different levels of maturity and applying relevant programme management approaches. Let me just explain that.
There is no one method in managing the complexity of different fields of research, different levels of research, different maturities or readiness-to-market levels of research. So, it is not a one method or a one-size-fits all. Different research areas with different time horizons, different challenges, require different management methods.
We review our programmes regularly, pivot them when necessary, or double down on efforts that show strong promise when circumstances evolve. We can only have such optionalities if we have built up our capabilities and talent intentionally. I must also explain that in making such decisions, we do not just rely on our own expertise. Because in many of these emerging fields, we may not have all the expertise. And this is the reason why the National Research Foundation and our research institutes make sure that they have extensive global networks with different panels of advisors that can give us their different perspectives for us to make a considered decision. And we have different councils, comprising both local and foreign experts in different fields to give us those advice that we need.
Quantum research is an example of where we are doubling down after seeing initial promise. Ms He asked about the possible technical approaches, including our current areas of focus as well as industry development efforts to build our quantum capabilities.
Indeed, this domain is nascent and dynamic. We will continue to adjust when needed and make judgements, taking into account the evolving landscape, our capabilities, what we have achieved and what others have achieved. Also, we keep a keen eye on where others are investing in, so that we can focus on the areas that we will have a competitive advantage.
I would also like to assure Members that the key Government agencies and research offices are keeping a close watch on all of these, internal and external developments, in consultation with both our local and international scientific panels, and we are not wedded to any particular focal area or approaches. But what we must do, carefully, is to build up the capabilities to allow us to have the suite of optionalities to pivot or double down as the circumstances evolve. And for Ms He's suggestions, we will be happy to take into account her suggestions. If she has scientific papers that she feels will benefit our considerations, we welcome her to let us know and we will convey this to the National Research Foundation and our panel of scientific advisors to take a look at this.
More important than just building own talent pool and expertise, we must also grow our ecosystem of research institutes, industries and workforce. And when we say this, I do not just mean growing the capabilities in-house or only in this country.
Very often, in today's R&D environment, we will need to leverage on the networks that we are able to access in the global environment. No one country, not even the biggest countries of India, China or US, will work alone necessarily in many of these cutting-edge areas and that is what we are committed to do. And in a more fragmented world, we must also ride on the opportunity for us to play the role to bring people from different backgrounds together and that is one area of our competitive advantage. This will then position Singapore strategically to contribute where we can and take advantage of the opportunities, be it in quantum technologies or other areas.
Now, let me address Ms Hazel Poa's cut, on behalf of the Prime Minister, on EBRC.
Ms Poa will agree that there will be an asymptotical limit to asking EBRC to keep reducing the average size of GRCs and that limit is one, with all electoral divisions being SMCs. The current terms of reference provide some stability in our electoral landscape by having a balance in the proportion of GRCs and SMCs. Having Members of Parliament serving a broadly similar number of electors on average as the last election will enable Members in the coming Parliament to continue to serve and represent their residents effectively. This last point is what matters most.
As for greater transparency for its recommendations, we discussed this extensively during the debate on the Motion that Ms Poa and Mr Leong Mun Wai tabled in Parliament last August. We do not intend to repeat the debate today. Suffice to say that we should avoid imposing requirements or instructions on EBRC that are too prescriptive, but to give EBRC, which comprises senior civil servants with the relevant professional knowledge and expertise, the space to do their work independently and objectively, without fear or favour.
Next, Mr Melvin Yong asked how we would prepare the Public Service workforce to tackle the multifaceted challenges of the future.
Our Public Service has achieved much for Singapore and Singaporeans since 1965. Today, we are known for our efficiency, innovation and our ethos, from meritocracy to incorruptibility. For example, Singapore has been ranked within the top five in the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators on Government Effectiveness since 2014 and topped Oxford University's inaugural Blavatnik Index of Public Administration in 2024. But having said that, we are not complacent and we must not be complacent.
Our world is changing rapidly. The once familiar rules-based international security and economic orders are fracturing. Achieving survival and success for Singapore and Singaporeans will require fresh approaches in the way we do things, not just internally but also how we connect with the rest of the world. Our people's aspirations, as Mr Yip Hon Weng says, have also changed. They have gone up, while our manpower resource base remains tight. And we will constantly need to review the way we build our capabilities, execute and deliver.
The Public Service will focus on strengthening three areas this year. First, we must deepen our perspectives of the world and strengthen linkages with partners beyond our Public Service.
Public Service delivery does not happen in a vacuum, nor does it only depend on us looking inwards at our own issues. As Mr Saktiandi Supaat mentioned, for Singapore to remain successful, our Public Service must deeply appreciate the fast-evolving external context which we have to operate in. We must remain engaged with our international counterparts through active participation in international forums, exchange and training programmes, and we must keep in close touch with what is happening in many international agencies because the decisions that they make there can have significant impact on what we can or cannot do, even in our domestic context.
And this is where we will continue to send relevant officers to many of these international organisations for us to touch base with the latest thinking and build those networks that are necessary for our continued survival and success.
To this end, we aspire to send more officers beyond the Public Service and beyond Singapore, to understand and build those linkages to further the cause for Singapore and Singaporeans. Just as an example, National Environment Agency officer, Khairunnisa Binte Yahya, has first-hand experience of this. She was attached to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as an Air Pollution Expert. She shares expertise and develops solutions for air pollution with UNDP partners, enhancing Singapore's global partnerships in environmental sustainability and climate resilience. Khairunnisa has gained insights into the UNDP's strategies which informs our efforts to improve Singapore's air quality. More importantly, she has built up a network, which she can call upon in time to come.
As we prepare our officers for an increasingly complex environment, Mr Patrick Tay asked about our efforts to prepare officers for our expanded or lengthened career spans. We have introduced a Public Service Career Coach Network and will be ramping up our CareerFitness programme to empower officers to build career resilience and agility across different life stages.
One such officer is Latha Nadarajan. A personal assistant at the Ministry of Social and Family Development, she pursued her passion for social work by obtaining a Singapore University of Social Sciences degree. After attending a CareerFitness workshop in 2023, she is now set for an attachment with Child Protection Services to apply her new skills. To further reap the career longevity dividend, we will continue to tap on the Public Service Retirees Network, which provides job and volunteer opportunities, to harness their wealth of experiences and add resilience to our system.
Second, in response to Mr Yip Hon Weng's question on coordinated citizen services, we will continue to integrate our service delivery from a citizen-centric perspective, rather than a silo-Ministry perspective. For example, our ServiceSG omni-channel strategy is not just about bringing different services together. It is about how we rewire our processes to deliver services more efficiently and yet, be more aligned with the way our people expect their service journey to be.
As we continue to streamline and digitise our services, we will certainly not leave those less digitally-savvy behind. This requires a mindset shift from Ministry or agency-centricity, to a people-centricity and whole-of-Government perspective. It is a digital-first, but not a digital-only service that we are aiming for.
Third, we must strengthen team development for a more complex and challenging operating environment. And this is slightly different from how we have done things in the past. In the Public Service, we have always focused on the development of the individual and this remains valid. Going forward, we need to go beyond developing just the individual. We need to strengthen the way we develop the teams and compose the team with diverse abilities, with people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives.
Our ability to compose teams with diverse abilities to resolve and pre-empt problems is critical as challenges become more complex and interlinked. To this end, our Civil Service College will lean forward to help different agencies to build stronger and more agile leadership teams to bring out the best in our agencies to enable Singapore and Singaporean success.
So, three things that we need to do and we will need to focus on them urgently this year.
One, for our Public Service to maintain a sense of perspective, to not just be able to understand our own challenges deeply, but to have a view of how the world is evolving, because the rules are changing fast. And unless we are plugged in, we might be overtaken or bypassed by other people making rules beyond our shores.
Two, we will continue to focus our efforts to build our services around the citizen. We aim for a more seamless service experience for all Singaporeans. And third, beyond building the individual, we must build our teams to have different perspectives, to be able to see things from different angles, so that we can have more robust solutions. Build our teams with people with the courage and the know-how to pivot and change course when the need arises, to pre-empt problems.
So, Chairman, we do not take for granted our strong track record and will naturally enable our success tomorrow. Indeed, we believe, as a Public Service, that we should be continuously vigilant to our fast-changing world order and domestic expectations, and constantly challenge ourselves to evolve faster.
It is not just about solving today's problems better. It is about anticipating tomorrow's challenges earlier to find those solutions before the problem arises. Only then, can we be more assured that we are able to overcome tomorrow's challenges, seize new opportunities to benefit all Singaporeans and be a Public Service that can continue to be the pride of Singaporeans.
But to be successful, we must maintain a strong, continuous and consistent partnership between the political leadership and the Public Service, that allows our Public Service to execute with consistency and conviction, without fear or favour. This is, perhaps, something that we have taken for granted. In many countries, they, too, have people in their public service that have very strong convictions and good ideas on what they want to achieve, but they do not necessarily have the ability to do this and to do it well. And that is because they do not have the continuity in perspective, that allows them to think long term. This is something that we have, this is something that we cherish and this is a competitive advantage for Singapore.
Chair, I have shared how we will deepen our external linkages, deliver integrated services and strengthen our teams. If we do this well, if we do not become complacent, I am quite sure this will be a Public Service that we can all be proud of and this will be a Public Service that will partner us to SG100 and beyond.
The Chairman: Any clarifications? Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: Can the Minister explain the logic behind this position that it is okay to impose or to specify to EBRC that the average size of GRCs and the proportion of SMCs should be maintained at current levels, but it is overimposing on EBRC to ask them to explain the reasons for their changes? Because according to normal logic, it would actually be the other way round, that you do not impose conditions on the sizes of GRCs or the number of SMCs if you want to preserve the independence of EBRC, but simply require them to explain the reasons behind their decisions.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Chair, I am quite sure EBRC will explain its thinking in due course.
The Chairman: No further clarifications? Ms Poh Li San, would you like to withdraw your cut?
Ms Poh Li San: Mdm Chair, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,108,629,600 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $106,620,900 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: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mdm Chair, I seek to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Madam, let me start by sharing a few international articles about Singapore that I picked up recently. Firstly, it is this truly remarkable report by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) that cited Singapore as being named the world's sixth Blue Zone by the National Geographic.
What are Blue Zones? Blue zones are the identified geographic communities where the inhabitants are known to have live well, live healthily, with exceptional life expectancies way higher than the world's average or higher than 80 years old.
I did some research on the article and noted that they also look at indicators, such as whether the people living in that communities live purposeful-driven life, the level of social connectivity, the low rates of chronic disease, healthy environment, among others.
The BBC report also mentioned that Singapore's healthcare system has received global accolades both its quality of care and its ability to keep costs affordable. It also added that when it comes to longevity, Singapore is one of the few places in the world that saw quantum jump in life expectancies. From what was 65 in the 1960s, to now, more than 86, according to BBC. The number of people living to 100 years and beyond has also doubled over the last decade.
The other five Blue Zone locations are Loma Linda in California, Nicoya Peninsula in Costa Rica, Sardina in Italy, Ikaria in Greece and Okinawa in Japan. Interestingly, these locations are not known to be as fast-paced, vibrant cities like Singapore. They are more rural and country in nature with smaller populations and the tempo of life tend to be more relax. Hence, for Singapore to be named as a Blue Zone is really remarkable and we must have gotten the fundamentals and the policies right to achieve these excellent public outcomes.
Madam, the second article that I would like to share is this report by Henley Passport Index, that names Singapore passport as the most powerful passport in the world. It must have provided Singaporeans a lot of convenience to be able to have access to so many countries and not to mention, the sense of pride to carry our red passport. Again, we must have managed our foreign relations well to earn all these visa-free accesses and also that these countries do see Singaporeans as valued and desired tourists or visitors.
Thirdly, I would like to mention that the Singapore Public Service has recently also come out on top, in terms of performances among the 120 public administrations around the world; which included many developed countries. This is the index produced by the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford, which rates public services in four areas: strategy and leadership, public policies, national delivery and people and processes. So, congratulations to our Public Service.
Madam, there are, of course, other accolades given to Singapore, such as Singapore being the country with the highest home ownership in the world and Singapore being among the most competitive economy globally. However, in the interest of guillotine time, I would just mention one more international accolade that Singapore has just received last month, which cited that the Government of Singapore as having, \"a well-defined budget framework with clear fiscal objectives\". This is the report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on \"Budgeting in Singapore\", which also mentioned Singapore as having an international reputation for fiscal discipline in budgeting and policies that has help ensure long-term fiscal sustainability.
