Hansard, Friday, 26 September 2025

Order. I wish to inform hon Members that, pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Standing Order 100, I have appointed Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo to be the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan to be the Chairman of the Estimates Committee for this Parliament.

1 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider allowing children under the age of 18 to access Tier 2 low-intensity services such as counselling or screening by licensed practitioners, without parental consent, while retaining the requirement for parental consent for higher-risk interventions such as medication or hospitalisation.

2 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update regarding the study of the requirement for parental consent for children and young people below 18 or 21 to access mental health support; (b) which stakeholders have been engaged; (c) when is the study expected to be completed; and (d) whether the findings will be made public.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 1 and 2 together on today’s Order Paper?

Please proceed.

Sir, our laws do not prescribe the permissible legal age for a young individual to seek mental health services or other medical services without parental consent. However, it is generally good practice for parents to be involved when mental health services are provided to young people. Part of the reason is that parents play a vital role in supporting their children’s well-being and their involvement in their children’s recovery journey is critical.

There has been feedback that the requirement of parental consent is one of the reasons why young people with mental health challenges hesitate to seek help. Indeed, the issue of requiring parental consent before seeking help and involving parents as part of the recovery journey, need not be conflated. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has convened an expert group to study this issue and develop guidelines on the subject. Key stakeholders including parents, youths and service providers were engaged, and their views will contribute towards shaping the guidelines.

One of the key issues we need to examine is whether for lower-level intervention that involves mostly befriending and emotional support, no parental consent may be required. However, if the objective is to encourage youths to step forward to seek help with their mental health challenges, this will need to be coupled with more proactive engagement and outreach to those who may need help.

We will provide more details when the guidelines are ready early next year.

Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I would like to make a clarification. The Senior Minister of State spoke about emotional support. I think that is Tier 1 support. We are actually asking about the Tier 2 low-intensity services such as counselling by licensed practitioners. That is one. And then, does the Ministry have a clearer timeline on when the update will be and will the findings be made public on this review? I would also like to check with the Senior Minister of State, if there is no prescription on age, from my understanding working with the social service agencies, they also tend to feel that the requirement for this is quote opaque and wish to know what is the direction that MOH will take.

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. In terms of timeline, we will try to conclude the work of consulting with stakeholders and put up some framework or guidelines, hopefully, by early next year.

As Members can understand, this is a process that requires us to engage stakeholders and understand from their perspectives what would be helpful and what would be more of a deterrent. So, we will do this work seriously and put up something, hopefully, by some time early next year.

In terms of the different situations in which services need to be provided and how caregivers, including counsellors and social service agencies, can navigate this space and be clear about what kinds of roles they can play, I think what we will do is to provide these guidelines which will give a framework where the service providers be better guided in assessing the situations in which minors seek mental health support.

While I said earlier that parental support is a preferred approach for some of these services to be delivered, the guidelines do recognise that there may be specific circumstances in which requiring parental consent would deter a minor from seeking the help that they need. So, it is a balance that we need to strike. On the one hand, we want parental involvement, but sometimes, for the situation in which the minors are seeking help, it could be linked to their relationship with their parents as well. So, we do need to take a very sensitive approach to this. And I hope the guidelines and framework will give the service providers better clarity on how to navigate this space and be sensitive to the needs of both parents and children.

Mr Hoe.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I am asking this in the capacity as a member of the People's Action Party Mental Health Group. In my interactions with the social service agencies, one of them raised this concern: how do we ensure that those that are below 18, that as long as they are below 18, that this will be adopted? Meaning that if they are below 18, no parental consent will be needed. So, from the social service agencies' perspective, they do not need to reach out for parents to get their consent? Because when this is being adopted, then this will ensure higher accessibility to mental health services.

Sir, as I said earlier in my reply, there is no legal requirement for consent even today. But what we want is to provide some guidance so that the social service agencies can be sensitive to the needs of both the child and the parents, and as good practice, to involve the parents sometime along the journey. Perhaps not right at the beginning, if it feels that it is quite sensitive for the child to even approach them for some assistance. But somewhere along the way, after a few consultations with the child, when the child has developed more confidence in the process and counsellor assesses that it is the right time to bring the parents into that recovery effort, then I think that is where the sensitivity needs to be applied and involve the parents gradually along the process and reconcile any challenges that the child may have with the parents if that is indeed the source where the mental stress is for the children. And I think this is a process where we need to rely on the expertise and experience of the counsellors to do this with sensitivity.

3 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many cases of fake bulk order scams impersonating SAF personnel have been reported since May 2025; (b) what measures are being taken to protect small businesses from such fraud; and (c) whether additional safeguards, outreach, or penalties are planned to deter impersonation scams targeting SAF’s reputation.

Mr Speaker, my reply will also address Question Nos 10 and 12 for written answer in today’s Order Paper filed by Mr Alex Yeo and Mr Zhulkarnain Adbul Rahim respectively.

From May 2025 to 15 September 2025, the Police received at least six reports of fake bulk order scams involving the impersonation of Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) personnel.

In these scams, scammers posing as SAF personnel would contact restaurants or other small businesses to make bulk orders. In some cases, nearer the delivery date, the scammers would request for additional items which the businesses do not carry or are unable to fulfil at short notice. The scammers would then provide the contact details of fake suppliers whom they claim can supply the additional items and persuade the victims to pay these fake suppliers on their behalf. The fake suppliers are part of the same scam syndicate and will deceive the victim into making payment, without delivering the actual items. Victims often only realise they have been scammed when the bulk order is not collected.

The Police take a tough stance against scammers and their mules, including those who allow their bank accounts to be used to receive the scam proceeds. They may face imprisonment terms of up to 10 years.

As of 19 September 2025, the Police have arrested six suspects in connection with these scams. Amongst them is a 22-year-old woman who was charged in court on 17 September for relinquishing control of her bank account to the scammers to facilitate the scams. Investigations against the other suspects are currently ongoing.

As much as the Police will take a firm stance against such cases and also do more in public education efforts, it is often not possible for the Police to protect all businesses and the public from all forms of scams and frauds. The criminals will also constantly devise new ways and approaches to hook and scam the victims.

In this case, we also seek the public's support, including businesses and merchants, to be discerning and vigilant.

To raise awareness of fake bulk order scams among small businesses, the Police have been sharing with industry stakeholders such as the Food and Beverage Management Association Singapore, Restaurant Association of Singapore and Orchard Road Business Association the telltale signs of scams and the preventive measures they should adopt. In particular, we urge businesses to try to verify the identity of the people they are transacting with, avoid making advance payments or deposits with new suppliers, and pay only upon the delivery of goods.

Please note also that Government agencies will not ask businesses to make payment to another business on the Government’s behalf, unless agreed through a written contract. If in doubt, please call the ScamShield Helpline at 1799.

Mr Lam.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Can I ask whether the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is working with other agencies to develop verification tools or secure channels for our business owners to verify the authenticity of the orders, when orders are made?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As mentioned in my reply, it is often not possible for the Police to fully protect the businesses and the public from all forms of fraud and scams. Businesses should verify their identities of the people they are transacting with. For example, if the person claims to be a Government official, who wishes to make a bulk order for an event, businesses can consider asking for the order to be sent via an official email address, always ending with "gov.sg".

If in doubt, businesses can approach the relevant Government agencies or its officers using the contact details found on the official Singapore Government Directory. Businesses should also check for reviews of suppliers to establish their legitimacy before committing to a purchase or pay only upon delivery of goods. If in doubt, businesses can also check the legitimacy of suspicious messages, phone numbers and website links via the ScamShield app or calling the helpline at 1799.

Mr Alex Yeo.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answer to the Parliamentary Question. Can I just ask a supplementary question to the Minister of State? Apart from the investigations with regard to restaurants, have the Police made any headway in their investigations towards the even smaller food and beverage outlets, like the hawkers who had been scammed by these fake bulk orders? And if there is, can the Minister of State share more details about the intent of these perpetrators and who they are?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. In terms of whether the case comes from a restaurant, or it comes from a hawker centre, I think all these are fake bulk order scams and all the cases are currently under investigation. As and when we do have details and conclusions from the investigations, we will make them public, especially if it is in the public interest.

Perhaps the question is also about whether we have an increasing or growing fake bulk order scam situation in Singapore. Overall, this scam variant is not new. But since May 2025, the Police have seen a recent re-emergence of this kind of scams, in this case, including the impersonation of SAF personnel and teachers from academic institutions. Over the last four months, the Police have received at least 45 fake bulk order scam reports, which include six reports involving SAF personnel.

4 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in each of the past five years, how many migrant domestic workers and unofficial employers have been fined for illegal moonlighting; and (b) what is the take-up rate of the Household Services Scheme since its permanent formalisation in 2021.

Between 2020 and 2024, an average of 12 migrant domestic workers (MDWs) and 15 employers were fined each year for moonlighting-related offences.

The Household Services Scheme (HSS) allows companies to hire migrant workers to provide part-time domestic services such as home cleaning, grocery shopping, car-washing and pet-sitting. Since formalising the HSS as a permanent scheme in 2021, the number of HSS companies increased from around 80 to 240. Based on surveys, the number of households served by HSS companies have also increased steadily.

Ms Yeo.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Ministry for the recent expansion on the HSS, given that there are evolving needs for different types of caregiving resources and not every caregiver has the space or resource to house full-time MDWs.

A recent straw poll amongst our female union leaders also highlighted the lack of options for affordable caregiving and housekeeping support for working families. Could the Ministry look to expanding the HSS to beyond its current operators to increase service options or to make more accessible the booking of such part-time, caregiving or housekeeping services through online means? And would the Ministry look perhaps to what was the union on strengthening public awareness on existing schemes like the HSS, as there seems to be a limited understanding on the scheme even with our female union leaders?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for speaking up for female union leaders. Indeed, there are a range of caregiving and housekeeping options for households, depending on their needs. For households who do not need full-time caregiving needs, HSS should generally be a cheaper option than hiring a MDW. And based on MOM's poll of HSS clients, the hourly rate ranges from between $18 and $30, where the median is about $25 an hour.

Most HSS companies offer deal packages, such as, $325 per month, for weekly housekeeping; and up to $580 per month for twice a week. In comparison, the monthly cost of hiring an MDW can range between $1,000 and $1,300 a month, depending on whether employers qualify for the MDW concession levies.

All companies interested in joining an HSS scheme can write to MOM. The number of companies have increased, like I mentioned, from 80 to 240. We leave it to companies to reach out for their bookings. And should there be any interest of these companies, they can also offer online booking services at the convenience of their clients. Most importantly, we are ready to work with the NTUC to see how we can further strengthen the awareness of this scheme.

5 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many cases of foreigners found working without valid employment passes were reported annually over the last five years; and (b) what proportion resulted in (i) prosecutions (ii) fines or (iii) repatriations.

Mr Speaker, from 2020 to 2024, the annual average of about 450 foreigners were found to be working illegally without valid work passes. On average, 13 foreigners were prosecuted, four were fined and the rest were issued with warnings, as most of the cases involved short duration of illegal employment. These foreigners were also repatriated and debarred from working in Singapore.

Ms Elysa Chen.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I have three follow-up supplementary questions. The first, what measures are being taken to strengthen collaboration with other Government agencies to detect and deter illegal employment more effectively?

The context for the second question, I did have a whistle-blower coming to my meet-the-people session to share that this was happening in illegal wedding photoshoots and others also saying that this is quite prevalent in the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) industry. So, are there any specific sectors or industries where cases of working without valid passes are more prevalent? And how is the Ministry addressing these hotspots?

My last supplementary question, how does the Ministry ensure that enforcement against illegal employment does not inadvertently penalise workers, who have been misled by errant recruiters or employers?

I thank the Member for her questions. Firstly, we work very closely with the relevant agencies, associations and Ministries as required and really, our our intention is to protect local workers and local employers.

Specific to wedding shoots, we get on average about two cases per year over the last two years, if I take the timeline from about 2021 to about 2023. We have been working with the Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association (Singapore), or Vicpa, to understand the ground situation and pending tip-offs, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will then conduct investigations and to deal with the complainants as we see necessary and; of course, to the people who are the perpetrators as well.

We are happy to work with any organisation and agency in the interest of our workers and our employers.

To the second question on the services and sectors that are involved, essentially, we see it mainly in the services and construction sector, which usually has a slightly higher number than the rest; and for this, a whole range of legislation has been put in place. For example, errant workers under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act would be fined up to $20,000 or jailed up to two years or both; and for employers this amount is $30,000 and an imprisonment term of about 12 months or both.

But beyond legislation, there are two regimes of inspections: proactive inspections – primarily dealing with areas at which we think are more highly prevalent – and reactive inspections that results from either whistle-blower cases, as exactly as the Member has pointed out, or through the MOM channels, either through our websites or call centres and services centre. So, when we get such feedback, we then do the necessary investigations and we do the necessary actions that are required.

To the third question, it is indeed a very important one, because there are many who may be unfortunately misled and it is not going to be very helpful for us to use very heavy mechanisms. And and that is why, in my reply, you will realise that the bulk of the perpetrators in this case, depending on the severity of their of their offence, was indeed warned. We keep that as the main basis after proper investigations are being taken. I hope that helps.

6 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider including spouses in the category of people whom teachers are entitled to take pro-family leave to care for, as the current policy permits such leave to be taken to care for parents and children only.

Mr Speaker, to the Member's question, the Ministry has already included spouses in the category of people whom teachers are entitled to take pro-family leave. It is already part of the Civil Service provisions, as it stands.

Mr Vikram Nair.

I have a supplementary question. From what I understand, there are around 14 days of leave, but it has to be pre-qualified, of which I think, three days for childcare, two days for parent care, one day is for Housing and Development Board registration. From what I understand, leave to take care of spouses would be considered no pay leave. I will be grateful for the Minister's clarification that this is not the case.

Sir, in line with the Civil Service provisions that were updated earlier this year, that is now included as part of the leave provisions.

7 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the process for reviewing and approving individual requests to exceed MediSave withdrawal limits; and (b) what criteria, documentation and exceptional circumstances are considered in such case-by-case applications for urgent medical needs.

Mr Speaker, all appeals for exceptional MediSave use beyond established withdrawal limits are reviewed on a case-by-case basis to consider each individual's unique circumstances. When assessing such appeals, we consider the patient's ability to afford their medical expenses, their available MediSave balances as well as the individual's eligibility for other financing options, such as MediFund.

Ms Chen.

I thank the Minister of State for her response. Several of my residents have shared that the current limit of $300 is too low for their healthcare needs. I have three supplementary questions.

The first is to ask the Minister of State whether patients and families are adequately informed of the option to apply for exemptions from MediSave withdrawal limits and what avenues exist for assistance in submitting these applications?

My second question: how long on average does it take for individual applications that exceed MediSave withdrawal limits to be processed and whether interim relief is available for patients with urgent medical needs?

And my last question: whether there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that lower-income patients are not discouraged from applying for MediSave limit exemptions due to the administrative burden or complexity?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. I can appreciate concerns from her residents, but I would like to highlight that in respect of her first point, within the public healthcare institutions, there are medical social workers who are embedded in the system and are ready and available to give guidance to the patients when they face difficulties in paying their bills.

I would also like to highlight that beyond just the usage of MediSave, having exceptional circumstances where they can withdraw within the limits, there are also other sources of support, including access to MediFund, discretionary support in the hospitals, in the public healthcare institutions. So, that is a key point to note. I would encourage the patients to go and seek support from the medical social worker, because they may be able to then look at the slew of support that is available for the patients.

On the second question, I would like to stress that in our healthcare institutions, the priority is given to providing treatment as necessary. So, no patient would be in a situation where they would not be able to get the treatment they need if it is medically indicated because of their financial circumstances. That would be prioritised and that would be something that the healthcare workers and the doctors and the nurses will ensure happen.

In the other part of the question, the Member asked about the timing needed. It really depends on the cases, because we do need to look at each case and the nuances and the reasons behind the application. And the complexity of the case may matter, in terms of the timing as to how we come up with the outcomes. But I would just want to stress that there has been no situation where if they cannot afford the treatment, they do not get the treatment, because that is usually prioritised.

The last bit, the Member had asked about how do we ensure that those from low-income families are not prevented or discouraged from applying for exceptional withdrawal limits. I would say that no one is prevented or discouraged from applying for the exceptional limits. Each application will be looked at on its own merits to account for, among other things, their ability to afford it, how much their MediSave balances are, and whether there are other supports that are available. For example, as I said earlier, MediFund. So, they should not hesitate to ask for help if they need to.

On a broader point, I just want to highlight that the first point is that MediSave is just one of the options for those who need support. There are other financial avenues available and I hope that patients are aware of that and would seek help from the medical social workers for that.

The second point is, it is always tricky about MediSave. The intention, the whole objective of MediSave is to ensure that you have enough for the big catastrophic events that happens. And this typically happens later part in life. So, we need to find that balance of making sure that there is accessibility to its usage, but to also preserve it for healthcare needs in the future. To that point, we do review it periodically to make sure that there are sufficient enhancements and support given. As you know, recently we made the announcements about the extension of usage of MediSave for outpatient treatments, as well as, for outpatient scans – Flexi-MediSave and Outpatient scan. So, these are things that reflect that we do review this periodically and will enhance it where appropriate.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Just a follow-up question to the Senior Minister of State, with regard to the MediSave limits. I think some years ago, it was suggested by myself, whether the MediSave criteria for certain individuals could be loosened on the basis of how much they have in their MediSave accounts, particularly for seniors who, I am sure Member would appreciate, would visit at the meet-the-people sessions and say, "Look, we have got $40,000, $50,000 in our MediSave accounts and we just need a little bit more assistance", particularly, since these seniors have retired. I am wondering whether the Ministry is prepared to exercise some flexibility in a more purposive way to ensure that some of these seniors can be allowed to use more of their MediSave monies.

On the question from the Leader of Opposition, I appreciate the sentiments, because I also do get those appeals from time to time.

I would suggest that the Member can surface it to the Ministry. In fact, we do take a case-by-case approach to the situation, depending on the age. There have also been compassionate considerations, especially if the person is approaching end-of-life; there have been circumstances where there has been a bit more discretion exercised and leniency given. But we really have to look at the circumstances, the treatment, the costs as well as the balances in the MediSave.

