Hansard, Friday, 27 February 2026

1 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for National Development with respect to the Singapore Green Plan (a) what is the long-term proportion of land area set aside for green spaces as urbanisation continues; and (b) what is the progress of the OneMillionTrees movement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the City in Nature pillar of the Singapore Green Plan (SGP) 2030, we aim to add 1,000 hectares (ha) of green spaces by 2035. These 1,000 ha of green spaces have been safeguarded in the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA’s) Master Plan since 2019 and we will be progressively implementing them.

We are also on track to plant one million trees by 2030 to foster greater stewardship of our greenery and nature in Singaporeans. As of January 2026, over 832,000 trees have been planted, involving over 150,000 community participations.

Ms Poh.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to Minister of State Alvin Tan. I have three supplementary questions. First, given the latest update by Deputy Prime Minister Gan yesterday on declining population growth these few years and possible population decline in 2030s if there is no reversal of the trend, will the Ministry of National Development (MND) then review the green spaces allocation in the long-term land planning considerations, as a proportion of the total land usage?

The second supplementary question: green spaces are essential for the mental well-being of Singaporeans. As mental wellness issues come to the forefront, can more cleared land be set aside for open spaces like parks and recreational spaces for people to unwind, to decompress and do sports?

And the third supplementary question: vegetation is an effective means to counter urban heat. In view of rising urban heat concerns, will MND consider increasing the pace of the OneMillionTrees movement and in fact, even go beyond the one million trees target to perhaps, 1.5 million or even two million trees by 2030?

Sir, I thank Ms Poh Li San for her thoughtful three supplementary questions. I will say first of all that we are committed to build Singapore as a City in Nature – that is our vision for the long term. And indeed, green spaces and the preservation of green spaces are critical. But we also need to balance between green spaces as well as our building needs, as I have mentioned in this House prior.

In that regard, the National Parks Board (NParks) has been working very closely with MND to safeguard our green spaces, including over 7,800 ha of green spaces and that includes nature reserves, nature parks, parks, park connectors and includes our four nature reserves, which contain some of the most sensitive and biodiverse habitats.

We are also on track to safeguard an additional 1,000 ha of green spaces and we have also already developed 130 ha of parks in the last five years.

On her second supplementary question about the link between green spaces and mental health, that is something that we look into very carefully. We do think that there is a strong link between green spaces and the ability and opportunities for us to enjoy these green spaces, which have benefits to mental health. In that regard, last year, I announced the Parks for Health Framework under NParks, where we have identified 15 contemplative landscape sites, including Farquhar Garden at Fort Canning Park and the Learning Forest at Singapore Botanic Gardens. In that regard, we are building these contemplative landscape sites and more rest points along park connectors in areas with more seniors. We are also bringing these areas and parks closer to the community, including our therapeutic gardens in neighbourhoods and within healthcare institutions. In fact, by 2030, I announced that we aim to have 30 therapeutic gardens and we are working with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and SingHealth to make this happen.

On the Member's third point on heat resilience, we do have heat resilience mitigation measures. In fact, in our planning considerations, we incorporate wind flow considerations into urban planning. And we also have adaptation measures, including heat stress advisories, which can help the community to plan their activities.

But our City in Nature vision moves beyond, and it is really beyond the OneMillionTrees movement. We have a broad project in place to ensure that Singapore remains a City in Nature, of which the OneMillionTrees movement is one particular goal, as well as one particular initiative.

2 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in view of the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for counselling and mental health support by teenagers and young adults (a) how the Ministry is monitoring this trend; (b) what measures are in place to guide users towards qualified mental health services where appropriate; and (c) what safeguards are being considered to protect vulnerable users.

Sir, artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have become so ubiquitous now that it is no longer practical to track its use for counselling or mental health support.

In general, it is not appropriate to use generative AI (GenAI) chatbots as a replacement for a qualified mental health care provider. AI chatbots are not designed to address mental health issues or provide treatment for mental health conditions and risk providing misinformation or inappropriate responses when dealing with serious mental health crises, and may cause harm instead.

But fundamentally, young people and many patients with mental health issues sometimes seek out these online chatbots because of the anonymity it offers and also because it is easily available and accessible, 24/7. Our approach is to encourage individuals seeking qualified mental health services to approach our First Stop for Mental Health services such as national mindline 1771, mindline.sg, Community Outreach Teams and CHAT. We put forth these resources so that they become the legitimate alternatives that those seeking the same advantages of anonymity and easy accessibility can now go to a legitimate source to get the same kind of services for which we know is legitimate, and they can get proper referrals onwards as well, to the care that they need beyond CHAT.

These resources which we put online are also more contextualised to our local needs. I believe there is a distinct advantage. But what we need to do is to do a lot more education, and make these resources be more available and make awareness for these resources be elevated amongst the public so that they go to these legitimate resources, rather than rely on the online chatbots that they can find.

While enforcement is not practical, there are safeguards in place to protect younger users online. Under the Code of Practice for Online Safety – App Distribution Services, users’ exposure to harmful content on these services must be minimised. Designated app stores are also required to implement age assurance measures by 31 March this year. Digital content developers are also expected to comply with the Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI to ensure responsible development and application of AI for youths and children.

Additionally, the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) Digital Skills for Life framework includes content on how to use GenAI and manage its potential risks. Individuals can learn at their own pace through the available resources.

Dr Chen.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his responses. I just have three supplementary questions. Given that Large Language Models (LLMs) may be used to train the data, train and help people understand the data better, how does the Ministry assess potential data privacy risks, and are there going to be safeguards or informed consent standards being considered to protect vulnerable users?

The second one is, given that AI systems may overly affirm users' views, which may actually reinforce harmful thinking, and also over reliance may reduce actual help seeking behaviours, has the Ministry assessed this risk?

And lastly, I am glad that the Senior Minister of State has mentioned cross-cultural differences. Is the Ministry willing to support studies to understand how AI counselling tools can be used better and how their impact will be on mental health outcomes in Singapore?

Sir, I thank the Member for her pertinent questions and thoughtful questions on this very important issue that increasingly many people in public, especially young people, are concerned about.

On her first question on how can we assess data privacy and whether informed consent is needed, I think in the first instance, many of these resources we put online, such as mindline.sg, works on the basis of anonymity. So, you cannot really do an informed consent when you want it to be anonymous, so that the person seeking help does not have to worry about his or her data being exposed. The assurance we want to give to them is that first of all, the anonymity already ensures that none of these things that you actually divulge to the counsellor online or to the chatbot can be traced back to the individual. So, that is the first thing. And we want to make sure that the barrier to access this care is something that is as low as possible.

On the second question on whether these chatbots overly affirm users' views, especially those who may have suicidal ideation, and whether that will reinforce the person to end up taking action, let me just give a little bit more insight on what we use in mindline.sg, one of the First Stops for Mental Health services, which is a digital platform that uses a chatbot. It is a chatbot based on Wysa. It is a specialised mental health AI-enabled chatbot. This chatbot then guides users through digital therapeutic exercises such as mindfulness, deep breathing techniques, sleep hygiene practices that are inspired by cognitive behavioural therapy principles. It aims to supplement our existing professional counselling and therapy services by serving as a 24/7 available pocket therapist that removes any barriers towards help seeking and signpost help seekers to local human-based resources.

But just to reassure the Member, unlike GenAI chatbots, Wysa is designed to deliver such digital therapeutic exercises via a rule-based model. It is not something like the chatbot itself can be extremely creative and come up with a new suggestions. There is a rule-based model in it, so the conversation follows a structured decision tree, which is developed and continuously validated by clinicians. The Wysa chatbot has been clinically evaluated for its efficacy, safety and impact.

So, I hope this gives the Member assurance that the resources that we make available are legitimate. It has got its risks managed. We will continue to see how we can improve such resources.

The third question on whether we will support any studies to measure the outcomes, like I said, these resources were just started just about a year or so ago. We will see over time how we can collect data and then, analyse the impact of some of these interventions we put in the public domain, to make sure that we have a better insight on how to enhance them. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Health", Official Report, 27 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 21, Correction By Written Statement section.]

3 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry from 2015 to 2025 (a) how many individuals have been granted permanent residency under the Global Investor Programme (GIP) with a breakdown by the investment options; and (b) what is the cumulative investment from these GIP permanent residents with a breakdown by (i) industry sector and (ii) GIP-select funds.

Mr Speaker, the Global Investor Programme (GIP) accords Permanent Resident (PR) status to eligible global investors who make significant investments to drive business growth in Singapore.

Currently, qualified investors may apply through one of the following options: (a) invest at least $10 million in a new or existing Singapore-based business entity; (b) invest at least $25 million in a GIP-select fund that invests in Singapore-based companies; or (c) establish a Singapore-based Single Family Office with at least $200 million in Assets-Under-Management, where at least $50 million must be deployed in the Economic Development Board (EDB)-specified investments.

From 2015 to 2025, around 450 individuals were accorded permanent residency through the GIP. The distribution across options (a), (b) and (c) is approximately 50%, 40% and 10% respectively.

Over the same period, about $500 million was invested directly in new or existing Singapore-based business entities. More than half of these investments were in the Professional Services, Info-Communications and Financial Services sub-sectors. Another $430 million was placed in GIP funds that invest in Singapore-based companies.

Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Thank you for the answer. I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, what is the proportion of GIP PRs that have subsequently applied for and obtained Singapore citizenship, and what is the retention rate for GIP PRs over the same period?

The second question is: what is the percentage of GIP PRs whose re-entry permits have lapsed or were not renewed after five years due to business milestones not being met?

And the third question is, after the changes introduced to the GIP in 2023 – for example, increase in the minimum investment quantum – has the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) observed any change in the volume or profile of the GIP applicants, and how has this affected the business environment for local small and medium enterprises?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Fadli for the supplementary questions. I do not have on hand the figures on the number of PRs, or the proportion of PRs under the GIP scheme who subsequently applied for Singapore Citizenship, nor do I have the data on the retention of these investors as PRs.

Subsequently, I invite Mr Fadli to file further Parliamentary Questions for that. But I would like to share that EDB works with the GIP recipients to ensure that they continue to fulfil the Government's specified economic and residency commitments during their stay. And GIP PRs are required to submit evidence of the Singapore-based companies that they have invested in. EDB will also conduct visits to these companies to assess the company's business activities.

Only GIP PRs who meet both economic and residency commitments under GIP will subsequently have their so-called re-entry permit renewed for a further five-year period.

Mr Yip Hon Weng —

Also, for the question from Mr Fadli on the changes that were made to the scheme in 2023, whether we have since then seen a change in the profile and the volume of applicants for this scheme – since the scheme has been reviewed quite recently, we are not seeing a major change in the profile yet. In fact, I would say that prior to 2023, the GIP funds comprised mainly of local funds, and also the select funds were subsequently introduced. The applicants who have selected to invest under the GIP select funds are still going through the application process and have yet to confirm on their investments.

Apologies to you, Minister of State Gan. Mr Yip Hon Weng.

4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in respect of the NCSS Social Service Sector Salary Guidelines (a) what is the percentage of social service agencies currently paying their employees in accordance with these recommendations; and (b) what specific measures are being taken to support the other agencies which have not met the salary guidelines to close the wage gap.

Mr Speaker, currently, about 80% of employees in social service agencies (SSAs) are paid according to the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) Sector Skills and Salary Guidelines, which I will call "salary guidelines" from now on.

Over the years, the Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) has reviewed and raised the salary guidelines so that wages in the social service sector remain competitive against comparable roles in competing markets. Correspondingly, MSF adjusts programme funding to enable funded SSAs to pay employees according to the latest guidelines. SSAs should also review and adjust their operational budgets, so they can sustainably meet operational needs. Our data suggests that SSAs have generally been keeping pace with these updates to the salary guidelines.

Over the past three years, MSF and NCSS have worked with SSAs to progressively improve adherence to the salary guidelines. Beyond current efforts, such as supporting SSAs in enhancing their human resources (HR) practices, we engage SSA leaders on their organisations' salary adherence and benchmark them to their peers. In the next few years, we will further step up measures to increase adherence.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. I have two supplementary questions. Has MSF studied the relationship between wage non-compliance and staff turnover, vacancy rates or case load pressures? Because these issues as a whole, may cause workforce instability, which may in turn pose a risk to service delivery to beneficiaries.

And secondly, how is MSF ensuring that smaller community-based SSAs are not disproportionately affected, given that they may have a weaker fundraising capability compared to the larger agencies?

We thank the Member for the supplementary questions. We have not done any correlation or impact study on wage adherence with turnover. But certainly, case load has a strong impact on possible turnover; and it is something that we always are mindful of, and we make sure that the case load and the funding and the number of social workers that each programme needs would be commensurate.

Of course, we will listen to the ground when there are specific areas which need more resources or more intents by nature of the locality. We will then support, perhaps even a bespoke way.

For smaller communities, certainly, they have overheads, like every other SSAs, but they may have a smaller programme funding possibility. And therefore we are engaging them regularly to make sure that they are keeping up and also can tap on a number of resources that are available to upgrade, improve HR practices, for example, and even tap on expertise, which may be available for free from corporates who provide them as part of their pro bono services, or part of their corporate social responsibility services.

5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government has considered complementing LUSH 3.0's focus on greenery provision with a biodiversity metric that measures net ecological gain or loss, similar to the UK’s Biodiversity Net Gain framework, so that developments are assessed not only by how green they appear but by whether they result in a measurable improvement in biodiversity.