Madam, this being the last Committee of Supply (COS) for this term of Government and the Ministry of Finance (MOF) is the Ministry that is responsible for stewarding our fiscal resources and ensuring effectiveness of public outcomes and governance are achieved, can I ask the Minister the following questions?
Firstly, if the Minister could recap on how the country has fared in key areas of national interest and whether the required public sector outcomes have been achieved? We have these international accolades, but it is good to also hear the inside view of how we see the Public Service has fared and the public sector outcomes as well.
Secondly, does the Public Sector develop programme evaluation capabilities so that we can further enhance effectiveness and governance in the Public Service?
Sir, I move to environment sustainability. As we transition to a greener and more sustainable future, can I ask the Minister a few questions in relation to how the MOF agencies are addressing issues of climate change and environmental sustainability?
What are public financing levers to steer Singapore towards our net-zero commitment? Does the Government take environmental sustainability considerations into account when procuring goods and services, and can the Government do more?
Businesses are still trying to make the green transition and may not be able to meet the various environmental sustainability requirements. Can I ask what support is the Government providing to help these businesses? Has the Public Sector adopted green budgeting and consider environmental sustainability in the management of public finances?
Finally, has the Singapore Green Bond Framework been kept abreast and updated given the recent developments in the sustainability landscape?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Madam, besides ensuring fiscal prudence and sustainability, MOF's other missions include fostering a regulatory environment conducive to businesses as well as drive synergies across the whole-of-Government (WOG).
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
A number of key business regulatory statutes come under the purview of MOF, such as the Companies Act, the Business Registration Act, the Accountant Standards Act, the Limited Partnership Act and others. The Ministry also set the policies for procurement, custom regulations and other business regulations. As such, MOF plays a central role to promote a pro-enterprise regulatory environment across the whole-of-Government.
One immediate quick win areas to look into can be the simplifying of rules across the Government. For example, can the MOF agencies look to further streamline existing rules for businesses, so as to reduce the compliance burden of businesses in relation to areas, such as taxation and disclosure?
Reducing the burden of compliance can reduce time and costs and make doing businesses in Singapore more cost effective. The areas of concerns from businesses that I pick up are lengthy processes involved and the time taken to go through these processes when doing business with the Government.
Can the Minister update what have the MOF agencies been doing to improve processes and facilitate better experiences transacting with the Government? Are there plans to leverage digital means or generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) for greater efficiency and better connectivity?
In the area of procurement, I urge the Ministry to keep working on making procurement opportunities more accessible to businesses, especially to the small and medium enterprises (SMEs). SMEs may not have the resource setup to participate in Government tenders that are onerous and require tedious paperwork. For smaller-value contracts, could the Government look into a lighter tender process, lowering the bar to participate, and a tender process tailored more to smaller enterprises.
Another group of businesses that I would like to bring to attention are startups with innovative solutions. They often find it harder to participate in Government tenders due to the various administrative requirements and the need for track record. So, can MOF look into a new procurement initiative that makes it easier for the agencies and businesses to work together to pilot and to scale innovative solutions?
Finally, I would like to also ask the Minister for a progress update on efforts to improve the promptness of payment to vendors, an issue that I raised before in previous COS debates.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): The headlines last month rang loud and clear. By the end of 2025, Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale prices are set to rise for a record 23-quarters. That will see close to six consecutive years of resale prices going up and further up. HDB resale prices jumped 12.7% in 2021, 10.4% in 2022, 4.9% in 2023 and 9.7% in 2024. The projected increase for 2025 means that resale HDB prices would have risen since early 2020 by a cumulative 58%.
In April last year, the Minister for National Development said that the Government expected the property market to continue stabilising. He noted that resale HDB prices had risen less in 2023 at 4.9%, compared to 10.4% and 12.7% in the previous two years. At that time, which was a mere 11-odd months ago, the Minister attributed the slower price rise, which I should point out is still a significant price rise, to HDB having caught up on construction delays and a ramping up of Build-To-Order (BTO) flat launches.
Based on what the Minister said, a reasonable expectation would be for price rises to have slowed down further in 2024. But then, the news in January this year was that in 2024, HDB resale prices climbed the steep 9.7%. This was despite cooling measures being introduced in August last year, such as lowering the loan to valuation limit for HDB housing loans from 80% to 75%.
On another front, 2024 was an unusual year for Government Land Sales (GLS) sites for non-HDB use. Last year, the Government rejected three tenders for three private residential sites because it deemed the sold bids for them to be too low. Partly because of this, land betterment rates for non-landed residential use sites dropped by an average of 5.4% for the half-year from September 2024 to February 2025.
The Chief Valuer (CV) reviews the Land Betterment Charge (LBC) rates twice a year in March and September, and the rates can be a barometer of the Government's assessment of land values in recent land sales. The CV's work on land not sold for HDB purposes is highly granular. There are individualised LBC rates that reflect market sentiment for each of the 118 geographical areas in Singapore. For example, in March 2024, LBC rates were cut 19.2% for non-landed residential use in Tanglin, but increased 14% in the West Coast and Clementi areas. These numbers mirrored the differing market sentiment between suburban and non-suburban sites over the period from September 2023 to March 2024.
In contrast, the public knows far less about how land is priced for HDB BTO flats. What we do know is that land price for BTO flats takes reference from resale HDB prices. With a 58% increase in resale flat prices from 2020 to 2024, there is inevitably a serious concern about whether land for HDB BTO flats is priced sustainably, or if ever-growing subsidies are going to be needed in future to make HDB flats affordable.
It has been stated that the HDB pays fair market value, which is determined by the CV and that the land for public housing is lower compared to private housing in the same area. However, there is no information available to the public about land prices for HDB flats, similar to the chart like the 118 Zone LBC chart, which suggests how the CV adjusts the fair market value of HDB BTO flats in response to rising HDB resale prices. There is a public demand to better understand and unpack the fair market value determined by the CV for land reserved for HDB.
Sir, what is stopping the Government from lifting the veil on this aspect of the CV's work? With well over 80% of all land in Singapore belonging to the state, there is a deep interest in determining the sustainability and affordability of land prices for BTO flats for current and future generations of Singaporeans. Can the Minister tell us how the CV discounts the land sold to HDB beyond the general explanation of market principles? How is this discount derived and what is its basis?
Would the Government release zone-specific data on land values for land reserved for BTO flats over time? In connection with this, how does the Government assure the public and this House that it is not raiding the reserves when it prices land for BTO flats, when the only explanation the public relies on is its reference to the unknown fair market value for HDB land? Could the Minister please address this too?
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Chairman, the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) has benefited many lower-wage Singaporean workers. We support this as workers deserve to be paid living wages. However, I have some questions today about the long-term sustainability of the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) in the context of our overall economy and what MOF's view is, given the Ministry's role in managing Singapore's fiscal policies prudently.
Since the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) was started in 2013 as a temporary three-year measure to support PWM, it has been repeatedly extended and expanded. This has now evolved into PWCS with an allocation of $9 billion from 2022 to 2026, to this temporary measure first introduced 12 years ago. The original WCS co-funding of 40% was supposed to end by 2017, but was instead extended multiple times.
Similarly, PWCS co-funding increased from plan levels of 30% to 50% to 45% to 75% in 2022 to 2023. In 2024, instead of decreasing to 15% to 30%, it was raised to 30% to 50%. I am concerned about the ongoing extension of what was presented as temporary support.
In its Budget 2025 wish list, the Singapore National Employers Federation asked that the co-funding of wage increases continue beyond 2026, suggesting a growing dependency on these subsidies. How did our economy get to the point where our businesses rely so on such wage support? This goes beyond labour policy and I hope for more clarity on how MOF intends to structure an exit plan with firm targets that takes into account a whole-of-economy approach.
A clear exit plan from PWCS has to also take into consideration the overall structure of economy, projections of where we are headed and contain the right ingredients to allow businesses and our overall fiscal structure to remain sustainable in the long run. This will include having a hard look at our overall cost structure beyond labour, including our land policies.
With economic disruptions becoming more frequent, will we keep returning to wage subsidies whenever sectors face challenges? What signals does this send to businesses about long-term planning and productivity investments?
I would like to ask: one, what matrix will determine when these temporary wage subsidies will be phased out; two, has MOF analysed how these subsidies might affect employers' incentives to invest in productivity improvements, and not just in the sense of skills upgrading, but also in capital goods investment; and three, what is the Government's transition strategy towards sustainable wages that align with our broader economic objectives?
While we support wage improvements for workers, we need greater certainty about how these temporary measures fit into Singapore's long-term fiscal and economic policy. Both workers and businesses deserve a clear roadmap for the future beyond the current repeated ad hoc extensions of the supposedly temporary measures.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Chairman, our fiscal headroom will get smaller as Government expenditure is projected to increase while our revenues remain uncertain in light of the status of BEPS 2.0 and heightened geopolitical and trade tensions affecting investment returns. We can afford the projected level of spending up to 2030 thanks to sound and timely fiscal measures made. How is MOF enhancing efficiency, fiscal prudence and responsibility in the Budget process?
We are not the only ones feeling this pressure. The United States (US) has created a Department of Government Efficiency headed by Mr Elon Musk to treat government inefficiency. The United Kingdom (UK) Chancellor has announced that the government departments will be asked to identify 5% efficiency savings to crack down on government waste.
To what extent does MOF expect all Ministries and Statutory Boards to improve budget efficiency year-on-year? How can MOF ensure more collaborative initiatives across different Ministries to improve the coordinated delivery of Government services? How often does the MOF undertake resource reviews and transformation on a whole-of-Government basis in order to sustain a healthy fiscal position?
The Chairman: Mr Louis Chua, you may take your three cuts together.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Chairman, the reason for my cut on Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF) transparency is simple. We must demand better standards from the investment managers managing our reserves and take the lead in transparency, accountability and governance standards, as these involve the stewardship of public monies for all Singaporeans, not just its funds' direct shareholders. We should aim for transparency in both our public and private market investments, regardless of whether it is held by Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), Temasek Holdings, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) or even the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board for that matter.
To many market observers, the gold standard, as in most things SWFs-related, is the largest bank investment management – Norway's sovereign wealth fund. When it comes to transparency, they publicly share a whole suite of details regarding their operations from individual investments, returns before and after fees, even their voting records.
Their chief executive officer (CEO) has a popular podcast, In Good Company, where he interviews portfolio companies and prefaces every interview openly discussing fund ownership details. They prove you can be transparent and perform well.
On transparency, however, Singapore's sovereign funds are falling short. Unlike Temasek Holdings, GIC does not even share annual performance figures. I do not think they assess the performance of the third-party fund managers they are invested in merely on a five-year basis.
I understand the rationale of not disclosing its assets on the management, but hiding performance figures does not make sense and merely raises questions.
There is another dimension to transparency. I notice that Temasek Holdings is invested in not just private markets, but many of these investment structures are also increasingly complex, perhaps a reflection of the investment landscape today. An example is that of continuation funds. A Business Times article dated 12 October 2024 was titled, \"Temasek CIO Gets Behind Asset-Shuffling Funds Snubbed by Others\". It further goes on to say that the chief investment officer of a Singaporean state-owned investor voiced unusual enthusiasm for continuation funds in which private equity managers shift hard-to-sell assets from an older vehicle into a brand new one. The repackaged assets are then offered to investors, such as Temasek, known as limited partners.
Chairman, these harder-to-value investments need more oversight, not less. Yet, they are becoming less transparent even as investments get more complex.
In accounting, Level 3 financial assets require significant use of internal models and assumptions to estimate fair value as reliable market data is not readily available. Hence, listed companies have to disclose in their annual reports details of valuation methodologies and the assumptions made in their financial statements.
There is a glaring contradiction in all of these, in that even as the Government and Temasek demand good corporate governance from the companies that they invest in, they are secretive about their own performance and remuneration matrix.
Chairman, we must demand better standards from the investment managers managing our Reserves. Any attempts to deflect this via operational independence must be rejected.
Singaporeans compare prices to get the best value for money for their purchases and to better manage the cost of living. According to the 2023 Household Expenditure Survey, about 16% of Singaporeans' monthly expenditure is on food and beverage (F&B) services. Unfortunately, it is more complicated to compare prices when eating out than when making other retail purchases.