Ms Cassandra Lee.

I thank the Minister of State. I recognise that last September, MOH mentioned to a Parliamentary Question that you are looking to review these limits. Many Singaporeans, including my residents in Ayer Rajah, have told me that they do not qualify for the subsidies because they are retired and they are seniors, but they are also unable to fork out the top-up to pay for their medical fees in cash because that would affect their daily living. With rising costs of living, it is difficult for them. I am asking the Minister of State whether we have a timeline as to when the next review might be.

We do the review periodically, as and when we are looking into it, and when we have reviewed something, we will make the announcements. Recently, as the Member has highlighted, we announced the Flexi MediSave increase from $300 to $400, and we also increased the amount that you can tap on for outpatient scans, because we know those are big-ticket items, from 300 to 600 items.

So, we will continue to review this. Members who wish to give feedback can also let us know.

But as I said earlier, it is really about the balance. There is a need for us to make sure that there is sufficiency for a long run.

We also need to understand that there are many different levers. There are many different avenues of support. There is the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), there is the MediFund in situations where they need it. And we may need to look at what are the different ways in which you can help support the particular individual.

But I am open to see if there are any further areas for which Members feel that there is a need of this. We do do this review fairly regularly.

8 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider plans to build more covered linkways linking HDB blocks and key amenities to MRT stations beyond the 400m radius of the stations.

In 2024, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced that it would build more covered linkways to connect Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations to designated Friendly Streets and some key amenities nearby that are within an 800-metre radius of the stations.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. We are glad that the Ministry of Transport (MOT) already has the policy to build covered linkways to amenities within 800 metres of MRT stations. We hope MOT could also consider building covered linkways within 800 metres of an MRT station that would link to Housing and Development Board blocks. Because there are previous examples where LTA built the linkways according to the policy but served very few residents. So, we hope that LTA or MOT can stretch the policy a bit more, so that it would benefit more residents based on the human traffic flow to MRT stations.

I thank the Member for his suggestion. Indeed, covered linkways are very popular and they do serve many residents and particularly commuters, so it is a priority of LTA to link commuters to major transport nodes.

In evaluating proposals, LTA will look at usage patterns – as the Member said, how residents commute within that radius. But we also need to look at site constraints and also safety requirements. We would definitely prioritise walkways that connect large numbers of commuters to major public destinations, and these would primarily include walkways which connects transport nodes and major amenities. We definitely will take in feedback and requests from the community and pay special attention to the needs of our more vulnerable commuters.

9 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how does the Ministry evaluate the effectiveness of enforcement on pedestrian-only paths and cycling lanes; (b) whether the Ministry tracks locations with frequent resident feedback on near-misses or safety concerns; (c) whether further measures are planned to enhance pedestrian safety; and (d) if so, what are these measures.

Mr Speaker, my answer for Question No 9 in today's Order Paper will also address a related question filed by Dr Charlene Chen1 for a subsequent Sitting.

Path marking and signs are used to demarcate cycling paths, shared paths and pedestrian-only paths (POPs). Dedicated cycling paths are distinctly coated in red with a width of two metres, sufficient for two cyclists to pass. Where space is a constraint, shared paths are used. This allows both cyclists and pedestrians to share the path, typically at a width of 2.5 metres.

Clear logos and wordings guide users at areas of potential interaction between pedestrians and cyclists, and to signal transitions between POPs and shared paths.

To enhance pedestrian safety, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) works with relevant agencies to implement additional safety measures, such as installation of convex mirrors at locations with line-of-sight issues, additional lighting and trimming of overgrown hedges that narrow the paths.

LTA conducts education campaigns and community engagement programmes regularly to promote gracious path sharing and safe behaviour. Since August 2024, LTA’s active mobility enforcement officers have been on the ground to educate users on the safe use of the segregated paths, ahead of the commencement of the POP rule on 1 July 2025.

Enforcement officers conduct regular patrols to ensure adherence to the path segregation of cycling paths and POPs. LTA conducts more checks at hotspots with frequent instances of errant riding behaviour, based on feedback received. Warnings and subsequently, fines are given to those who intentionally disobey the rule, especially those who endanger others with errant riding behaviour.

Dr Charlene Chen.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. I have three supplementary questions pertaining to enforcement. One, how is the Ministry working with enforcement officers to ensure consistent and proportionate enforcement of cycling and pedestrian path rules, including when to issue warnings versus fines? And what does the Minister of State think of licensing cyclists and their vehicles?

My second question is about recourse when pedestrians are injured by cyclists or personal mobility device riders on footpaths or even overhead bridges, what processes are in place to ensure victims receive prompt support and recourse, and whether the Ministry is reviewing ways to strengthen this safety net?

And the last question is on engagement, whether the Ministry has actively engaged on things like path design, safety hotspots and enforcement, and whether it has plans to expand public education campaigns to emphasise shared responsibility?

The enforcement officers will do their best to ensure that there is a consistent approach to look out for errant behaviour and to mete out the necessary penalties or advisories. In the case of POPs, it is relatively new since July 2025. So, the rule is that cyclists or riders are not supposed to go on POPs. But if there are instances, for example, where the cyclist or rider needs to temporarily overtake a slow-moving cyclist on the cycling path and then venture for that instance on the POP, that will not be counted as an offence, because that is understandable as long as he does it in a safe manner, by looking out for other users of the POP.

But when it is obvious that the cyclist or rider is blatantly riding on POPs, without safe regard for other users, over extended distances, then that definitely will be an offence, and the enforcement officers will issue fines. In fact, since 1 July 2025, about five fines have been issued for such errant riders.

On the recourse, under the Active Mobility Act, when accidents happen, the cyclist or rider are supposed to stop and render assistance. In cases where the riders are performing work-related rides, like doing delivery, they are also required to have third-party liability insurance, so that would also cater for any claims for injury.

On licensing riders or cyclists and vehicles or bicycles, many years ago, Singapore does require registration of bicycles, but it has become a very laborious exercise because bicycles are passed down within families, from people to people, and it becomes an administrative hassle to have to update, not only for the authorities, but for owners of bicycles. We also take reference from practices and learnings from other countries in the world. Therefore, we have stopped that.

It is also not easy to license riders because riders span a spectrum of different ages, from the very young to the very old. So, we focus on educational campaigns and rules for riding behaviour. That is more sustainable and we will keep on promoting that to ensure a safe riding landscape for Singaporeans.

The Member had a last question about getting feedback on the ground. Yes, we continue to do that, on how better to design our paths, our cycling infrastructure. So, we will continue our engagements with advisors, grassroots leaders and other community groups. In terms of education programmes, we look at schools, community groups and we also do regular engagements with delivery platforms to ensure that the riders are up to date with the rules and exercise due consideration when they ride.

10 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past two years, how many complaints of age discrimination have been lodged with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) and the Ministry; (b) how many of such cases are detected beyond formal complaints received; (c) which sectors are most frequently implicated; and (d) when is the Workplace Fairness Act expected to take effect.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) received an annual average of 61 complaints of age discrimination in 2023 and 2024. The top three sectors with the most number of complaints were administrative and support service activities; wholesale and retail trade; and accommodation and food service activities.

In addition to the complaints received, TAFEP partners Workforce Singapore (WSG) to proactively review job advertisements posted on MyCareersFuture (MCF) portal to detect potentially discriminatory job advertisements. In 2023 and 2024, TAFEP identified an annual average of 90 job advertisements containing words or phrases that were potentially discriminatory on the basis of age.

TAFEP had engaged the employers that posted these job advertisements to make the necessary amendments to ensure alignment with the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). To further assist employers to better understand their obligations under the TGFEP and build merit-based and fair workplaces, TAFEP has also provided the employers with resources, such as guides and clinics.

We plan to table the second Workplace Fairness Bill in Parliament by the end of the year. If passed, we intend to implement the Workplace Fairness Act sometime in 2026 or 2027.

Dr Charlene Chen.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I would like to know what trends or patterns MOM has observed in age discrimination cases. For example, is there any data that happens more of hiring promotions or retrenchments?

And the second supplementary question is, how will MOM ensure that older workers, especially those less familiar with reporting channels, feel safe and supported to surface cases of discrimination?

And my last supplementary question is about the Workplace Fairness Act. When it comes into force, are there any safeguards that will ensure that enforcement is not just reactive, but also proactive in deterring unfair practices before they occur?

Sir, I thank the Member for her questions. In terms of trend, our annual fair employment practice reports have not shown an uptrend over the past five years. In fact, the average annual number of age discrimination complaints received was about 77 during the period from 2018 to 2022, as cited in the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness Final Report, and 61 over the period 2023 to 2024, as I shared in this Parliamentary Question response.

On the second question of how we ensure that there are adequate avenues, especially for those who may have challenges navigating the resources, I would say there are several avenues. One, of course, is we try to encourage those who have grievances to approach TAFEP, because there will be a team of mediators and staff who can help take the case into consideration and advise them on what recourse and avenues are open to them. Failing which, of course, you can always email directly to MOM and we will then work with TAFEP to investigate further.

And finally, what is the approach we are going to take for cases like this, I think our emphasis is always on taking a more educational approach to make sure that both employers and employees understand what are discriminatory practices in the workplace. That is a proactive way to ensure that there are no misunderstandings on what is required. Oftentimes, we see that when complaints surface, it may not necessarily be that the employers are egregious in trying to discriminate against a particular age group. But sometimes, the choice of words, the phrasing and the type of words they use in advertisements, for example, are probably not well considered enough, and that can create a misunderstanding and the impression. So, with the educational approach, we hope that this will prevent more of such occurrences from taking place.

11 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the Government's response to Singapore's recent drop in ranking in the International Institute for Management Development's World Talent Ranking 2025, which assesses the three pillars of investment and development, appeal and readiness.

Mr Speaker, the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) World Talent Ranking measures how economies perform in developing home-grown talent, attracting and retaining overseas talent and building the skills and competencies of their labour force. It provides a perspective of how Singapore is perceived vis-a-vis the other economies as a global talent hub.

One key driver behind the change in Singapore's ranking in 2025 was in perception-based factors or indicators. In particular, how business executives viewed adequacy of apprenticeships, their perceptions of companies' prioritisation of employee training and their confidence in Singapore's ability to avoid brain drain. We will analyse these findings as well as other relevant data carefully, to better understand the underlying causes and see where and how we can do better.

Singapore's performance should also be seen in context. For example, demographic realities limit how much we can grow our workforce. As such, our slowing labour force growth in 2024 resulted in a fall in the related indicator. On the other hand, although we were ranked 63rd in terms of our public expenditure on education as a share of gross domestic product (GDP), we were second in the same survey on education outcomes, that is, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) score. This is a testament to our cost-effective public spending on education.

Singapore will continue to welcome talent who complement our own capabilities. We will, at the same time, press on with our priority in developing our local workforce. By investing in our people, enhancing our business environment, strengthening our connectivity and fostering a vibrant tech and innovation ecosystem, we are confident that Singapore will remain a leading global talent hub.

Ms Phua.

I thank the Minister for her response and for mentioning that the survey findings are based on perceptions.

Indeed, perception, sometimes, they say, is reality unless we clarify or correct them. So, I have two supplementary questions and based on the remarks that are made by the directors from IMD. One is under the pillar of investments and development. I am baffled why the report cites that we have low education investment, when education is actually known to be one of the highest items in our Annual Budget. And especially, I wonder if the report has considered factors, like the hefty investments that we have made in adults' continued training and education in SkillsFuture, and so forth. And also, at the same time, a director from IMD mentioned that Singapore has done more than enough, despite the so-called "relatively low" education investment. So, that is one.

The second supplementary question pertains to the pillar of appeal. The report also cited that, because organisations are relocating to relatively low-cost countries in, especially near our neighbouring countries, it claims that companies, therefore, could get a similar quality workforce for a much lower price in these countries. And I would like to hear the Minister's comment on this, whether that is, indeed, true or is it just a comment on Singapore?

Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions and if I may, just before I address the specific questions, set out a bit of a better understanding of the IMD report.

The first thing that I wanted to say was that it measures competitiveness across different countries and economies, and on this, although our ranking had dropped, we are actually still in the top 10. So, in other words, Singapore is still in this report, ranked the seventh most talent-competitive economy in 2025 out of 69 economies in 2025. And whilst this is a drop from second place in 2024, our general ranking has been on the uptrend over the last decade.

So, in 2016, for example, we were 15; then in 2017, 13; in 2018, 13. We have been climbing up steadily. And then, in 2024 it was second, and now it is 2025. So, we have had a few ups and downs, but, overall, the trend has been upwards and we are still in the top 10. That is the first point I want to make.

Then, the second point to make is how do they measure this competitiveness? It assesses the 69 economies using the following three factors. First, investment and development that evaluates the investment in and the development of homegrown talent; then it looks at appeal, which measures the ability to attract and retain overseas talent; and third, it looks at readiness, which assesses whether the existing talent pool meets current and future needs. So, you have got those three factors.

And then, let us look and see how we did on these three factors, which whilst addressing this, will also address the Member's supplementary question. The first on investment and development in local talent, our weaker performance in the report on this factor was contributed by perception factors, decline in perception-based indicators on employee training and apprenticeships; and also, the second one was low public expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) – we went from 63rd to 65th and pupil-teacher ratio. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office", Official Report, 06 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 11, Clarification section.]

On the expenditure on education, actually, that is not very different from last year's report. So, that has not been much of a shift. These indicators, the part on education as a percentage of GDP, have traditionally weighed down our rankings across the years. And that seems to be because they look to see how much you put in. Whereas for us, it is not only just how much we put in. It is also the outcomes. So, it does not seem to give enough weight to the value-for-money part.

And also, the indicator that is used in the IMD report on education investment is on public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP. So, given Singapore's relatively high GDP, the percentage figure will naturally appear lower compared to other countries.

But this does not mean that our actual investment in education is small. Singapore consistently allocates one of the largest portions of our Annual Budget to education, as the Member has pointed out, including substantial investments through initiatives, such as SkillsFuture. In fact, our total public expenditure on education per student, rather than as a percentage of GDP, remains relatively high.

In the same IMD report, we were ranked 17th this year on this indicator, and our pupil-teacher ratio is still comparable to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) averages and to that of countries like, the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Korea and Japan.

So, I think these indicators do not fully capture the strength of our education system. Our outcomes remain strong in education, as reflected in the international benchmarks.

On this first factor, it is more the perception-based indicators on employee training and apprenticeships that pulled the ranking down.

The second factor on appeal, on many of the traditional considerations, we remain largely the same. That is, for management, fair administration of justice. Those continued to be pull factors. The things that weighed us down on appeal were perception-based indicators on worker retention. There was a fall in executives' perception for indicators, such as worker motivation in companies; and secondly, a high cost of living. That one did not move that much though; it was from 63rd to 65th. Singapore ranked 65th, which is comparable to other overall top performers, like Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and ahead of Hong Kong. And so, this indicator has traditionally weighed down our overall ranking over the years, but it is not a key factor pulling down the ranking in 2025.

The third factor, readiness. Our performance in the readiness factor was relatively steady, and for this one, it reflected our strong education system serving as a notable strength. Singapore ranked highly in PISA, as well as the proportion of science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) graduates. And the surveys also affirmed that our primary and secondary and university education meets the needs of the competitive economy. In fact, those improved. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office", Official Report, 06 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 11, Clarification section.]

But the areas of decline, under readiness, was labour force growth, I addressed that earlier, and perception indicators on availability of skilled labour and specific skillsets and expertise.

In summary, the things which affected our ranking this year was perception on employee training and apprenticeships, labour force growth and the perception of the availability of skilled labour. I think education remains largely the same.

12 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what checks has the Ministry put in place to ensure that delivery platform work is performed by Singaporeans and Permanent Residents only; and (b) under what circumstances are delivery platforms allowed to engage third party vendors with non-Singaporean delivery workers.

13 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has been tracking the number of subcontractors and foreign work pass holders that are engaged by platform companies or operators to meet surge demands or for any other reason; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that income opportunities for local platform workers are not compromised arising from such arrangements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 12 and 13 together?

Go ahead.

Sir, only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) can perform platform work, as the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not issue work passes to foreigners for platform work. Hence, it is illegal for foreigners to enter into platform work arrangements with platform operators or to impersonate local platform workers and perform platform work using their accounts.

That said, platform operators can legitimately outsource delivery jobs to third party logistics companies. These logistics companies may employ foreigners with a valid work pass and the number of foreigners is capped at the industry's Dependency Ratio Ceiling. Unlike platform workers, these foreigners cannot work for multiple platform operators and they can only work for a single employer under an employer-employee relationship. They are paid a fixed monthly salary by their parent company and are not remunerated on a per-job basis by the platform operator. MOM does not track the number of platform operators' subcontractors.

MOM follows up on every complaint received, including feedback from the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA), and has also conducted enforcement operations at hotspots island-wide over the past months to detect and deter foreigners from performing illegal platform work. A total of 644 delivery workers were checked during these operations, of which only four foreigners, or less than 1%, were found working illegally as delivery workers. Another 22 foreigners were legitimate work pass holders.

The Platform Workers Trilateral Group has released recommendations earlier this month to stamp out illegal platform work performed by foreigners as this compromises the livelihoods of local platform workers. For instance, platform operators with reasonable suspicion of foreigners misusing platform workers' accounts are to notify MOM of such cases for investigation. Should an offence be established under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, the major platform operators have collectively agreed to debar the local platform worker who abetted the foreigner from their platforms for a minimum of 24 months. Platform companies that currently permanently debar offenders may continue to do so. The foreigner who performed platform work illegally is liable to a fine of up to $20,000 and imprisonment for up to two years, or both. The local who abetted the foreigner may also face the same penalties. In addition, the foreigner may also be barred from entering or working in Singapore.

To address platform workers' concerns about competition via outsourcing practices, food delivery platform operators that outsource jobs have agreed to: firstly, provide more clarity and assurance to platform workers on their outsourcing practices; secondly, encourage platform workers to head to high-demand areas to reduce the need to outsource these jobs; and thirdly, require outsourced companies to submit foreign workers' work pass documentation and conduct audits where work is outsourced through their app.