Sir, the Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (LUSH) programme integrates green spaces into our urban environment through a mix of planning requirements and incentives.

Under LUSH, developers must provide replacement greenery within new developments, which can be up to 40% of the development site area in some cases. Since its inception in 2009, LUSH has supported the implementation of over 440 hectares of greenery, which is more than the size of 600 football fields. This supports biodiversity, enhances liveability and mitigates urban heat.

Despite our land constraints, we are committed to enhancing biodiversity even as we undertake developments to meet different land use needs for our people, such as housing, education, healthcare, transport and jobs. For example, we are safeguarding more green spaces, establishing additional nature parks, restoring core habitats and conducting species recovery for rare, threatened and endemic species. These efforts work in tandem with LUSH to improve biodiversity in Singapore.

We are mindful not to adopt practices in other countries without first understanding their suitability for our local context. We assess that our balanced and coordinated approach to enhancing biodiversity can achieve better outcomes for Singapore, compared to the United Kingdom's (UK's) Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) framework approach of imposing biodiversity targets on individual development projects.

Mr Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three supplementary questions. First, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. My first supplementary question, will the Ministry of National Development (MND) consider complementing the green plot ratio with an indicator that reflects ecological value, such as the use of native species or support for urban wildlife, by mandating a native biodiversity score, so that our green spaces contribute to quality greenery and biodiversity to beyond visual amenity, and in the case of LUSH, to discourage ornamental plants with lower ecological value?

My second supplementary question, the UK's framework requires a mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain for new developments. Has MND considered adopting a similar quantitative baseline in the interest of transparency and accountability? I believe that with a measurable net-gain target, it can better assist MND to ensure that our City in Nature vision is maintaining or improving functional habitats over time.

My third supplementary question, the Ecological Profiling Exercise (EPE) identifies critical stepping stones for wildlife, but many LUSH-compliant developments remain isolated in green islands rather than contagious green linkages. Has MND considered more explicitly aligning existing programmes, like LUSH, more directly to EPE-identified priority corridors, so that developments in these locations contribute to strengthening ecological connectivity beyond isolated green plots?

Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his commitment to working together with MND and the National Parks Board (NParks) in pursuing our City in Nature vision. And we have discussed this multiple times, so thank you for working together with us first.

Let me touch on the UK's BNG framework and also look into how it has its own fair share of limitations. In fact, I did some study last night and the UK developers have cited the BNG as costly and also imposing delays to building homes for UK citizens. The UK government in itself has also proposed rollbacks to the BNG, because it is impacting their ability to build homes.

Even the UK, with their larger land sizes, has difficulty building their homes and are reviewing this, so I think we need to exercise caution when thinking about applying that to our context.

And in that regard, I also wanted to take a larger holistic view on how we are safeguarding biodiversity. The LUSH project, now in its third iteration, is just a one part of our overall strategy to enhance and to preserve biodiversity in Singapore.

I mentioned earlier on my Parliamentary Question reply that we have also safeguarded 7,800 hectares of green spaces and will establish additional nature parks, restore core habitats, conduct species recovery for rare, threatened and endemic species. This is a holistic approach towards enhancing biodiversity, in addition to what we are doing with LUSH, which is a downstream measure, and it is in aim to build and incorporate livability into our urban spaces.

In that regard, I thought it is also being very, very helpful for us to give a concrete example about this. In Chencharu, Yishun, for example, we are balancing development together with biodiversity. And this illustrates the point that I am trying to make. In that project, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has worked with biodiversity experts and the nature groups on the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Yishun Chencharu Build-To-Order flats to enhance nature planting, and also to build in advance and then implement an environmental monitoring management plan to design green spaces and linear parks.

And in that regard also, we have worked very closely with our nature groups and environmental efforts. So, I also wanted to take this opportunity to also respond to Member He Ting Ru's point on Wednesday about our engagements with nature groups being one-sided. That is not true, because we work with our nature groups very extensively. I met with them even on Valentine's Day last month. And I worked with Dr Shawn Lum, for example, on the Nature Society Singapore. In this particular Yishun Chencharu project, Dr Shawn Lum has offered his expertise to co-create planting palette with HDB.

I appreciate the Member's suggestion in looking at external examples, but I think that is not quite appropriate to Singapore's context. We have a larger, more holistic, more coordinated approach to enhancing biodiversity. I thank him for his continued work with us in pursuing this very important mission.

Let us squeeze in one more last Parliamentary Question. Ms Elysa Chen.

6 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether there are plans to strengthen and resource peer support structures for mental health in community settings and workplaces, including training, supervision and safeguards for peer supporters so that early help is more accessible while ensuring that peer supporters are not over-burdened or placed in situations beyond their competencies.

Sir, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) offers peer support training for institutes of higher learning (IHLs), workplaces and community groups. Participants are trained to recognise peers in distress, provide active listening and guide them to seek help early. Peer supporters also learn to practise self-care and may seek help through their own organisations' Employee Assistance Programmes or counselling services.

From this year onwards, HPB's peer supporter training will be available in a hybrid format and offer additional modules to enhance training. Additionally, the National Council of Social Service's (NCSS') peer support specialist programme trains persons with lived experiences to support others on their recovery journeys.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council have established the Well-being Champions Network to provide workplace-appointed Champions with the necessary resources and training to better support their organisations in promoting workplace mental health well-being.

The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) also offers online mental health awareness modules to better equip frontliners to help persons with mental health needs navigate the service landscape.

But I must say that these resources we put forth for peer support and peer support itself, is only one prong of the scaffolding we are wrapping around persons with mental health needs. In addition to some of these peer support measures that we are doing, the Member will also realise from what I shared earlier in the earlier Parliamentary Question, that we have platforms, such as MindSG.gov.sg and mindline.sg, that provide the public with useful mental health information and resources.

Ultimately, peer support is meant as a scaffold to support the greater needs of the community. They are not meant to carry the burden of mental health care that the professionals should be doing. I think if a peer supporter feels that there is something beyond which his or her competency can handle, then I think these resources we put forth, like mindline.sg, can be useful referral points for the peer supporter to guide the person in need, to access these resources where they can receive more in-depth counselling and subsequent referral to relevant care needs, at higher acuity of care.

Ms Chen, actually, we are out of time, but I will allow you a very short supplementary question.

Thank you so much. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers as well. I wanted to ask whether the Ministry will consider more deliberately integrating peer support structures into the tiered care model for mental health, so that peer supporters in the community and workplaces are clearly recognised as part of the national mental health ecosystem with defined roles, referral pathways and outcome indicators.

I ask this because many times they are the first line of defence, and HR or a trusted adult or a peer can be someone who can make a difference.

Secondly, I would like to ask if the Ministry intends to ensure that strengthen peer support structures are accessible to groups who may be less likely to seek help through formal services, such as older adults, caregivers and persons in lower wage or more precarious forms of employment, and whether targeted outreach or tailored peer support initiatives will be developed for this for these groups?

Senior Minister of State Koh, I hope you will oblige with a short answer.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, on the Member's first question whether peer supporters should be actually part of the formal network care. As I said in my reply, peer support is meant to be an informal scaffold around formal levels of support and I think we should not put a burden on them to be part of the formalised care structure. But they form a wider community of support around those with needs to help to guide them to the relevant resources that they can seek formal help for.

And the second question on what to do with the harder to reach population, that indeed is a big challenge. Because mental health is pretty much a silent disease. There is no external manifestation that you can see from far away. And so, the focus for us would be to increase education and also to put forth our community care teams, so that those with needs in the community, especially the harder to reach ones, if we know who they are, we can then find a way to reach out to them and encourage them to step forward and seek care.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day] (proc text)]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, contained in Paper Cmd 5 of 2026. As there are no amendments, I propose to take the Heads of Expenditure en bloc. I will first take Heads E, L, P, S, V, W and Z of the Supplementary Main Estimates.

[(proc text) Question, "That the sums stated for the Heads of Expenditure as shown on page 5 of Paper Cmd 5 of 2026 stand part of the Supplementary Main Estimates" put and agreed to. (proc text)]

I will now take the Supplementary Development Estimates. In respect of the Supplementary Development Estimates, they are Heads B, I, L, Q, S, T and W.

[(proc text) Question, "That the sums stated for the Heads of Expenditure as shown on page 9 of Paper Cmd 5 of 2026 stand part of the Supplementary Development Estimates," put and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question, "That the sum of $1,087,355,800 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, contained in Paper Cmd 5 of 2026," put and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question, "That the sum of $2,161,019,900 shall be supplied to the Government under the Head of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, contained in Paper Cmd 5 of 2026," put agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolutions to be reported. (proc text)]

Second Minister for Finance.

Mr Speaker, I report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions.

[(proc text) First Resolution reported, (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the sum of $1,087,355,800 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, contained in Paper Cmd 5 of 2026." (proc text)]

[(proc text) Second Resolution reported, (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the sum of $2,161,019,900 shall be supplied to the Government under the Head of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, contained in Paper Cmd 5 of 2026." (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, I move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions."

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolutions accordingly agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day]. (proc text)]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head F, Parliament. Ms He Ting Ru.

Mr Chairman, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

Singapore has come a long way since independence and much of our progress will be was built on the bedrock of political stability. Yet, we must not mistake political dominance for political stability. Single party dominance brought us here, but we cannot assume it will guarantee stability ahead. Even the People's Action Party (PAP) acknowledges a growing appetite for more voices in Parliament, more diversity in policy-making.

This is why the Workers' Party (WP) continues to push for the further strengthening of our parliamentary institutions, whether through electoral reforms or select committee work, as previously called for by Aljunied Member of Parliament (MP) Gerald Giam. Parliament is sovereign and the bedrock on which our Government derives is legitimacy. We should not view increases in legislative work, including Select Committee work as a drain on time and resources.

Parliament's duty and responsibility to the public is to continuously strive for rigorous oversight and active legislative work. To strengthen our parliamentary democracy, we must ensure that we have safeguards and institutions to define our politics, particularly, the delineation and interaction between partisan and non-partisan roles. And as we move forward towards a more diverse and representative political and parliamentary landscape, it is reasonable to properly delineate what is and what is not partisan.

A step is to introduce cooling off periods between partisan and non-partisan roles, allowing individuals to meaningfully detach from previous associations. This is especially important when we turn our attention to who sits in this House. Otherwise, how do we stop ourselves from wondering whether a Member is auditioning for another role or a different office each time they rise to speak?

I would not be breaking any rules if I retired from electoral politics, quit the WP, left my seat, declared myself non-partisan and applied to be an Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) the next day. If I did this, Singaporeans would and should ask whether this passes the smell test, wonder about our parliamentary institutions and whether it is enough to just keep to the letter of the law. Distinctions between partisan and non-partisan roles should apply to those leaving political appointments, the presidency and senior public sector roles too.

Public servants seeking political office should observe a cooling-off period. Political appointees and senior public servants leaving service office should not immediately be employed in areas they last oversaw or regulated to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest. Cooling-off periods are not novel. Jurisdictions from the United Kingdom (UK) to Canada impose various cooling-off periods, prohibiting Ministers, backbenchers and senior civil servants from joining private entities or undertaking lobbying activities to better manage potential revolving door conflicts of interest, along with the risk of undermining public trust, or even the perception of regulatory capture.

In Singapore, under our Code of Corporate Governance, independent directors must generally have a three-year gap from any prior executive role before being regarded as independent. It appears that our civil service has similar restrictions and principles.

In 2012, the Indian Election Commission muted a cooling-off period clause to prevent civil servants from joining electoral politics straight after they resign to give these persons time to dissociate from their previous roles and deter civil servants from acting or auditioning to gain favour for candidacy. This idea was previously raised by Leon Pereira and I want to repeat this call.

These restrictions are not about in the individual trustworthiness. They exist because systems must provide clear, defensible boundaries against conflicts of interest, perceived or real. This is about enhancing and concretising protections for the integrity of political institutions, especially at a time when lines may be easily blurred in the public eye.

Next, grassroots advisors. The PAP's position is that grassroots advisers under the People's Association (PA) advances the policies of a sitting administration, or the PA does important work and may bring into and policies into our communities. This is also where the complexity begins. Is the role of the grassroots advisor a non-partisan public function or is it a partisan extension of the governing party's ground operations? How do we tell? If the role is a non-partisan extension of the state, then individuals occupying those roles must be non-partisan, like the civil service.

Civil servants serve a sitting administration. They do not carry partisan loyalties into their roles, nor do their appointments hinge on electoral fortunes. Their credibility depends on discharging their duties without fear or favour, regardless of administration.

The present design of the grassroots advisors system attempts both: non-partisan in theory while requiring political alignment in practice. It would be helpful to provide clarity on which side grassroots advisors fall on. This also has implications on how grassroots activists see their role. If grassroots activists are involved in electioneering, what are the lines between partisanship and non-partisanship?

The rules are apparent for civil servants but less so for grassroots activists and PA staff. If the grassroots advisers structure is genuinely non-partisan and functions like part of the civil service ecosystem, would partisanship be appropriate? If grassroots advisors are an extension of a ruling party's political machinery, then we should be candid. And relatedly, we should scrutinise the PA budget, which is provided by taxpayers with these considerations, particularly when it shapes whether Members of this House are able to access the state resources that they come with.

Ultimately, this will ensure that our institutions uphold the principles of a parliamentary democracy where the will of the people is respected. It would be a shame if the lack of clarity of whether something is partisan or not, takes us back to the days when voters were threatened to have public funds withdrawn, upgrading pushed back should they not make the right choice.