While some F&B outlets display all-inclusive prices, others do not include service charge and Goods and Services Tax (GST) in the menu price. Their inconsistency can cause frustration when the customer sees the final bill, which is almost 20% higher than the menu price. It also makes it harder for customers to compare prices across different F&B operators.
Tourism is a key driver of our services industry. I have, in the past, often heard feedback from my foreign friends about how they are shocked by the final prices of their F&B purchases and their taxi rides compared to the prices they were initially expecting.
In the era of ride hailing apps, the shock of seeing a myriad of additional charges added to the flag-down fare is now much less likely. But when it comes to F&B establishments, the sticker shock remains.
Currently, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) grants hotels and F&B outlets an administrative concession which allows them to display prices ex-GST if they also impose a service charge. This differs from other retail sectors, where the price displays must include GST. IRAS' rationale for this concession was to help restaurants manage operational challenges when waiving service charge for takeaway orders.
I would like to ask the Minister when this concession was last reviewed and whether it is still relevant today. Given the prevalence of electronic menus, it is very straightforward for restaurants to display both dine-in and takeaway prices. Alternatively, if they use paper menus, they could simply give a 10% discount for takeaway orders instead of having 10% for dine-in orders.
Some restaurants do display all-inclusive prices, but many may be reluctant to do so for fear that they will be seen as more expensive than their competitors.
In the interest of ensuring a level playing field between F&B operators and improve consumers' dining experience by having greater price transparency, I urge IRAS to review this concession and to require the display of all-inclusive prices as I believe the overall real benefits to the public outweigh any perceived cost to businesses.
Lastly, on rethinking the CDC Voucher Scheme. In my 2024 and the recent 2025 Budget debate speeches, I highlighted that while the CDC Vouchers Scheme has provided some support for Singaporeans amidst the high cost of living, the support rendered is broad-based, with low-income households receiving the same payout as that of a millionaire CEO. Moreover, users may face difficulties when redeeming their CDC Vouchers due to its fixed denomination and expiry dates.
In lieu of the CDC Vouchers Scheme, the Government could leverage the existing Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), Merdeka Generation and Pioneer Generation schemes to provide discounts for cardholders at merchants, hawkers and supermarkets that currently accept CDC Vouchers. The list of participating merchants could also be expanded to include food courts within privately owned commercial properties and pharmacies located within HDB estates. The rebate provided could vary based on the colour of one's CHAS card, with blue CHAS cardholders receiving the largest discount quantum, along with Merdeka and Pioneer Generation cardholders.
Such a programme is not new. Discounts for CHAS, Merdeka and Pioneer Generation cardholders have been offered by establishments, such as FairPrice, Unity and store holders within certain hawker centres. Under the new scheme, however, these rebates will be borne by the Government instead, in a more equitable manner.
Through this scheme, greater support will be rendered to low to middle-income households and residents compared to high net worth individuals. Furthermore, Government support could also be easily accessed by those experiencing difficulties obtaining CDC Vouchers via the appeal processes.
By expanding the CHAS, Merdeka and Pioneer Generation programme to provide discounts for daily necessities, the cost-of-living pressures faced by Singaporeans could be easily, equitably, elegantly and efficiently paid.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Chairman, I would like to declare my interest as CEO of the Wealth Management Institute, which hosts the Asia Centre for Changemakers, Asia's learning lab for impact philanthropy.
Philanthropy has always been a part of Singapore's DNA. Singapore has long provided generous tax incentives of up to 250% for donations to local charities. More recently, as part of our ambition to be Asia's philanthropic hub, Singapore introduced the Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme (PTIS), which offers tax benefits for qualifying overseas donations to family offices.
However, to truly cement our position as a leading philanthropy hub, Singapore must broaden its perspective on doing good beyond the traditional definition of donation and grantmaking.
Philanthropy today has the potential to catalyse social innovation and drive systemic solutions to some of the region's most pressing social and environmental challenges. Reflecting global advancements in the field of philanthropy, impact investing and venture philanthropy have demonstrated their ability to generate meaningful and scalable impact. Another example is blended finance, which strategically combines concessional and commercial capital to unlock development opportunities that would otherwise remain out of reach.
Through these innovative financing models, philanthropy is emerging as a unique asset class for social progress. With a higher risk tolerance, longer-term horizon and acceptance of below-market or zero financial returns, it is uniquely positioned to fund nascent social enterprises, de-risk high-impact ventures and bridge funding gaps where commercial capital is hesitant to engage.
By mobilising more capital through a holistic definition of philanthropy, one that includes impact investing, blended finance and catalytic capital, we can accelerate early-stage innovations in uncharted territory. Notably, this expanded approach has the potential to direct more patient and risk-tolerant capital toward climate initiatives to unlock breakthroughs in renewable energy, carbon capture and sustainable infrastructure.
Sir, given the shifts in global philanthropy, Singapore is well-positioned to lead in this space. Our strong financial and regulatory environment, coupled with our reputation as a trusted wealth and asset management hub, provides a solid foundation for mobilising capital effectively.
However, to fully realise our ambition of becoming Asia's leading philanthropy hub, we must expand our policy and partnership framework. I have three suggestions.
First, harmonise regulations and incentives for philanthropy and impact capital. Philanthropy in Singapore currently falls under three separate Ministries' policy domains: the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, MOF and MAS. To strengthen our position as a leading philanthropy hub, we need to review and harmonise related laws and policies to ensure greater coherence and effectiveness.
For example, existing tax incentives for philanthropy, such as PTIS and the Institution of a Public Character (IPC) scheme, apply only to grantmaking. However, as we broaden our understanding of philanthropy to include models like impact investing and blended finance, tax incentives should be extended to encourage these approaches while accounting for potential financial returns.
Similarly, while charitable foundations come under the lighter touch grantmakers regime, they still face restrictions from a charity governance framework that inadvertently prevent foundations from engaging in venture philanthropy, as an example, to scale social innovations.
Second, establish a corporate social impact benchmark. Corporations play a critical role in contributing to the communities in which they operate. For instance, India introduced a mandatory policy requiring companies of a certain size to contribute 2% of their net earnings to corporate social responsibility. Since then, this has catalysed US$6 billion into sectors, such as education, healthcare and social assistance, in India.
Singapore can learn from this, not through regulation but by establishing a corporate social impact benchmark that sets an aspirational standard for corporate giving, a desired philanthropic spending target that would encourage businesses to integrate social impact into their strategies.
Third, introduce a philanthropy alliance for action. A vibrant philanthropic hub requires a strong public-private-people coalition to shape strategic direction and drive ecosystem alignment. This coalition will provide strategic leadership and momentum to scale Singapore's role as a philanthropy hub. It could also be tasked with developing a national philanthropy roadmap, including a plan to align philanthropic capital with Asia's green financing commitments.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore's fiscal prudence has long been a pillar of our economic resilience. However, prudence must also consider opportunity cost. The time taken from ideation to budget allocation and, ultimately, project implementation represents an economic cost by itself.
To maximise impact and efficiency, can MOF, in collaboration with other Ministries, measure and streamline this process to minimise delays and ensure that promising initiatives are not hindered by bureaucracy?
SMEs and startups often face challenges in assessing Government procurement opportunities. Many SMEs and promising startups with innovative solutions struggle to participate in Government procurement due to administrative and track record requirements.
How can MOF facilitate greater SME and startup participation in Government tenders? Are there measures in place to ensure that procurement frameworks do not disproportionately disadvantage SMEs and promising startups and the Government missing out on promising solutions?
Beyond procurement, the cost of doing business in Singapore remains a key concern. Complex regulations and high compliance costs often prevent SMEs from scaling up effectively. The adage, \"Time is money\" could not be more apt for SMEs.
What steps is MOF taking to simplify regulatory requirements, manage compliance costs and improve overall ease of business transactions with Government agencies?
Ultimately, improving efficiency benefits both businesses and the economy as Singapore strives to remain competitive. Ensuring that Government processes are streamlined, procurement is accessible and businesses can operate with greater agility will be critical. I look forward to MOF's insights on these issues.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Embedding social value into Government procurement. One positive outcome from the Government Procurement framework, Whole-of-Government Period Contract and Framework Agreement (WOG PCFA) for creative services and for video and animation services, is that public sector agencies are more aware of SME creative agencies and their services.
In the same vein, I would like to urge MOF to consider formalising the embedding of social value into Government procurement framework.
The UK's Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires public authorities and their supply chains to go beyond cost consideration to also consider how the public authority can make a positive economic, social and/or environmental impact through the procurement process.
At the debate on the Motion on supporting families this February, I had suggested for the Government to consider embedding social value into Government procurement framework. Under such an arrangement, public sector agencies would have the discretion to determine their social value commitments alongside the core contract deliverables.
For instance, under the WOG PCFAs and standard procurement for creative services as well as video and animation services, public sector agencies that procure creative services or video and animation services could specify hiring, upscaling and training of the local workforce as a social value objective in the contract delivery.
This would give impetus to creative agencies working on Government projects to engage Singaporean creative freelancers, rather than to prioritise cost and thus outsource to overseas market.
Embedding local workforce upscaling as a social value objective ensures that Singaporean creative freelancers have a safe space to unlearn and relearn new skills and technology. This matters because many Singaporean creative freelancers are battling unprecedented levels of offshoring and substitution of creative labour with generative AI. In response to fellow Member Usha Chandradas' Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the growth prospects of the creative economy, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth replied, \"There are many opportunities for creative practitioners, especially if they are able to capitalise on growing demands and trends, such as leveraging technology and working with regional and international partners to reach audiences beyond Singapore. Thus, the social value outcomes for the public sector agencies could be supporting Singaporean creative freelancers to build expertise and track record to pitch for higher value creative work in and outside of Singapore.\"
Likewise, Government schools could uplift the prospects and capabilities of Singaporean freelance coaches and instructors delivering co-curricular activities (CCA) to students, if schools, too, embedded similar social value objective of hiring, upscaling and training local workforce in the procurement of CCA instruction. To ensure that enhancement of social values balanced against other priorities, such as achieving value for money and delivering the core contract deliverables, MOF could guide public sector agencies to engage with potential suppliers on how best to embed social value objectives into the contract delivery, including the tangible and measurable conditions of the contract to be monitored throughout contract delivery.
Embedding social value in Government procurement can be a game changer to strengthen the employability of Singaporean freelancers who are less resource endowed. They need a supportive environment to acquire and sharpen their edge to compete in a fast-changing landscape. Thus, would the Minister consider strengthening the Government's positive impact by embedding social value objectives, such as supporting hiring of locals, upscaling and training into the Government procurement framework?
The Chairman: The next Member is not present. Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Singapore's next bound of economic growth can come from strengthening our position as a global hub for startups and innovation. Government Ministries and agencies can support this by employing the services and products of startups and also benefit from their innovations. However, startups face a lot of challenges in securing Government business. Beyond hackathons, pilots and proof of concepts, the reasons are quite understandable. Startups need more hand-holding, because they are smaller and have less management depth.
There is also always a question of the longevity of a startup as a supplier. Government procurement is often stacked against younger firms, such as by asking for long track records, or in new innovation areas, procurement officers or buying departments may not yet know enough to define the procurement parameters intelligently. This feels \"lose-lose\" for the startups and the Government.
How can we improve this? What form of change management is the Government doing to upscale and change mindsets of Government Ministries and agencies on working with startups? How can we prepare startups to serve Government clients?
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, participating in Government tenders present both opportunities and challenges for our SMEs. Tender Lite was introduced by MOF and implemented in April 2024 to make it easier for companies, especially SMEs, to bid for Government contracts higher than $90,000 and not more than $1 million.
To date, can more information be shared on how many Tender Lite contracts have been awarded to SMEs since the implementation? Projects involving emerging and advanced technology innovations are valuable opportunities for startups and smaller businesses with innovative solutions to participate in. However, these companies often face challenges in meeting the financial requirements for Government tenders and providing a proven track record.
For such projects, will MOF consider measures to enable these companies to participate and in support of innovation? Cash flow is critical to SMEs in managing their operational expenses. Suppliers for Government contracts are able to submit invoices electronically to track and receive notifications on payment. Has this helped to ensure timely payment to suppliers? Can MOF provide an update on what percentage of payments are made on time to suppliers who participate in Government tenders?
The Chairman: Minister Chee Hong Tat.