These recommendations are scoped to food delivery platform operators as outsourcing is common in the parcel delivery landscape, with platform operators outsourcing jobs to third party logistics companies and vice versa. This practice helps to efficiently consolidate demand and supply, which benefits businesses, consumers and platform workers themselves.

The Government will continue working with platform work associations, tripartite partners and platform operators to support the well-being and livelihoods of our platform workers.

Ms Yeo.

Thank you, Speaker. I declare that I am the advisor to the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC)-affiliated NDCA. Mr Speaker, our delivery riders have, through the association, provided ground feedback that they see more foreigners performing delivery platform work and appreciate the ground checks and enforcement that the MOM has started to ensure that platform work remains only for Singaporeans and Singapore PRs.

I note that some platforms use fleet partners, which are business-to-business (B2B) arrangements between the platform and third party logistics operators to perform delivery in low supply areas, such as the Central Business District and Orchard Road. In such B2B contracts, delivery riders are taken on as full employees and fleet partners can employ foreigners as their employees if they have the necessary foreign manpower quotas to do so.

I ask what measures would the Ministry continue to put in place, to ensure that these fleet partners have indeed the necessary quotas to employ foreigners as delivery riders and would the Ministry also make checks to ensure that these foreign delivery riders are paid full wages by their employers and not paid on a job-by-job basis, so long as the Local Qualifying Salary is met, as this would circumvent the fact that platform gig work should be performed by only Singaporeans and PRs.

Sir, I thank the Member for her questions. Indeed, we have been working closely with NDCA to get a sense of where these hotspots may be and continue to take any enforcement actions as required.

On the first question about how we ensure that the outsourced companies are able to employ workers on legitimate quotas, I think that is part of the broader set of enforcement work that MOM does for all companies that utilises work permits.

What we work with, the platform operators – is to also ensure that when they onboard any of these outsourced workers onto their app system, for example, there are two modes of engagement. Some operators onboard some of these outsource workers, local and foreign, onto the app system. When they do so, these operators usually check whether the outsourced worker has a legitimate work permit, because they are given work passes, so this will be the background checks that the operator must do before they onboard the worker onto their system. If the company does lay off this worker, then that worker must be taken off their app system.

The other model of engagement is where there is a direct B2B outsourcing of jobs, so it could be in bulk, where they give 100 jobs away to a logistics company to decide how the company wants to allocate to their own workforce. In that situation, the company performs just like any other logistics companies that receive a bulk order of work from another third party, and they decide who among their workers would carry out this 100 jobs, because these workers are already paid a fixed monthly salary. It is up to the company, who has received those outsourced work, to decide how to allocate work amongst their workforce, whether it is local or foreign. So, that kind of enforcement actions that we take on any company that hire work permit holders will continue to be enforced, as part of MOM's regular operations.

The second question about whether the payment is through to the outsource worker is on a per job basis or not, I think that has got to do with how the outsourcing company deals with their workers. As I have said, these workers are employed on a work contract. They have an employment contract that stipulates their monthly salary. So, if the foreign workers who are supposed to be paid on contractual terms, are not paid as such, but are given on a piecemeal basis, just like a platform worker, then we have to encourage them to whistle-blow, so we will investigate whether there is a violation of contractual agreement between the outsourcing company and their employed foreign workers. Generally, the platform operators, they do not pay on a per piece basis, per job basis to the foreign workers, because it is outsourced to a company, so it is a B2B arrangement and the payment to the foreign worker, if so engaged in outsourced work, is by the parent company and not by the platform operator, so that is what we understand the landscape to be. I hope that clarifies the Member's concerns.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State for his replies. Sir, my questions are specific to local food delivery riders. Does the Ministry intend to track the number of foreigners who are in the food delivery space, by virtue of MOM allowing platform operators to engage third party entities to fulfil, for example, surge demands? That is one reason why MOM allows some of these companies to operate in this space, as I understand. And if so, is the Ministry intending to track these figures more closely and can it share the number of individuals in this space, compared to Singaporeans and PRs?

Secondly, I refer to the recommendations of the Platform Workers Trilateral Group that the Senior Minister of State referred to on 11 September. In one of the recommendations, it advises platform operators to conduct audits of all outsourced workers and to share the work pass documentation of outsourced workers with the Ministry, when the Ministry asks for the information. Does the Minister not believe that this recommendation may be too passive and gives the platform operators too much flexibility, in view of the highly dynamic nature of the platform space? Should platform operators not be required to submit these details more proactively, so that the Government can move swiftly to protect the livelihoods of local workers, should such submissions reveal that platform workers are getting crowded out of the marketplace, as a result of the algorithms and policies of the platform operators?

Thirdly, and finally, Mr Speaker, MOM has shared, and as the Senior Minister of State shared, that since July this year, it checked 644 platform workers in more than 30 hotspots and found that only four were working illegally. Can the Senior Minister of State share how many infringements of foreigners undertaking platform work were reported by platform workers before July, and separately, how many enforcement actions of this scale reported were carried out prior to July this year? And more generally, does the Senior Minister of State believe that MOM's enforcement capacity may need to be increased in this regard to protect the platform workers in Singapore?

Sir, I thank the Leader of Opposition for his clarification questions. On his first question on the local food delivery workers and whether we track the number of foreigners who are from the outsource companies performing this work, operationally it will be quite difficult to track the numbers, because the outsourcing of work from platform operator to a third party logistics company is a B2B arrangement, and it could be dynamic. They can change a partner or how they want to outsource the work on a month-to-month, maybe on a year-to-year basis. So, it is difficult to, at any point in time, have a very accurate sizing and it will increase a lot of administrative burdens on companies to report any change in their contractual agreements as they perform their work.

The second thing is that many of these platform operators actually also have arrangements with the outsource companies to stipulate that, where possible, the work that has been outsourced to them should be performed by Singaporeans or PRs within their company, rather than have a foreign worker engaged by them to do the work, as far as possible. But if they are actual labour constraints by the third party companies, then they may have no choice but to have some of the work to be performed by their legitimate work pass holders.

I would say, operationally, we leave it to the companies to do what is right. Also, in this food delivery scene, there are companies – restaurants, for example, fast food chains – who also legitimately employ foreigners under their work quotas to do their delivery, so I think this is a very variegated landscape. What it needs to do is to allow the companies to make some decisions that allows efficiency of service, that brings benefits both to the company and to the consumers, so that the actual services can be delivered in a timely fashion as far as food orders are concerned.

In terms of the second question about outsourcing, Speaker, Sir, if you do not mind, can Mr Singh restate that question, because it was a long question.

Mr Singh, go ahead.

Obliged, Mr Speaker. My second question was specific to one of the recommendations of the Platform Workers Trilateral Group, which advised platform operators to conduct audits of all outsourced workers and to share the work pass documentation of outsourced workers with the Ministry.

I do not mean to add on to this question, but in view of the Senior Minister of State's reply, because of these submission requirements or tracking requirements, does the Minister not agree that it would be possible to have some sense of how many foreigners are operating in this space, since the Platform Workers Trilateral Group does envisage the submission of details, which can reflect what is the footprint of foreigners in this space?

Sir, I thank the Member for his clarification. I understand where he is coming from. I think that what we want to achieve, at the end of the day, is to make sure that those who are participating in platform work are Singaporeans and PRs. As little as possible, in fact, we should try and deter as many of these foreigners from doing so illegally, so there are various ways to do this. We could do it in a way that imposes a lot of onerous demands on companies and workers, or we could do in a way that solves the problem without increasing the burden on the stakeholders.

One of the ways in which our recommendation works is to ask the operators now to go more upstream and do facial verification of workers who are engaging in platform work. As they turn on the apps, as many of the operators do require this, at the onboarding stage when the person signs on to an account, to have facial verification and the identity, so that we know that the account actually belongs to someone with a proper reason to hold the account, a Singaporean or a PR.

And subsequently, on receiving orders for the day, that means when they start the shift for the day, having had the account when they start the shift, there is usually a verification of facial features to make sure that the account holder and the face matches, and there is now a commitment to do more random orders through the day as the shift progresses, to randomly throw in the need for the user of the account to then take off the helmet, take off the glasses and then do another facial scan. It is a live scan that requires the individual to do it in a 3D way, so the person cannot circumvent by uploading a picture, for example. And I think with this, it would be a strong deterrence for a non-legitimate user to use a registered person's account.

And if there were suspicious activities being detected by the operator, the operators are now committed to notifying MOM of a suspicious activity of a particular individual, so that with the notification, MOM can conduct an investigation on that particular account and the individual, and then if it is found that this individual has misused his account and say, rented it out or given it to an illegitimate user, like a foreigner, we will then take necessary penalty actions, as I have laid out in my reply earlier – to take this person to task for a violation of Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.

And if this is established as a violation, we now will take the effort to notify all other platform operators about this particular individual, if he does have an account with another platform, and they will all undertake a minimum debarment of 24 months to kick the person out of the platform system and at the same time, prevent him, even if he has not registered an account with other platforms, to permanently blacklist him from ever registering another account, with another alternate operator.

So, we close the loophole to prevent someone who has misused one account on one platform from being present in other platforms. In that way, it is a strong deterrent signal, both from the legal penalty under Employment of Foreign Manpower Act and also from the practicalities of denying him the access to this platform workspace.

That is something that I think we are committed to do and I think this will reduce the administrative burdens on companies – and also on us, to ask them to keep submitting their workforce that they have employed on the legitimate work pass. As I said earlier, even if a third party logistics company employs foreign workers, they may not all be deployed to engage in platform work, so there will be a lot of abortive work and excessive work that is done for us to collect the data, which may not really lead to the outcome that we want. What we want is to catch people who are using this illegally.

On the other hand, there could well be companies that may have received a small number of outsource work, for which none of it goes to the foreigners that are in their company. To require them to submit information, which is ahead of time, and not really of workers that are involved in platform work, would be a lot of extra work for the companies involved. Many of these are also small companies, so we have to take a very balanced view on how legislation will impact the burden on companies.

On the Member's third question of the 644 workers that we have checked during our enforcement actions, we found about four who are foreigners. I do not have the record on what was the previous enforcement actions and the numbers we found. But in general on an annual basis, we do receive some complaints from either the members of the public or from NDCA. If I remember correctly, the number is about maybe 70-over complaints a year. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Manpower", Official Report, 26 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 6, Clarification section.]

And generally, the enforcement actions, when we investigate on these complaints, as what our current 644 enforcement actions have shown, the numbers are very small. Eventually, the numbers that are found to be actually illegal are also a very small percentage of those complaints that we received in the years past.

But the intensive action that we took the last few months with 644 workers checked, probably gives a more accurate reflection of the realities on the ground, because these hotspots are identified by platform workers themselves, who, through their observations, seem to observe more foreigners present in these hotspots. And it was through intel provided by NDCA and by workers on the ground that we identified where the hotspots are. We go there at the peak hours, where people had observed a lot more foreigners congregating there. Even with that intensive operation, at hotspots that are identified by workers on the ground, the number, as I showed earlier, is four out of 644.

But I must also caution that excessive so-called enforcement action has a side effect as well, because to enforce this thing at hotspots, we go there at peak hours where there is a huge crowd of workers trying to get through the day's work, especially say, over lunch time. Each check will require the worker to take off his helmet, his balaclava, his face mask, his sunshades and show the Singpass, show his app, look at what was on the platform app and on the Singpass. It takes probably close to 10 minutes or so. In that process, there is a bottleneck created, the rest of the workers cannot go, they have to wait until we check through all of them before they can go ahead and do their delivery. So, there is a problem with them meeting their delivery timelines and the consumers at the other end waiting for the food to arrive will also have delays receiving their food. So, there is a cost that the system has to bear and a lot of inconvenience for the workers themselves and to the consumers.

So, we have to take a very balanced and calibrated approach. What is more sustainable to do this, is what I described earlier, for the operators to go more upstream, to do more frequent random facial verification through the day – so that if the illegal usage of the account does happen frequent enough, they will be flagged up by some of these random checks as red flags and to point out suspicious activities happening on a particular account to allow us to take more targeted actions to investigate that particular account and take the person to task.

I hope that gives Members a sense of where the effort of enforcement is to make it sustainable for the system as a whole, to reduce demands on the operators and the third party logistics companies, while sending a strong signal to deter illegal users from using the accounts.

One short supplementary question. Mr Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the extended reply by the Senior Minister of State. I think for the very reason the Senior Minister of State suggests, enforcement can also be very intensed on the platform worker. I would, if I can advance an idea, that the second supplementary question I asked with regard to giving us a sense of what is the landscape like with regard to outsourced workers in the food delivery space, I think the reporting requirement does not have to be monthly or even quarterly, but at least year on year. There has to be some idea for the public to understand how many foreigners are operating in this space or potentially can be operating in this space. I think that would be helpful, because if the number is minimal, for example, to address surge, then from a behavioural perspective, I think platform workers will also be more receptive to understand that the Ministry has got a handle on this issue and it is prepared to look into the prospect of too many foreigners potentially being in this space.

Sir, I would say it is more of a practical consideration. The outsourcing is not limited to a fixed number of companies. The outsourcing can be any company in the logistics sector and that can span thousands of companies. And each of them can employ a certain variable amount of foreign workers based on their quota.

And if we were to check it, say, on a once a year basis, or submit on once a year basis, the contracting relationship could change several times in a year and what you get as a snapshot in time on a yearly basis will not reflect the relationship that happens in a dynamic fashion, because this is a very fast moving space. As different demand surfaces in different parts of Singapore, the operator may have to bring in more operators for a surge period of time at peak seasons of the year, for example, and then, maybe let go of that contract. And it can be a two-month arrangement, three-month arrangement. So, the dynamism of it will make that annual aggregation of information not very useful in terms of enforcement.

So, to create assurance for our platform workers, I think what we want to do is to reassure them that operators will do more random, frequent facial verification checks. And we will also undertake more stiff penalties for those who are found to be violating the use of their accounts in a legitimate way. And as we catch those, we will publicise them and signal to them that this is something that we will take very tough actions on to send a strong deterrent signal.

We will commit to working closely, at MOM and NDCA, so that the NDCA, with their fleet of workers that are already working regularly on a day-to-day basis on the ground, can be our eyes and ears to highlight to us where the hotspots are. If they do see suspicious activities, our commitment to NDCA is we will work closely with them to undertake any enforcement actions as necessary on the ground, so that our presence on the ground will send, hopefully, a strong signal to not just the illegal workers, but also a measure of support to our delivery champions out there that their feedback are taken seriously, and if they have concerns, we will also deal with them on a timely manner.

14 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why is the classification of etomidate as a Class C drug only a temporary measure from 1 September 2025 to 28 February 2026; and (b) what are the considerations in extending this measure or making it permanent.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) takes the decision to list a substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) very seriously, because of the heavy penalties that are imposed under the MDA. Every candidate substance is carefully evaluated and there must be robust scientific evidence of significant harm and addictiveness before we will list it. We also take reference from the drugs listed under the United Nations (UN) Drug Conventions.

Given that the abuse of etomidate is a relatively recent development, there is insufficient evidence of its long-term addictiveness for now. It has not been proscribed as a controlled drug under the UN Drug Conventions.

However, as the etomidate situation was deemed urgent, the Government decided to temporarily list it under the MDA to enhance the legislative powers available for enforcement and rehabilitation, pending the Ministry of Health strengthening its legislation to deal with vapes, including those with more harmful substances like etomidate.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Thank you. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, what are the known adverse effects of etomidate? And certain places – China, Hong Kong, Taiwan – have listed it as a drug. I take Senior Minister of State's point that this is not yet listed by the UN. But does the Senior Minister of State think that we would need a more flexible system to classify as drugs those that have serious adverse effects, but for which the long-term impact may not yet have been studied?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Essentially, as I shared earlier, there is no robust scientific evidence of its significant harm and addictiveness yet. Essentially, for the harms with regard to its effects, you can term it as psychiatric effects, very serious psychiatric effects like feeling suicidal; and also there are physical effects, like the feeling of confusion, loss of consciousness, uncontrolled movement and disruption of vital body functions, for example, irregular heart rhythms, abnormal blood pressure, breathing difficulties and hormone imbalances; and some can be very fatal.

What we do is, for the psychoactive effects, for example, we have amended the MDA. But for some of these below-the-threshold, we continue to look at it, we work with our counterparts overseas and also, we find opportunities to see how they can also share with us some evidence.

Because MDA also results in serious enforcement and also some of the legislative levers that we can use. So, we have to be very sure and also we need to make sure that it is backed by robust scientific evidence.

But I take the Member's feedback. With the recent advent of substances like etomidate, certainly the landscape would be changing. And with vapes coming on board, it is something that we will certainly discuss with our counterparts and see how we can not only have that evidence, but also look at how we can stay relevant in the current context.

15 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there are updates in the Government’s clean energy solutions from the Pulau Ubin Micro-Grid test bed; (b) whether the Government is considering additional measures to lower electricity tariff charges for Pulau Ubin residents and business owners who are mostly the elderly; and (c) whether offering the regulated SP Electricity Tariff will be an option for Pulau Ubin residents.

Mr Speaker, there are around 60 residential and business consumers on Pulau Ubin, and their annual electricity demand is small. At the moment, it is not cost effective to connect Pulau Ubin to the mainland grid. Since 2013, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) has worked with developers to deploy a micro-grid on Pulau Ubin. This micro-grid is currently run by EDP Renewables, and serves more than 30 residential and business consumers located at the main village.

Consumers purchase electricity from the micro-grid at a rate that is lower than the cost of using their own diesel generators. Residents may approach the relevant agencies to understand their eligibility for financial assistance.

Ms Lee.

I thank the Minister of State for shedding some light to the situation there, I have four supplementary questions to ask. What has been the frequency of outages for the micro-grid? When I am on the island chatting with them, they do share that they will request for compensation as outages damage their equipment, so I am concerned about inconveniences and the unseen costs that they might incur.

I understand that there is no change in stance in trying to reduce electricity tariff there, so I understand 80 cents per kilowatt hours is fixed all the way to 2034, as reported in The Straits Times last year, which is a long time. Price changes require the approval from EMA. What is the mechanism for these tariff changes? When will it be triggered or reviewed? The SP electricity tariff, as we know, is done every quarter. I am concerned that they might not have an equitable tariff adjustment mechanism.