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

Minister Indranee.

Mr Chairman, the gist of this cut was strengthening parliamentary democracy and safeguarding democracy in a changing world.

Watching recent events unfold on the global stage, it sometimes feels like democracy is under siege. In some other countries, which have long been regarded as leading democracies, there is a sense that systems are breaking down, trust has been eroded and once-revered institutions have been rendered ineffective, compromised or even under direct attack.

This malaise is marked by the following symptoms: polarisation, deep divisions with no space for a middle ground, sometimes resulting in legislative paralysis; political contestation, increasingly framed around race, religion or other divisive issues which exploit and deepen divisions; populism, where electorates are sold only the upsides and not told the downsides, and where difficult but necessary decisions are avoided; short-term thinking driven by selfish political calculation without regard to societal cost; performative politics in and out of Parliament, in lieu of substantive and rational discourse; misleading statements or even not so rarely, outright falsehoods; disregard of the rule of law and processes.

We can be thankful that our Parliamentary democracy is not in such a parlous state. This is not because we are immune to such dangers. We are as vulnerable to these political pitfalls as any other society. We have, in large part, avoided going down this path only because we and, in particular, successive PAP Governments have continued to maintain high standards and important fundamentals.

But this is not to say it cannot happen to us in the future. And it takes very little to get onto the slippery slope. How then can we safeguard our Parliamentary democracy?

First, there must be proper laws, coupled with respect for the rule of law. One must observe the letter and the spirit of the rules and to follow through, even though the consequences may be politically inconvenient.

Second, integrity. Laws alone are not enough. Around the world, we see democracies with many laws but that are still dysfunctional. Democracies can only be safe when the Parliamentarians, in whose hands democracy is entrusted, act honourably and with integrity and who, when things go wrong, have the courage and the sense of shame to accept accountability for matters within their responsibility, and their personal conduct.

Third, the right people. We need Parliamentarians with competence, commitment and conscience on both sides of the House. In Government, we need competent people who understand the fundamentals of governance and can master the difficult task of running a country. In opposition, we need competent people who understand the issues, ask the right questions and hold not only the Government, but also themselves to the same high standards of integrity and accountability. We need Parliamentarians who are committed, who will stay the course and are able to put country before party.

Ms He Ting Ru raised two points. One was on cooling-off periods and the other on grassroots advisors.

On the question of cooling-off periods, actually, it is very straightforward or simple. I think she put forward the suggestion or the scenario – could she resign from the WP and become a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) the following day?

The answer is, if she resigned from the WP and declared that, there is no obstacle to her becoming an NMP the following day, provided that when she, assuming she is selected, carries out those duties as an NMP properly. You have declared to the world that you are no longer partisan. You have taken on a responsibility to be non-partisan and so long as you carry out that duty properly, there is nothing wrong with that.

And should the reverse be the same or take place, meaning that you are in a non-partisan position and let us say, tomorrow you wish to become partisan, then the right thing to do would be to step down from your non-partisan position and say to the world that you intend to have a partisan role or are exploring a partisan role. That way, it is transparent, it is fair and this is what we have done in our system, and it has served us well.

She mentioned conflicts of interest, perceived or real. Well, that is a good point. Because a conflict of interest can also arise where you may have taken a certain position in Parliament and then later, be sitting on a tribunal which has to decide on an issue where you have already taken a position in Parliament. Now, that would be a conflict of interest too. So, we must see how we conduct ourselves appropriately and much depends on the individual.

On the role of grassroots advisors. Firstly, that is not a Parliamentary matter and is wrongly discussed under Head F. That is one of the reasons why Members of Parliament (MPs) should, in the gist when they file their cuts, actually set out a bit more on what they are going to say.

So, first, it is wrongly filed under this cut. So, I do not propose to address it in detail, other than to say that this has been answered quite fully by Minister Ong Ye Kung in a separate earlier session of Parliament, where he explained the difference between the role of a grassroots advisor, which is essentially flowing from Government, and that of an MP. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Leader of the House", Official Report, 27 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 21, Correction By Written Statement section.] The MP's role is to come to Parliament to represent their voters and to do certain things and the roles are separate.

So, let me just wrap up by pointing to a speech made by Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1988 about the infamous Hendrickson affair. He cited three political models: one, the American system of checks and balances, where the underlying premises is fundamentally one of distrust, where each branch must constantly keep the other in check; the other, the British system, where the executive, the Prime Minister and Cabinet are given wider discretionary powers.

The Singapore system is more like the British system, except as Mr Goh noted, Singaporeans have gone further and super-imposed on our constitutional framework, the ideal of a political leader who is upright, morally beyond reproach, someone people can trust and we believe that leaders must be men and women of ability and integrity, committed to the public good.

Mr Goh quoted from the Analects of Confucius: "To govern is to set things right. If you begin by setting yourself right, who will dare deviate from the right?"

We have very little time for clarification. So, Ms He, it has to be a very short clarification. In total, we only have one and a half minutes, so that is for you and the Minister to respond.

Okay, thank you, Mr Chairman, much obliged. I think I have two quick clarifications. The first is, I heard the Minister's explanation earlier about how as long as you tell people that you have stepped down from your partisan role or your non-partisan role, and you are switching over to the other side. But I think I quoted earlier that there is a code of corporate governance which has a three-year cooling off. So, is the Minister saying that if directors or formerly executive officers in a company actually step down and declare that they are henceforth independent, that that would suffice?

And then the second point, I believe, was the Minister saying about conflicts of interest. I just wanted to set the record straight that even though some of the WP MPs were tasked by the WP Central Executive Committee to look into the matter of our Secretary-General, Mr Pritam Singh, this was an internal party disciplinary matter. Proceedings are ongoing. I do not want to pre-empt nor speak for the panel at this stage.

But also just to clarify that the Motion that was tabled before Parliament was on many limbs. None of them were about contravening the party's constitution, which is what we were tasked to look into, and when it came to actually voting about the Motion, I felt that because of the many limbs in there, I felt that was something that I could not support.

Mr Speaker, I do not have to look at the code of governance for directors. That is a regime for directors. What is of importance is what is the right and appropriate conduct for MPs, and I have outlined that earlier.

On the second point about conflicts of interest, the resolution that was discussed did touch on matters which will be something that the Central Executive Committee or the disciplinary tribunal of the WP has to look at. I say no more than that because it is self-evident and self-explanatory.

Ms He, I would like to invite you to withdraw your amendment.

Sir, I would like to once again thank our Parliamentary staff for their work in ensuring the smooth running of the various functions of our Parliament. And with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $50,739,900 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $12,792,700 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]

Head N, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Chairman, I seek to move, “That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Estimates be reduced by $100”.

In Greek mythology in Homer’s “Odyssey”, after years of war and wandering, Odysseus faced one of his most perilous trials. To return home, he had to steer his ship through a narrow strait from which there is no turning back. On one side loomed Scylla, a six-headed monster perched upon the cliffs, each head striking with deadly precision to seize a sailor from the deck. On the other roared Charybdis, a vast whirlpool that swallowed the sea itself and dragged entire ships into the depths. Sail too close to one and man would be taken one by one. Drift to the other, the whole vessel will be lost. One danger was immediate and targeted; the other was systemic and consuming.

Odysseus could defeat neither. To attempt the impossible meant ruin. So, he steadied his crew and held his course. He preserved his vessel, surviving by judgment, discipline and resolve.

For small states like Singapore, this remains the eternal test – not to overpower giants but to navigate safely between them.

Today, the waters are narrowing again. The post-Cold War order is giving way to sharper rivalry and deeper fragmentation. Norms are contested. Institutions are strained. The power of the law risks being replaced by the law of power.

Mr Chairman, I have several questions.

First, Mr Chairman, on the evolving global order and the defence of rules. As major powers compete across security, technology and trade, how will we preserve Singapore’s strategic space? When pressure mounts and blocs harden, how do we remain sovereign in decision, secure in defence and stable in prosperity?

On sovereignty, Russia's invasion of Ukraine remains a grave breach of the UN Charter. Elsewhere, internal crises and external pressures test the principles of non-intervention and territorial integrity. For a small state, sovereignty is our lifeblood, our legitimacy, our survival. If might makes right, small states pay the highest price.

The question for the Minister is this: how will Singapore uphold a rules-based order consistently and credibly? How will we defend principle not only in word, but in deed – ensuring the same standards apply regardless of who breaches them?

We are also witnessing the erosion of multilateralism. Rising tariffs, expanding industrial policies and strains within the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) weaken global commerce. For a trade-dependent nation, fragmentation hits our ports, our factories and our households. In this environment, what more must we do? What more can we do to strengthen high-quality trade agreements? How do we advance digital and green economy partnerships and push meaningful reform so that rules, not raw power, govern global commerce?

Second, Mr Chairman, on regional stability and conflict management. Geopolitical tensions in the Asia Pacific remain acute. From the China-Japan row to flashpoints in the South China Sea, maritime incidents carry risks of miscalculation and escalation. How then is Singapore reducing these risks? How do we uphold freedom of navigation while avoiding binary alignments? And how do we reinforce the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) Centrality so that ASEAN remains the anchor for dialogue and peaceful dispute resolution?

On Gaza, amidst immense humanitarian suffering, how will Singapore combine moral clarity with diplomatic effectiveness? We have stated our support for a negotiated two-state solution, yet the pathway appears fragile. What role can Singapore play? How do we contribute meaningfully to humanitarian relief and a credible path toward peace, without being drawn into the politics of others?

Third, Mr Chairman, on domestic resilience and shaping global norms. Foreign policy no longer operates only beyond our shores. In an age of polarised narratives, it reaches into our information space and our social cohesion. How do we strengthen the home front? How can we deepen public understanding that foreign policy shapes our food security, our energy resilience, our jobs and our safety abroad? How can we strengthen trust, unity and resilience at home? If we are to be steady abroad, we must be united at home.

Meanwhile, how can Singapore strengthen its role in protecting frontier domains? In cyber governance and artificial intelligence (AI), how can we help shape norms that are inclusive and safe? How are we strengthening cooperation on climate action and biodiversity to safeguard our seas, skies and digital space? And looking ahead, how will Singapore help write the rules for the new frontiers? How will we ensure that small states retain voice and agency in global rule-making?

Fourth, Mr Chairman, on bilateral relationships and strategic diversification. With the United States (US) and China, the challenge is enduring. How will we engage both constructively while remaining independent? We must cooperate where we can and stand firm where we must. The balance is delicate. How do we maintain trust with both without becoming bound to either? How do we keep principled positions without becoming predictable instruments? How do we preserve strategic autonomy without drifting into isolation?

With Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, our destinies are intertwined. How can we deepen connectivity and strengthen the ASEAN core so that ASEAN remains central in our region's stability?

Beyond our immediate neighbourhood, diversification is strategic necessity. How are we advancing partnerships with middle powers, like India, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand? Are we exploring the Gulf, Latin America and Africa so that our economy has multiple engines of growth and our diplomacy has multiple pillars of support?

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, Odysseus did not calm the sea or slay the monsters. He survived because he understood the dangers, disciplined the crew and held the course.

Singapore must take heed. We cannot control the currents of history. We cannot stop the rivalry of giants. But we can control our response. We must be firm in principle, pragmatic in execution. We must be steady in diplomacy, agile in adaptation. We must be united as a people to defend our sovereignty and we must ensure that the power of the law prevails over the law of power.

Like Odysseus steering between Scylla and Charybdis, we cannot eliminate every danger. But with judgment in strategy, discipline in execution and unity in purpose, we can hold our course, and we will emerge stronger on the other side.

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

Chairman, I thank MFA for navigating in this complex external environment. I have talked about the breakdown in the international world order in my speech for the Budget debate. Today, I want to focus on how Singapore conducts foreign policy and the relationships it maintains, particularly in relation to free trade and security.

The central challenge before us is this: the assumptions that underpinned the post-Cold War order, such as open markets and compliance with international law, can no longer be taken for granted. Therefore, the question is how Singapore should adapt to the evolving global environment in its conduct of foreign policy. I wish to make a few points.

First, we must be clear about what should not change. Singapore's foreign policy is anchored in the principles of sovereignty and the rule of law. For a small state, like Singapore, international law ensures that our rights are protected. Even when major powers disregard rules, it is not in our interest to do the same. We must remain consistent and ensure that when Singapore speaks on international issues, other countries recognise that Singapore is credible and its positions are consistent with its own conduct. When Singapore speaks on international issues, other countries recognise that its positions not based on expediency or convenience.

Second, in relation to free trade, we must recognise that globalisation is entering a more fragmented phase. Economic relationships are increasingly shaped by strategic considerations. For example, as I have mentioned during the Budget debate, the US' position on the imposition of tariffs has been troubling. In this environment, Singapore's approach must be to remain open and connected.

This means that we must actively diversify our economic partnerships. We must deepen ties not only with major powers, but also across regions, such as Asia, the Middle East, Europe and other markets. It also means supporting high-quality trade agreements and looking into emerging areas beyond traditional commerce. By participating actively in shaping new economic rules, we can ensure that emerging standards and frameworks align with our interests and values. At the same time, of course, we must continue to strengthen our economic resilience at home, so that external shocks do not disproportionately affect Singapore's economic position.

Third, on security, it is also important that we maintain balanced and good relationships. Our ties with the US and China, and other key partners each serve distinct and important interests. We should continue to engage all sides constructively, without being drawn into taking zero-sum positions. This requires careful calibration as well as a clear articulation of our national interests, so that engagement with one partner does not come at the expense of another.