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their questions and suggestions. The points made cover three key themes.
First, enhancing our pro-enterprise environment. I will cover how MOF agencies are simplifying rules for businesses. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang will address improving the experience of transacting with the Government and making government procurement more accessible.
Second, ensuring responsible, effective and efficient use of our public resources. I will speak on this.
Third, preparing for Singapore to meet intensifying, long-term challenges, particularly climate change and strengthening our social compact for a more caring and inclusive society. Minister Indranee will cover these.
Mr Chairman, Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked what MOF agencies are doing to simplify rules for a more pro-business environment. Rules and regulations exist for several reasons, from safeguarding people, property and the environment, to ensuring good governance and accountability. The Government has to strike a balance between these important objectives and the need to encourage enterprise and innovation. Therefore, Singapore's approach has been to enact practical rules and review them regularly to streamline and remove outdated ones.
The Inter-Ministerial Committee for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review, led by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, was formed in April 2024 to further enhance regulatory efficiency and reduce compliance costs for businesses. Let me share some examples of what MOF agencies are doing to support this important area of work.
First, IRAS will extend the grace period for businesses to begin charging GST from one month to two months. Currently, businesses expecting to cross the one million taxable turnover threshold within the next 12 months must register for and start charging GST within a month of forecast. This timeline can be tight for some SMEs. The change will give SMEs more time to prepare. It will take effect from 1 July 2025 and benefit 1,500 businesses every year.
Second, IRAS will progressively expand the requirement for intermediaries to pre-fill income information on behalf of self-employed persons (SEPs). About 87% of individual taxpayers today benefit from pre-filled income information by their employers and intermediaries for their income tax filing. However, many SEPs do not enjoy this convenience.
The intermediaries that engage the services of SEPs already have the income information of the SEPs and are in a good position to provide this. It is more efficient for them to do so than to have the individual SEPs fill in the information in their respective tax returns.
We started by requiring commission-paying intermediaries, such as real estate agencies and insurance providers, to submit income information for their agents and this has benefited over 100,000 self-employed commission agents. IRAS plans to bring more intermediaries on board. It has been encouraging and engaging private hire car and taxi operators, as well as the delivery platforms, and I urge these intermediaries to come on board as soon as possible.
We have also been simplifying rules where we can. One example is the Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio (FEDR), which allows qualifying businesses the option of claiming their tax deductions for business expenses based on a prescribed percentage of their gross income earned. This is simpler and more convenient, compared to using actual allowable business expenses.
The FEDR was first introduced in year of assessment 2019 for private hire car and taxi drivers and subsequently extended to commission agents and delivery workers, and the utilisation has been high, which shows that this is a good option for many of our workers. We will be consulting stakeholders on how the FEDR can be expanded to support more small businesses and self-employed persons.
We are reducing and removing regulations where possible. IRAS will drop the requirement for second-hand goods' dealers to seek approval before using the GST gross margin scheme. The scheme allows second-hand goods' dealers to charge GST on the gross margin of the sale, rather than the full sale price. This is because GST is often priced into the base cost from earlier transactions. As most dealers are generally compliant with the scheme's requirements, IRAS will remove the need for them to obtain approval starting from 1 July this year. This will streamline the compliance process, particularly for new or smaller second-hand goods dealers.
Sir, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) is also actively streamlining processes for companies. There is a requirement today for companies to disclose their directors' interest in shares or debentures in the director's statement. Over the years, ACRA has received an increasing number of requests from companies to be exempted from this requirement. In cases where all the company shareholders agree, ACRA will grant these exemption requests.
ACRA has recently streamlined this process such that non-listed companies do not need to seek exemption, as long as consent from all shareholders is sought. This will reduce administrative burden and save companies $200 in application fees and we expect around 1,500 companies to benefit every year. Information of the company's shareholding will remain publicly accessible and this maintains corporate transparency.
These are part of the ongoing efforts to improve our rules and processes and, in the interest of time, I am not able to share the full range, but this is an ongoing work and we will continue to engage businesses and also our frontline officers, our colleagues, solicit their ideas to jointly improve our regulatory landscape. This approach is also in line with the spirit of Forward Singapore (Forward SG). It reinforces in our agencies the importance of working with citizens and businesses while taking on board their feedback to continually improve our policies, rules and processes.
Sir, our government spending over this term has delivered good outcomes for Singapore, as detailed in the biennial Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review reports. We are continually looking at how we can transform and improve the way we operate.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about resource reviews and improving budget efficiency. Our budgeting framework is designed with efficiency in mind. We regularly review the block budgets for Ministries.
MOF also applies controls to spending and manpower growth to drive agency transformation and yield savings, which are then returned to MOF for central reallocation towards emerging priorities. I agree with Mr Saktiandi that it is important to have strong collaboration and coordination across Ministries. MOF actively encourages coordinated service delivery where there are synergies.
For example, we saved $2 billion and 44 hectares of land with the four-in-one East Coast Integrated Depot, which combines three Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) depots and one bus depot. The ServiceSG centres are another example. They offer residents one-stop access to about 600 government services from over 25 agencies. Citizen satisfaction across ServiceSG centres was consistently above 90% for the last three years.
Resourcing levers can be used to drive transformation on a whole-of-Government basis. We use joint budgets for issues that straddle multiple agencies, to streamline efforts, check against resource duplication and enhance accountability for shared outcomes.
We also created the whole-of-Government Public Service Transformation Budget in 2022. This provides agencies seed funding to pilot innovative and transformative ideas if the proposals involve interagency collaboration.
I thank Mr Edward Chia for his suggestion on tracking the time taken from policy ideation to implementation. Sir, the timelines vary across projects, depending on factors, such as their complexity and the resources required. We will continue to deliver our projects in an efficient and cost-effective manner. We regularly review our internal processes to improve efficiencies. For instance, we shortened the Gateway evaluation for large development projects to speed up the approval process.
Mr Liang highlighted the need to continually enhance effectiveness and governance. This is supported by programme evaluation, which helps us to understand whether a programme is achieving its objectives and whether improvements are needed.
Sir, I want to be quite clear that these are processes that we have in place and these are efforts that we will continue to improve. But as Prime Minister always reminds us, it does not mean that today, we are perfect. There is still room for improvement and we will work hard to make those continuous improvements. This is something that we will continue to do.
Mr Chairman, Mr Louis Chua asked about the concession for hotel and F&B establishments that impose a service charge to display GST-exclusive prices.
This concession was granted in 1994, based on industry feedback that it would be costly and operationally challenging to maintain and display separate price lists for take-away items and dine-in items, as service charge would be imposed only on the latter. The concession is to help reduce business costs. But clarity for consumers is also important, and businesses that rely on this concession must display a prominent statement informing consumers that prices shown are subject to service charge and GST.
This practice has now been in place for three decades, and we last reviewed it again in 2022. Sir, I do not think most consumers would be confused, as Mr Chua claimed. Conversely, removing the concession may lead to more confusion and also increase costs for businesses as they would now need to print multiple sets of menus and price lists.
Ms He Ting Ru asked about the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS). Sir, this is a scheme that we have put in place. It is currently due to cease in 2026. We will review closer to the date whether to continue or to stop bearing in mind the economic conditions at that time because we are in a more uncertain global environment.
The PWCS is not a broad-based subsidy for all companies. To get PWCS, the employer has to pay their low-wage workers a wage increase. Then, they can qualify to get this co-funding from the Government. So, the purpose is for the Government to co-fund and to share some of the costs of helping our lower-wage workers to earn a higher income. Because we want employers to pay their lower-wage workers a higher salary, we share with the employers part of this cost of paying the lower-wage workers a higher salary. And this is an important part of our social compact, which I think Ms He will agree with. I do not think Ms He is suggesting that we should stop providing support for employers, especially our SMEs. I am quite confident she is not saying that.
If I look at the other schemes that we have in place to improve productivity, which I also agree with Ms He is an important priority.
So, this is not in lieu of those other schemes. In fact, this is something that we put in place specifically to help employers to be able to share some of the costs where they are paying their lower-wage workers a higher salary. But on productivity, we have many other schemes that we will continue to work through our trade associations and chambers, our industry associations with our companies, as well as with our Labour Movement, through the Company Training Committees, to be able to help companies to improve productivity. Because I agree with Ms He that for the wage increases to be sustainable, it must go together with productivity improvements.
I just make an observation here that what Ms He is saying seems to be a little bit different from what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said during the Budget debate. If I heard him correctly, he suggested that wage increases can happen with or without productivity improvements. But I do agree with Ms He's point that the two, over time, need to move in tandem. That is more sustainable.
Mr Chairman, Mr Liang spoke about responsible management of our fiscal resources and reserves. Mr Saktiandi asked how the Government ensures fiscal prudence and responsibility.
Sir, as Prime Minister has mentioned, our current fiscal position is healthy. We have spent within our means and planned ahead for structural spending needs, like rising healthcare expenditure and climate adaptation. This allows the Government to follow through on our commitments, without borrowing or using more of our reserves for immediate needs and recurrent spending. This fiscal discipline of maintaining a balanced Budget has worked well for Singapore and we must strive to sustain this.
Our reserves, which have been carefully managed over generations, are another source of strength and national resilience, especially during a crisis.
During the Global Financial Crisis and COVID-19 pandemic, our reserves protected Singaporeans and placed us in a better position than many other countries. We were able to use our reserves for public health, social and economic support measures that saved lives and livelihoods, and enabled Singapore to bounce back and emerge stronger. Our Past Reserves also generate a sustainable and steady stream of income that goes into our Budget every year. The Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) now accounts for about a fifth of our annual government revenue.
Mr Louis Chua spoke about the importance of transparency, accountability and governance of our investment entities.
Sir, we have discussed and explained this many times. There are structures and processes in place to ensure that our investment entities, GIC and Temasek, are good stewards of our reserves for the benefit of all Singaporeans.
On governance, the Government ensures that each entity has a competent Board in place to oversee its Management. The Government holds the Board accountable for instilling good corporate governance and achieving good long-term returns according to its mandate. At the same time, the Government does not direct or influence the investment decisions of our investment entities. This segregation of roles allows our investment entities to invest professionally with a long-term orientation. And that is why during the Prime Minister's Office's COS earlier on MAS, Mr Chua also acknowledged that it would not be a good idea for the Government to require GIC to invest part of its portfolio in the local equities market.
On transparency, we have put out a lot of information on our reserves. Temasek's net portfolio value and MAS' official foreign reserves are public information. All our entities publish information on their portfolio returns. We have also published information on our reserves management framework and governance on the MOF website.
It is only the size of GIC's assets under management that remains undisclosed, as this would reveal the size of our reserves. We have explained this many times. And just as our defence forces do not reveal the full extent of our military capabilities, it is not in Singapore's national interest to disclose the full size of our reserves.
On performance, the Government does not look at one single parameter. Neither do we focus only on short-term performance. Instead, we assess our entities based on their mandates and performance over the long term and consider factors, such as diversification of portfolios and risk adjusted returns which measure investment returns relative to the risk taken.
Our investment entities have performed creditably over the long term. Given the increase in market volatility in recent years, some variation from market indices is to be expected, and what is key is that our entities continue to navigate the uncertainty while maintaining a disciplined long-term approach to generating sustainable returns.
Stewardship and accountability are key principles that we abide by in managing the reserves. We have benefited from the careful work of previous generations, and this Government believes that we must continue to maintain the same fiscal discipline and provide a strong financial foundation for both current and future generations of Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Ms Indranee Rajah.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Before I do my reply, I just wish to seek a clarification from Mr Louis Chua so that I can respond to his cut properly. In his cut, as I understand it, he mentioned CDC Vouchers being applicable to all. And then, he went into a scheme where you would have benefits according to CHAS.
But what I was not sure was whether he was calling for the CDC Voucher Scheme to be stopped completely, or whether he is saying that the CDC Voucher Scheme should be limited only to the low-income, because in the gist of the cut that he filed, he had said that rather than giving CDC Vouchers to all, we should return to the roots of CDC Vouchers, which was meant to support low-income families. So, I just was not sure of what Mr Chua's position was.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Chairman, just to respond to Minister's questions. Indeed, I also mentioned in the Budget speech I gave earlier that that was the evolution of the CDC Voucher Scheme. Originally, it was lower-, middle-income households. And then, we went and basically gave it to all households.