The third is, is there an exit clause in this arrangement without termination penalties? I am concerned they might be penalised should they want to get out of this arrangement.

And the last question, probably a bit more technical, but could the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and EMA consider using the framework of how the uniform Singapore electricity price is calculated based on a weighted average of all offtake modal prices, that considers many variables for residents and business owners on Ubin? Because as rightly pointed out, it is almost negligible in the whole system demand of things. I am concerned that they might be the only residents in the whole country who do not have a fair price to essential services like electricity.

I thank Ms Valerie Lee for her supplementary questions. First of all, I would like to emphasise that the Pulau Ubin micro-grid users are already paying a lower electricity rate compared to the actual operating cost of this micro-grid. And it is also lower than most other non-micro-grid users on Pulau Ubin, who are relying on diesel generators.

It is true that the micro-grid electricity consumers are paying 80 cents per kilowatt hour. This is largely determined based on the cost of generating electricity using the micro-grid. We are reviewing this and we do hope that there will be newer technologies to help generate electricity for the Pulau Ubin micro-grid at a lower cost. In the meantime, if there are households, especially those who are vulnerable or elderly who have difficulty paying the electricity bills, we will be very glad to work with Ms Valerie Lee, as well as the residents, to look at how we can provide some financial relief for them.

I think we also have to take a step back at this point to look at pricing of services and goods on Pulau Ubin. There is a very different treatment from mainland users who are using the SP grid. For example, car owners on Pulau Ubin, they do not pay the Certificate of Entitlement and also for those who are drawing water from the wells, they do not pay water bills. So, I think it is a bit difficult for us to just simply look at one piece of the cost of living issues and use that to determine then what we should do in terms of equalising the electricity tariff for the residents and the business consumers on Pulau Ubin.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bill. Acting Minister for Transport.

[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.]

[(proc text) "to amend certain Acts relating to land transport and sea transport, and to make a related amendment to the Public Utilities Act 2001", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai) on behalf of the Acting Minister for Transport, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [22 September 2025]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)]

[(proc text) 'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Sharael Taha] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Ms Poh Li San.

Mr Speaker, today is possibly the best of times for young Singaporeans. They have more computing power in their handphones than many of us have had in our personal computers. Growing up, they are well-educated, well-travelled, healthy and likely to live till their mid to late 80s. Meantime, the country is stable and prosperous.

Our reserves and income generated from our investments mean that the majority of Singaporeans do not pay income tax. Income inequality has fallen. We are investing heavily in infrastructure, including in homes and hospitals. At the same time, the world is being remade, today is possibly the most uncertain and fragile of times. Unforeseen, perhaps in nature and direction of change but certainly in speed and in belligerence.

Today can also seem like the worst of times, with rising costs, lower job security and continuing uncertainty. We are not going back to the golden age of globalisation but Singapore and young Singaporeans can continue to flourish and prosper if we take the right steps now – and we have to do it now.

Today, I would like to speak up for my young residents as well as young jobseekers nationwide. They are coming of age in a weak market. They face great difficulties in securing jobs. Like all of us, they suffer from the economic uncertainties following the American tariff announcements.

If the economy goes into recession for a protracted period, it could result in a generation stuck in a cycle of unemployment, career frustration and lost opportunities, or we can turn this crisis into an opportunity for young people by creating new roles in the economy.

Mr Speaker, Singapore is not alone in experiencing economic shocks. In the United States (US), the unemployment rate for recent university graduates reached what 5.8% in March 2025, up from 4.6% the same time a year ago according to an April report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Job postings are down 15% or the number of applications has risen by 30%. In the United Kingdom (UK), graduate job postings are down 33% year on year, the lowest in seven years. Closer to home in South Korea, graduates now take an average of 14 months to secure their first job, the longest on record, about 30% remain unemployed a year after graduation.

In Singapore, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) released unemployment data. Most recently, on 27 June 2025, the resident unemployment rate increased from 1.9% at the end of 2024 to 2.0% at the end of first quarter 2025, according to the 2024 graduate employment survey, full-time employment rate fell to 79.5% from 84.1% in 2023. Entry level job postings on one listing platform declined by 19% between January and April 2025, compared to the same period in 2024 and this marks the third consecutive year of decline.

We are in the calm before the storm ahead during my house visits and walkabouts. I spoke with many young undergraduates facing difficulties getting internships. University and polytechnic graduates had sent up more than 100 resumes but still they cannot secure a job offer. I hear their struggles and concerns especially those from less well-off families who need to contribute to family expenses and pay off their study loans. Also, from my discussions with human resources (HR) professionals and from recruitment firms feedback many companies are freezing headcounts. Employers, including government agencies, are offering only one- to two-year contract roles, not permanent roles.

That is the nature of the market now. What more can we do to help the jobseekers? I want to talk about a very specific plug-in that will allow young Singaporeans to meet an immediate and tangible need.

At the recent Institute of Policy Studies and Singapore Business Federation (IPS-SBF) conference, Prime Minister Wong said that "Singapore will have to put more thought into helping businesses, especially smaller ones, harness the use of artificial intelligence in their work processes." Artificial intelligence (AI) is now a general-purpose tool, powerful and highly accessible. However, the bottleneck is not in the availability of AI as a resource but in corporate attention.

The problem is that many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) wish to transform their businesses but they are not familiar with AI tools available and they do not have the funds to hire consultants. My proposal is for the Government to provide funding, train up young people with AI tools that will help businesses reduce costs, automate work processes and increase their marketing efforts to drive sales.

Today, there are already AI tools that can help businesses achieve these objectives. What our SMEs need are young people who are digital natives and adept in this AI tools to reduce repetitive manual work and boost efficiencies in their businesses and operations. This AI change agents could undertake a project-based assignment to help companies. They can introduce AI tools into their systems and work processes. They could customise the AI tools according to the nature of the business and the goals set by the management team.

Upon the completion of the assignment and armed with the implementation experience, they can then move on to another company to help the next company with similar AI driven transition and transformation. Alternatively, if the companies find the young change agents valuable to their businesses, they may go on to hire them and perhaps as their in-house AI officers together. The AI change agents and SMEs can create a win-win collaboration and drive an AI powered business transformation in our SMEs. Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] During my house visits and walkabouts to meet residents, I spoke with many young undergraduates facing difficulties getting internships. In fact, there are university and polytechnic graduates who sent more than 100 resumes but were still unable to secure any job offer.

I hear their struggles and concerns, especially those from less well-off families, who need to contribute to family expenses and pay off their study loans. However, this crisis can be seen as an opportunity. Young people trained in using artificial intelligence (AI) tools can help to digitise and automate many company processes. They can help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) improve their business costs, enhance their marketing and increase their revenue.

Therefore, may I propose for the Government to fund the AI Traineeship Programme. By funding the AI courses and supporting the hiring of young people as AI Change Agents by the SMEs, the Government can catalyse SMEs business transformation and strengthen our country's economic competitiveness.

(In English): It has been almost six months since the "Liberation Day" tariff announcement. We need partners to do this quickly and effectively and so I offer a simple sketch of this scheme which I call which I call "AI traineeship". I should clarify that the AI traineeship is different from the GRaduate Industry Traineeship that was announced by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at the National Day Rally. It is also different from Infocomm Media Development Authority’s (IMDA’s) company-led training, which has included generative AI (gen AI) technical skills and competencies for AI users and practitioners. First, we start with a small group of 1,000 jobseekers. The National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) can work with AI training companies and run training courses for this 1,000 batches. It will typically take two to four weeks to master this AI tools.

Thereafter, e2i will match this trained AI change agents to SMEs who are keen to automate their business processes. The Government will then fund e2i to run these courses. There are more than 200,000 SMEs in Singapore so we should start with the medium enterprises in the manufacturing industry which may be most impacted by the American tariff hikes.

Enterprise Singapore could work with SMEs and business groups to seek companies keen to join this programme. I propose that Enterprise Singapore subsidise 70% to 80% of the salaries of the AI change agents for up to six months and if the companies decide to convert them to become permanent staff, then Enterprise Singapore could fund 50% to 60% of their salaries for up to a year.

In Sembawang West, I have started a pilot programme working with e2i and AI training companies with the relevant business AI tools. We plan to start the first run in the next few weeks for young jobseekers, keen to equip themselves with new AI skills. Meantime, we are also in early discussion with Singapore Manufacturing Federation and food manufacturing companies in the Woodlands Industrial area, situated next to my constituency.

We hope to shortlist these companies and others who are keen to hire these AI change agents as our ground-up initiative. After one or two successful pilots, we can consider scaling this up at the national level. The Enterprise Singapore could work with more business groups, like the SBF, Singapore Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to extend this programme to more medium enterprises in other industries and maybe even the small enterprises. I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Manpower to consider this proposal and allocate funding to e2i and Enterprise Singapore for this AI Traineeship scheme. Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The world is being disrupted severely by geopolitical tensions, US tariffs and the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Many businesses are holding back hiring because of uncertainties. Hence, young graduates are unable to find jobs in this soft market.

I propose for the Government to turn this crisis into opportunity. Young people trained in using AI tools to digitise and automate many administrative processes, can help SMEs improve their business costs, expand marketing and increase their revenue. The Government can catalyse the business transformation by funding the AI courses and hiring of these young AI Change Agents by the SMEs.

I hope the Government will consider carefully my proposal for this win-win collaboration, that will strengthen our SMEs and equip our young people with practical AI skill sets.

(In English): We need to move quickly on this scheme so that young people do not lose more time looking for jobs. Otherwise, it will become even harder when later cohorts join the workforce. The last recession was in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our Government responded swiftly and decisively, using our Reserves to cushion impact on jobs and livelihood with the Job Support Scheme and the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Schemes. It is a different world now with the advent of AI and we should make the best use of these opportunities.

Mr Speaker, I must stress that these AI change agents are not an additional headcount for small companies. They do the traditional core functions of marketing, administration and corporate planning. But now, they are supercharged with the power of AI. So, this training scheme is not a way to disguise unemployment or to provide a temporary band aid. It is to perform a vital function – to jumpstart a structural transformation of our economy.

I would like to share some wise words by Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong. In a recent forum with National University of Singapore students, Senior Minister Lee warned young people of the challenges coming their way. Even as they could take advantage of AI and better education, they had to be, "prepared psychologically for things which human beings do to one another, like great rivalry in power and things which human beings do to the world, such as global warming. You did not live through the founding crisis of Singapore. But your challenges will come."

Mr Speaker, our challenge has come. As the Senior Minister said, "In 60 years, we have become progressively one people – not complete, not permanent – but much more than before. And therefore, able to do more things and deal with more crises than we would have been able to do 30 or 40 years ago."

This is indeed an uncertain, tumultuous time. But in some ways, the best of times. Our young people are hungry, our companies are ready and if we can design the policy well, the time is now. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President for his address at the Opening of the 15th Parliament. This is a year of uncertainty for workers. Over the past few days, my Labour Movement Parliamentary colleagues have shared how global trade tensions and disruptive technologies are transforming the workforce, workplaces and the future of work.

At NTUC, we have heard the anxieties of young graduates as AI accelerates the shrinking of entry-level jobs. We have supported the upskilling and career transition aspirations of the mid-career workers and we have championed the platform worker's rights to work injury compensation and even Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions.

As the economy evolves, we must continue to stand in solidarity with our workers and equip them with the skills and protections they need to succeed. Because when workers succeed, Singapore succeeds. To this end, I will focus my speech on three priorities for the next bound of workforce development, or what I call the three "Ses" – supporting Singaporeans, strengthening the Singaporean Core and a skills-first Singapore.

The first "S" in my speech is supporting Singaporeans. According to the World Economic Forum's 2025 Future of Jobs Report, globally, 92 million of all current jobs will be displaced in the next five years. At the same time, 170 million new jobs will be created, resulting in a net growth of 78 million jobs. This is attributed to drivers, such as the race towards renewable energy and AI, which have already been cited by major companies for mass retrenchment exercises both globally and in Singapore.

Gen AI especially has the potential to displace entry-level knowledge work by automating mundane or repetitive tasks, which will significantly impact Singapore's knowledge-based workforce, unlike earlier waves of automation that primarily displaced manual work. The same report found that, on average, workers can expect that two-fifths of their existing skillsets be transformed or become outdated by 2030. The hard truth is that previously secure jobs and valued skills will become obsolete. Workers cannot remain stagnant and expect to still compete.

AI should break and not build barriers. In every challenge lies opportunity for those who choose to meet it. Renewable energy and the generative cognitive AI are generation-defining technologies that can not only create new jobs but make them better and better-paying. By supporting workers' learning and upskilling ambitions, businesses and the economy also benefit from more growth and a more skilled workforce.

To ensure no worker is left behind in the adoption of new technologies, we must commit to a Just Transition that prioritises the re-skilling and re-deployment of workers. If you recall the old adage: it is learn, work and retire. But today, it is no longer that. It is learn, work; learn, work; learn, work; and maybe retire. The Labour Movement has persistently advocated for training allowance and subsidies for a second degree or diploma for mid-career and older workers who may be more vulnerable to skills obsolescence, financial support for the involuntarily unemployed to help them bounce back from employment setbacks and, most recently, Government-funded traineeship and apprenticeship opportunities for young graduates to strengthen their employability. I am heartened that the Government has answered our calls with the launch of the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, Jobseeker Support Scheme and the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme.

In NTUC's 2025 Survey on Economic Sentiments, one-third of over 2,000 workers expressed concerns about losing their jobs or not having their contracts renewed in the next three months. On the ground, I have also heard the anxieties and frustrations of young graduates and involuntarily unemployed jobseekers who have not been able to find jobs after sending out hundreds of applications despite having good diplomas and degrees.

I, therefore, continue to call on the Government to consider three policy moves.

First, extending the Jobseeker Support Scheme eligibility to involuntarily unemployed professionals, managers and executives (PMEs), especially those earning above the current $5,000 salary threshold imposed by the Scheme, so that the majority of the more than 43% of resident PMEs can benefit.

Second, taking stronger action alongside unions against errant employers who do not practice fair and responsible retrenchment practices, as we have seen in the recent spate of retrenchments.

Third, incentivising companies that hire first-time workers for full-time positions, similar to the Jobs Growth Incentive launched during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Considering the scale and speed of AI's impact on the workforce, I also ask that the Government consider forming a Tripartite Workgroup on Safeguarding Workers in the Age of AI to encourage companies to adopt Just Transition practices, prevent algorithmic discrimination and ensure responsible use of AI-powered human resources (HR) tools. I thank the Government, also, for hearing my call for a review of the Employment Act through a Tripartite Workgroup, recently formed, and to keep pace with rising median wages and evolving nature of work. I opine that the Employment Act should cover more PMEs by raising both the salary caps of workmen and non-workmen, as well as providing more clarity on transfers that impact workers affected by ongoing company restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, and require employers to give explicit reasons for termination or discontinuation of employment initiated by the employer upon the request of the employee.

During this time of uncertainty, I encourage our workers to adopt a mindset of resilience and adaptability, to find strength in numbers and collective action. This is not the first time new technologies have disrupted the workforce, nor will it be the last. As with each economic wave and transition, NTUC and our unions stand ready to support our workers.

The second "S" is strengthening the Singaporean Core. Since my maiden speech in this House in 2011, I have persistently advocated for strengthening the Singaporean Core, especially for our local PMEs, who face increasing competition with foreign PMEs. Over the past decade, I have advocated for a compendium of measures to level the playing field for our local PMEs, including the Workplace Fairness Act, which protects workers against the most common types of workplace discrimination, including age and nationality; a foreign PME dependency ratio; stricter Employment Pass (EP) application conditions and continuous enhancements to the Fair Consideration Framework and many others.

These protections are important and we should regularly review it. A strong Singaporean Core must therefore be a Singaporean-led core. This means building up our local bench strength through investments in local talent pipelines to set Singaporeans up for senior and leadership positions before turning abroad and facilitating knowledge and skills transfer. We cannot assume that if we grow the pie, Singaporeans will naturally get their share. There must be a concerted effort to encourage companies, especially our multinationals, to groom our local PMEs as part of their leadership identification and developmental process, improve HR standards and practices to ensure compliance with fair employment practices and Tripartite Guidelines, and encourage workers to step-up and step forward for opportunities to relocate for greater international exposure.

After years of lobbying, I am glad more resources will be set aside for schemes that groom Singaporean workers by sending them for overseas work postings, such as the Overseas Market Immersion Programme. I hope the Government will consider extending these opportunities to more Singaporean workers and adopting new levers to improve reciprocity between multinational corporations (MNCs) and our local PMEs. For example, the proportion of Singaporeans in management positions could be a bonus criterion incorporated into the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) for EP applications. Companies that have a highly disproportionate number of foreign PMEs and weak commitment to nurturing local talent pipelines can also be closely monitored. If no improvement is made within a certain time period, the Government can consider even removing preferential tax and other benefits, such as the award of public sector contracts. Even the US is also mulling over imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications.

HR professionals play a key role in fostering fair and progressive workplaces that attract, develop and retain top talent. I, therefore, submit that the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) certification, which equips HR practitioners with essential competencies in workforce planning and regulatory compliance, be made mandatory for all companies. This is especially critical for MNCs employing foreign HR practitioners who operate within Singapore and help them better understand our tripartite industrial relations framework. To date, over 9,000 HR practitioners have attained the IHRP certification. More widespread certification adoption will be better and will position our HR practitioners to deepen their capabilities and signal a commitment to professional excellence.

To be clear, a Singaporean Core does not mean closing doors to foreign PMEs who can help fill critical skill gaps and support sectors facing labour shortage. It is about building a more competitive economy that is less reliant on external labour and nurturing the next generation of Singaporean leaders. It is about ensuring that Singaporean workers who work hard and can contribute can afford a good life in Singapore, for themselves and their families, in the only home they have.

Third and final "S" is a skills-first Singapore. Today, disruptive technologies, like Gen AI and new work trends, including the rise of gig work, freelancing, remote work and side hustles have transformed how we traditionally define and plan a career. Instead of a linear progression within a single organisation, more are embracing flexible journeys defined by adaptability, continuous learning and the ability to move across job functions and industries.