Finally, ASEAN remains important to our strategy. A cohesive and credible ASEAN provides Southeast Asia with collective weight and agency. Singapore should continue to strengthen ASEAN-led platforms which promote dialogue and cooperation. Unfortunately, ASEAN is facing its own challenges, with Myanmar's participation limited by its political problems and the war between Thailand and Cambodia marking the first military confrontation between two ASEAN countries.

In order to achieve these objectives, we must invest in diplomatic capability. To conduct foreign policy effectively, it is important that our diplomats have deep expertise. Foreign policy today extends beyond traditional policy-making into domains, such as economics, climate and technology. Our diplomats' capacity to operate across these intersections is crucial.

MFA's work is especially important in these uncertain times. I support the Ministry's work and its continued efforts and look forward to hearing about the Ministry's plans in response to the challenges we face.

Mr Chairman, as the global environment becomes more fragmented, supply chains are reorganising. As a city-state, our resilience increasingly depends on trusted proximity and connectivity. I believe that trust is the intangible infrastructure for us to continue punching above our diplomatic weight class in a fragmented global economy.

In line with my view of Singapore as a networked economy, Singapore's strength lies in becoming a key trusted node in connected regional systems – linking cities, industries and people. Accordingly, I frame our foreign policy through three rings of strategic connectivity.

One immediate neighbourhood for execution. Recent engagements between Prime Minister Wong and Prime Minister Anwar reaffirm our commitment to managing complex issues constructively. The Singapore-Johor corridor is the fastest pathway to practical results, addressing our constraints in manpower, cost and energy resilience.

Beyond Johor, there are opportunities to deepen ties with cities in the rest of Peninsular Malaysia as well as East Malaysian cities, such as Kuching and Kota Kinabalu, where complementarities in energy, food systems and digital sectors offer mutual economic benefits. Likewise, the Singapore-Johor Riau corridor remains a natural growth platform.

Sumatra and the Riau Islands are in close proximity. Few Singaporeans realise that the city of Medan is nearer to Singapore than to Jakarta. We must therefore get Singaporeans to see opportunities beyond our shores.

Two, regional networks for resilience. Beyond our immediate borders, we must scale our trusted node status across ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), Northeast Asia, China and India.

And three, emerging markets for longer term growth. We must pave pathways into Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. The evolution of our overseas missions from mere representation to market paving and ecosystem building is critical. In this regard, I would be interested to know how MFA prioritises these neighbouring city and regional partnerships as platforms to help Singapore companies enter new markets and support Singaporeans seeking opportunities abroad.

Sir, the global order has shifted. Relying on traditional partners continues to be necessary but is no longer sufficient for Singapore to survive and thrive. We may become vulnerable if we over-depend on frameworks that no longer hold in this vulnerable era.

While we often speak of ASEAN centrality, we must not let regional cooperation remain primarily a matter of diplomatic process, while global giants rewrite the rules. Singapore must become a catalyst within ASEAN to coordinate our positions to exert collective bargaining power with middle and major powers.

To do this, we must invest more in ASEAN's architecture. This could include seconding MFA officers and having Singaporeans serve in leadership positions in the ASEAN secretariat. How is MFA planning to deepen regional cooperation, integration and encourage ASEAN to move together as a cohesive economic and political grouping during our chairmanship next year?

This new era also requires small states to step up diplomacy. We cannot assume nations will respect us simply because of our economic success. Our political leaders, diplomats and senior officials in all Ministries must cultivate deeper relationships with their counterparts in other countries. The US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement was reportedly struck over a golf game in 2000 between then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and President Bill Clinton.

Today, world leaders often communicate directly to strike deals. Alexander Stubb, the President of Finland, which has a smaller population than Singapore, has shared how he is able to text message both President Donald Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Do our leaders maintain that same level of direct access to global decision makers?

Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's early travels across Africa and Asia, built friendships that established support for Singapore and the global South for decades. He also built very strong personal relationships with leaders of global powers. We must build on this and not take this for granted.

In response to my question if Singapore will be accepting the US' invitation on the Board of Peace, the Minister said Singapore is still assessing it. In the meantime, the Board has held its first meeting and it turns out, European nations that initially appeared to be staying out were there as observers. Our neighbour, Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim majority nation, has also joined it. Has Singapore made any decisions in this regard, including being at least an observer. To be clear, I am not calling for any commitment of funds or troops to the Board.

Overseas missions serve as important frontlines in promoting Singapore's interests and safeguarding the well-being of Singaporeans abroad, as well as listening posts to understand what is really happening. We currently lack resident ambassadors in Italy, Sweden, Canada, Brazil and Nigeria. Establishing more resident missions in middle powers must take higher priority as we diversify our partnerships.

Finally, we must develop greater people to people relationships with our neighbours, particularly among our youths.

Sir, the post-Cold War order that many of us grew up with is fading before our eyes. For more than three decades after the Cold War, the world operated under a relatively stable framework underwritten by the leadership of the US. Global trade expanded. Multilateral institutions such as the UN and WTO provided rules and processes. Small states like Singapore could rely on a system where law mattered more than raw power.

Today, that order is fracturing. We see the rise of multipolarity, sharper strategic rivalry, fragmentation of supply chains, and weakening confidence in multilateral institutions. Trade, technology and finance are increasingly instruments of geopolitical competition.

Sir, for Singapore, this is not an academic debate. It concerns our survivability.

First, on security. As a small state in a strategic region, we must expect greater pressure as major powers compete. Our approach must remain clear and consistent: we do not choose sides, but we choose principles. We uphold international law, freedom of navigation and ASEAN centrality. At the same time, we must continue to invest in a strong and credible SAF and Home Team to deter aggression and safeguard our sovereignty.

Second, on the economy. Our trade is multiple times our gross domestic product (GDP). Any fragmentation of global trade, decoupling of technology standards, or disruption of supply chains will directly impact our growth and jobs.

Third, on multilateralism. A rules-based order protects small states. If power politics prevails, small states suffer first. Singapore must continue to champion open markets, plurilateral agreements, and cooperation among like-minded countries.

In that regard, I would like to hear MFA’s latest take on the evolving post-world order and what are the implications for Singapore?

Chairman, over the past year, the global geopolitical landscape has become increasingly tense, from conflicts in Europe and South America to rising frictions even within our region. International institutions such as the UN and the WTO are facing growing limitations in resolving disputes. Increasingly, we see a world where power shapes outcomes and the principle of “might is right” is gaining ground.

For a small and open country like Singapore, this is a sobering reality. We cannot take peace, stability, or prosperity for granted. Our survival has always depended on foresight, resilience and above all, unity.

Against this backdrop, how will MFA position Singapore to navigate a more uncertain and fragmented world? How will MFA work together with MINDEF and other security agencies to strengthen our diplomatic, economic and defence resilience in the years ahead?

Equally important, how will the Government rally Singaporeans to stay united, vigilant and prepared? In a more dangerous world, our greatest strength is not just our military or our economy, it is the cohesion, trust and collective resolve of our people.

Mr Chairman, technology has become a geopolitical tool to impact the geopolitical economy that we have. Right now, you can see the "IC war". Not literally a war, but the barriers are being set up for technology transfer and also technology utilisation, trying to impede countries from moving from a higher level of technology capabilities.

I think Prof Joseph Nair famously mentioned two things: power and soft power. Technology then, can be a soft power. But the question is how we utilise it for the benefits of Singapore and also countries surrounding us or even for the world.

My observation is that technology, as we are practising right now, is on a lower level for foreign affairs. We set up technical assistance centres, we help our neighbouring countries and we offer scholarships. At a higher level, where we are in pioneering technologies such as quantum, such as AI. We typically leave it to either the industry or the research centres or the universities to implement, according to their relationships, maybe their complementary strengths.

Would MFA consider technology as a strategic tool in our foreign policy that we upgrade and push as a soft power?

My proposal is whether we will upgrade our current technology directorate into an ambassador level or have a coherent way of putting all our technologies in Singapore, from the pioneering and not just on the pioneering capabilities, but also the absorptive capacity of certain countries, because different countries have different level of technology absorption capacity. So, the training centres, will they be upgraded on a national scale rather than ad hoc basis? So, I am looking forward to a small strategic direction for our technology policy.

Mr Chairman, US-China strategic competition is deepening and global supply chains are being reshaped by security concerns, export controls and geopolitical alignment. A small, open economy, these shifts are not distant events for Singapore They have direct implications for our sovereignty, our economic resilience and the livelihood of our people. To protect Singapore’s independence as well as for Singapore to remain a trusted global hub for trade, we must understand the risks and respond decisively.

I would like to seek clarity from MFA on several fronts.

On our strategic posture, how does MFA see the US-China relationship evolving, and what does it mean for Singapore’s ability to make our own choices? Where are the pressure points where their rivalry could squeeze our room to manoeuvre, and how are we protecting that precious independence of action that underpins our sovereignty? And importantly, how are we making sure Singapore is never pushed into taking sides – whether in technology standards, security cooperation, or trade – so that we can continue to act in the best interests of our people.

Second, on economic security. Given that the world is shifting from efficiency to resilience, how is MFA working with the Ministry of Trade and Industry to make sure Singapore is not overly exposed to any single geopolitical chokepoint? Because when supply chains are disrupted, it ultimately affects our jobs, cost of living, and the confidence businesses have to invest in Singapore.

How vulnerable are we to the US-China technology split, especially in semiconductors, AI and digital infrastructure that our companies rely on to stay competitive and families depend on for daily life? And as global supply chains re-organise, how are we positioning Singapore as a trusted, stable hub so that businesses continue to choose Singapore, create good jobs and keep our economy strong?

Finally, on resilience and public trust, how is MFA working across Government to protect Singaporeans from foreign interference, whether it comes through politics, digital platforms, or even economic pressure? And just as importantly, how is MFA helping Singaporeans understand these risks in a clear, calm way, so people feel informed and prepared rather than anxious? In a world where misinformation spreads quickly and external actors may try to influence our views or decisions, Singaporeans need to know what to look out for and trust that Government is safeguarding our interests.

Mr Chairman, these questions reflect our shared responsibility to safeguard Singapore’s sovereignty and secure the future of our people in a more contested world.

Chairman, Singaporeans have much to be grateful for and proud of. One would be our Singapore passport, the world's most powerful for the last four consecutive years and counting. Singaporeans are privileged with visa-free access to 192 countries, signifying strong diplomatic ties, exceptional stability and good reputation internationally. The passport is but one outcome of what our foreign policy achieves.

For us to remain and continue to shine as a red dot, our foreign policy has to be appreciated beyond our diplomatic call or in this House. It must also do so in our homes. Fellow Singaporeans must understand support and feel connected to it. There is a Malay saying, "tak kenal maka tak cinta". If we do not know something, we cannot love it. Likewise, if Singaporeans "tak kenal", or do not know how and why our foreign policy matters in a complex world, then "Where is the love?", a famous chorus by Black Eyed Peas.

Chairman, we are in an era where power is volatile. Institutions are under strain and geopolitical competition is intensifying, less constrained by shared rules. How do we safeguard our interests amid the weakening of the rules-based international order together? Singapore's thrives on stability and a rules-based international system. Our economy, our security and our future, all closely tied to what happens beyond our shores. That is why strengthening domestic support and awareness of our foreign policy is so important. Everything begins at home.

How will MFA enhance efforts to strengthen public understanding of Singapore's foreign policy principles so that there is sustained domestic support for the stand we take in complex and polarising situations? Singaporeans today are more globally aware than ever before. Many follow international developments closely and care deeply about humanitarian issues. Of late, we have seen how strongly Singaporeans here feel about Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan.

Across communities, Singaporeans have shared the hurt and held the pain, each motivated to do their part, especially for women and children affected by the wars. Last year I was part of the Singapore delegation to Cairo, Jerusalem and Ramallah. Many Singaporeans reached out to share their concern. Some tried to unpack the complexities and many offered their support. Plus, many community organisations I met at a dialogue after the working visits also shared their interest in playing a part to rebuild Gaza.

I urge MFA to be intentional in engaging and collaborating with our homegrown and international non-governmental organisations, so more Singaporeans can participate in the Ministry's efforts to do its part in helping the ones in need. Singapore has been unwavering in our humanitarian assistance to state solution, maintaining good relations and supporting the Palestinian Authority. Earlier this week, the Palestinian Authority's Minister for Finance and Planning, Dr Estephan Salameh, sat in this very House. I first met Dr Estephan in his office in Ramallah. As he was then, he remains hopeful of Singapore support and assistance. He is not alone. Singaporeans are too, and I am glad to learn that the Singapore Government has committed to that.

Chairman, for decades, multilateral institutions such as the UN and ASEAN have provided platforms where law norms and collective voice help offset disparities in economic weight, military strength and political influence. Singapore has consistently invested in these frameworks. We founded the Forum of Small States at the UN in 1992 to amplify collective voices of countries that do not possess the size or leverage of major powers. We continue as its chair today. Small states must work together to avoid being marginalised in a system shaped by larger actors. Yet, multilateral processes today are increasingly constrained by declining consensus and major contributors reassessing engagement.

So, in such an environment, how does MFA balance continued commitment to establish on new institutions, such as the Board of Peace, with the need to assess and possibly pivot when these institutions no longer function as intended?