So, what I am proposing here is to make use of what we already have, in terms of the CHAS card kind of requirements, such that the scheme from hereon evolves into one focused on where we started out – be focused on the lower-, middle-income households and those who qualify for these additional subsidies.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is what I am trying to ascertain. So, is Mr Chua saying, stop the CDC Vouchers and then move over completely to this new scheme? Or is Mr Chua saying, keep CDC Vouchers in its present form and then, in addition, have this new scheme.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Chairman. I think that that is an option which that the Ministry can consider. Whether or not we want to go back to the original CDC Vouchers; I am not sure how exactly did the original CDC Vouchers select the Singaporeans who are eligible. But the whole idea is that this is another option in which we can go back to that sort of system, whereby the so-called CDC Vouchers are given to those who are in the lower-, middle-income households.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, I am not sure that exactly answered my question but that is alright. I will deal with it when I come to the reply.
Mr Chairman, Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked what MOF agencies are doing to help prepare Singapore for climate change and environmental sustainability.
Singapore is a low-lying island state. It is in our interest to support global efforts to deal with climate change. We have committed to a target of net zero emissions by 2050. This is not a light undertaking and requires a whole-of-nation effort. MOF is committed to doing our part.
Last month, MOF published an occasional paper explaining how sustainability considerations are factored into various stages of the Government's budgeting cycle. This includes a commitment of over $10 billion in the decade leading up to FY2030 to support the Singapore Green Plan. We have developed new fiscal tools, like green bonds under the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act, to catalyse our green financing market and support our longer-term spending needs for environmental sustainability. MOF has also established the Singapore Green Bond Framework, the second edition of which was released last month.
We are also incorporating sustainability considerations into government procurement. Environmental sustainability considerations are already incorporated into over 60% of government procurement by contract value. We aim to extend this to all government procurement by 2028, in a manner that keeps pace with industry readiness and international developments.
Participating in green government procurement is an opportunity for our businesses to build the track record to meet demands of buyers, investors and consumers who are seeking greener goods and services.
The Government will be introducing mandatory climate-related disclosures in a phased approach. To help companies ease into the new reporting requirements, they can tap the Sustainability Reporting Grant and the SME Sustainability Reporting Programme to kickstart their journey.
ACRA is also taking steps to grow sustainability reporting and assurance capabilities in Singapore, and build a robust pipeline of professionals in this area. This will also create more good job opportunities for Singaporeans.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Louis Chua spoke about the need for a strong social compact. Indeed, Forward SG was an exercise in refreshing our social compact. The insights gained from the exercise have found their way into many of the measures in the Budget.
In his Budget speech, Prime Minister spoke about how the Government is fostering a more caring and inclusive society, one where every Singaporean feels valued and supported.
Inclusivity cannot be created through government policy interventions alone. It needs the collective effort of all of society. We will spur collective efforts in three ways.
First, we will continue to encourage individuals and businesses to give back to society. We offer 250% tax deductions on qualifying donations made by individuals and corporates. Under the Corporate Volunteer Scheme, corporates can also receive 250% tax deductions on wages and qualifying expenses when employees volunteer, provide services, or are seconded to Institutions of Public Character.
Ms Foo suggested going further to encourage corporate giving, taking inspiration from India's 2% mandatory corporate social responsibility spending law. We agree with the intent of Ms Foo's suggestion, which is to encourage corporates to contribute. However, we are doing so in a different way.
Through tax incentives, we encourage and support corporate philanthropy and allow businesses to contribute based on their own corporate values and business models. Requiring profitable companies to contribute a certain percentage of profits to corporate social responsibility would take the decision and initiative out of the hands of corporates and be contrary to the spirit of philanthropy.
We also provide donation-matching grant schemes, such as Tote Board's Enhanced Fund-Raising Programme (EFR), to amplify the impact of donations.
During the pandemic, we raised matching support under the EFR from 20% to 100% to galvanise community giving. As the Prime Minister announced at Budget 2025, the Government and Tote Board will provide an extension of dollar-for-dollar matching for FY2025 in support of SG60. This enhanced support will gradually taper, reverting to pre-COVID-19 levels in FY2027.
Through the EFR, SG Gives and other initiatives, the Government and Tote Board will set aside more than $600 million in matching funds to strengthen our spirit of giving. As we celebrate SG60, I hope Singaporeans will reflect on how far we have come together and donate generously.
Second, the Tote Board will allocate resources to support collaborations amongst Singaporeans who use their time and talent to uplift the vulnerable.
The Tote Board's Enabling Lives Initiative (ELI) Grant supports community partnerships that benefit persons with disabilities. Recently, a team of researchers, engineers, physiotherapists and social workers used the ELI grant to develop a device that translates minute finger movements into software controls. It enables persons with muscular dystrophy to use smart devices even in advanced stages of their condition. The product has tested well and the team is planning to scale up its deployment.
To support more such partnerships, Tote Board has committed a further $23 million to the ELI Grant until FY2028.
Third, we are strengthening impact measurement capabilities across the non-profit ecosystem to maximise the social impact of our grants.
Tote Board will onboard all new projects onto its Impact Measurement Framework by the end of FY2025.
Tote Board is also collaborating with the National Council of Social Service to set up a data hub to help the social sector move towards evidence-based interventions. The data hub will gather impact evaluation data and provide common standards that more than 500 social service agencies, funders and the Government can use to measure outcomes.
These efforts will allow Tote Board, as a grant-maker, to optimise resource allocation and spur the social sector towards greater effectiveness.
I come now to Mr Louis Chua's cut. It still was not quite clear to me whether he was saying to do away with the CDC Vouchers or not. In the original gist of the cut, he suggested that it should only be limited to the lower-income, but when I sought clarification, it was not quite clear. I will just take it at face value.
First, many Singaporeans remain anxious about cost-of-living pressures. Such concerns and anxieties are not limited to lower-income households. Recognising this, the Government intentionally designed the CDC Vouchers Scheme as a broad-based measure to provide support and assurance for all Singaporean households.
It initially started out as a small scheme for the lower-income, but recognising these cost pressures on all households, something which has been echoed in this Chamber by many Workers' Party speakers, the Government extended it to all households.
This is not to say, however, that we do not have other schemes which are targeted.
I note Mr Chua called to redesign a scheme, although it is not clear whether this is in addition to CDC Vouchers or not, to provide more targeted support for daily necessities. He referenced the Blue and Orange CHAS cards as a way of triaging or indicating who would be eligible. I see that Mr Chua has drawn inspiration from the CHAS Blue and Orange cardholders' scheme that NTUC FairPrice has launched and which takes effect, I think, in the first quarter of 2025. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) is doing that.
But the fact of the matter is that the Government already has in place a comprehensive system of targeted support in which the lower-income receives much more.
Under the enhanced Assurance Package and the permanent GST Voucher Scheme, households with less means can get more cash transfers as well as larger rebates for utilities, and service and conservancy charges.
On top of these, the Prime Minister increased the rates for ComCare assistance schemes in this Budget to better support lower-income and vulnerable families with basic living expenses. We also recently enhanced Workfare and Silver Support to provide targeted structural support to vulnerable groups. These include lower-wage workers and seniors with low incomes in their working years who now have less savings in retirement.
If one looks at the system of government subsidies and transfers as a whole, you will see that the Government has put in place a progressive system that provides more for those with less. The Prime Minister just showed earlier a chart in his round-up speech a couple of hours ago where, in short, everyone benefits from government spending, but the lower-income and the vulnerable receive more.
I will now turn to the Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh's cut. Mr Singh wanted to know why there is no information available to the public about land prices for HDB flats, similar to the 118-zone Land Betterment Charge (LBC) Table of Rates, and how the Chief Valuer (CV) assesses the value of land purchased by HDB to build flats.
Mr Chairman, there are two parts to his cut: first, the comparison to the LBC Table of Rates; and second, how the CV assesses the value of the land. I will deal with each in turn.
First, the comparison to the LBC Table of Rates (LBC TOR) is misconceived. The general principle is that rates or valuations are made known to parties who would have to pay the fee or price.
The LBC is a tax payable on the enhancement in land value arising from modifications landowners make to their land. Any landowner can make this request to modify their land, such as to intensify the use of the land, and this is subject to approval by the Urban Redevelopment Authority or Singapore Land Authority. Following this approval, they would have to pay the LBC.
There are several hundred LBC transactions in any given year. For ease of tax administration, we have a Table of Rates (TOR) instead of valuing each transaction individually. This TOR is made public so that the parties who need to make payment know how much they have to pay.
However, the CV could also do a site-specific, or what we call a spot, valuation of the land value enhancement for each case. This happens if the landowner opts for it for precision or if the LBC TOR is not applicable, such as when the current or proposed new use do not fall within a comparable use group within the LBC TOR.
For this spot valuation, the CV would use established valuation methodologies consistent with how she values any state land for sale. In this instance, the spot valuation outcome is made known to the requesting party as the potential paying party but not to the general public at large.
The valuations for state land purchased by HDB are all spot valuations because there is only one buyer – the HDB. The valuation outcome is made known to HDB as the paying party. It is not necessary to put out a public table of rates like the LBC TOR as there are no other buyers for these sites.
In all three instances, whether it is the LBC TOR, the spot valuations for landowners or HDB, the CV uses established valuation methodologies.
Let me now deal with the second part on the valuation of land sold to the HDB.
Mr Singh asked how the CV discounts the land sold to the HDB. Again, this question is misconceived. There is no discount. HDB pays fair market value for state land. The fair market value is determined by the CV using established valuation principles. This approach would be no different from that of other professional valuers.
The normal approach is to reference comparable transactions. Private housing transactions would not be a suitable reference as public housing has restrictions, such as more stringent eligibility criteria. Hence, for public housing land, the methodology takes into consideration relevant resale flat transactions and site-specific attributes.
So, for the reasons I have just explained, the fair market value of land sold for public housing will typically be lower than the fair market value of the same land if it were to be sold to a private developer for private housing.
This is not a discount. It is the fair market value of land intended for the purposes of public housing. One must not confuse the two concepts.
Sir, our approach of paying fair market value for land, including land sold to the HDB, helps maintain our reserves for the benefit of all Singaporeans. By putting the fair market value of land into the reserves, we preserve the value of our reserves.
The financial proceeds of the sale are invested to grow them for the benefit of Singaporeans. Fifty percent of the investment returns on our reserves supplement the annual Budget through the NIRC.
This careful approach of managing our reserves strikes a balance between the needs of current and future generations of Singaporeans.
Mr Singh also made a reference to BTO flats. He said, \"What we do know is that the land price for BTO flats take reference from resale HDB prices. With the increase in resale flat prices for 2024, there is inevitably a serious concern about whether land for HDB BTO flats is priced sustainably or if growing subsidies are going to be needed in the future.\"
So, that is the question of the price of the BTO unit, not the price of the land that HDB purchased. That is a separate concept. We have actually answered this many times before, but let me just do a very quick summary.
The issue of land costs should not be conflated with BTO affordability. The land cost is the amount paid by HDB for the land. That is different from the flat price, which is what the BTO flat buyer pays HDB for the unit.
BTO flat pricing is based on affordability, not cost. And we have explained this many times before. HDB first establishes the market value of the flats by considering the prevailing market conditions, the prices of comparable resale flats nearby and the individual attributes of the flats. It then applies a subsidy to ensure that BTO flats are affordable for Singaporeans across different income levels. On top of this, HDB provides housing grants to support eligible first-time buyers, with lower-income buyers receiving more support of up to $120,000.
The pricing of BTO flats is therefore not based on the land cost of the flats. We do not pass land cost through to the BTO buyer.
Our approach has paid off. We have one of the highest home ownership rates in the world, with 90% of households owning their own homes. Our BTO system plays an integral part in keeping public housing affordable for Singaporeans. By pricing BTO flats based on affordability, more than eight in 10 first-timer families who collected keys for their BTO flat last year had a mortgage servicing ratio of 25% or lower. This means they were able to service their monthly mortgage repayments with their monthly CPF contributions, with little to no cash outlay.
This has remained stable in the past few years.
We have also taken steps to ensure that BTO flats remain affordable and accessible to Singaporeans. HDB will provide additional subsidies to those buying Plus and Prime flats on top of the significant market discounts that already apply to all BTO flats. And to ensure fairness, we impose tighter restrictions and a subsidy recovery rate commensurate with the extent of additional subsidies.