Job instability and career transitions are increasingly commonplace, but so are building portfolio careers, pursuing passion-driven pathways and going back to school for reskilling. This means more voluntary underemployment, but also more involuntary underemployment, an issue NTUC has been studying very, very closely and examining the past decade. A two-year research study in collaboration with the Singapore University of Technology and Design on underemployment, especially involuntary skills-jobs mismatch, where workers are unhappily overskilled for their current jobs, will be completing soon, and we will share more in due course.

Against this evolving landscape, diplomas and degrees can no longer act as a proxy for competency. According to a Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies study released in 2024, higher levels of education do not always equate to better skills and knowledge. Earlier data from LinkedIn in 2021 also revealed that employers in Singapore preferred to hire candidates with technical skills and transferable skills over traditional qualifications, such as education and minimum years of experience.

At this 10-year mark since the launch of SkillsFuture, I, therefore, submit that it is timely to review Singapore's continuing education and training (CET) framework and system for the next bound of workforce development using a skills-first approach. Skills-first refers to a paradigm shift that prioritises skills and competencies over degrees and diplomas. In real-world terms, this means that a student majoring in history, for example, but who has demonstrated coding skills through relevant work experience or winning hackathons should feel confident in applying for an entry-level programmer position. It also means that two workers who are equally skilled, equally knowledgeable and demonstrate good work performance should receive equal opportunities to advance in their career, regardless of whether one worker holds a diploma and the other has a degree.

A skills-first economy, therefore, holds powerful potential for the inclusion of non-traditional learners who acquired skills through experience and expanding individuals' career pathways beyond the scope of their formal qualifications. It supports caregivers, older workers, persons with disabilities, young graduates and freelancers or self-employed persons in asserting the value of their labour, thereby also allowing employers to tap on a wider talent pool.

For this idea to take flight, however, requires the buy-in of all stakeholders across the workforce development ecosystem. The Government will need to create robust and integrated frameworks for credible skills accreditation and transferability across institutions and industries. Career Conversion Programmes should be expanded to cover more sectors and industries to become more relevant to PMEs. The Public Service will also need to lead by example in implementing skills-based hiring and progression.

Employers will need to adopt progressive practices, such as listing the necessary skills required in job descriptions, on top of formal qualifications and taking skill certifications, testimonials, performance appraisals, awards and leadership experiences outside of work into consideration for progression. Where relevant and when it does not affect employers' economic interests, employers should not punish the industrious and passionate pursuit of "hobby jobs" and "side hustles" as moonlighting.

Schools and Institutes of Higher Learning will need to adapt their curricula to raise students' curiosity, confidence and creativity in exploring diverse ways of learning and working. The arts must be as well-funded as the sciences, we need to go beyond STEM to STEAM. Students must spend as much time in industry and community as they do in classrooms and lecture halls. And most importantly, workers will need to be open to learning new skills and exploring new interests, fail and try again.

In 2024, over 60% of Singaporean resident workers had tertiary qualifications and over 40% had degrees. Yet in the same year, Singapore's training participation rate fell to a nine-year low of about 40%. Unlike other countries, where unions often must lobby for uneven training and upskilling opportunities, Singapore continuously doles out funding. We undoubtedly have a highly educated workforce, but does that education end when we leave school? Does a highly educated workforce equate to a highly-skilled and knowledgeable workforce? The shift towards a skills-led economy, therefore, surfaces starting points for us to boldly reimagine how we learn and work, and also why we learn and work, which lays the groundwork for more flexible and fulfilling careers.

To conclude, work is a source of and the pursuit of hope, purpose and dignity. It is what built this nation. It is the measure of our days, our connections to community. By prioritising the three "S" of supporting Singaporeans, strengthening a Singaporean Core, and a skills-first Singapore, we honour workers and commit to helping them earn a better living and live a better life. For all to train up to keep up and skill-up to move up. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Speaker, it has been four months since the last General Election (GE). As we commence this new term of Parliament, I note that there are 31 Members who are entering Parliament for the first time. I am privileged to be here for my fifth term. There are quite a few others who have been here longer, including Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his 10th term – more than 40 years. Nevertheless, I trust I may be permitted to give my personal welcome to the newly-minted Members of Parliament (MPs) from both sides of the House.

One of the themes in the President's address is about trust. Some Ministers have, in past days, also emphasised the importance of trust in institutions. Today, I wish to say a few words about trust in one of the key institutions we have – this Chamber, Parliament.

All of us here gained entry through a competitive process, that is, we contested in the recent elections to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans.

Fundamentally, party politics is a competitive process which pits one party against another. Yes, elections involve a zero-sum game: one vote for you means one less vote for me. But once the dust of elections has settled, we are entrusted to represent our constituents. How can we best do so? On a broader level, how does one measure the effectiveness of a Parliament?

To answer this question, one needs to return to the purpose of Parliament in the first place. One respected index that covers this issue is the World Justice Project. The World Justice Project compiles an index that the Singapore Government frequently cites for its high rankings of Singapore in the area of Order and Security.

To give a bit of background, the World Justice Project declares itself as an independent, multi-disciplinary organisation that seeks to advance the rule of law worldwide. The Project reviews countries around the world to assess each country's laws, institutions, norms and community commitment to the rule of law. The outcomes it is interested in centre around four principles: accountability, just law, open government and accessible and impartial justice. It believes these principles are universal. I do not think anyone in this House will disagree that these principles apply to us as well.

In assessing the state of the rule of law, the World Justice Project examines each country on various indicators. In its latest overall ranking in 2024, Singapore was ranked 16 out of 142 countries, which is, overall, respectable. When we look across the different sub-indicators for Singapore, what sticks out is that we have largely healthy scores around six out of eight indicators. The two indicators where we do not do so well are in the factors called Open Government and Constraints on Government Powers. I believe this has been our consistent scorecard from the World Justice Project for many years. Such a mixed scorecard should also come as no surprise.

In measuring Open Government, the index looks into matters, such as how much information is shared by the government with the public and whether citizens have a right to information. Open Government also measures public accountability, whether there are effective complaint mechanisms and how far the people are empowered with the tools to hold the government accountable.

As for the factor of Constraints on Government Powers, it is concerned with how far those who govern are bound by law. One key sub-indicator is whether government powers are effectively limited by the legislature. That is where Parliament comes in. On this issue, our score is not respectable. The Singapore Parliament is ranked 104 out of 142 National Parliaments. Among high income countries, we are second last. In contrast, our Courts appear to be doing well as a check on the government, being ranked 17th out of 142 countries.

Sir, I cite these rankings not as gospel truth but as a point for introspection. We should honestly examine why there is an independent, multi-disciplinary opinion that our Parliament is not effective in limiting government powers.

Of course, one likely reason is the balance in Parliament between different political parties, or should I say imbalance, with almost 90% of the seats in the hands of the ruling party. This is the result of our system design and Singaporeans' votes on Polling Day. We respect the outcome of the elections.

That said, it is a fact that in the House, the Government agenda is set by the leaders of the ruling party and party discipline demands that ruling party MPs vote in support of the Government agenda. But we should be mindful that, as MPs, our overriding duty is not to our parties, but to Singaporeans. Regardless of our affiliation, we have a duty to speak for our constituents and ensure that this Chamber works for them. This means questioning the Government and holding it to account, rigorously, if necessary.

On the Government's part, it should always demonstrate that it is sharing as much information as possible in the House. And in the long run, it is Singaporeans who need to decide if the balance of power in the House should be changed.

On our part as opposition MPs, we are expected to take an independent line, question the Government and vote against proposals when we deem it necessary. Speaking from experience, this is not easy, especially when one is surrounded and vastly outnumbered. But that is our obligation and that is what voters expect us to do. We will play our part to build a Parliament that the people trust. We are cautiously optimistic that our Parliamentary system has potential to do better.

Sir, earlier this month, I had the privilege of attending a parliamentary sitting in the United Kingdom (UK), in the House of Commons in Westminster. Many of us would have seen television footage of somewhat rowdy sessions from the UK Parliament and strong exchanges between opposite benches. But I realise, now, that such scenes do not tell the whole story. What I saw that day was a Minister from the Labour government painstakingly explaining an urgent matter that had just taken place over the weekend in London – how the British police had upheld democratic values while policing a mass protest over the situation in Gaza.

What was more striking to me was the response of the Shadow Minister from the Conservative Party. He rose to ask for an assurance from his political opponent – the Minister – stating that if that particular Minister gave the assurance, he would accept it. That moment set me thinking hard. Political competitors, yet able to give each other some credit and credibility.

That is my hope for our Parliament, too. Politics is competitive, but why are we in this? I would like to believe that the main motivation is a calling to serve the public in elected office, a calling that is most meaningful and noble. In this term of Parliament, I hope we can build trust in the House as well. At the very minimum, we should remember that all colleagues here are fellow Singaporeans who have made a choice to leave our comfort zones to take up national office. Let us start from a position that a fellow MP has a good motivation, though we may disagree with the position he or she is taking and should take the issue on. If we can do that, I believe Singaporeans will benefit from a focus on the issues that matter.

Sir, let me conclude. Our system of Government expects Parliament to play its role to ensure good governance. All of us here are competitors but not enemies. The people have elected us to act on their behalf, to ensure Singapore endures for the long term, to work towards a Singapore built to last. On this, Sir, we have common cause.

Mr Victor Lye, do you have a clarification?

I thank the hon Member for her speech and I quite agree that we both, on both sides of the aisle, have a common cause to serve Singaporeans and Singapore. And to the Member's point, I think we are not enemies, and we are friends. We have known each other for a long time. Having said that, may I seek a clarification for when the Member used the word "imbalance" in this Parliament and also separately, the Member saying it is "vastly outnumbered", may I ask if the hon Member is questioning the outcome of the GE, which is the choice of Singaporeans overall?

And secondly, if the Member cites another Parliament, may I seek a clarification if our hon Member actually aspires to a different system?

Ms Sylvia Lim. Ms Lim, you might want to turn on your microphone?

It came on automatically just now, so I trusted the system, but maybe, I should not.

Sir, on the Member's two clarifications, first of all, I made it clear in my speech that we respect the outcome of the elections. So, that was stated explicitly.

Secondly, by citing the example of what I saw in the UK, it is not that I aspire to another system, but I believe our system can still do better, as I said. And as I mentioned, what was most striking to me was that momentary expression of trust in each other. In the last few days, I see some flashes of that, but I hope it can be sustained. So, it is not that I aspire to another system, but I would want to be part of the effort to make our system even more robust.

Mr Victor Lye.

Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for her clarification. And I think we should just focus on the conclusion that the Member had in her speech – that both sides of the House work harder to maintain trust between our leadership, that includes the Member as well, and our people.

Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks standing in the name of the hon Member Mr Sharael Taha.

That Singapore is a small island is a matter of geography, but that we can travel swiftly and in comfort across all its corners is a matter of human endeavour. It is our transport system that allows us to work, study, exercise, access essential services, socialise, volunteer and live our lives to the fullest. These were amongst the topics that hon Members spoke passionately about in this House over the past five days. If we do it well, transport becomes an invisible social service, moving from point A to point B is as effortless as stepping through a door. This is our urban dream, a 45-minute city and 20-minute town.

This dream, of freedom and connectivity, is not new. Although at the time of our Independence 60 years ago, there were immense challenges in ensuring Singapore’s survival, from clean water to housing, such that transport may have seem to be a poorer, lesser cousin.

Yet, transport is a peculiar policy problem. Once laid down, whether planned or organic, transport lines carve out their place in the history of a place; implacable, immovable and, for better or worse, they shape the fate of cities. We see this now in the gridlocked congested lives of many cities, whose systems had not been built to accommodate growth. It is Singapore's good fortune that our early Governments built for the future.

But transport is not just a decision of the past. It demands ceaseless attention to keep pace with the needs and lives of the people it serves. To neglect investments is to accept time spent in traffic jams, accidents, breakdowns, workdays lost and important occasions missed. Again, we see this in the cities of developed countries, whose transport infrastructure have suffered from decades of under-investment.

These two challenges, greater complexity in needs and financial demands for infrastructure, also apply to Singapore. As our systems expand and become more complex, the number of potential points of failure increases. The needs of our people are evolving. New vulnerabilities will emerge as we digitalise, adopt new technologies and put more of our services online into the cyberspace. The emerging challenges, coupled with the unprecedented pace of change in our external environment, will mean that we need a new generation of transport professionals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, I will speak on how we can build a strong transport system through three strategies.

First, resilience. We will enhance our ageing infrastructure, make them robust and flexible so as to meet the needs of our population, which are increasing in volume and complexity. Second, technology. We will seize opportunities from new technologies, while safeguarding against cybersecurity risks. Third, people. We will continue to build a professional and adaptive transport workforce, the only real piece in the transport landscape that can ensure our systems remains fit for purpose well into the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we sometimes forget the breakneck speed at which our transport system has travelled. Many from my generation remember growing up alongside this journey. As a young boy, I took the single-door "bone shaker" public bus to school. I would leave home from Sembawang at 5.30 am to catch the 5.45 am bus on a one-hour 30-minute journey to reach school at Newton by 7.15 am, with 15 minutes to spare before morning assembly. With limited resources then, these "bone shakers" were, in fact, refurbished lorry chassis with suspension systems so poor that they vibrated vigorously. But as a young boy, I did not mind it. I was thrilled, in fact. The same journey today, via Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), would take 30 minutes in air-conditioned comfort, just one-third the time it originally took.

Today, we enjoy a transport system that is admired across the world. Changi Airport is our nation’s pride, consistently ranked amongst the world’s best airports. Our port was recently named the “Best Global Seaport”. And our land transport network serves about 10 million journeys each day.

Our transport systems today are extensive and highly complex, with many interconnected elements and moving parts. Our public transport network today covers 240 kilometres of rail lines and over 350 bus services, with 160 stations and 5,000 bus stops.

As I said at the start of my speech, transport infrastructure incur large sunk costs. Even with long-term planning, we can only build to the best of our knowledge and ability at any given time. We must also make the most prudent choices possible. At the beginning of our MRT development journey, we had just five stations. Within 30 years, we have 100 and then to 160 stations today. Underneath this, lies years of design, planning, battles over land and billions of dollars in investment.

While 30 years is a short time in the life of a nation, it is long for an MRT line. Our rail system comprises many mechanical parts, each with specific lifespans, similar to everyday appliances, such as washing machines. With different parts of our rail system at different ages, ensuring the smooth operation of all trains in the network becomes increasingly complex and challenging. We aim to keep our rail network running smoothly, through a combination of maintenance, refurbishments or replacements where needed.

We will do so by focusing on the three "Rs": resilience, reliability and recovery.

First, we will enhance resilience with more alternative routes. We are building new rail lines that will enable commuters to still get to their destinations in the event of disruptions or planned maintenance works through alternative train routes. We will close the loop for the Circle Line next year and extend the Downtown and Thomson-East Coast Lines. In the longer term, we plan to expand our rail network further, such as with the West Coast Extension.

Second, we will invest in improving the reliability of our rail assets. As announced at the Committee of Supply this year, we will invest an additional $1 billion over the next five years to enhance the way we monitor and maintain our rail assets, and uplift the maintenance capabilities of our rail workforce. We also set up the rail reliability task force to address immediate issues, following the recent incidents.

If not for the COVID-19 pandemic which the hon Member, Ms Mariam Jaafar, reminded us in her speech yesterday ended just 30 months ago, the progress on these two "Rs", resilience and reliability, would have been even more significant. Now we are playing catch-up, but catch up we will.

Having regard to the state of affairs now, however, we cannot eliminate rail disruptions entirely. But when disruptions occur, we will ensure recovery as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. We will communicate with commuters and help them find alternative routes.

Sir, transport is a key essential service which we all count on to arrive at our destinations on time. Failure in service is a justified cause for frustration and disappointment. The Singaporean reputation for reliability and predictability is hard earned. Nowhere must this be more clearly seen than in our transport system. So, I accept that we need to work hard to win back the support of frustrated Singaporeans affected by some failures.

Let me say squarely what I mean. We will invest to reduce disruptions, but they will not be eliminated. We will still have disruptions. I do not take any pleasure in saying this, but this is the hard truth. But knowing that disruptions will happen, we have in place systems to help affected people still arrive at their destinations, not on time, unfortunately; not without trouble, regrettably but with all practicable haste.

I want to assure the House that all my colleagues on the ground, work tirelessly, truly flat out, during disruptions, including the East-West Line disruption in September last year. I saw that with my own two eyes. Alongside my colleagues were many volunteers to guide and support commuters to use the bridging buses.

These are hardworking transport professionals, including our sisters and brothers of the National Transport Workers Union and fellow Singaporeans who deserve our respect and support. Yet, they have, on occasions, been cathartic vehicles, on the receiving end of abusive language, anger and derision.

I ask all hon Members in this House for ideas that you may have to improve our transport infrastructure and to build up the resilience of our systems. At the same time, I am sure Members will agree that we should forbear from cheap shots and low blows when things go wrong. Never exploit problems, but by all means, let us work on the problems.

Even as we tackle the challenges of today, we must prepare for the future. Our people are getting older. We are developing more areas across our island. We need to move more people who are less mobile across larger tracts of space. These are points that hon Members, Ms Valerie Lee and Mr Shawn Loh, admirably made in their respective speeches. We will engage our members of public on their desires, aspirations and concerns for the future of land transport. People remain at the heart of our transport system.

To fellow Singaporeans, I say, preparing for the future is an important journey. I hope you will support and join us every step of the way.

Second, technology. Across transport sector, innovative technologies can enhance efficiency and productivity of our systems. For example, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) launched DocuMind and DocuMatch last year, harnessing AI to streamline ship insurance certificate renewals for Singapore-registered ships. These tools streamline the process to minutes compared to up to three days previously.

New technologies are essential for our path to net-zero. Electrification remains a key strategy to decarbonise Singapore's land transport sector. As we build a network of chargers to support electric cars, we employ new technologies, such as the dynamic load management at our Housing and Development Board car parks to allow us to tap on existing unutilised electrical capacity. And this will enable us to deploy even more electric vehicle (EV) chargers, bringing us closer to our goal of 60,000 EV chargers by 2030.

However, as our system increasingly digitalise and move into the cyberspace, we face unprecedented security challenges. We are familiar with the cyberattacks on critical infrastructure by UNC3886. With so much of our daily lives and economy reliant on our transportation networks, our infrastructure becomes prime targets for malicious actors.