Closer to home, ASEAN remains a cornerstone of Singapore's foreign policy. Our region's relative peace and stability did not happen by chance. It was built over decades of cooperation and trust. As geopolitical tensions increase globally, ASEAN's unity and central role will become even more important for the future of Southeast Asia. The Prime Minister also spoke about diversifying connections and levelling up engagement with us going regional, such as Latin Ameria, Africa and the Middle East. This is a prudent move. Building stronger ties with these middle powers will help Singapore remain relevant and connected in a changing world.

As influence becomes more dispersed, how is MFA determining which partnerships to prioritise? And as we expand to new regions, how is MFA working across governments to ensure Singaporeans are equipped to engage them.

Chairman, our long-term strengths begins at home. One important step we can take is to prepare young people. Minister Chan Chun Sing earlier mentioned the importance of a Public Service building up global exposure and connections to understand the world well. I very much welcome this move. Singapore should also take this move upstream and ramp up efforts to expose students to different cultures, languages and religions.

Chairman, another Malay saying goes, "jauh perjalanan, luas permandangan", that is, the further you travel, the wider your view is. And our students pick up new languages, travel and interact with people from different societies, they learn. They build confidence and understanding. And when they understand the world better, they will also understand why Singapore must remain open, outward-looking and engage at the global stage.

Foreign policy can sometimes feel abstract about strategy, geopolitics and international negotiations. But its impact can also be deeply personal. We must ensure that our diplomacy and our people are ready for that reality. We must continue investing and strengthening our appreciation at home, building partnerships abroad and staying principal in uncertain times. We must continue so Singapore will be bit and shine bright as a mighty red dot.

Chairman, Singaporeans are more interested and engaged in international affairs. Thanks to social media. Greater awareness and interest in regional and global news is a strength we should support and nurture. But it also makes us more vulnerable to fake news, misinterpretations of events and developments. False narratives about Singapore or other countries can inflame sentiments and erode trust in our multiracial and religious community.

Foreign policy today has real domestic salients. What happens abroad can quickly reach our homes and our hearts, affecting our security, jobs and social cohesion. As a small, open and highly connected city‑state, we cannot afford for our foreign policy to be misunderstood or for our society to be divided by events far from our shores.

MFA has already been stepping up engagements with students, youths, businesses and community groups through dialogues and workshops to explain our operating context and foreign policy in accessible terms. We should build on this by working more closely with the People's Association (PA) to train grassroots leaders as well as other community leaders as a front line of resilience.

Such training can equip grassroots leaders with three things. First, a clear grasp of our foreign policy fundamentals, that we are guided by Singapore's long‑term national interests, international law and the need to maintain our autonomy and cohesion. Second, practical skills to spot and counter disinformation: how to verify sources, recognise manipulation and respond calmly when residents share misleading or inflammatory content. Third, scenario‑based exercises on sensitive issues, such as foreign conflicts involving race or religion, so that leaders can facilitate difficult conversations without letting emotions tear our social fabric.

MFA should also develop simple, shareable explainer materials and rapid‑response lines to clarify our positions quickly when major international crises break, so that grassroots leaders, schools, unions, businesses, religious and community organisations can anchor discussions on facts rather than rumours. Regular closed‑door briefings for key local opinion shapers can help ensure their public comments reflect an understanding of Singapore's interests and are not exploited by foreign actors.

Mr Chairman, navigating a world that has become more contested, more fragmented and ultimately more dangerous demands not just a capable foreign service, but a geopolitically literate citizenry behind it. I say this, having served nearly seven years as a Singapore diplomat. I know first-hand that our foreign policy is only as strong as our domestic understanding behind it.

Our diplomats are skilled but our foreign policy choices often involve navigating between imperfection options, not choosing between right and wrong. And when difficult decisions must be made, whether to take positions that may temporarily strain relationships or navigate between competing interests, those choices are much harder to sustain without a public that understands why we make them. Domestic geopolitical literacy is not a soft compliment to foreign policy. It is a foundation that makes hard choices possible.

I appreciate MFA's efforts on this front. Since January 2024, it has conducted some 150 dialogue sessions and workshops with students, youths and businesses. That is a good start. But engagement and literacy are not the same thing, especially as several Members of this House have acknowledged, that in an era where geopolitical actors actively shape public narratives through digital channels, a dialogue session raises awareness. Building literacy requires the same cumulative approach that we apply to other 21st century core competencies, layered across years, integrated into multiple disciplines and reinforced over time.

I urge MFA to work more deeply with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to embed geopolitical literacy throughout the curriculum from secondary school onward. Our students should graduate and enter the workforce with an understanding of how Singapore's prosperity depends on regional peace and open trade routes, why our stance on international law serves concrete national interests and how global shift and technology, climate and demography and more will reshape the world that they will inherit. A Singapore that understands the world that it lives in is a Singapore that can make hard choices and sustain them. This is the kind of resilience that no budget line can buy directly, but which only good education can build over time.

Mr Chair, recently, a resident approached me to ask if the Government will do a citizen consultation exercise on whether Singapore accept the invitation to join the US-initiated Board of Peace. She shared with me a poll on Yahoo, where 87% of respondents voted "no" and I believe that was her view as well.

I shared with her my view that while I am a big advocate for greater citizenship consultations in many areas, there are broader considerations for this. She replied that carrying out a public consultation was not about letting public opinion dictate our decisions, but to help ensure that the decision considers societal and cultural views and not just the Ministries involved doing work on its own.

Sir, I was touched when my resident was candid with me on this issue that meant to her, but I was troubled because if her perspective and assumptions are similarly held by many other Singaporeans, then we have lots to do to build greater domestic support for our foreign policy.

In a world that is more divided, more volatile and more vocal than ever before and where attempts at foreign interference are rife, foreign policy can easily become a lightning rod for emotion. Every citizen will have our own view on foreign policy, undoubtedly shaped by our cultural backgrounds and influences we are exposed to daily. These reviews are relevant and it is important that the Government has its pulse on the ground.

However, it will be unwise to turn strategic decisions of such a nature into public referendums, or for the Government to be pressured into taking certain decisions based on public sentiment. This will compromise the deafness and manoeuvrability and confine the space of our foreign policies which are critical in this complex geopolitical environment. In this context, it is more important that we build up domestic support. But how do we do so? I would like to suggest four quick strategies.

First, anchor foreign policy in shared national principles. Singaporeans will differ in views, but we must be united in valuing our shared principles. And if decisions are consistently framed around these principles, while there may disagreements or individual decisions, public will understand the logic behind them.

Second, be more transparent in how we explain our key decisions. Not all negotiations can be conducted in the public square. But if the Government can explain the context, constraints and trade-offs more clearly after decisions are made, even if our citizens are not involved in the "how", they will better understand the "why", and their confidence will deepen.

Third, invest in education and strategic literacy and dedicate resources to schools, just like what Member Eileen Chong has just raised. A population that understands global economics, security realities and regional dynamics, will be much less susceptible to simplistic narratives.

Fourth and finally, leadership matters. We need calm, consistent voices that avoid inflaming sentiment, overtly or insidiously on both sides of this House, to set the tone for national discourse.

Mr Chair, building support for our foreign policy does not mean crowdsourcing strategy. It means building trust, strengthening understanding and reinforcing the values that have safeguarded Singapore's Independence and sovereignty for decades.

Singapore will have to navigate a more contested geopolitical environment for the foreseeable future, including intensifying US-China rivalry. Some may ask whether it is time for us take a side. But doing so may not be in our national interest. The reality is that all countries need to work with both, which will remain consequential players regardless of how the international order changes.

Singapore's relevance to both major powers should not be taken for granted. I have two questions for the Minister. Why are both accounts important to us and how should Singapore work with both? Are there specific areas of cooperation that we are looking at?

Mr Chairman, Singapore's foreign policy has always been anchored in maintaining strong relations with all major powers while safeguarding our sovereignty and national interest. Can MFA update us on how our relationships with the US and China have developed, and how we have continued to strengthen ties with both countries?

Even as we maintain positive relations with Beijing and Washington, the world is becoming increasingly bifurcated. Supply chains are fragmenting, technology ecosystems are splitting and countries are being pressured to choose sides. For a small, open economy like Singapore, this is an existential challenge.

This is why engagement with middle powers and sizeable regional blocs matters more than ever. Partners like the European Union (EU), Japan and South Korea share our commitment to open trade, multilateral rules and a stable international order. Deeper collaboration with these partners can help us expand economic opportunities, diversify our dependencies and uphold the global commons.

Can MFA share the initiatives Singapore is pursuing with such middle-power partners, along the geopolitical, trade and technology fronts? How are we working with like-minded countries to partially insulate Singapore from an increasingly fragmented world, while continuing to advance our national interests?

Small nations thrive when the rules-based order holds. I hope MFA can outline how Singapore intends to play an active role in strengthening that order along partners who share this conviction.

Mr Chairman, I will speak on Singapore's relations with the US and China, and our engagement with international organisations amid an evolving global order.

Singapore's foreign policy has long been grounded in a rules-based approach anchored in international law and multilateral cooperation. For a small, trade-dependent nation, respect for international law is not optional. It safeguards our security, stability and prosperity.

However, the global environment is changing. We are seeing signs of major powers recalibrating their roles within the traditional rules-based system. The US has, at times, reduced engagement in certain international institutions and pursued new strategic groupings. China, meanwhile, has expanded its regional influence through initiatives, such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) platforms.

As new frameworks emerge, middle powers are reassessing their positions. Singapore must be clear-eyed about this shift and consider how best to deploy our limited diplomatic resources across established institutions and emerging platforms.

Our approach should remain steady: engage with US and China constructively, uphold international law and safeguard our national interests. As an open economy reliant on trade and connectivity, a stable and predictable international order remains vital to our long-term resilience.

In a more fragmented environment, it is not about choosing sides. It is about navigating competing frameworks with consistency, credibility and strategic discipline. May I therefore ask the Minister how Singapore intends to manage our relations with both the US and China, while engaging existing institutions and emerging alliances, so as to preserve stability, uphold international law and secure long-term prosperity for Singapore?

Chairman, in 2027, ASEAN will mark its 60th anniversary. Over six decades, the region has moved from uncertainty to one that is more stable, connected and economically vibrant.

For Singapore, ASEAN remains central to our security and continued relevance in the world. This milestone comes at a particularly consequential moment as Singapore assumes the ASEAN chairmanship amid growing global tensions. Major powers are competing more sharply and supply chains are reconfiguring. In such an environment, ASEAN's unity becomes even more critical.

When Southeast Asia is drawn into major-power rivalry, smaller states will have less strategic space to act independently. Our shared interest must therefore be to keep ASEAN open, inclusive and cohesive, able to engage all partners while preserving its collective autonomy.

At the same time, ASEAN must move with greater urgency on economic integration. Initiatives such as the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement and the ASEAN Power Grid are not abstract long-term ambitions but practical pathways to strengthen regional resilience, connectivity and competitiveness. Greater alignment of digital rules and payment can enable our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to operate more seamlessly across borders while regional energy cooperation can support our shared climate transition. Singapore as Chair is well placed to advance meaningful progress in these areas.

In this regard, I seek two clarifications from the Minister.

First, as ASEAN navigates a more contested geopolitical environment, how does Singapore intend to use its chairmanship to strengthen ASEAN cohesion and strategic autonomy so that the region remains united and not pulled apart by major-power competition? Beyond consensus statements, what practical mechanisms can ASEAN act collectively when its unity is tested?

Second, as economic integration becomes increasingly digital, what concrete outcomes or milestones can we expect under Singapore's chairmanship for the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement? In particular, how is Singapore supporting efforts to narrow digital capability gaps among member states so that integration benefits the region as a whole?

Chairman, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many entrepreneurs hope to expand their businesses overseas, but they worry about being unfamiliar with a foreign country and do not know where to start. Currently, international situation is complex, competition between countries intense, supply chain adjusting, rules and standards are also changing everywhere.

Therefore, Singapore's diplomacy not only relates to national security and our international standing, but also directly affects the overseas development space for Singapore enterprises.

Although Singapore cannot influence power rivalry between big countries, it must maintain an open, stable, rule-based and predictable environment. Only in this way can SMEs have the confidence to "go out, stand firm and go far".

As an ASEAN member, Singapore has consistently promoted regional economic integration and an open market. Agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership have created a larger, more dynamic market in Southeast Asia.

I want to ask: do our enterprises really feel these macro achievements? How are Singapore's relations with other ASEAN member states currently? How can we work hand-in-hand with them through bilateral cooperation, as well as the ASEAN platform to achieve mutually beneficial and win-win outcomes?

In Europe, Singapore has deep relations with the EU, with the free trade agreement having been in effect for years, and green and digital cooperation also advancing. Singapore's stability and law-abiding nature should be advantages for enterprises entering Europe.

However, EU rules are complex and standards strict, creating barriers for SMEs. Therefore, I have two suggestions.

First, can diplomacy more proactively help SMEs "interpret rules"? For example, overseas embassies, Government agencies and chambers of commerce could collaborate to provide regulatory information, market alerts and policy guidance, even creating an overseas investment guide.

Second, when expanding overseas networks, can we more strategically utilise Singapore's hub position in ASEAN? Let enterprises use Singapore as headquarters to expand into the ASEAN region; whilst maintaining Singapore-EU friendly relations, make Singapore a gateway for European enterprises entering Southeast Asia. Transform "Singapore-ASEAN-EU" into a clear business platform with mutual reinforcement.