Over the past five years, we have ramped up our BTO supply significantly to meet Singaporeans' demand for housing. HDB is on track to exceed its commitment to launch 100,000 new flats from 2021 to 2025.
Mr Chairman, these figures speak for themselves. Our approach ensures that BTO flats remain affordable and accessible to Singaporeans. We will continue to keep it that way.
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 address Members' questions and suggestions on government procurement and how we can improve the experience of transacting with the Government.
First, on procurement. Let me start by articulating our key procurement principles. Our procurement rules are designed to uphold open and fair competition, achieve value for money and manage project risks. But we need to take care that these do not result in heavy compliance costs for our businesses.
Improving access to government procurement is a win-win for Government and businesses. The Government benefits from the competition fostered by a wider supplier pool, while more businesses can leverage government contracts to build track records.
Ms Jean See asked the Government to consider using Government procurement to strengthen the employability of our freelance creatives. We understand the challenges of keeping up with technological trends and evolving demands, in particular, for freelancers who do not benefit from training typically provided by employers to employees.
When assessing value for money in procurement, the Government looks for optimal balance between benefits and costs. Benefits can include the achievement of economic, social and environmental objectives. We do take into consideration important social objectives. For example, we require our suppliers to comply with the Progressive Wage Model, where applicable. However, government procurement requirements must also be non-discriminatory and fair to all businesses, in line with our international trade obligations.
Ms Jean See's objectives to strengthen the employability of freelancers is important and it can be addressed through resources and programmes the Government has put in place. These include the substantial support that we provide to all Singaporeans for their training needs, such as the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme and SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which the Prime Minister covered in his Budget Speech.
Workforce Singapore (WSG) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) also provide a range of resources to help individuals with their training decisions. For example, SkillsFuture Jobs-Skills Insights publications are useful references for individuals, including freelancers, seeking to reskill or upskill. Creatives in the arts sector can also look to the National Arts Council's (NAC's) Capability Development Grant. This grant can support up to 90% of the training activity or programme costs for SEPs. NAC's Art Resource Hub also provides resources, spaces and networking opportunities for SEPs in the arts sector. These include mentorships and career guidance to help SEPs in their professional career development as well as resources that can help SEPs with relevant business and legal knowledge.
In support of entrepreneurial efforts, we will continue to make government procurement opportunities more accessible to our businesses, including small businesses. This year, MOF will introduce two additional initiatives. First, we will expand Tender Lite, an initiative first rolled out in April 2024 to streamline procurement conditions. Second, we will make it easier for businesses participating in tenders that require innovative solutions, to progress from pilot to deployment at scale. We will introduce a new initiative, Innovative Procurement Partnership. Let me touch on each in turn.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Edward Chia talked about making it easier for smaller businesses to access government procurement opportunities. Ms Tan asked for an update on Tender Lite's effectiveness and whether the Government would consider expanding Tender Lite to other sectors.
Tender Lite has simplified the procurement of general goods and services, and covers tenders up to $1 million. As of 1 January 2025, more than 700 Tender Lite opportunities have been published on GeBIZ. Of these, more than 400 have been awarded. About 85% were awarded to SMEs. Tender Lite has been well received. About 90% of businesses who responded to our survey provided feedback that the simpler conditions of contract in Tender Lite made participation in government tenders easier.
MOF has been working closely with industry stakeholders. These include the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) and sector-specific Trade Associations to further develop Tender Lite. We will be expanding Tender Lite to construction and information and communications technology (ICT) contracts, which will benefit businesses in these sectors.
Tender Lite for construction contracts will be launched in May 2025. It will benefit construction businesses. First, by reducing administrative processes. We will be simplifying the conditions for closing of accounts or conclusion of projects. Second, we will share risks with businesses. We will cap the liquidated damages at 10% of contract value and remove the need for security deposits. We will also remove or shorten the Defects Liability Period where possible. These changes will help to ease contractors' cashflow.
Tender Lite for ICT contracts will be implemented in phases from the second half of this year. Consultations with industry are ongoing and details will be published in due course.
Next, let me touch on the new Innovative Procurement Partnership.
Mr Liang, Ms Tan, Mr Chia and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked if the Government could make it easier for startups and businesses with innovative solutions. They highlighted that heavy administrative burdens and the expectations of having a track record might hamper their access to government procurement opportunities.
Today, many agencies require businesses to demonstrate track record and financial capacity so that only businesses able to deliver the projects are selected. This helps to ensure reliability, especially for goods, services and infrastructure used by the public.
This consideration remains relevant. But it can be challenging if the proposed solution is new to the market, especially a new technology or product, and more so if the business is a startup. Further, the pilot phase and the deployment phase are typically structured as separate tenders today. A business that wins the tender for the pilot phase has no certainty that it will get to deploy its solution at scale with the Government, even if the pilot was successful.
To address these concerns, MOF will introduce the Innovative Procurement Partnership. This initiative will enable the Government to award contracts covering both pilot and subsequent deployment of innovative solutions which are new to the market. This means that businesses can be assured of the opportunity to scale up its innovative product or service, if the pilot is successful. More details will be provided in the second half of this year.
Last year, we said that the Government would improve the promptness of payments to vendors. Mr Liang asked what measures the Government is taking. We have worked with SBF and ASME to survey businesses to better understand the current process gaps. Feedback from businesses surveyed was generally positive.
Today, almost all the invoices billed to Government agencies adopt 30 days or shorter credit terms. We remain committed to keep prompt payment rates above 95%. To Ms Jessica Tan's question, in FY2023, 98% of invoices were paid within their credit terms. Furthermore, MOF will provide Government agencies with guidelines to address businesses' suggestions that include having more payment milestones and clarifying administrative processes.
The issue of prompt payment is one that extends beyond government procurement. Businesses should also pay other businesses promptly. SBF is setting up a workgroup to review the development of a Code for transactions between businesses and we welcome this initiative.
Mr Liang and Mr Chia asked what MOF agencies are doing to improve the experience of transacting with Government. This has been a continuous endeavour for MOF agencies. Today, it is relatively easy to file taxes with IRAS and apply for customs permits with Customs, following many years of system enhancements. But improvements can always be made, and we will continue to make them.
Since November 2024, IRAS has expedited tax clearance for employers filing on behalf of non-citizen employees who cease employment in Singapore. Previously, employers would typically need to wait two to three days to receive IRAS' Directive to pay tax and release monies to the employee. IRAS now issues the Directive on the same day for straightforward cases, which make up 70% of filings. This will apply to about 180,000 filings a year.
Customs has been exploring the use of AI to address a pain point for traders today – finding the right product codes and licenses applicable to their products. There are over 21,000 product codes. There is a search engine today, but it requires traders to use specific technical search terms to retrieve the correct codes.
Customs has been working with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Government Technology Agency and the Public Service Division to develop a new search engine using AI. It will allow traders to search for the right product codes using layman descriptions and it will also make recommendations on the required licenses for controlled goods, as a further value-add. The new search engine will be more user-friendly and help traders navigate the regulatory landscape more efficiently. The new search engine will be soft launched later this year. Following the soft launch, agencies will gather public feedback and make necessary refinements to the search engine.
From next month, Customs will also progressively implement new data analytics tools to better service public enquiries. This tool will allow Customs to leverage real-time data insights to identify patterns in enquiries raised on customs procedures. This will help them provide more up-to-date and swifter responses. We expect the average turnaround time for enquiries to reduce by about 30%.
Mr Chairman, my colleagues and I have laid out what MOF will do to: (a) enhance our pro-enterprise environment and make Government a better partner to businesses; (b) ensure responsible and effective governance of our public resources today and tomorrow; and (c) prepare Singapore for long-term challenges on the climate and to strengthen our social compact.
Let us continue to work together to keep Singapore forward-looking, united and confident.
The Chairman: Are there any clarifications? Yes, Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Chair. My question is directed to Minister Indranee vis-a-vis my cut. If I heard the Minister correctly, the Minister said, land for HDB developments is typically priced lower than that for private housing. Can I confirm how is the differential then determined by the CV between private housing and land for HDB?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, I think what I said was that the fair market value for land intended for public housing is typically lower than the fair market value of land for private housing, because by its nature, public housing has restrictions. So, I think, what Mr Singh is asking is \"what is the methodology or the workings of the CV?\"
I am not privy to the workings of the CV. What I can say is the principles that she applies, which is the principles that I had elucidated earlier. I mean, it is just like when you have an MRT track. If you ask the engineer to design the rail track or you ask an architect to build something, you do not go and ask them for all of their internal drawings and so on. You look at the final outcome.
The CV is a professional. The CV applies valuation principles. Valuation, as everybody knows, is part science, part art. You need some experience, you need to make relevant adjustments. And this is the same whether it is the CV or whether it is valuers in the private sector. So, in short, what I have explained is the principles that she would apply and from site to site, it may differ, depending on locational attributes and particular characteristics of the site.
The Chairman: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean: Mr Chairman, this is just a comment. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his response. I appreciate that the Government provides a lot of support for training. Nonetheless, Government is actually a very big buyer of creator services.
My point is that without local opportunities for our freelancers to go through upgrading to apply this new knowledge and skills, they will actually be disadvantaged. So, my request to the Government is to consider whether we could look at the sandbox arrangement where government-commissioned creative projects can provide a platform for our local creative freelancers who have gone through the upskilling, to be hired and to build their portfolios. This is very much like career trials, where we give people opportunities to practise and then, of course, to build their portfolios so that they can move on to bigger opportunities.
In fact, our NTUC's Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association, we actually stand ready to support the Government if there is interest to do something like that.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: I thank Ms Jean See for her suggestion. We will look into it.
The Chairman: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru: Sir, I have two clarifications for Minister Chee. I wish to clarify with the Minister that I did not make a general statement about productivity and wages in my cut. But when I mentioned productivity, that was specific to my seeking clarification from the Minister about whether there has been any analysis done about what effects the programme has had on employers investing in productivity improvements beyond skills upgrading. There was no contradiction with my colleague's Budget intervention on this, as he said that wages need to catch up with productivity gains that have already occurred. On this point, can the Minister share if this analysis has been done?
My second clarification is a point I also made in my cut. I note the Minister had said that a decision will be made in due course and closer to the time about whether to extend the PWCS beyond 2026.
As mentioned in my cut, can the Minister share with us what are the metrics used to determine whether or not to exit the programme? My concern here is that the uncertainty about whether the scheme will be extended will make businesses currently on the scheme more cautious and less keen to take action to either invest in or increase wages now and will delay any such decisions until they hear the next announcement.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Chairman, I think the Prime Minister had already explained in his round-up speech about how productivity and wages, over time, do move in tandem. And on that point, the Prime Minister had already explained very thoroughly and I would not repeat.
But I just wanted to go back to my response to Ms He earlier that we do not disagree that we need to look at how to improve productivity of firms. And that is why we do have many schemes in place to help our companies, whether is it SMEs or larger companies, or as Mr Neil Parekh suggested, how do we encourage more SMEs to work closely with the larger companies, whether it is a large local enterprise or a multinational enterprise.
And these are all different ways in which we will continue to work on with our tripartite partners to look at how we can improve productivity.
But specifically, on the PWCS, this is something that is aimed at helping employers when they increase the salaries of their low-wage workers. So, it is not a broad-based subsidy, as I explained earlier. But it is for the Government to co-share some of the cost increases that employers would otherwise have to face when they are trying to help their low-wage workers to earn a higher salary.
I hope this is in line with what Ms He said. I said earlier in my main reply to her that I am sure she is not suggesting that we should not support SMEs. I would like to seek a clarification from Ms He that she will support that objective, that we do want to support our employers, we do want to support our companies, especially our SMEs, when they are trying to do what is good for our low-wage workers to strengthen our social compact.
Mr Chairman, on the decision to extend or not to extend the PWCS, we will make that decision closer to 2026 when this scheme is due to cease. It is difficult to say we will end it if the following boxes are checked because we have to look at the situation at that time. There are a lot of uncertainties in our operating environment globally and the challenges that our companies will face; it is something which we do need to consult with our tripartite partners before making that decision. But I also do not fully agree, Mr Chairman, with Ms He's framing that just because we are providing this support for our SMEs, to help them to co-fund, not fully fund, but to co-fund some of the cost increases for low-wage workers earning a higher income, that they will then not want to improve productivity. I do not think that is the way the businesses would respond to the various schemes and incentives.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Chairman, just two clarifications. The first is for Minister Chee. I think he prepared some comments with regard to the disclosure of the size of the reserve and assets under management. But in my speech, I specifically mentioned that actually, that was not what I was talking about. It is more about the performance figures where you have Temasek disclosing annual figures and MAS disclosing annual figures. Why is it that GIC cannot do so?