Globally, cyberattacks on transport infrastructure have occurred across land, air and sea. In July 2023, Nagoya Port, Japan's largest maritime hub, fell victim to a cyberattack that disrupted its container handling operations. In September 2024, Transport for London reported a cyberattack on their computer systems that lasted for three months. And just last week, a cyberattack at a provider of check-in and boarding systems disrupted operations at several major European airports, leading to flight delays and cancellations.

So, you see 2023, 2024, 2025. There is no telling when malicious actors may target our systems in similar attacks, these cyberattacks show us that even as we leverage the transforming power of technological advancements, we must put in place appropriate safeguards to address vulnerabilities. We must work together, as One Transport Family, with our fellow Singaporeans to secure our critical transport infrastructure.

We are only as strong as our weakest link. The work has already started. The Land Transport Authority (LTA), the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and MPA have established cybersecurity operations centres that provide monitoring to detect cybersecurity threats. Agencies also share critical information with key partners, from public transport operators to aviation partners and maritime companies.

We are also investing in our people to cultivate their cybersecurity awareness and skills, tailored to the air, land and sea transport sectors. This will not only enable them to practise good cyber hygiene, but also uplift them to become the first line of defence to detect anomalies that could signal cyber intrusion attempts. For example, the Singapore Aviation Academy and the Singapore University of Technology and Design offer a joint course to provide aviation professionals with an understanding of the cybersecurity landscape and specific challenges facing the aviation sector, as well as the key foundations in cybersecurity concepts and controls.

Finally, and most importantly, we owe our transport story to the hard work and dedication of more than 300,000 workers across our land, air and sea transport systems. They will continue to be central to our transport ecosystem as we write the next chapter of this story. Automation and autonomous innovations have great potential to transform the way we work. This not only allows our ecosystem to transcend manpower and land constraints, but also creates new good jobs for our people.

We are already seeing this transformation on the ground today. Tuas Port is designed to be fully automated, intelligent and sustainable, and will offer new jobs with enhanced career prospects. At older port terminals, crane operators work at great heights atop cranes to direct movement of each container from ship to shore, and vice versa. With automation, our crane operators are upskilled from doing manual work to directing automated crane operations and troubleshooting exception cases remotely from control centres.

This is the experience of Mr Muhammad Zulfikar Bin Minhat, from managing manual operations on site at Tanjong Pagar Terminal when he started his career 11 years ago, today, Mr Zulfikar remotely manages automated yard operations from PSA's control centre. In fact, when I spoke to him yesterday, he told me that he got promoted and is now in charge of 26 remote operators on his shift. He continues to upgrade his skills, enhancing his ability to troubleshoot and navigate operational challenges. He is also a proud member of the Singapore Port Workers Union, which supports him in every way possible. What a great example Mr Zulfikar is to his peers.

Changi Airport and SATS are also transforming to harness AI automation and robotics to stay competitive and resilient. Existing jobs, such as airport ground handling services, will change in tandem, and new jobs will be created for a new generation of Singapore workers who are tech savvy. Exciting new mobility options in our public transport network are on the horizon as we plan and start piloting autonomous vehicle (AV) shuttles. This will better meet the growing and evolving connectivity needs of Singaporeans without running into manpower constraints. The AV industry will also create good jobs for Singaporeans in roles, such as software developers, engineers and radar designers. We will continue to collaborate closely with our industry unions and education partners to upscale our workers and ensure their access to these jobs.

As rightly highlighted by the hon Member Mr Ang Wei Neng, lifelong learning is crucial for our workers as industries are transformed by AI and new technologies. That is why we are investing in support for training partners and companies to provide upskilling training opportunities.

CAAS established a $200 million OneAviation Manpower Fund in July 2025 to better attract, develop and retain the OneAviation workforce. The fund will provide stronger and more targeted support to companies to transform jobs and better support workers. Together with our tripartite partners, we are equipping workers with skills that are increasingly sought after in their industries. The MPA-Singapore Maritime Foundation Joint Office for Talent and Skills is working with educational partners to develop tailored training courses for maritime workers in emerging domains. A pilot course on applied data science and analytics tailored for maritime professionals, co-developed with the National University of Singapore, was well-received and will be scaled up.

The transport sector is a rewarding career spent in service of our fellow citizens. It is a dynamic sector with good jobs for Singaporeans of all ages and backgrounds.

The veteran union leader, Sister Mary Liew, General Secretary of the Singapore Maritime Officers' Union, shared with me the heartening story of Miss Valerie Thai, a legal professional turned seafarer, with me recently.

Valerie obtained her law degree from Australia and worked as a paralegal in Singapore but soon found the legal profession a bit too boring for her. Attracted by the wide range of opportunities in the maritime industry with fields that allow her to tap on her legal background, Valerie took the brave plunge into seafarer training under the Tripartite Maritime Training Award. This award provides a place-and-train programme that equips Singaporeans with seafaring skills and experience for careers in the maritime industry. I met her two days ago, a cadet now, she is eager to blaze the trail for women wanting to be seafarers. I wish Valerie all the best in her training.

Valerie's story is one of many. With the diverse range of career opportunities, whether in traversing our skies, connecting people on land or plying our seas. I look forward to welcoming all to join our transport family.

Sir, I spent quite a bit of time in my speech, emphasising on the employment opportunities and prospects in the transport sector. I do hope that fellow Singaporeans, young and old, will consider these options and join our One Transport Family. As we write the next chapter of our transport story. We will face unprecedented challenges. However, we will also discover new opportunities as our environment changes.

Navigating these challenges will require concerted efforts from everyone as we enhance our physical infrastructure, digital systems and transport workforce. Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in a dialogue with young people, said recently, "Being small is a very deep part of our psyche. Some things we cannot change."

This is true. Being small is our geography, but it is not our destiny. Being small requires us to be imaginative, not only use each space to its fullest, but also to allow us access to anywhere we want to be in the shortest of time and in the greatest of comfort. If life is about journeys, then only with a strong transport system can we ensure that all Singaporeans, no matter how big our dreams, can live a full life on our small island, our little red dot. [Applause.]

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Speaker, I am honoured to address this House as an MP representing the people of Aljunied group representation constituency. This special constituency reminds us of that moment in 2011 when Singaporeans began to dream of a more plural political system, and I stand here today in service of that dream.

I wish to speak on one of the most important economic questions for our country today: what it will take for Singapore to build inherent capacity.

By inherent capacity, I mean a rooted high-value local set of companies, local base of companies and industries. For 50 years, our prosperity has been built on attracting foreign direct investment within a world of free trade. This model served us well.

But in a new era of geopolitical blocs and strategic industries, this dependence is a vulnerability. High-value work hosted on our shores can be repatriated at any time, leaving our workers exposed. The ultimate defence for our workers is not a certificate from a course.

It is being part of a deep industrial ecosystem. It is tacit knowledge, the unwritten secrets of an industry learned not in a classroom, but in a coffee conversation after work or overheard on a factory floor. The guarded tricks of building and tuning a foundation model or advance notice of a new industry standard. It is the sticky localised knowledge that gives our workers a genuine defensible edge, justifying their wages and creating the conditions for our best entrepreneurs to thrive.

Of course, we must continue to upskill our people. But skills-training alone, unmoored from a home industry, is not enough – a skill that can be learned anywhere, can be performed anywhere, often at a lower cost. We must therefore build the inherent capacity to foster unique knowledge advantages.

Building this inherent capacity requires a resurrected developmental state for our time, a state that actively shapes an ecosystem to benefit our people. There are three ways to do this: through research and development (R&D) policy, industrial policy and foreign economic policy.

Today, with only 20 minutes, I will focus on the third pillar: how we engage with the world.

I would like to tell a story about economic integration.

Once, in the 1960s, American giants – Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas – dominated over 80% of the civil aviation market. Europe’s national champions – like Sud Aviation, Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm and Hawker Siddeley – were confined mainly to national markets and had a bleak future if they stayed alone. The industry dynamics favoured the American giants due to large economies of scale, enormous R&D commitments rising 20% yearly between 1930 and 1970 and steep learning curves. In their enlightened self-interest, they turned to a new policy instrument: a transnational industrial consortium. Airbus, founded in 1970, was designed to preserve the aviation industries of Germany, France and the UK.

It is important to note it was not a top-down creation of the European Community. It was driven from the bottom-up by the firms themselves. Airbus is not a private creation. It arose from a group of state-backed enterprises and was founded on commercial principles, learning the lessons from the commercial failure of Anglo-French Concorde. State-backing was necessary as the long-duration debt market in Europe was too small to finance this industry alone. This political decision was made possible by two points of consensus: First, the knowledge that industrial policy was necessary to build inherent capacity – again, a rooted high-value local base of companies. Second, that national industrial policy would likely prove insufficient. Transnational projects would be needed to achieve the necessary scale and competitiveness.

It was sustained by three key points: political will to provide financing until the consortium hit its first financial milestones, demand-assurance for guaranteed orders in the early years and partner lock-in via specialisation and workshare agreements for the different components.

Above all, it was a 50-50 split in equity holding between France and Germany. This has proved highly successful for Europe. Today Airbus is the leading civil aviation company in the world, founded 55 years ago on a framework for positive integration – an integration that builds.

Let us turn to our own region, Southeast Asia. The President’s address and its addenda have told us of the multiple platforms we will pursue for economic growth. We are to deepen engagement in existing trading frameworks, from the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership to our networks of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Digital Economy Agreements. But we have spent years and decades cultivating these types of platforms without fostering that strong base of locally grown companies. Something is missing.

For decades, our diplomatic energy has been spent on the idea of "negative integration" – that is to say, integration by way of removal of trade barriers. "Negative integration" has been duly implemented. In 2009, the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) came into force.

ASEAN's website states, and I quote, "Through ATIGA, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand have eliminated intra-ASEAN import duties on 99.65% of their tariff lines. Cambodia, Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR), Myanmar and Viet Nam have reduced their import duties to 0%-5% on 98.86% of their tariff lines. Today, focus is given to addressing non-tariff measures that could have non-tariff barrier effects on the region's trade and business activities"; end quote.

Yet a 2019 commissioned study by ASEAN's Coordinating Committee for the Implementation of ATIGA, found that 10 years after ATIGA came into force, intra-ASEAN trade had not grown any faster than ASEAN’s total trade, stagnating at 25%. Moreover, for a large fraction of trade, ATIGA offered no real advantage – either "Most-Favored Nation" rates at zero already meant that there were no tariffs to cut, or the special ASEAN discount was so tiny that it made no practical difference. Decades of effort for negligible results. I am not against negative integration, but it is clearly not a sufficient ideal for Southeast Asian integration.

Against it, I believe Airbus exemplifies an ideal of "positive integration" in the industrial sense.

Our region tried a form of "positive integration" before, with the ASEAN Industrial Projects (AIPs) of the 1970s. In 1977, five projects were designated: nitrogenous urea fertiliser for Malaysia and Indonesia, phosphatic fertiliser for the Philippines, soda ash for Thailand and diesel engines for Singapore. The equity arrangement agreed in 1980 was fundamentally imbalanced – 60% for the host country, with the other four taking 10% each. The four non-Singapore projects were geared towards the agricultural industry, a reflection of national development priorities. The AIPs failed, because national priorities overrode genuine complementation and because the equity structure was fundamentally unbalanced. States will only enter enduring cooperation agreements when they do not fear that their partners will gain disproportionately.

The success of Airbus holds a mirror to these past failures and shows us a path forward.

Mr Speaker, critics will rightly point out that Europe in the 1960s and 1970s is not Southeast Asia today. They will speak of deep-seated political sensitivities, of differing economic priorities and of the cultural gulf that separates our nations. They are not wrong. These challenges are real and significant.

But I ask: are these differences greater than those that separated France and Germany just two decades after a world war? True partnership is not born from the absence of difficulty, but from the shared will to overcome it in the face of a greater common challenge – the squeeze of geoeconomic competition and knowing that going it alone is a losing game.

Three factors are critical. First, it requires coalitions of the willing, not committees of the whole. Bilateral or trilateral consortiums of nations. Some must integrate faster, to demonstrate the benefits of a particular integration model. Second, it demands balanced payoffs, like an equitable 50/50 or 60/40 structure. This ensures that every nation has an equal stake in shared success, bridging a trust deficit that erects non-tariff barriers. Defined payoffs and the way they are structured, must be negotiated early on. These negotiations reveal the viability or lack thereof regarding long-term cooperation. And third, today, the industrial bases across Southeast Asia by foreign direct investment give us a foundation that our predecessors never had, that allows us to build complementarity from a higher-base than the agricultural-industrial options available to the previous generation of policy-makers.

I am a believer that foreign investment has been a net positive for this region. Negative integration in ASEAN, via ATIGA and FTAs, has created a stable potential foundation for increasing regional trade. But the world is changing and we must now adapt to that changing world. Positive industrial integration is not the only option available to us. But it is a necessary diversifier in a portfolio of international strategies. Above all we should not spend all our diplomatic capital deepening a model that is yielding diminishing returns. We need to build a future with real, defensible, and shared prosperity.

This is not a dream.

I read with interest in March 2025, the call in the Malay Mail by the chief executive officer of MIMOS Berhad, Malaysia's national applied R&D centre, calling for strong industrial policy to create a semiconductor chip design ecosystem for Malaysia. To move beyond being a trusted manufacturer for global companies to become innovators.

When I read this call and others like it, I hear a common developmental language across nations. But to channel these ambitions through national industrial policy is to face the full cost of global competition alone. Singapore should be the partner that de-risks these aspirations by opening a path to stronger, more resilient regional consortiums.

We are in the midst of a global investment cycle in many things. Healthcare, nuclear energy, renewable energy, photonics. Budgetary decisions from the Ministry of Finance should begin to inform industrial policy decisions of the Ministry of Trade and Industry. We should head in broad strokes to what will be the big buckets of spending over the next 20 years – healthcare, the clean energy transition, maritime industrialisation, education. To ensure these efforts build our local capacity, Government support, like funding and early contracts, must come with conditions. Firms must be required to build deep roots here through local engineering teams, apprenticeships, joint-IP and guaranteed work for our SMEs.

Mr Speaker, Singapore should champion the creation of new "Airbus-style" commercial consortiums with willing regional partners. In the 21st century, this need not be a bloated state-owned enterprise. But rather the principal client and industrial anchor for an entire ecosystem of SMEs, along with the safeguards to make sure that value flows down the value-chain. Airbus sustains tens of thousands of European SMEs. Similarly, every successful venture in Southeast Asia could allow an ecosystem of SMEs to thrive.

So, how do we begin? Our strategy should be modular. We do not necessarily need to build the entire metaphorical aircraft at once; we can start by mastering a single critical component – the engine, the avionics, the advanced materials. This "building block" approach allows each partner to specialise, making us stronger together than apart. As we prove the model, we can integrate more partners, even from outside our region, to build more complex systems.

And what about scale? How might such a cooperation and integration model be replicated? Once done once, the private sector can increasingly take over.

The same unfolding ladder of ideas from AIPs to ASEAN Industrial Joint Venture (AIJVs) to ATIGA, from positive integration to negative integration. But we must recognise our current lack of inherent capacity. So, the state must be the prime mover to catalyse and build it again and anew. This requires a change in our Government’s mindset. The state must be bigger in its ambition to build this inherent capacity and shape markets as only a state can. But it also needs to become smaller, by not competing directly with our own SMEs. Too many local entrepreneurs tell me that once they reach a certain size, their biggest competitor is the Singaporean state and those linked with it.

For too long, the State's ambition has turned inward, often leading it to compete directly with our own SMEs. No more. Its role must be redefined. The greatest enabler of our local enterprises and not their competitor. A government that acts as a market-shaper internationally but knows when to retreat domestically creates a fairer playing field for our and our children's ventures to succeed.

I know that there are many Singaporeans who do not share the views of some who think that Singapore should focus on doing small things and let big countries do big things. But my message to all is that every ambition has a price. If a nation wishes to be at the frontier, it needs to be prepared to pay that price to cross that bridge. And inherent capacity at the frontier, guarded by protectionist sentiment at the best of times, is today a contested ridge-line, with all nations reawakened to the necessity of inherent capacity. It remains possible, as it always was possible, to cross this bridge, as long as the political will allows. But it requires no illusions about the limits of different growth models. It requires both developmental will abroad, and restraint at home.

This generation must decide what our country’s position is in the whole scheme of human progress. But it is my belief that we are here to catalyse a brighter future. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Dr Koh, do you have a clarification to make?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to make a factual clarification in my reply to Mr Pritam Singh's supplementary questions earlier, on how many complaints the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received about illegal platform workers prior to this recent spate of enforcements. [Please refer to ​"Ensuring Delivery Platform Work is Performed by Singaporeans and Permanent Residents Only", Official Report, 26 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 6, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

I stated it is about 70. Actually, the correct answer should be about 50 per year, since January 2023. Thank you, Sir.

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Foo Cexiang, do you have a clarification to make?

Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification to make with regard to the hon Member Mr Kenneth Tiong's speech. Two quick clarifications just to make sure I do not mischaracterise what he has shared.

The first, is he suggesting that the Singapore Government should be entering a domain or a partnership with some of our regional Governments in partnership to develop as what he described, a similar model of whatever was the collaboration between the English and the French? So, the first is he suggesting that the Singapore Government collaborate with governments in the region to develop an industry?

The second one and he also made this point quite clearly that the Government should not crowd out the space for SMEs. But at the same time he also shared that for this initial project, the Government must play an important role and then develop the system of SMEs, the ecosystem of SMEs underneath it. So, maybe for me to understand better, what is this sector that he has in mind? That the Government will not play a role whereby it oversteps the role of SMEs, but is able to create an ecosystem for SMEs in collaboration with governments in the region?

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

I thank the Member for his clarifications. For the first question, yes, indeed I do believe that the Government has a very key role to play in fostering these collaborations. Airbus is not a private creation. They have fostered these consortiums to create the economies of scale that are necessary to sustain leading-edge industries.

On the second clarification, on which sectors that it should be in. Certainly, there are many, many areas of strength that I think are in Southeast Asia. Healthcare is a big bucket of spending in the future; and there is a strong semi-conductor ecosystem. There are many others, but I think these two are realistic.