Enterprises "going out" is diplomacy and also becomes Singapore's diplomatic calling card. When Singapore enterprises build sustainable projects in ASEAN and provide digital solutions, engage in green finance cooperation in Europe, they are not just doing business, but also showcasing Singapore's standards, integrity and professionalism. Corporate credibility strengthens national credibility, whilst national diplomacy expands corporate space.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify: in maintaining an open environment, how does Singapore firmly support free trade and rules-based order? Facing protectionism, will we more actively participate in regional rulemaking rather than passively adapting?

Mr Chairman, diplomacy creates space for enterprises, enterprises create value overseas – both support each other.

Singapore may not be able to pursue scale advantages, but it can pursue value network advantages. As long as we deepen integration with ASEAN, consolidate cooperation with the EU and let SMEs truly benefit, Singapore can expand its cooperation network in a complex environment and preserve flexible space for future development.

Mr Chairman, ASEAN is important to Singapore because as neighbour states, we share many common interests and when we advocate and present ourselves as a regional bloc, can navigate as a stronger collective force.

Amid the cloud of geopolitical uncertainty, ASEAN member states recognise the need for greater unity and integration. In this regard, ASEAN has taken considerable steps forward in the recent year.

First, there has been more regional integration, especially in emerging areas such as the digital economy and sustainable energy. The signing of the upgrade to the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement will improve market access, transparency and connectivity for Singapore companies doing business in the region.

The substantive conclusion of the Digital Economy Framework Agreement (DEFA) is yet another milestone. DEFA is the first regional digital economy agreement and when implemented, will improve rules in key areas such as digital trade facilitation, payments, standards and cross-border business flows, benefitting Singaporeans and Singapore businesses.

Second, ASEAN is a platform that can be leveraged to engage widely with countries around the world. The ASEAN Plus mechanisms and Dialogue Partnerships provide Singapore and ASEAN with regular touchpoints with major and middle powers. These include the East Asia Summit, which Singapore played a key role in establishing in 2005. ASEAN has also institutionalised cooperation with other regional organisations such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) through the biennial ASEAN-GCC Summit.

As we see ASEAN taking proactive steps to establish itself as a noteworthy regional platform, can the Minister share more on the continued relevance and importance of ASEAN to Singapore and the region as a whole and Singapore's role in the efforts to strengthen ASEAN integration, particularly as Singapore takes on the ASEAN chairmanship in 2027?

Chairman, in my work, I have witnessed how Singapore companies were able to operate confidently in ASEAN markets and collaborate on mutually beneficial platforms like the ASEAN Power Grid. This has been underpinned by diplomatic trust and strong government-to-government ties carefully nurtured over time through MFA's steady work.

In today's fragmented world, ASEAN is more important than ever to Singapore. As a small state, our resilience and strategic relevance are strengthened when ASEAN remains cohesive and central.

May I ask the Minister to share more about the latest in Singapore's ASEAN diplomatic strategy? Are there other regions besides ASEAN where we can replicate this cohesive diplomatic framework with?

Personally, I believe we should institutionalise leadership networks so trust endures beyond personalities, strengthen ASEAN's crisis coordination for faster collective responses and reinforce ASEAN's credibility in wider regional and global platforms.

Diplomacy may not always be visible, but its dividends are real. In uncertain times, we must double down on steady principled engagement. For Singapore, that begins and remains anchored in ASEAN.

Mr Chairman, hon Member Hazlina spoke about the mighty red dot. At this point, I would like to make a book recommendation called "The Not So Little Red Dot" to everyone. I received this as a Christmas gift. Not quite done with it yet, but so far, it has been a fascinating read of Singapore's 60 years of diplomacy journey.

Sir, the global contestation among major powers has intensified. We are witnessing tit-for-tat trade tariffs, export controls and increasingly troubling strategic posturing. The geopolitical temperature is rising. Countries in our region are understandably concerned, carefully evaluating their options in a more unsettled and uncertain landscape.

In this new multipolar world, ASEAN must navigate carefully and manage major power competition without becoming an arena for proxy rivalry.

Sir, ASEAN's continued relevance cannot be taken for granted. It must be earned.

First, ASEAN must preserve unity and centrality. ASEAN has always been most effective when member states act collectively. If we allow divisions to widen, ASEAN's voice will weaken and external powers will shape the regional agenda instead.

Second, ASEAN must remain economically integrated and outward-looking. In a world of fragmentation and protectionism, ASEAN can position itself as a stable and attractive production base. Strengthening intra-ASEAN trade, supply chain connectivity and digital integration will reinforce our relevance.

Third, ASEAN must continue to anchor an inclusive regional architecture. Platforms such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and East Asia Summit remain important channels for dialogue, confidence-building and crisis management. Even when major powers disagree, ASEAN can provide neutral convening space.

As a founding member of ASEAN, our strategic space is closely tied to ASEAN's cohesion and credibility. A strong and united ASEAN enlarges Singapore's diplomatic and economic space. A divided ASEAN narrows it.

Under this setting, can I ask MFA how can ASEAN ensure continued relevance and what are the implications for Singapore?

Mr Patrick Tay, you may take your two cuts together.

ASEAN has long been described as a core strategic asset for Singapore. Could MFA elaborate on how it is strengthening ASEAN's role as a stable regional framework, one that amplifies the collective voice of its members and anchors Southeast Asia in an open, inclusive and rules-based order?

As we prepare for Singapore's ASEAN chairmanship in 2027, how is MFA prioritising efforts to strengthen ASEAN unity and effectiveness so that ASEAN countries can continue to matter to both its members and to external partners? In particular, how is the Ministry advancing economic integration, supply chain resilience and ASEAN centrality in a more fragmented global system?

On regional peace and stability, how is MFA working with our neighbours to reinforce ASEAN-led mechanisms, manage differences through dialogue and uphold international law, especially in areas of growing strategic tension?

Finally, how is MFA positioning ASEAN for the future? What concrete steps are being taken to advance cooperation in the digital economy, green transition and human capital development so that ASEAN remains competitive and resilient?

I would be grateful if the Ministry could address how these efforts together safeguard Singapore's long-term interests and regional stability.

On relations with Malaysia, Indonesia and ASEAN neighbours, Chairman, I would like to ask MFA how Singapore is stepping up engagement with our immediate neighbours, particularly Malaysia and Indonesia, in a more uncertain and competitive global environment.

First, beyond our well-established bilateral frameworks, how is MFA refreshing and prioritising engagement to ensure these relationships remain strategically relevant and responsive to new challenges?

Second, could MFA elaborate on what new or emerging domains it is actively developing with our neighbours? In particular, how is MFA advancing cooperation in areas, such as the digital economy, renewable energy, sustainability and supply chain resilience, and how are these being translated into concrete, practical projects?

Third, how is MFA strengthening engagement at the sub-national level? What role do partnerships with Malaysian states and Indonesian provinces play in Singapore's broader regional strategy, and how does MFA ensure these ground-up collaborations deliver tangible outcomes?

I would be grateful if the Ministry could address how these efforts collectively strengthen Singapore's security, economic resilience and strategic space.

Chairman, as Members have already shared, the world is indeed more tumultuous and uncertain. Several flashpoints around the world – Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine, US-China – continue to remind us that even in a world with largely ample global resource to solve crises, matters that transcend boundaries have not been so easy to find a resolution to and clear long-term solutions continue to elude us.

Because when the rubber hits the road, sovereign nations look out for their interest first. Such a message is not lost on us as a small country that has to manoeuvre through headwinds where big players muscle in and make every attempt to influence. In fact, of late, any effort to converge towards multilateralism appears to swim against a very tough tide.

On Gaza, for example, member countries of the Board of Peace have pledged billions, billions. Yet the plan is met with much cynicism. Save for the US, no other permanent member of the UN Security Council has come on board this plan. While the ceasefire in Gaza has held to some extent, the situation remains dire and fragile. The risk of renewed conflict remains high. Israel has recently made moves to tighten control over the West Bank and Hamas continues to be tentative in disarmament.

In the meantime, while outwardly, armed conflict appears to have been dialed down, ordinary Palestinians continue to suffer in the middle of this impasse. Singaporeans continue to be deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis for which a longer-term resolution still remains unclear.

In recent days, MFA hosted Palestinian Authority's Minister of Finance and Planning Estephan Salameh to reaffirm our commitment that Singapore stands in support and solidarity of the Palestinians in capacity building and toward statehood. In fact, we have already contributed more than $25 million in humanitarian aid of this crisis.

To the Ministry, I ask, what is Singapore's forward plan and contribution to alleviating this crisis and tragedy and what more can Singaporeans do in support of these efforts? Indeed, how we manage this crisis has parallel lessons for us in how we navigate our foreign diplomacy and relations moving forward. How we balance our existing relationships with countries we have traditionally regarded as friends, how we push against flagrant breaches of international law by countries, how we maintain our position as a principled, trusted partner in the global stage and ultimately, how we look out for our national interests for Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore has long excelled in government-to-government diplomacy. Our bilateral partnerships and multilateral engagement remain strong foundations of our foreign policy.

But today's geopolitical environment requires us to go one level deeper. Resilience is no longer built only through state relationships. It is built through networks of people, institutions and shared capabilities. Middle powers, such as South Korea, Australia, the Nordic states, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and our ASEAN neighbours, we face similar challenges – navigating major power competition, sustaining open economies, managing ageing populations, strengthening social cohesion and fighting low total fertility rates.

These shared realities create natural grounds for deeper partnership. After all, there is something special about bonds forged through shared challenges. Yet structured platforms for sustained collaboration between Singaporeans and our counterparts in these countries remain limited. I would therefore seek the Minister's view on three areas.

First, whether Singapore can develop structured mid-career exchange or fellowship programmes between fellow middle powers. Second, how we might facilitate longer term institutional partnerships connecting SMEs, research institutions, healthcare systems and civic organisations. And third, whether MFA could expand Track 1.5 dialogues at people-to-people platforms to include younger professionals and community leaders from diverse sectors.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in an increasingly multipolar world, influence is not defined by size but by the strength of our networks.

Chairman, with the shifting supply chains and new growth poles, emerging regions, such as Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, will be critical to Singapore's long‑term resilience. Our Government can and must play a bigger role in helping Singaporeans venture confidently into these frontiers, gaining a deep understanding of these countries and establishing friendships with their peoples.

MFA has already started to move in this direction. We are opening new embassies in Mexico City and Addis Ababa, to serve as gateways to Latin America and East Africa and to deepen our understanding of these fast‑growing regions.

Our new and existing Missions in emerging regions should be resourced not just for diplomatic presence or administrative protocol, but as active economic enablers, working in tandem with the Ministry of Trade and Industry in mapping sectoral opportunities, curating pipelines of projects and matching them with Singapore companies, workers and researchers.

We must give Singaporeans the assurance that when they go farther, they are not going alone. MFA has been strengthening crisis response, including deploying crisis response teams, contacting eRegistered Singaporeans in affected areas and working with local authorities to bring our people home when needed. We should build on this by investing further in consular readiness in emerging regions, widening public awareness of eRegistration and the 24-hour MFA Duty Office hotline and travel advisories.

We should nurture a new generation of "frontier‑ready" Singaporeans. In many countries, strong relationships are the most important ingredients for successful outcomes. Singaporeans must be empowered to form these relationships between peoples at the business and at the political level. This is the reality of how the world works that we cannot change and it is also something that AI is not able to easily replace.

We can expand scholarships, internships and mid‑career attachments in emerging regions, especially in sectors where our capabilities align with their needs, including sustainability and digital services. When young Singaporeans live, study and work in these places, they build language skills, networks and a feel for the ground that no brochure or academic course can replicate.

I hope to see more plans and initiatives that help to position Singapore as the indispensable hub for Latin American countries looking to enter the ASEAN market and with greater participation opportunities available to Singapore.

Finally, I would like to propose for MFA to work with business chambers, unions, universities and media to highlight success stories of Singaporeans in these emerging regions.

Chairman, in a more contested and volatile world, small states cannot afford to stand alone. We must build coalitions not only through trade and security, but through development partnerships. Singapore's credibility comes from experience: building trusted institutions, strengthening governance, managing public finance with discipline and developing talent and urban systems under constraint.

In this changed world, success cannot mean Singapore simply running far ahead. We have both an obligation and a strategic interest in mutual knowledge sharing with fellow small states, middle powers and our regional neighbours.

How are we strengthening sustained capacity-building platforms – talent exchanges, not just in education and work but in the sports and arts as well; institutional partnerships and governance collaboration – so that we build enduring networks of trust, not one-off engagements?

In a fragmented world, influence is built not by size, but through sharing our capabilities together.

Chairman, as more Singaporeans study, work and travel abroad, many may not realise that wherever our citizens go, Singapore quietly maintains a constant watch over their safety.

At the heart of this effort is MFA's 24-hour Consular Response Centre, staffed around the clock to assist Singaporeans facing emergencies anywhere in the world; whether arising from accidents, natural disasters, civil unrest or unforeseen crises. Even in the middle of the night, when a Singaporean encounters distress thousands of kilometres away, there is always a duty officer in Singapore ready to respond, coordinating assistance with MFA's overseas Missions, liaising with local authorities and supporting both the individual abroad and their families back home.

This commitment was demonstrated during the recent floods in Hat Yai, where hundreds of Singaporeans were affected and more than 800 were safely assisted to return home through coordinated evacuation efforts. I would like to commend the strong and often unseen work of the MFA officers and our overseas Missions, whose dedication provide reassurance to Singaporeans far beyond our shores.