Second, specific to Minister Indranee's point about the CDC Vouchers, I take her point that, yes, the cost of living hits everyone. But the point that I was trying to make is that it does not hit everyone the same, which is why, if you look at the $800 worth of vouchers, to a lower-income household versus a high-income household, it is a very different percentage of their expenditure.
That is why in my gist and also in my main Budget speech yesterday, what I was saying is that we need to have a more targeted approach. An example which I have given in delivering the cut was to maybe leverage on the CHAS card scheme, because you already have the Blue CHAS card holders, Orange and Green. The different income groups, is quite nicely partitioned that way. So, that is something that we can leverage on. The question then is, would the Minister not agree that this is more in line with how the Government generally directs assistance packages?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Chairman, first, I want to just reiterate what I said in my main reply earlier. I said all our entities publish information on their portfolio returns. So, this would include Temasek, MAS and GIC. And then, I also explained that it is only the size of GIC's assets under management that remains undisclosed, because that would then reveal the size of our reserves, and I note that Mr Chua does not disagree with me on that. This is just to respond to Mr Chua's question.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Chua for his clarification. There is perhaps not that much difference really in what we are looking at.
Mr Chua's point is that different people have different incomes, so you should give more to those who have less. I think that is the point, and that has consistently been the Government's position. I do not understand Mr Chua to be saying, do not give the others anything, right? So, that too, is common ground, because Mr Chua is not saying, \"do not give the middle-income\" and \"do not give the higher-income\". At least, I understand that to be the case.
So, if those are the two positions, then, when you look at it, that is what we are doing, because for the targeted assistance which we do have, you have the entire Assurance Package and you have GST Vouchers. So, the GST Vouchers, the lower-income households get more and the seniors get more; the middle-income will get, but not as much. Then, we give retirees Silver Support over and above right. And then, even for the U-Save utilities, the rental flats get more.
So, you can see that we have a slew of programmes which are targeted. But at the same time, everybody is feeling the pain of cost of living. PAP Members have spoken about it. Mr Dennis Tan spoke about it in the Cost-of-living Motion. He highlighted the middle-income. Yesterday, Mr Faisal Manap talked about the middle-income. Today, in clarification, the Leader of the Opposition also highlighted middle-income. And even the higher-income is saying they feel that things are more expensive.
So, it is necessary to also have something for everyone, because we empathise with how they feel. And therefore, you will have some things which are broad-based, like the CDC Vouchers. Essentially, we want to have both.
That said, the suggestion of using CHAS is fair enough, because, as I think Mr Chua knows, when the CDC Vouchers were originally introduced, they were pegged to CHAS as a means of targeting those who had less. But because the pain on the ground at that time was quite a lot, we wanted to help everybody and hence, CDC Vouchers were made universal. But that does not take away from the fact that we have targeted schemes. And it also does not preclude the fact that perhaps for CHAS, we can also leverage that to see how we can triangulate better.
The Chairman: Ms He, you can ask your clarification.
Ms He Ting Ru: Sir, just a quick clarification in response to Minister Chee. It is not to say that I do not support businesses. It is just that the concerns that I raised in my cut were systemic to the long-term effects for what was initially meant to be a temporary scheme.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Chairman, I thank Ms He for her clarification. I think we are on the same page. The Government also believes that because we are asking businesses to support increasing the wages of their low-wage workers and to hire low-wage workers and increase their pay, and that this is an important part of our social compact, that it is correct for us to co-fund some of the cost increases. The approach that we want to take, whether on this scheme or on many other schemes, is that when we want to do something that will be good for Singapore and Singaporeans, we want to do it together with our stakeholders. And this is also in line, I think, with the spirit of Forward SG.
The Chairman: I believe all the clarifications have been raised and answered. Mr Liang Eng Hwa, would you like to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, allow me to thank Minister Chee, Minister Indranee Rajah and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang for their responses to our cuts. And also, I want to thank Prime Minister Wong and the best-in-class MOF team for yet another impactful Budget that stands us in good stead to move Singapore forward. With that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,300,315,000 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $127,707,700 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 Chairman: Senior Minister of State Zaqy.
The Deputy Leader (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again on Monday, 3 March 2025?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again on Monday, 3 March 2025.\" [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Zaqy.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2025/2026 and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 3 March 2025.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 3 March 2025.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.15 pm.
10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the outcome or progress of MRT renewal works for the North East Line (NEL) that are scheduled from 2019 to 2024; (b) how will the renewal works enhance the NEL; and (c) how long will the renewal works further sustain the NEL in the coming years before further renewal works may be required.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Singapore Bus Services Transit (SBST) started on a major renewal project for the North East Line (NEL) in 2019, to refurbish its 25 first-generation trains, as well as to upgrade key components in the track, power, signalling and platform screen door (PSD) systems. Works were originally scheduled to be completed in the third quarter of 2024.
LTA and SBST completed the planned upgrading works for the track, power, signalling and PSD systems in 2021. As the Ministry of Transport (MOT) had explained to the Member in 2022 via a reply to his Parliamentary Question, the train refurbishment programme was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [Please refer to \"Status of Renewal and Enhancement Work Scheduled for North East Line\", Official Report, 4 April 2022, Vol 95, Issue 60, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
As of January 2025, 16 of the 25 first-generation trains have undergone refurbishment and have been put into passenger service. As stated on the MOT and LTA's websites, the remaining nine trains will be progressively put into service by the first quarter of 2026, after they have been refurbished.
These upgrades aim to provide our commuters with smoother and more reliable journeys. As part of renewal works, electrical and mechanical components in the track, power, signalling and PSD systems have been replaced. The first-generation trains are being refreshed with updated interior fittings, such as seats, panels and flooring, as well as upgraded air-conditioning, ventilation and passenger information systems. Condition monitoring systems will also be installed on the trains to better monitor train performance and improve maintenance planning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternative Financial Backstop if Sponsorships for World Aquatics Championships Fall Short of Target","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"11 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Government will act as a financial backstop if sponsorships for hosting the 2025 World Aquatics Championships in Singapore fall short of the intended amount; (b) whether the Government has set a sponsorship target for the organisers; and (c) how are the organisers held accountable for securing sponsorships to minimise public expenditure.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth Eric Chua has addressed Oral Parliamentary Question Nos 2 and 3 in Parliament yesterday. Mr Gerald Giam may wish to refer to the response then. [Please refer to \"Government Spending on 2025 World Aquatics Championships Versus Benefits and Sponsorships Generated\", Official Report, 27 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 154, 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":"Feedback and Regulation on \"Pay Later\" Contracts of Telecommunications Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"12 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government regulates telecommunications companies' (telcos) transactions of \"pay later\" contracts with retail customers; (b) whether any feedback has been received regarding telcos immediately imposing heavy penalties when a customer defaults on a payment without notification; and (c) if so, how many cases of such feedback have been received since 2023.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Buy-now-pay-later plans are offered by telecommunication companies (telcos) to consumers wishing to pay for mobile devices in instalments. Such plans are common for many other sectors and retail merchants. To safeguard consumer interest, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) requires telcos to ensure that consumers acknowledge the terms and conditions, instalment charges, billing arrangements and penalties prior to consumers entering into purchase/service agreements.
Over the last two years, IMDA received 14 feedback from members of the public on such instalment schemes. To date, telcos have assisted customers in resolving their issues for all cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Work Permit Status Checks when Foreign Delivery Drivers' Driving Licences are Inspected by Traffic Police","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"13 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry collaborate with the Traffic Police to check the work permit status of foreign delivery drivers when their driving licences are being inspected; and (b) whether the Minister can provide data on the number of foreign delivery drivers found working without a valid work permit, from January to December 2024.
Dr Tan See Leng: When the Police encounters cases of foreign delivery drivers who are without valid work passes, they will refer such cases to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for investigations.
From January to December 2024, MOM received and investigated around 90 complaints on suspected illegal foreign delivery drivers. Enforcement actions were taken against 30 foreigners while the remaining cases were found to be unsubstantiated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cause for Drop in Anti-corruption Disclosure Score for Singapore-listed Companies and Steps to Enhance Corporate Transparency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the underlying factors that may have contributed to the six-percentage-point decrease in the average overall anti-corruption disclosure score for Singapore-listed companies between 2022 and 2024, as reported in the biennial study conducted by the Centre for Governance and Sustainability at the National University of Singapore; and (b) what measures are being considered to reverse this trend and enhance corporate transparency.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): All Singapore-listed companies in the study had anti-corruption disclosures, including disclosures on their compliance with anti-corruption laws and commitment to protect whistleblowers. Singapore was the only country in the report where all companies in the study fulfilled 100% of the disclosure criteria in these two categories. The study attributed the decline in the overall score on anti-corruption disclosures to an increased focus by listed companies in their public disclosures and communications on other topics, for example, sustainability and climate change1.
The Singapore Exchange Regulation will continue to engage with listed companies to monitor and strengthen disclosure practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : A separate biennial Sustainability Reporting Review by the National University of Singapore-Centre for Governance and Sustainability (NUS-CGS) and Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) found in the latest 2023 report that five of the top ten material factors disclosed by Singapore-listed companies were environmental-related. They include: (a) emissions; (b) supplier environmental assessment; (c) water; (d) effluents and waste; and (e) energy."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Stamp Duties Collected from Sales of Properties by Category","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for the years 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2024, what proportion of stamp duties collected are from the sale of (i) HDB flats (ii) private non-landed residential properties (iii) landed residential properties and (iv) non-residential properties, respectively.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The requested information on Stamp Duties (SD) spans over two decades and we are unable to provide the series of data over such a long time.
A property sale transaction may involve three types of SDs: Seller's Stamp Duty on the seller's side; Buyer's Stamp Duty; and Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) on the buyer's side. ABSD applies to residential properties only.
The proportions of SD from the three property types, the Housing and Development Board, private residential and non-residential, for 2019 and 2024 are shown in Table 1 below. We have provided 2019 for comparison instead, as 2020 was the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had impacted the property market and SD revenue. For tax purposes, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore does not differentiate stamp duties contributed from private non-landed and landed residential properties.
3 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Department of Statistics accounts for the effect of shrinkflation in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), considering that some of the goods and services tracked in the CPI may not be sold based on standardised weights or sizes and, if so, how.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In compiling the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the Department of Statistics (DOS) accounts for changes in the quantity or packaging size of the consumer items tracked in the CPI basket, where possible. It does so by adjusting the data based on a fixed unit of measurement, such as on a per 100g basis. For example, if the packaging size of an item changes from 100g to 80g but its store price remains unchanged, DOS will adjust the price so that the equivalent price increase per 100g will be reflected in the CPI.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation of SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit by Sector and Plans to Increase Utilisation in Sectors with Higher Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) since 2022, what is the proportion and extent of utilisation of SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit across (i) sectors and (ii) size of enterprises; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to increase the utilisation of credits by employers from (i) sectors with higher density of lower-skilled and/or lower-wage local and foreign workforce and (ii) sectors with higher incidence of retrenchment.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit (SFEC) was introduced in 2020. To date, more than 36,200 enterprises have tapped into it with a total of $122 million disbursed. Amongst these enterprises, those with less than $10 million in annual revenue make up the majority, with the top three sectors from wholesale trade, manufacturing and construction.
We have enhanced and extended SFEC several times in the last few years to help more enterprises benefit, including those with more lower-wage workers. For example, we removed the minimum Skills Development Levy contribution in 2022 to avail SFEC to more enterprises. As announced at Budget 2025, the Government will redesign SFEC into an online wallet to improve ease of use. Companies will be able to use the credits to immediately offset out-of-pocket costs for eligible workforce transformation initiatives, rather than do so on a reimbursement basis. This will help to ease any cash flow concerns for employers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of National Service Enlistees Identified as Security Threat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Defence for each year of 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2024, what is the percentage of National Service enlistees who are identified by the Military Security Department as individuals who may pose security threats and are not placed into positions to acquire soldiering skills or gain access to equipment that pose a threat.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: The Military Security Department (MSD) has in place a security screening process to detect military personnel who may pose a security risk. It is a standard organisational capability for militaries around the world, to mitigate the risk of their trained soldiers inflicting harm on their peers or civilians.