And I think generally the principle is that it really depends on if the Government is in a position to shape these markets internationally, for the benefit of this country , it should.

Mr Foo Cexiang.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Member for his clarifications as well. Could I just venture a step further to ask the Member whether he could share with us some of the countries or governments he has in mind that, in his view, we should be collaborating with in terms of some of the sectors that he has raised?

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

I brought up one example in my speech. I say that that is one possible direction, regarding semi-conductors. But of course, I do not want to be overly prescriptive about the nature of the industry. I think there are many potential areas that could be developed. The general principle is that this is a policy instrument that I do not believe this Government has ever considered; or rather it has considered it once in the 1980s and I do believe it should be revived again.

Mr Foo Cexiang.

Thank you, Speaker, I thank the Member as well. But I guess the root of the question I am asking is that, in his view, there are governments in the region that will be able to partner us meaningfully in such an endeavour. The level of the region, where they are, the resources that they have, the manpower they have, the skills that they have, there will be a meaningful collaboration that we can have with them. That is the question I have for the Member.

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

There are many sources of industrial strength in Southeast Asia. Malaysia is certainly strong in semiconductors. It has a strong healthcare industry. Vietnam is strong in manufacturing. There are others. Again, as I said, I think this Government has a prerogative to decide what these areas should be and to see how best to develop these, but certainly I do not want to be overly prescriptive in what it could be.

Let us move on, Ms Hazlina.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I am lucky to be born an optimist, always preferring to look on the brighter side of life. But I know it is easier said than done, especially when success seems out of reach; and the people who are in the position to make a difference seem out of touch.

I sense some among us may be feeling this way: unsure, uncertain, overwhelmed. This too, shall pass, and with hardship comes ease. But let me say this: I believe in the power of the youth, so do not give up on you. I believe in the power of family, do not give up on each other. I believe in the power of unity, so let us do this together.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support for the Motion to thank the President who spoke about unity, tenacity and inclusive mobility. Let me start by appreciating the East Coast and Fengshan residents – because of whom I have this honour of being here today, sharing my voice with fellow Singaporeans. With this same voice, I thank our families, our volunteers and Singapore's patriots who rally with us to build a Singapore we can all be proud of. One, where we belong.

The privilege, expectations and "amanah", or responsibility, standing right here right now, is not lost on me. Mr Speaker, I seek the guidance of your good self, honourable, learned and experienced Members of this House as well as our community leaders and private sector leaders to join hands and build an ecosystem of support so every one of us Singaporeans, dare to dream, to be our best.

Today, I will take you on a journey to envision the Singapore I hope to build in three parts, using three proverbs, and in three other languages.

First, in our National Language, Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The strength of the people, is in its unity.

A Singapore that is strong, united and cohesive.

A Singapore that supports one another during difficult times.

A Singapore that celebrates each other's successes.

That is my hope for Singapore and for our community.

For 15 years, I reported the stories of our community as an editor and presenter for Mediacorp News. I was fortunate because through my career, I had the privilege of preserving our culture and language and connecting with our community.

I also served for more than a decade in charitable organisations, such as PPIS (Singapore Muslim Women's Association) – helping those in need amongst us and in several national councils and associations – representing the voice and aspirations of our community. I have never missed any opportunity to contribute because I truly believe that success, values, and aspirations; all begin at home.

Therefore, I hope the Government continues to work hand in hand with Malay/Muslim organisations, social service agencies, as well as the private sector, making holistic efforts to strengthen and empower our families, so that no one is left behind.

Mr Speaker, every family's situation is different. Similar but not quite the same. Sometimes, when tackling complex problems, there seems to be no clear solutions, no examples, no templates. For instance, a Fengshan resident, Mr O, is a father with a heart condition. He is no longer working and must care for two children – one studying at MINDS and another who has eczema, a type of skin ailment. Additionally, his wife is receiving long-term treatment in hospital due to stroke. When he came to us, Mr O was quite at a loss. Our team worked to address his challenges step by step.

We began by ensuring that he receives assistance from ComCare and also MUIS. We then addressed his financial difficulties by guiding him in planning his family's monthly expenses. We also provided grocery vouchers and made appeals for outstanding bills. Essentially, our team used a holistic approach that took into account the specific characteristics of each family, which is providing assistance while empowering them.

Mr Speaker, Singapore's success and strength are not only subject to economic sustainability. Family and community stability, as well as a united people, are also important indicators of success – especially in uncertain times, when tensions between nations are escalating.

We must take care of our own.

Recently, I had the opportunity to join President Tharman Shanmugaratnam's delegation for his State Visit to Egypt – for the very first time. Singapore's reputation as a trusted, respected and forward-looking country was clearly evident. The President's visit demonstrated both the importance of expanding our networks and Singapore's significant role on the world stage. The President presented a $1.2 million contribution from the Singapore Red Cross to the Egyptian Red Crescent. These funds will be used for medical services that will benefit 4,000 Gaza residents as well as educational services for around 2,000 Palestinian children.

During the visit, I had the chance to meet four Gaza residents who were receiving medical treatment in Egypt, together with a team of Singaporean doctors and nurses who were specially flown in to provide treatment – the first foreign team given permission to work in an Egyptian hospital.

Mr Speaker, I believe this effort is welcomed by all Singaporeans. Therefore, Singapore must remain steadfast and firm in helping victims of war and continue to speak up for the oppressed. Singaporeans harbour hope that Singapore will assume a greater role and take a clearer stance on the Gaza conflict. While in Egypt, I was also deeply moved after meeting Singaporean students studying at the Al-Azhar University. They possess tremendous spirit and are committed to flying the Singapore flag high. I applaud and congratulate them for that.

Mr Speaker, solidarity does not mean uniformity, without any differences. Solidarity is the harmony of different voices, with varying tones and rhythms flowing together, united for the same purpose. A nurturing environment is important for someone to flourish. The family is like a garden that must be carefully tended, so that life's resources are shared as fairly as possible, and nothing is hidden in the shadows. We can be anchors of progress and beacons of unity. I will strive to ensure that our children grow up with confidence, our youth receive opportunities and our families believe in a brighter future.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please, especially, for my Fengshan residents.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] "Care for our own elderly and extend that care to the elderly of others" – what a beautiful saying! Many of our elderly shy from asking their families for help, fearing they might trouble others. I hope we can proactively extend a helping hand and do our part for our elders, so they can enjoy a meaningful and dignified life.

(In English): Mr Speaker, we are where we are because of the giants before us. Trail blazers who cleared the path, smashed ceilings and cleaned sticky floors. Singapore must be a safe space for our elderlies who have done so much to build the Singapore we are privileged to live in now.

During the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, shared a photo of my Fengshan resident, Mdm Wong celebrating her 100th birthday. I met her the same week, to show her how many Singaporeans celebrated with her. She was in high-spirits, all smiles and said, "阿嬤开心!" or Grandma is happy.

Joy keeps Mdm Wong going and many super-aged seniors too. I hope for our seniors to truly age well, on site and with dignity. I hope for a Singapore where our elderlies know they can depend on their families for support. I hope for the Government to better support families with elderly, especially the ones who also have young children as well.

On my house visits, I often meet seniors who live alone. At Fengshan, we take note of these homes. Our grassroots leader and I make time to engage and stay in touch. We organise luncheons and gatherings and encourage them to have an active social life. The work of the Active Ageing Centres, the Active Ageing Centre befrienders and the Silver Generation Office is becoming more important, to ensure our seniors living alone are not isolated. Perhaps it is time to consider a national level initiative together with coordination and partnership with social service agencies to have a more structured approach in caring for the ones who have no one else.

I also recently met a community of caregivers in Fengshan who are looking after seniors with dementia. Their challenges are real. I welcome the new dementia programmes at our Active Ageing Centres which would benefit this growing, big-hearted community of carers who deserve better support. And I look forward to greater synergies among all our initiatives so seniors have one single point of contact for community care, so they can focus on living their golden years meaningfully and with dignity.

Next, very briefly in Tamil, please, Mr Speaker.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The continuous crawling of ants can wear out even a rock. Do not give up hope. Keep on trying. There is so much we can learn from this saying. My grandfather and grandmother spoke Tamil. I have not learnt enough of it, but one day, I will.

(In English): The proverb, even ants can wear out a rock, speaks of the perseverance and resilience I hope for Singapore and our youths to possess. A Singapore where our young feel heard, seen and where they matter. A Singapore where our young are motivated and do not give up. A Singapore where our young feel like they belong.

Economic uncertainty and social pressures are on the up and up. One of the concerns of young Singaporeans is employment. It is unfortunate that the pressure to get a job meant young people are racing to stack internships. I worry for the vulnerable ones whose social capital is limited. I hope Government initiatives, such as the GRIT programme, truly evens the playing field of opportunities, and for the Government to keep a close eye that they are not misused for cost savings.

Perhaps the Government can also consider better supporting companies who successfully upskill and coach a trainee for full-time employment upon the completion of their traineeship. I believe it is important for the young to discover themselves. I started my career as a journalist, crossed over to public affairs, found meaning in social impact and embraced a new opportunity in advisory consulting.

For Singaporeans to embody lifelong learning, there must also be a mindset shift of embracing lifelong support. I shared the anxiety of our young, but also their drive for making the world a better place for the next generation. I share their purpose on being good and doing right. I will continue to listen to our young and give them space to untangle, deconstruct and undo what does not quite work.

I recently met some youths based in Cairo, having just returned from a State Visit with the President to Egypt and I am filled with immense pride at how our youths are flying our flag, determined to do Singapore, their families and themselves proud in their campuses. Egypt, like Singapore, values inter-faith harmony; upholding the values of peace and mutual respect is essential in continuing to build a peaceful and harmonious Singapore.

The recent incident at Al-Istiqamah mosque is deeply concerning. Such acts threaten the values that Singapore revere, peace and harmony. We must move upstream in our interventions. We must ensure our places of worship for all faiths remain safe spaces like the rest of Singapore. To do so, we must embrace unity in diversity.

Mr Speaker, Sir. Our mighty red dot shines bright beyond the water’s edge. Think about how Singaporeans make our mark and add value overseas and how Singapore makes a difference in a world that we care about. We must carry that same pride, here on this island.

Sir, I conclude with the recap of the three proverbs that exemplifies my kind of Singapore.

"Kuat lilit kerana simpulnya". The strength of the people is in its unity.

"老吾老，以及人之老". Care for the elders, our own and others.

"Yerumbu Ora Kalluum Theiyum". Persistence never fails.

The Singapore name is our pride. We must protect it. We must build it, we must move forward with it, together. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, I think you have joined the rare group of Members who used all four languages in her speech. Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Housing policies are often discussed in this House. It is a topic that is important to many. Homes are where our children grow up, develop a sense of self and identify a space that they call their own. Homes can be a source of pride and joy for young working adults – something that they worked hard for and something that they continue to build their dreams and aspirations on.

For seniors, a home can be a sanctuary giving them peace of mind in their golden years. In land scarce Singapore, the Government takes active steps to ensure that there is housing to meet the different needs of our people. But there are also competing uses for land – to generate economic growth, for environment sustainability and sometimes for cultural and historical conservation.

The Ministry of National Development (MND) takes its development and stewardship role over land use seriously and undertakes this in partnership with our people. In June this year, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) released the Draft Master Plan 2025. It was developed through URA's most extensive public engagement exercise to date with 200,000 people engaged. We laid out our urban planning vision for the next decade.

We want to bring jobs closer to homes and strengthen three economic gateways in the north, east and west. We want to develop exciting and attractive neighbourhoods for both public and private housing, for example, in central locations, like Berlayar: regional job centres, like Woodlands; and sites closer to nature, like Kranji. We will also set aside more spaces for recreation with the development of new integrated developments, new parks and park connectors. Singapore will continue to be an exciting and endearing place to work, live and play.

As we develop these plans, we will not lose sight of our fundamental commitment to our people, that the Government will continue to provide affordable and accessible housing to our people. This was the founding ethos for HDB, which was established in 1960, five years before Singapore's Independence. This continues to be its mission today. Our home ownership policies give our citizens a stake in our nation, foster a sense of rootedness and a shared sense of identity.

I will now speak about, one, how we will continue to meet the housing aspirations of Singaporeans through affordable and accessible housing; how we will plan major new estates so that new residents can move in with greater convenience and comfort; and three, how we will rejuvenate our homes and estates to make them safe, liveable and vibrant for residents of all ages.

In the last term of Government, the pandemic impacted construction and led to delays in the completion of housing projects. Application rates for BTO flats were high, waiting times were longer and resale prices increased as more buyers turned to resale flats. Together with industry partners, the Government responded swiftly to the situation. We completed the flats delayed by COVID-19, ramped up supply of new flats, brought down waiting times and introduced multiple rounds of cooling measures to moderate the resale market.

After COVID-19, there continues to be strong broad-based housing demand. Singaporeans want to start their own families with most young people getting married at about 30 years old and they want to have their own flats then. There are also singles who want to live independently, though near their family. There are also seniors who want to age-in-place or right-size their housing for retirement needs.

In this term of Government, HDB will continue to build more, build faster and build better. We want to help more Singaporeans meet their housing aspirations. There will be a variety of public housing options in different locations to suit diverse income groups and family needs. We have exceeded our commitment of launching 100,000 new flats from 2021 to 2025. And from 2025 to 2027, we will launch 55,000 BTO flats, 10% more than the earlier commitment of 50,000. We will launch at least 4,500 flats with shorter waiting times this year, and over the next two years, we will launch about 4,000 annually, an increase of more than 20% compared to our earlier plans.

We will also sustain a steady private housing supply. From 2025 to 2027, we plan to launch more than 25,000 private residential units through the Government Land Sales programme. New estates will be developed in more central locations, such as Newton and Pearl's Hill.

As we build more, build faster and build better, there will be greater capacity to meet the aspirations of more Singaporeans. Mr Henry Kwek spoke for some of these groups, like young Singaporeans doing well at work and earning more but are afraid that they will bust the HDB income ceiling and end up not being eligible for a HDB flat.

The current BTO income ceiling is $14,000. This was last revised in 2019. We recognise that incomes have gone up over the years. We will, therefore, review the income ceiling to keep pace with economic trends and ensure that the majority of Singaporean households remain eligible for HDB flats.

Another group of Singaporeans who desire to own their HDB flats are singles who can only apply for a BTO flat after reaching the age of 35. In recent years, we have made significant moves to enhance singles' access to HDB flats. These include expanding access to two-room flexi BTO flats island-wide, increasing the housing grant for singles and giving priority to singles when they apply to live with or near their parents for mutual care and support.

We understand that there is still unmet demand from some singles who wish to apply for a BTO flat before reaching the age of 35. To make further policy moves, we need policy space and a higher supply of BTO flats. We are continuing with a robust supply of public housing and when the right conditions are in place, we will be able to raise the income eligibility threshold for BTO flat buyers and lower the eligibility age for singles.

Besides improving accessibility, we will also ensure that HDB flats remain affordable for Singaporeans. The Government will continue to price BTO flats so that they are affordable for buyers with different income levels. This includes first-time buyers who may also be eligible for additional housing grants.

Unlike other countries where public housing is targeted at the lower-income, almost 80% of Singapore residents stay in HDB flats. We must, therefore, provide a range of BTO flats at different locations and price levels to cater to buyers with different incomes and aspirations.

Let me share two examples using the recent July BTO exercise. Take a young couple earning around $5,000 monthly adding up to our median household income of $10,000. The average price for a standard four-room flat in a July exercise was around $460,000. With a 25-year HDB loan, the couple's mortgage servicing ratio would be 16%, meaning their monthly loan instalments would be fully covered by their CPF contributions. No need to pay cash.

If they opted for a four-room flat in Prime areas in this particular July exercise, given the additional subsidies for Prime flats, the couple will still be able to afford such flats with up to $350 payable in cash per month. Their mortgage servicing ratio would increase to 27% but this is still below international benchmarks of 30%-35% for affordable housing. To add, as the couple only starts paying their loan when the flat is completed, their incomes will likely have increased in those three or four years when they are waiting for the flat, so their actual mortgage servicing ratio and monthly cash outlay would be even lower.

Let us consider another couple with a lower combined income of $6,000 which places them in the lower-third of households by income. In the same July BTO exercise, three-room flats were going from $267,000 up to $389,000. This couple would be able to afford any three-room flat only using CPF, without any cash outlay. That gives them some buffer to cover their daily expenses and build up their finances. In fact, because of the additional grants they receive, this couple would also be able to afford the average standard four-room flat in this exercise without any cash outlay.

I have taken the July launch as an example, as this is the nearest launch to date. The exact prices and locations will vary across launches but our commitment is to ensure a range of options to meet diverse budgets and diverse needs.

We will also ensure that standard flats continue to form a significant portion of our annual supply to provide sufficient options for buyers with tighter budgets. And across flat types, BTOs will be priced well below comparable resale flats. On top of that, we provide further means-tested grants. Because of this, nine in 10 first-time home buyers can pay their loan using their CPF with little or no cash outlay. This is a good gauge of their lived experience of affordability, as this captures how they can manage their mortgage and daily living expenses relative to their disposable income.

I will now touch on the resale market. As we all know, resale prices are agreed between buyers and sellers, influenced by supply and demand. Behind every resale flat transaction, there is a willing buyer and a willing seller. Buyers pay a higher price compared to BTO flats, but they get the resale flat immediately and can choose their preferred flat attributes, like location and size.

There will be resale flats with attractive attributes that allow them to command higher prices, such as being in Prime locations, on a high floor, facing a good view, near amenities and transport nodes. But there are also resale flats available at lower prices in many locations. A four-room resale flat with at least 40 years remaining on the lease can go for less than $700,000 in locations, like Tampines and Punggol; less than $600,000 in Sembawang and Yishun; and less than $550,000 in Jurong West and Woodlands. [Please refer to clarification later in the debate.] First-time buyers pay even less because they qualify for grants of up to $230,000.

The resale market is cyclical. Before COVID-19, resale prices fell for six consecutive years. When prices rose in the COVID-19 years, we had to implement four rounds of cooling measures, such as reducing the Loan-to-Value limit for HDB housing loans and the wait-out periods for private property owners wishing to purchase HDB flats. We are now seeing moderation in resale price growth. The quarter-on-quarter resale price index Resale Price Index growth for the last quarter at 0.9% is the lowest since the second quarter of 2020.