While the 24-hour hotline provides vital coordination and guidance, situations on the ground may sometimes require physical, in-person assistance, particularly in countries where Singapore does not maintain a resident embassy or consulate. Some countries address this through consular-sharing arrangements. For example, Australia and Canada provide reciprocal assistance to each other's citizens in locations where one country may not have a diplomatic presence, allowing travellers to access basic emergency to help locally.

May I ask the Minister whether MFA is exploring similar consular-sharing partnerships with like-minded countries, so that Singaporeans may continue to receive timely on-the-ground assistance even in places where we do not have a resident diplomatic presence?

Minister Balakrishnan.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of my colleagues, I first thank all Members for their ideas, their suggestions. And I must say, again, this year, I think I can claim bi-partisan support for MFA.

The post-World War II international order actually is historically an unprecedented phase in global history and generally, the last 80 years have been a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity for most countries in the world, but the point is that it was unique. And the deeper point today is that that international order has ended. Ended!

This order used to be characterised by principles of multilateralism, international law, sovereign equality, free markets, global supply chains organised on the basis of efficiency and global institutions – the UN, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the WTO.

In the last 60-plus years of Singapore's Independence, actually, we evolved exquisitely to take full advantage of this global system. And we benefited from Pax Americana, from China's reform and opening, from the rise of middle powers and the progressive integration of ASEAN. In fact, Singapore thrives as a global metropolis in an age of globalisation.

The first brutal hard truth is that if that period has ended, we cannot simply presume that we just carry on as per normal, somehow magically, things will fall into place. This is a moment of rupture. It is also worth asking ourselves why and how that benign era of globalisation has ended.

Actually, foreign policy begins at home and this applies in understanding what is happening now on the global stage. In many countries, there has been a populist backlash. Globalisation has created wealth, but it is also blamed for accentuating fault lines, for increasing inequality, for middle-class stagnation, for the loss of jobs, for growing despair and deep polarisation in many societies.

This domestic dysfunction has now projected itself onto the global stage and you will see that this has undermined the support for the international order. So, I completely agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Gerald Giam. That this is not a passing shower. This is not just a small tremor. This is a geostrategic tectonic plate rupture.

The Greek historian Thucydides wrote, “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. His words are now acutely apt. Today, the Great Powers flex their military and economic power more readily than ever before in pursuit of their interests more narrowly defined. And to be frank, with less pretence of legal or moral justification for their actions. Where there was once economic integration, there is now fragmentation and weaponisation of interdependence and dependence. We are now in a world where international relations are no longer driven primarily by rules or by attempts to achieve consensus. Actually, the Great Powers have always been selective when applying the rule of law to themselves. But now, they feel even less need to engage in hypocrisy. It is all about how raw power and how that raw power asymmetry can be exploited.

And so, this is a more dangerous world for small countries, because small countries do not have the strategic heft to buffer ourselves from turbulence. For Singapore, a tiny city-state, the shoals are even more treacherous. Let us pause for a moment to consider what our options are.

First option: despair, give up, surrender to our fates. I think the answer must be no, because that is not who we are. This is not who we were in 1965 when in fact, a newly independent Singapore faced even longer odds with less resources.

Second option: choose one dominant power and seek protection under its wing. No. This would undermine our sovereignty, our independence, and in effect, make us a vassal state. Singapore should not and does not need to do this. And after all, Singapore has never expected anyone else to come to our defence. We will defend ourselves.

The third, and in my view, the only viable option for us is to continue to determine our long-term national interests and then exercise our agency to chart our own path. Choose our own destiny. Yes, we may be small, but we are a sovereign and independent country. We are a trusted global hub and an assiduous bridge builder. We want to make common cause with all states that are willing to engage us. We build regional and global networks that support dialogue, openness and inclusion. We want to be useful but not made use of. We are successful because of our domestic unity, our economic relevance and vitality, and our defence capabilities. Therefore, we may be small, but we have agency, we have resilience and we have the resources and the will to back this up.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how Singapore will defend our principles not just in words, but also in deed. Singapore's foreign policy has always rested on two pillars. Mr Rajaratnam described the first pillar as “the theology of foreign policy”. Theology. That means, the world that we hope to have, a world that hopefully was based on principles of fairness, sovereign equality and international rules.

But we have never been naïve. There is a deep vein of realism in the way we view the world and the way we operate. This is what Mr Rajaratnam termed “the practice of foreign policy”. We have always understood that size and power matter in foreign relations. Disagreement, coercion and even conflict are part and parcel of the cut-and-thrust of international relations. This is precisely why we have spent between 3% and 6% of our GDP for six decades for defence. An effective foreign policy needs both pillars: idealism and realism. We never want to become so cynical that no one will trust us. But we also do not want to be so naïve that we will get taken advantage of by everyone.

We need to assess objectively our national interests based on our unique circumstances as a tiny multiracial city-state in the heart of Southeast Asia. So, the next set of questions: what are our national interests?

First, to safeguard our sovereignty, our independence and our national unity.

Second, to secure access to essential supplies and the freedom of navigation necessary for us to continue to have access to these essential supplies. What are these essential supplies? Energy, food, water – and you can add to that list.

The third national interest is to continue to strengthen our role as a trusted global hub for trade, for finance, for wealth management, advanced manufacturing and other global services.

The fourth aspect of our national interest is to support a rules-based multilateral approach wherever possible, recognising that challenges to the global commons, like climate change, like pandemics, in fact, have to be tackled collectively because they go beyond the ability of any single country, even a super power, to resolve.

In such a tumultuous world, the point I am making today is that we are going to face more strategic dilemmas and difficult choices. Because, for instance, our interests are not always going to be aligned with the Great Powers, all the middle powers, or our immediate neighbours. On some issues, and this is the key point that we are making today, on some issues, we will have to say “no”, to say "no" courteously, respectfully and constructively. But nevertheless, we stand firm and say "no". This is not about choosing sides but about upholding principles and a careful assessment of Singapore's long-term national interests.

I have been in this post long enough to tell you that pressure has been and will be brought to bear on us. There will always be attempts to weaken our will and to divide us domestically. I will also state that sometimes we will pay a price for staking our position but I am hoping that this House and the citizens beyond will agree that we must retain this ability to say "no" when we have to and that if we ever lose that ability to say "no", then that is the day that Singapore loses its relevance, indeed, our independence.

Let us provide some examples so it is not just words.

We have consistently called out violations of international law. We did so when Russia invaded Ukraine. To us, that was a clear violation of international law and the principles of the UN Charter. More recently, we also did so in relation to the US actions in Venezuela. And we took these positions because a world based on "might is right" is a world that is more dangerous for Singapore.

We spoke out about the need to preserve a rules based trading system, including the principle of most favoured nation in the WTO. We expressed categorically our disappointment with the US tariffs that violate this principle, because trade is our lifeblood. Trade is more than three times Singapore's GDP. Jobs, investments and living standards depend on our predictable access to external markets.

We also took clear positions on the Israel Gaza conflict. We condemn the attacks that occurred on 7 October 2023 on Israel. These were acts of terror. We affirm that every state has a right of self defence. However, in exercising this right, countries must abide by international law, including international humanitarian law, and we have clearly stated that Israel's military response has breached international humanitarian law.

I agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng on the need for both moral clarity and diplomatic effectiveness, although I would add that we must not try to reduce foreign relations into a morality play. I think you will be hard pressed to find occasions when the Prime Minister or I will ever refer to anyone, any other leader or any other country as evil or saint. That is not the way things work in real life.

Coming back to Gaza, we have and we will do more to alleviate the suffering in Gaza, and in fact we have been able to do more precisely because we have got extensive diplomatic ties across the entire Middle East, and we are one of the few countries, and those of you who travel with me will know, with remarkable access to all sides. We have sent 11 tranches of humanitarian aid amounting to more than $25 million to help the civilians in Gaza so far, and you know that these fundraising efforts are continuing. And more than just money, that there are Singaporeans lining up to volunteer their services, their professional services to help on the ground.

To answer Mr Gerald Giam, we are still assessing the invitation from the US to formally join the Board of Peace, but in the meantime, we will explore initiatives, including those that were recently announced at the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace on 19 February 2026.

Singapore will continue to play a constructive role in the pursuit of peace and reconstruction in Gaza, and on Palestine, the larger question. Our long-standing position remains that the only path to a just and durable peace is a negotiated two-state solution consistent with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We oppose attempts to create new facts on the ground that undermine the prospects for a two-state solution. And it is our consistent position that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.

These positions that we have taken and explicitly stated over the last few years have not been universally welcome and even domestically, have elicited active debate. But the point I am trying to make to you is that people may disagree with certain decisions and positions that we take, but I hope you understand why we take these positions, as Mr Foo Cexiang has emphasised.

Taking a position rather than lying low and seeking cover, in fact, aligns with furthering our national interest. Articulating these positions is part of exercising agency, because we must try to shape the environment and to carve out conditions which are most conducive for the survival and success of small states.

I agree with Mr Giam that in this fraught geopolitical environment, the personal touch is still paramount. Building relationships at a personal level between leaders, political leaders is still the paramount currency of diplomacy.

Last year, MFA facilitated over 180 visits, incoming and outgoing, at the political level. If you include officials and civil servants, the number balloons exponentially.

But the purpose of travelling is not just to show up, just to fly the flag, but to deepen the personal rapport and trust between leaders and officials and their foreign counterparts, particularly when the views are divergent. It would not resolve the conflict but building reservoirs of trust and understanding reduces the probability of miscommunications and unnecessary conflicts.

Having said all that, let me go one more layer of resolution down. MFA has five priority workstreams. First, we want to engage all the great powers constructively and we want to give them a stake in the stability and prosperity of our region, because that balance of power between great powers is what gives small states like Singapore room for manoeuvre and options.

The second workstream is to buttress an even wider network of middle-power partnerships for greater stability. I think in the last couple of years, the need for middle powers, particularly middle powers who share an affinity for international law, multilateralism, free trade, that imperative for middle powers to get together and for us to engage in middle powers has become all the more obvious.

Our third workstream is to strengthen a stable and integrated ASEAN, not just because it is our immediate neighbourhood but because this happens to be a part of the world with great potential over the next couple of decades, in terms of economic growth, in terms of a rising middle-class, in terms of technological leapfrogging, in terms of infrastructure and integration.

Fourth, obviously, we do need to pay attention to our immediate neighbours. And by immediate neighbours, it is Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei – the core of our core.

And fifth, take an overarching view, we need where to do where we can, to reinforce a rules-based international architecture despite the current headwinds. So, again, it is an example of not surrendering to our fates.

Let me delve in a little bit more detail about major powers, starting with the US and China. Mr Edward Chia, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Shawn Huang and Ms Jessica Tan asked how we will maintain trust with both the US and China, whilst preserving Singapore's strategic options and even while the two superpowers are competing against each other in the realms of security, supply chains, technology and trade. It is a tough question.

Let me start with US. We have a substantial, deep and multi-faceted relationship with the US. The US has long been and continues to be the largest foreign investor in Singapore by a long way. If you check the figures, you will see that it is multiple times more stock of foreign direct investments (FDIs) from the US than the second, third, fourth and fifth investor, even if you add it up. We purchase US defence equipment and we cooperate closely on countering terrorism and proliferation. We are deepening cooperation in critical and emerging technologies. This year, we celebrate 60 years of diplomatic ties with the US.

Having said that, China is also a vital partner with whom we enjoy a robust and close relationship. Over most of the last 10 years, it has been our largest trading partner in goods. At the last Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation, we concluded 27 agreements ranging from finance and innovation to food security and green energy. We marked 35 years of diplomatic relations last year.

Actually, if you stop to think about it, beyond the numbers, we have a unique relationship with China. China and Singapore are the only two sovereign states in the world with a majority Chinese population, with deep linguistic, culture and historical links. This presents both opportunities and it is also a burden for us. Because Singapore is an independent multiracial city-state in the heart of Southeast Asia. We have our own identity, our own political system and our own values. Actually, our value proposition, even to China, is to be same-same but different, to quote Mr Lim Swee Say. Same-same, yes, of course, we enjoy the affinity, the linguistic, the shared cultural heritage. But different, because Singapore's destiny and our value proposition is to be distinct and not yet another small Chinese city. Do you see my point?

Therefore, we have to work with both the US and China where our interest coincides and where our interest diverged, we will courteously stand up and say "no". And when we say "no", both sides must understand it is not personal, but it is based on a principled assessment of Singapore's national interests and that we are not acting as a proxy for one or the other, against them.

So long as we can maintain this, and I speak now from my experience, in fact, so long as we maintain this principled approach, actually, I feel that we come under less pressure because they know this tiny little city-state is one where the more you push them, the more spine and the more firmly they will hold their ground. And conducting foreign policy on this basis with superpowers, I am telling you from experience, I think this is only way to do it.

The reality is that all countries, including Singapore, will have to find creative ways to work with both the US and China because they are the major powers and they are relevant to our future.

Turning to the middle powers, we are growing our network of partnerships with middle powers and the regional blocs. So, for instance, in 2025, we upgraded our partnerships with Australia, France, India, New Zealand and Vietnam. We achieved a new partnership with South Korea. We signed the EU-Singapore Digital Trade Agreement. And we are deepening relations with more like-minded partners. We are expanding our global footprint in Africa and Latin America. And to support this, we are establishing new Missions in Mexico and Ethiopia. Actually, there will be more to come. And I want to reassure Mr Lee Hong Chuang that all these moves, beyond the diplomatic field, are also in, to increase access for our local enterprises to overseas markets.