These screening efforts take place during enlistment and throughout their course of service as national servicemen. MSD works closely with other Government security agencies in performing this role.
Personnel picked up by these screening efforts are excluded from roles where they can acquire skills or gain access to information or equipment that pose a threat.
These screening efforts require professional judgement and calibration. If the criteria are too tight, we may exclude from training an excess of soldiers who ultimately pose no threats; on the contrary, applying criteria that are too loose may result in high-risk individuals being missed during the screening process.
MSD, in performing its role, therefore calibrates these criteria periodically depending on review of feedback and prevailing security conditions. These calibrations can result in year-to-year fluctuations. At the current levels of screening, the number of individuals picked up for observation and exclusion annually is small at about 0.1%, or about 50 individuals for an average number of close to 30,000 pre-enlistees screened each year, over the last 10 years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Road Accidents Since 2020 and Measures to Address Such Collisions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the significant increase in road accidents since 2020 (a) how many accidents in the past year can be attributed to lane hogging; (b) whether penalties will be increased for lane hogging and for heavy vehicles not keeping to the left lane; (c) whether there has been an increase in rear-end collisions occurring near red-light cameras due to sudden braking by speeding vehicles; and (d) what measures are being taken to address such collisions.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) does not track the number of road accidents attributed to lane hogging. While lane hogging can be a contributing factor and give rise to other dangerous driving behaviour, such as switching lanes or overtaking without due care, it is usually not itself a direct cause of accidents.
Currently, a motorist who commits an offence of lane hogging is liable for up to four demerit points and a composition sum of up to $150 for light vehicles and $200 for heavy vehicles. A heavy vehicle driver who commits an offence of failing to keep left is liable for up to a composition sum of $150. We will assess whether these remain adequately deterrent, as part of the ongoing review of demerit points and composition sums for road traffic offences.
TP does not track the number of rear-end collisions occurring near red-light cameras due to sudden braking by speeding vehicles. As part of its public education efforts, TP reminds motorists to keep a safe following distance from the vehicle in front, as well as to watch for the stop light on the car and the traffic ahead. This is also included in the Highway Code and learner drivers may be tested on this in the theory test.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rate of Repeated Bullying by Students in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education in the past five years, what is the rate of repeated bullying by students who had previously bullied or assaulted others.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: We would like to refer the member to the Ministry of Education's response on bullying in schools at the Parliament Sitting on 14 October 2024. [Please refer to \"Review of Measures and Help Provided in Student Bullying Incidents\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
The number of bullying cases and assault cases is low. The number of repeat cases is also low, and no significant trends can be drawn.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Change in Average and Median Nurse-to-patient Ratio for General Wards and Intensive Care Units of Public Acute Hospitals in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health for each year in the past three years, what is the change in the average and median nurse-to-patient ratio for (i) general wards and (ii) intensive care units of the public acute hospitals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As shared in an earlier answer in 2022, the average nurse-to-patient ratio for general wards in the public acute hospitals remains unchanged at around one nurse for every four or five patients. [Please refer to \"Nurse-to-patient Ratio and Efforts to Reduce Nurses' Administrative Workload\", Official Report, 2 August 2022, Vol 95, Issue 66, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
In the Intensive Care Units (ICU), the ratio is higher at about one to two nurses for every ICU patient, depending on the complexity of each case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Waiting Time from Referral to Appointment at Public Hospitals for Subsidised and Private-paying Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Health as of 2024, what is the median waiting time between a referral from a primary healthcare provider and a new specialist outpatient appointment at public hospitals by specialties for (i) subsidised patients and (ii) private-paying patients, respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In 2024, the median wait times for referrals from primary care providers to public hospital Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOC) were 35 days for subsidised patients and 12 days for unsubsidised patients.
That said, these are median wait times. Patient referrals, whether subsidised or unsubsidised, are first and foremost prioritised based on the urgency of their medical conditions. Cases assessed as urgent will be given earlier SOC appointments regardless of their subsidy status.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Changes to Integrated Shield Plans by Insurers on Policyholders' Out-of-pocket Expenses and Access to Healthcare Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Health (a) how have the recent changes made by insurers to their Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) affected the out-of-pocket expenses and access to healthcare services for policyholders; (b) what measures are being taken to ensure that the interests of policyholders are adequately safeguarded amidst these changes; and (c) whether any further measures are being explored to mitigate issues related to the affordability and accessibility of coverage under IPs.\n
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Government's main assurance to Singaporeans is the universal provision of subsidised healthcare in public hospitals, supported by subsidies, MediShield Life, our national health insurance scheme, MediSave and MediFund.
On the other hand, Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) are private commercial products. IPs are subject to the Ministry of Health's (MOH) requirements on key parameters, such as the co-payment and deductible. Private insurers update their IPs regularly, such as the premiums, claim limits and scope of coverage, in accordance with the policy contractual terms, and based on their commercial and actuarial considerations.
In making these changes, MOH expects insurers to ensure that their policyholders' interests and well-being are safeguarded. The Member may refer to the oral reply in response to Parliamentary Questions 31 and 32 for the Sitting on 4 February 2025 for more details. [Please refer to \"Insurers' Responsibility in Informing and Giving Adequate Notice to Policyholders for Changes in Coverage and Claims\", Official Report, 4 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 150, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Insurers have recently been raising IP and especially Rider premiums. MOH has publicly expressed our concerns on these commercial products before, that due to their comprehensive coverage, they have changed the dynamics between patients and doctors. As such, individuals with IPs and Riders are significantly more likely to make claims, with significantly bigger bills. This has contributed to claim amounts rising sharply, which, in turn, drive up premiums. We have urged the insurance industry to take a hard look at their policy designs, which we believe are fueling healthcare costs and also detrimental to their business.
MOH will continue to publish information on IP premiums and coverage to facilitate consumers in making informed decisions on private insurance plans. The public needs to constantly examine if the premiums paid are worth the healthcare expenses they cover.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Online Falsehood Reports Received by POFMA Office and Correction Directions Issued","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) how many reports of online falsehoods have been received by the POFMA Office via the online form for reporting potential falsehoods since the availability of this form; and (b) of these reports, how many resulted in Correction Directions being issued.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Since the POFMA Office's online form for reporting potential falsehoods was introduced in 2021, the Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Office has received a total of 1,276 pieces of public feedback about potential online falsehoods, as of 31 January 2025.
In the same period, there were nine POFMA Directions issued regarding falsehoods that had been reported by a total of 37 pieces of public feedback to the POFMA Office.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Cause of Death of Dogs at Dog Farms and Pet Shops Since 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development for each year since 2019, what is the breakdown of the cause of death for dogs reported to have died at (i) dog farms and (ii) pet shops.
Mr Desmond Lee: Licensed dog farms and pet shops are required to report the death of any dog under their care and provide information on the cause of death to the National Parks Board (NParks). They are also required to submit a death certificate signed by a licenced veterinarian.
Based on the information reported in the death certificates, the cause of death is often inconclusive as post-mortem examinations are typically not conducted and dogs may have multiple health issues. Notwithstanding, NParks has observed that most dogs that passed away in dog farms had chronic diseases, such as cancer, kidney disease and diabetes. Death cases in pet shops may involve various factors, including transport stress and undiagnosed health conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Interagency Collaboration to Introduce SingPass Account Reset Services at Migrant Workers' Recreation Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider working with other Government agencies to introduce services for the reset of SingPass accounts at the migrant workers recreation centres.
Dr Tan See Leng: Currently, migrant workers can reset their Singpass accounts in person at Singpass counters in community centres and ServiceSG centres or online through the Singpass portal. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has, additionally, put up guides on how to reset Singpass accounts in the migrant workers' native languages on the MOM website and in dormitories and recreation centres; and will also be incorporating the guides into the FWMOMCare mobile application.
MOM will work with other Government agencies to monitor the demand for such services by migrant workers and explore additional avenues to assist migrant workers if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Category of Cases Referred by Employment Claims Tribunal to MOM for Further Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower in each year for the past five years (a) how many cases have the Employment Claims Tribunal referred to the Ministry for further investigations; and (b) what are the top three categories of cases referred.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) was set up to hear salary-related and wrongful dismissal disputes between employers and employees. On a case-by-case basis, ECT may alert the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to cases for investigations. MOM has investigated all such cases that were referred to us. Over the past five years, MOM investigated less than five cases referred by ECT.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Need for Performing Artistes on Work Permits to Undergo Settling-in-Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether performing artistes on work permits currently undergo the Settling-in-Programme that is conducted for migrant domestic workers and non-Malaysian work permit holders in the construction, manufacturing, marine shipyard and process sectors; and (b) if not, why not.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Settling-in Programme is prioritised for first-time Work Permit holders in the construction, marine shipyard, process and manufacturing sectors. We have no plans to extend the programme to workers in the services sector at this time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employers Investigated and Prosecuted for Receiving Kickbacks from Migrant Workers and Amounts Involved","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Manpower in 2024 (a) how many cases of employers alleged to have received kickbacks from migrant workers are investigated by the Ministry; (b) how many employers have been prosecuted; (c) what is the average number of migrant workers affected per employer; and (d) what is the average amount of kickbacks paid.
Dr Tan See Leng: In 2024, the Ministry of Manpower investigated about 250 alleged kickback cases. Enforcement actions were taken against 51 employers, of which 12 were prosecuted. On average, eight migrant workers were affected per employer and each migrant worker paid about $6,600 in kickbacks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Commercial Operators' Assessment of Viability of Potential New Ferry Service between Puteri Harbour and Tuas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on assessments by commercial operators in Singapore and Malaysia of the commercial viability of a potential new ferry service between Puteri Harbour and Tuas.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The parties involved are assessing the commercial viability of a potential ferry service between Puteri Harbour and Tuas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Injuries and Deaths of Work Permit and S Pass Holders Who Have Been Transported on Lorries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport (a) for each year in the last 10 years, what is the number of injuries and deaths faced by workers on Work Permits or S Passes who have been transported on lorries; and (b) if the data is not available, whether the Ministry will start collecting such data.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The average number of workers injured when being transported on the back of a lorry fell by more than 25% from 215 between 2015 and 2019, to 161 between 2020 and 2024. Over the last 10 years, there was an average of one fatality transported on the back of a lorry per year.
We do not track whether the workers involved in these accidents hold Work Permits or S Passes. The nationality of the workers or they pass they hold is not the focus because our goal is to improve safety for all workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cost Breakdown for Companies of Varying Sizes to Ferry Workers on Safer Transport Modes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry can provide disaggregated data with a breakdown by the size of company on how much it will cost companies currently using lorries to transport workers to switch to safer modes of transport.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: I thank the Member for her question. We have received related questions for the 26 February 2025 Parliament Sitting and had addressed it then. [Please refer to \"Stakeholders' Feedback on Safety of Transporting Workers on Back of Lorries and Suggestions to Ban This\", Official Report, 26 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 153, 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":"Clarification by Minister of State for Home Affairs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made in the reply given by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) during Question Time for Question No 4 at the Sitting of 28 February 2025: (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): On his other proposal regarding whether or not there could be a consolidated fund of some sorts where victims could perhaps through the fund, be able to recover some of their lost amounts, I would like to say that various proposals are being considered to see how best to be able to compensate victims… So, I am just trying to share with you that there are various, various difficulties and concerns that we have. But at the end of day, principle-wise, I agree with you that we should do our very best to be able to find some way of recovering proceeds and of course, compensating victims. [Please refer to \"Percentage of Financial Crime Cases with Confiscated Assets Returned to Victims and Forfeited by Government\", Official Report, 28 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 155, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Sun Xueling circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to the reply given for Parliamentary Question No 4 at the Sitting of 28 February 2025. My reply should be read as follows:
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): On his other proposal regarding whether or not there could be a consolidated fund of some sorts where victims could perhaps through the fund, be able to recover some of their lost amounts, I would like to say that various proposals are being considered to see how best to be able to return recovered scam proceeds to victims… So, I am just trying to share with you that there are various, various difficulties and concerns that we have. But at the end of day, principle-wise, I agree with you that we should do our very best to be able to find some way of recovering proceeds and of course, returning them to victims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2757,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250228/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2758,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250228/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":2759,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250228/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}