There are signs to point towards continued moderation in resale prices. More BTO flats will reach their Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) from 2026 onwards. The number of BTO flats reaching MOP will increase from 8,000 flats this year to 13,500 in 2026, 15,000 in 2027 and 19,500 in 2028. The increase in the supply of resale flats will help to moderate resale prices. At the same time, the ramp-up in BTO supply that I spoke about earlier will also help to reduce demand in the resale market, as more buyers turn to BTO flats. Together, these trends of increased supply and reduced demand will help support a more balanced and sustainable resale market.

To sum up this section of my speech, we will keep public housing affordable and accessible for buyers with diverse needs and budgets. The robust supply of public housing will enable us to expand access to more groups.

Ramping up housing supply also means that we will be developing in new areas, such as Tengah in the West, and Kranji in the North. These areas present opportunities to design thoughtful and beautiful towns. We did this with "Punggol 21" since the 1990s, and we are doing this again with Tengah – our first large-scale smart and sustainable town.

At the same time, we hear feedback from residents that amenities such as cooked food options and childcare centres were not available when they first moved in. Having been in Punggol for the past decade, I can understand how residents feel. To review how we can be more resident-centric in our planning for such large-scale BTO estates, we set up the inter-agency BTO Coordination Committee last year, which I now chair.

The committee has studied the experience of residents in new large-scale BTO estates, such as Punggol and Tengah. I will share more in the months to come, but today, I would like to give you a broad overview of the improvements that we are looking into, to prepare for other large-scale BTO projects we are building.

The inter-agency committee is looking into a wide variety of issues, such as transport accessibility, construction disamenities and also, mobile signal strength. In the interest of time, I will highlight three areas that HDB is working on: sheltered linkways, childcare and food options.

First, sheltered linkways. Residents desire shelter to connect them on their commute and journeys around the neighbourhood. For new estates, from the onset, we will see how we can connect our residents to more bus stops and shop clusters. This can potentially be implemented at the BTO construction stage, especially if there are cost savings.

Next, on childcare. For our young parents, it is crucial to minimise the gap between the first residents moving in and the commencement of childcare services. We are refining our planning approach, so that the childcare centres are built earlier in the development of the estate and handed over to operators in a smoother and faster manner.

Finally, when residents move into a new area, more often than not, food is the first thing that everyone looks out for. However, we know through experience that operators are hesitant to open their shops or stalls when footfall may be low in the initial period. Currently, we already provide a rent-free period to tide operators through this period. We are studying how to enhance such measures while studying alternatives for residents. We will work with the food and retail industry to see how residents can be better served during the move-in period and the town's early years.

At the National Day Rally this year, the Prime Minister had shared our vision for the new BTO estates in places like Kranji, Sembawang and Woodlands. They are to be well-connected to job centres in the northern region. This is an opportunity to apply this resident-centric planning approach and build a new generation of heartlands.

Across Government agencies, we will plan and coordinate much more closely so that new residents enjoy greater convenience from the time they move in. We will continue to gather feedback from residents, grassroots leaders and community leaders, and adopt a resident-centric approach in planning, development and execution.

Our commitment is not just to new homes. We are equally focused on rejuvenating our mature heartlands where many Singaporeans have lived for decades. We often hear residents asking what will happen to their flats and estates as the infrastructure, and they themselves, get older. I assure residents that we will continue to work with you and your Town Councils to keep your homes and neighbourhoods safe, liveable and well-maintained.

Many residents of flats aged around 30 years have already benefited from programmes, such as the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), covering essentials like toilets, doors and spalling concrete. As flats age further, HIP II will offer a second round of upgrading when flats reach 60 years and above. Works will be more comprehensive, using updated technology.

We will announce more details about HIP II next year, but I will share one example today. As buildings age, the problem of water seepage becomes more common and this damages concrete. HDB is testing a scanning technology which can see beyond the surface of the concrete, trace the root cause and make more timely repairs. I have seen the use of this technology and how it can help to resolve more complex water seepage cases. HDB is currently exploring how to scale up its use in a cost-effective manner.

Beyond individual flats, we will continue to refresh the whole estate, through programmes such as Remaking Our Heartlands and the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme. For example, under Remaking Our Heartlands in Choa Chu Kang, the Teck Whye and Keat Hong Shopping Centres are getting a fresh revamp, so that residents do not have to travel into town, but can enjoy themselves at the nearby malls. Outside the town centres, there will be new pocket parks, playgrounds and linkways, down to simple improvements to the lighting and seating.

Residents of private housing estates, including seniors, will not be left out. We are extending these upgrading efforts to selected private housing estates, under the Estate Upgrading Programme. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to continue in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As society ages, we have to make HDB flats and neighbourhoods more senior-friendly, to support seniors to age-in-place and remain active. We believe that our whole society benefits when seniors live joyful, healthy and active lives.

The Government provides the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme for seniors which includes senior-friendly fixtures that allow seniors to move about safely within their homes. This includes grab bars and handrails, slip-resistant flooring, wall-mounted shower seats and widened bathroom entrances.

At the neighbourhood level, we have launched the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, adding senior-friendly facilities in our public housing estates such as barrier-free ramps, therapeutic gardens, and fitness areas. All this will support seniors who wish to age-in-place, surrounded by familiar faces and places. But there will also be seniors who wish to monetise their flats, and find a smaller flat that suits their retirement needs. We will ensure they have ample options.

Two-room Flexi units continue to be a popular choice among seniors who want a smaller home that is easier to maintain, especially in their later years. We are maintaining a steady supply of two-room Flexi units in every BTO exercise, with the majority of these flats set aside for seniors.

We will also launch more Community Care Apartments for seniors who wish to live independently, with access to care and support. Community Care Apartments combine senior-friendly design, eldercare services and activity spaces. We have seen positive response and feedback, and we are expanding this model to more sites.

The Prime Minister recently announced the new Age Well Neighbourhood concept. We will work with MOH to provide more details when ready.

I would like to assure seniors that regardless of whether you choose to remain in your current home, move to a smaller one for retirement, or live somewhere with more care support, we will provide safe and convenient housing options. We will continue to make Singapore an endearing home for all ages.

(In English): Sir, during this debate, we have seen many MPs speak passionately about issues concerning national development – their estates, residents, our social fabric and the environment.

I sincerely thank our Members for raising concerns and proposals on behalf of your residents. We hear you and we will continue to engage you and work with you to further improve our policies and schemes.

To our residents, we hear your hopes and concerns, whether you are a young couple planning to start a family, a homeowner wondering what is next for your estate, or a senior thinking about retirement.

We will build more homes across the island, with a range of housing options to cater to different needs and budgets. We will plan for infrastructure and amenities in new estates, so that residents can move in with greater comfort and convenience. We will rejuvenate mature homes and estates, keeping them safe, liveable and vibrant.

Over six decades, we have moved from the urgent task of housing a young nation to a nation of homeowners, proud of our quality homes, well-designed towns and strong communities. We will carry this spirit and legacy, meet the needs of today and fulfil our aspirations for the future. Together, let us build a Singapore that is home for all, for today and for generations to come. [Applause.]

Mr Louis Chua, you have a clarification to make.

Thank you, Speaker. Just a quick clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I thank her and MND for reviewing the BTO eligibility age for singles. I just wanted to ask what are these right conditions that she mentioned in her speech, whether it is certain indicators or macroeconomic factors, or some factors that MND is considering, before taking the action to review the age? Because on the supply and demand side: demand, we do know that there is; and on supply, I think that is something within MND's control.

I thank the Member for the question. Singles are a very important part of our society. As I have shared, we know that there is unmet demand from singles and in particular, those who are less than 35 years of age. In my speech, I had shared that we will build more, build faster, build better, because we need a larger housing supply, so as to be able to meet the needs of as many Singaporeans as possible.

So, the right conditions that I talked about are: we need to build more, build faster, build better. Because with a larger housing supply of BTO flats, we will be able to manage the trade-offs a bit better. Because a flat that we allocate to one particular segment of the society means, unfortunately, one flat less to allocate to another segment of the society. So, I would say that what we are very focused on right now is to build as quickly as we can.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.14 pm until 3.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

(Debate on the Address of Thanks – fifth allotted day)

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Minister of State Sun Xueling, you have a clarification?

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Earlier in my speech, when I was giving an example of resale flats being available at lower prices in many locations, I had said "a four-room resale flat with at least 40 years remaining". That is inaccurate.

It should read, a four-room resale flat with at least 70 years remaining on the lease can go for less than $700,000 in locations like Tampines and Punggol, less than $600,000 in Sembawang and Yishun and less than $550,000 in Jurong-West and Woodlands. Thank you.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Deputy Speaker, today we live in a changed world, just at the time where the fresh team, led by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has taken over the leadership of the nation. But I can sense the new resolve to tackle the challenges ahead, come what may, and to keep this miracle of Singapore going.

Sir, in the new global landscape, we need a new playbook to grow our economy, which will inevitably come with its disruptions and risks. There will be new stresses and anxieties and Singaporeans will need to adjust and adapt in a fast-changing and more unsettling environment. The Government has committed to supporting Singaporeans to ride through this new "disordered" world. At the same time, we must double down in our efforts to sustain social mobility as well as protecting the vulnerable among us. And through it all, we can build a stronger social compact and a truly "we" mindset. These are among the areas of priorities outlined by the President on behalf of the Government, which I fully support.

Much has been said in the last five days and so for my speech today, I would just focus on two sticky perennial issues, which I would like to add my voice to.

Firstly, how do we moderate cost increases? Secondly, how do we reduce job matching friction?

I raise both these issues, not because I feel that the Government has not done enough but rather these two issues: cost and jobs, are and will be an unending challenge for Singapore and would, therefore, require continued resolves to tackle them.

Firstly, on costs. How can we better moderate cost increases in Singapore? As a tiny resource-scarce city state, where we import almost everything that we need and where our economy is constantly on an overdrive mode, Singapore is inherently more susceptible to price increases than other economies. It is a circumstance that we have to constantly manage and live with. Like almost every economy in the world, the universal approach is to let market forces determine allocations with the use of price as a way to sort out demand and supply.

This is by far the most sensible way and it has worked this way for centuries. However, in Singapore's circumstances, prices tend to be more upside elastic because of our greater scarcity, as we do not readily have excess capacity to just ramp up supply where demand are high to moderate price increases. At the same time, due to our remarkable economic progress over the decades, there is a wider disparity now in purchasing power among our consumers. There are people or businesses who are prepared to pay up a lot more or bid higher than others and some in the range of extreme outliers. We see some of that in the Certificate of Entitlement bidding, where supply is limited and hence, prices is the key determinant to allocate the limited number of certificates.

To the Government's credit, there are extensive and comprehensive range of subsidies and policy schemes to keep things affordable for Singaporeans. Among them the core areas that the Government has committed heavy subsidies are housing, healthcare, education, transport and others. These direct subsidies require substantial and continual fiscal resource to fund and, hence, we must be able to keep generating revenue on a sustainable basis to pay for these items. Since COVID-19, the global inflation has raised prices, underpinned by higher energy, food and commodity prices, and the effects are being felt though the imports that Singaporeans consume daily.

Fortunately, our strong economic and fiscal fundamentals avail us the Singapore dollar as a broad-base tool to mitigate inflation. But there is a limit as to how much the strong Singapore dollar can strengthen without impacting our export competitiveness. So, we do have to count on other supporting measures.

At the same time, domestically, we are also in this necessary transition to uplift wages of fellow Singaporeans, especially the lower-wage workers. This has added cost pressures to businesses and some of which show up in the form of higher prices in products and services.

Also, we have also seen land costs increasing fairly steeply in recent years as Singapore continues to command premiums as a business destination and also a much sought-after residential home. The Government has introduced a series of property cooling measures like Additional Buyers Stamp Duties, among others. These are all necessary to cool the market.

But besides the indirect measures, we would also need both broad-base and targeted direct measures to assist Singaporeans. The Government has enhanced and upsized a series of cost mitigating measures, like the Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers, among others. But we know that such direct assistances cannot be a norm and sometime down the road it has to taper down and wind down, and the pace will depend on the inflationary situation and our fiscal headroom.

We, therefore, need to look into more supply-side measures to lower our overall cost structure in Singapore, both through administrative means as well as through improving efficiency as an economic system. I will attempt to share some illustrative examples, not exhaustive by any means.

Mr Deputy Speaker, ensuring that we have a competitive business ecosystem is one of the Government’s cost management strategies and a sound way to keep costs and prices in check. While we largely leave to the spontaneity of businesses to evolve the ecosystem, it will also require the Government’s hand, from time to time, to curate, monitor and call out unfair market behaviour to protect consumers' interest.

Besides the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, the Consumers Association of Singapore and other consumers’ advocacy groups, MPs have also played a part in the past to call out anti-competitive practices. For example, Parliamentary Questions were raised in the past when we saw retail petrol prices lagging on the downside but quicker to rise on the upside.

One area where I would like to use this opportunity to raise and to get some attention from the Government is the escalating costs in the building maintenance and repair area. The cost of, for example, repairing seepages in HDB flats has increased significantly. The problem with seepages in buildings is that you cannot really see where the source of leak is with the naked eye. So, there is often some amount of guesswork by the repair contractor.

The process usually goes this way. When a seepage is reported during a raining day, the contractor would wait for a dry day to carry out the repair. After the repair, the contractor would wait for the next rainy day to determine if the seepage repair has been effective. If it is not, they would find another dry day to repair on another suspected spot. So, for more difficult and complex seepage situations, the process may go on for a few rounds to the frustrations of residents, who has to bear the inconveniences of multiple appointments and continued seepages. All these would mean costs escalating.

Typically, what the contractors would do is to carry out what they call "PU injection", injecting high pressure liquid, polyurethane (PU) chemical, into the suspected cracks in concrete structures hoping that these PUs will plug the gaps and source of the leaks. Sir, these seepage repair contractors are SMEs, they are typically capital-light, they run on very tight cashflows in their business. It would be too much to ask for these companies to invest in costly sophisticated technology to more precisely diagnosed the root causes of seepages, not knowing that they can still win the next contract or next tender.

Sir, seepages in older flats is a common wicked problem across HDB estates especially the older flats and I believe the problem requires an industry-wide solution. So, I hope HDB or Building Construction Authority can intervene to find an industry solution. We almost need an Industry Transformation Map of sorts to invest in the research, technology, training so as to improve on the way we can diagnose the source of the seepage. This would help contractors to better able and more accurately repair the seepages in older flats and hence, costing less.

Another cause of concern that I would like to raise is the extreme high bids we saw in heartland shop spaces. A case in point is the $52,000 bid for a heartland medical clinic at Tampines. Such record-high bids, though not the norm, nevertheless, has the effect of setting new reference benchmarks and may influence future would-be bidders to submit higher bids, leading to upside stickiness in pricing. Other private HDB shops landlord may use this new higher benchmark reference to price up when they renew the rental.

While we leave it to markets forces to determine prices, we must drill down if such outlier bids are sustainable in business, and the impact to healthcare costs at the neighbourhood. There must also be a so-called price reasonableness assessment.

In response to media queries on the high rental bid at Tampines, HDB said that the bid of $52,188 is significantly higher than the average tendered rent of around $9,800 per month for similar-sized clinics rented out by HDB in 2024. And at that rental, $52,000, it is by far the highest per sq ft rent that HDB has received for general practitioner and dental clinics.

I am glad that HDB later announced that it will move to the Price Quality Method (PQM) and as was further elaborated by MND's Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling three days ago in the Parliamentary Question reply. Hopefully that will help reduce future occurrences of overly high rental bids.

Another case in point is the high rental bid for hawker centres. The National Environment Agency (NEA) received a bid of $10,158 last year in Marine Parade. This is way higher than the $1,800 median successful tender price for cooked food stalls in 2023. Again, this may not be the norm, but it could create upside headroom for rental prices to escalate.

NEA has since implemented the new rental model to deter overly high tender bids, where the rental adjustment will be staggered when renewed. Let us see if this new model works, but I hope that NEA can, in addition, also consider the PQM approach that HDB has adopted.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we must be watchful of extreme high bids for retail spaces in the heartland as, in aggregate, it can add more upside cost pressures. Another measure that I hope HDB can consider and look into is to increase the supply of rental spaces in locations where rental bids tend to be high, as the high rental bids may well be due to inadequate retail spaces in high population-density residential town.

Prior to the Government's decision to resume building of hawker centres, coffee shops were at one point changing hands in the tens of millions of dollars. But with the hawker centres being built and new supply of retail stalls, we have seen transaction prices of coffeeshops stabilised. So, this is something that if we supply, it can make a difference.

I have noticed that in Hong Kong, among the most expensive commercial real estate area, like Central and the Admiralty areas, there will always be side lanes in between the top-grade office properties, where low costs budget retail shops can co-exist. These are the small retail shops when we can find, among the buildings, where you see Hong Kong cafes, or "cha chan teng", selling affordable meal sets, small sundry shops selling low-cost daily grocery items and so on.

If the prices or rents of these spaces at these small lanes are to be benchmarked against the valuations of the adjacent premium office buildings, the retail shops would not be able to survive at the affordable prices that they provide. So, perhaps, URA and the Singapore Land Authority can study what administrative measures do the Hong Kong land authority has to allow such dispensation.

I know we do have such similar dispensation of sorts where we set aside office spaces in commercial buildings for non-profit use that are for social and community good. But we should expand this programme. I always thought it would be a great idea for Marina Bay to also have a social enterprise-run hawker centre. That would be helpful to the office workers there who wish to have an affordable meal.

Sir, let me now move to my second concern, which is, how do we reduce job-matching friction? In this year’s National Day Rally speech, the Prime Minister mentioned jobs as a main focus. At one juncture, he repeated “jobs, jobs, jobs” three times in succession.

Despite Singapore having among the lowest unemployment rate in the world and, in fact, we have to count on foreign labour to fill up many of jobs not taken up by Singaporeans, it is very heartening to hear this from the top-of-the-house leadership. It demonstrates once again that when it comes to unemployment, we set very low thresholds of tolerance and we are determined not to leave any jobseekers behind.