On ASEAN, I agree with Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Valerie Lee that ASEAN has to remain the cornerstone of our foreign policy. It is a salient platform from which we engage the wider world.

For ASEAN to remain relevant, Mr Liang has reminded us that we must deepen our regional integration in order to become more cohesive, more united and credible. An integrated ASEAN builds a stable regional platform for Singapore and gives us a voice, more so than a unilateral voice and also the convening power of ASEAN. That is why we are also pushing hard on key initiatives that bind our ASEAN economies closer together, as emphasised by Mr Yip Hon Weng and Miss Rachel Ong.

We are making progress on the ASEAN Power Grid. This is about creating a sustainable, interconnected infrastructure that supports the entire region's continued growth. The ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement was substantially concluded last year. We hope to finalise the agreement this year. I believe it will unlock the immense potential of the digital economy in ASEAN in the years to come.

But we must also continue to look outward. We should give all major powers a stake in the stability and prosperity of our region and to ensure that ASEAN remains the partner of choice. This is the logic behind our open, inclusive ASEAN-centred regional architecture. The more countries invest in ASEAN's collective progress, the more stable we will be. This balance of power and interest provides small countries like Singapore with more room for manoeuvre than an alternative scenario where there was only a single power dominating our region.

Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Patrick Tay and Miss Rachel Ong asked how we plan to leverage our upcoming ASEAN Chairmanship to deepen integration and unity. We will assume the Chair of ASEAN in 2027 during ASEAN's 60th anniversary. This is a heavy responsibility but also an opportunity, an opportunity at a time of turmoil. We will deepen integration, we will promote external partnerships, we will continue to keep the ASEAN region open for business, open to the world, committed to peace, stability and cooperation.

I would like to assure Mr Gerald Giam that we do, in fact, second officers to the ASEAN secretariat, particularly at the leadership positions. We have done so over the years, including the current Deputy Secretary-General for the ASEAN Economic Community, Mr Satvinder Singh. MFA will continue to curate and facilitate secondments for MFA and other public officers from other Ministries to the ASEAN secretariat and to other international organisations. This extends our experience and knowledge base of international diplomacy and tradecraft more widely across our civil service.

Let me turn now to our neighbours, closer to home. Strong relations with Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei are critical. Mr Patrick Tay asked how we will step up our engagement of with them. Mr Victor Lye asked how we will strengthen economic coordination with our neighbours through city-based and regional partnerships, given the increasing cross-border activities of Singaporean companies and Singaporeans.

With Indonesia, we have resolved longstanding issues and are now in the position to explore mutually beneficial projects in energy, food security, education and healthcare. We are discussing cross-border electricity trade, carbon capture and storage and establishing a Sustainable Industrial Zone across the Batam-Bintan-Karimun corridor. These strategic projects will accelerate decarbonisation. It will catalyse green investment in both countries, and we look forward to commemorating 60 years of diplomatic ties in 2027.

With Malaysia, our leaders meet regularly, both formally and informally, for candid discussions. This has allowed us to pursue beneficial regional partnerships, including the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone and the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link. We are deepening economic and people-to-people ties with East Malaysia. In fact, we will be establishing new consulates, one in Sabah and one in Sarawak shortly.

But at the same time, I will also be candid and tell you that we are trying to manage outstanding bilateral issues that are complex that, by definition, have been around for a long time and will take time to resolve. But the fact of the matter is that Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei will always be close permanent neighbours, and we cannot afford to allow spiky issues to undermine our overall positive cooperation.

On international organisations, norms and standards, I agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Lee Hong Chuang on the need to protect the global commons and to support multilateralism. Despite the challenges, the rules-based multilateral system ultimately provides the architecture of norms, standards and institutions that protects the global commons and gives all small states a say. This means, in spite of the headwinds today, we must continue to do our best to build overlapping flexible circles of plurilateral partnerships with like-minded countries. Where we can make common calls, we do so and we proceed.

We remain fully committed to the WTO. But achieving consensus among 166 members is very difficult. Our strategy is to push the envelope with like-minded partners where we can, who share our commitment to free trade, and we aim for high-ambition agreements that are inclusive and WTO-consistent, so that others can join when ready. In other words, make common cause, move forward, invite other people to come onboard, always stay open and inclusive.

The Joint Statement Initiative on E-commerce Agreement began with Singapore, Australia and Japan. It now has 72 co-sponsors. The Future of Investment and Trade Partnership brings together 16 small- and medium-sized economies on supply chain resilience and trade facilitation.

You see my point? These are examples where you start small, but you can build and expand these platforms.

Beyond trade, we have also built constituencies of support among fellow small states in the UN. The Forum of Small States, which Singapore co-founded, brings together 108 countries to address issues, like sustainable development, climate change, protecting the global commons and digitalisation. Building consensus in a fractured world is difficult but not impossible. Ambassador Rena Lee presided over the conclusion of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement in 2023. We will continue to contribute where we can. And our nomination of Ambassador Rena Lee as a candidate for Judge in the International Court of Justice reflects our commitment to advancing the international rule of law.

Dr Neo Kok Beng has suggested leveraging technology as a soft power. Completely agree with him. We have in fact been stepping up technology cooperation in our partnerships with other countries. We work together with others, including at the G20 and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), to shape the norms and standards and, more importantly, open access to technology that can benefit all countries. We will continue to strengthen such engagements and ensure that Singapore remains an open and trusted hub for technological innovation and scientific collaboration.

I tell my foreign counterparts, send your people to us, we will run an open book exercise with you. We will show you how we do it because anyway, the challenge is not in the idea. The challenge is in execution. And to the extent that we can show people what we have done, including our mistakes, and they can modify it and make it relevant to them, that is how we exercise thought leadership and cooperation in this field.

Let me come to the challenges ahead.

We are in a very turbulent world. We will face more inflection points, and we will have to take more difficult positions. Singaporeans will have different views on these foreign policy issues. Being interested or, as Ms Eileen Chong has said, literate in global issues and understanding Singapore's national interest will help us engage the world with knowledge, understanding and confidence. We do not necessarily have to agree on all our foreign policy stances, but we must agree that these are matters to be discussed and decided by Singaporeans alone.

That means keeping a wary eye on foreign interference and influence. With increased global contestation, foreign actors will want us to align with their views. They will try to see their narratives and there will be attempts, as have occurred in more recent times, to create fake news and to play on potential internal divisions.

We have already seen information campaigns targeting Singapore online, including, I must add, during our own General Elections last year, where Singaporeans were urged to vote along religious lines. Government statements on regional developments have prompted criticisms from foreign netizens who want us to adopt their interpretations of history, and such attempts will continue.

Geopolitical contestation has become a tussle for the hearts and minds in cyberspace as well. We must be aware and we must exercise caution because we have a diverse population. And never, never presume that we are immune to the polarisation and fractures in societies elsewhere.

So, where does this leave us? The world today, more dangerous, more unpredictable than I have ever seen in my decade plus as Foreign Minister. The global order that used to underpin our success has ended and we do not expect a stable new equilibrium to take shape in 2026 or, even frankly, even the next couple of years. We must expect more issues on which we will have to take a difficult stand. And external and domestic pressures on us will grow.

But I also believe that we should take heart. The challenges we face today are serious, but they are less severe than what Singapore faced in 1965.

Singapore had unexpectedly become independent. We had no hinterland, no resources, no armed forces. Our security was precarious. Our economic viability was in doubt. Our social cohesion was yet to be forged, and we lived in a volatile and dangerous neighbourhood that regarded us with suspicion. Despite all this, our Pioneers pressed ahead and they built this country.

This is a narrative that connects Singapore over the decades. We may be small and improbable, but we have never been afraid to stand up to fight for what we believe in. Today, we are in a far, far better position in terms of tools and resources.

We have three prerequisites for success. The first is our domestic unity, although this is work always constantly in progress. As long as we understand that we are all in this together, as long as we can inoculate ourselves from foreign influence, as long as we can disagree maturely and, ultimately, still forge a domestic consensus, we will continue to thrive. We cannot be bought or bullied by anyone.

The second ingredient is our economic vitality and relevance. Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, "Singapore cannot take its relevance for granted. Small countries perform no vital or irreplaceable function in the international system". Hence, we must preserve our relevance to the world. In 1965, our per capita GDP was US$500. Today, it is over US$90,000. Paradoxically, today's more fractious world accentuates Singapore's value as a trusted stable hub. Our friends and partners know that we speak honestly and independently. They know that we are open and welcoming to all. They know that we honour our word. Contracts are sacrosanct. Investments and intellectual capital are protected. There is a premium in such a world for stability, consistency and respect for the rule of law.

The third ingredient is our ability to defend ourselves. We can do that today because we have National Service and because of the steady investment in defence for decades. We must preserve this capability because it keeps us safe and we are a country that can hope for the best, but also prepare for the worst.

So, on this note, I thank all Members for your long-standing support for MFA's work as we continue to navigate the challenges, we continue to safeguard Singapore's national interest, and we seize the opportunities in these troubled times.

I began with Thucydides and the cold logic of power. I will end on a different note. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus offered a different kind of wisdom, "Character is destiny".

For all the turbulence in the world, I believe Singapore's destiny is bright, not because of our size or our luck, but because of who we are. That Singapore spirit – indomitable grit, courage, honesty, discipline, diligence, rectitude and compassion. These are not mere abstractions. This is the Singapore spirit that got us here, and it is what will carry us forward. [Applause.]

Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

Mr Chairman, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] During the debate on the motion of thanks to the President in September last year, I spoke on the weakening of the multilateral rules-based order. Within a short span of five months, that description is now outdated. The world order that we have been familiar with has ended.

What is the impact on Singapore? Singaporeans might not have felt it yet. First, there has been a constant barrage of extraordinary headlines concerning international affairs over the last two years. People may no longer feel very shocked when reading about issues like Venezuela or Greenland. Second, the UN and other international organisations are still in existence. Third, despite the pressures created by tariffs, our economy did better than expected last year.

But there is real impact on Singapore.

A key reason why the rules-based international order was effective was that it was backed by the US. It had supported international organisations, provided global public goods, and rallied many countries in defence of one set of rules for international conduct. Violations will be punished, with economic sanctions or military action. The international rules-based order therefore introduced a certain degree of restraint and predictability into world affairs, which otherwise would revert to “big fish eat small fish, small fish eat shrimp”. This means more space for shrimp to survive and flourish.

Now, the international order has lost its major underwriter. The world has become less predictable, and countries now feel fewer inhibitions in pursuing their self-interest at the expense of others. This is a more dangerous world for small countries like Singapore.

While the new order has yet to emerge – and it is not clear if it will – we can be sure that contestation between big powers will intensify, as will pressure to “choose a side”.

This means greater direct and indirect risks for Singapore.

While the global environment may have evolved, Singapore’s circumstances and identity have not changed. We are a multiracial, multi-religious country in the heart of Southeast Asia. Our demographic composition and location in a complex part of the world mean that we have to be crystal clear about our core national interests.

These are to safeguard Singapore’s security, our prosperity and social cohesion.

Security – safeguarding Singapore’s sovereignty. This means speaking up when sovereignty is undermined in other parts of the world.

Prosperity – promoting free and open trade, preserving a rules-based trading system, and securing our access to essential supplies.

Social cohesion – upholding the multi-ethnic, multi-religious nature of our country.

We have worked hard at building a strong network of friends and partners in the world. But since we have our unique societal makeup, identity and history, being true to our national interests means we cannot possibly share identical positions with all of them all of the time. We sometimes have to say no, after careful consideration, to friends and partners who are important to us, or express views that they might not like to hear.

This has happened before, and we must expect it to happen again. When it does, we hope Singaporeans can keep calm and carry on.

This is not easy to achieve, and made more challenging with foreign infiltration of our information space. With a diverse, digitally connected population, Singapore is an attractive and vulnerable target. The development of advanced digital tools has supercharged the ability of foreign actors to seed narratives and even mount hostile information campaigns to advance their interests, and such activities have clearly stepped up.

If you have not watched Lianhe Zaobao’s seven-minute video explaining how AI can be used to generate sensationalised fake news to manipulate viewers’ emotions, I highly encourage you to do so. English media have also carried similar reports.

We should be particularly careful when we come across content that highlights or appeals to one particular ethnicity over another.

On the whole, we should be vigilant towards online commentaries targeted at Singapore. Some of these could be attempts to undermine our confidence or exploit our fault lines.

The first line of defence against foreign disinformation campaigns is a vigilant and discerning public. This is why it is critically important for MFA to engage domestic audiences and explain our positions as best we can.

The old world order may have ended, but that does not mean we should give up on a rules-based approach to international affairs. Doing what we can to strengthen multilateralism and international law is still relevant for Singapore as a small state.

At the same time, there is a deep vein of pragmatism in the way we view the world. We have always understood that size and power matter in foreign relations. At a time of fragmentation when trust and consistency are in deficit, Singapore must continue to be clear-eyed about our national interests, assess our options dispassionately and make hard-nosed decisions that are only in Singapore’s interest.

Most importantly, we must stand on our own two feet. We cannot rely on others to secure our interests and our destiny.

(In English): Mr Chairman, small states, like Singapore, do not have to be passive bystanders. We have agency and can do much to create strategic space for ourselves.

Mr Yip Hong Weng and Mr Henry Kwek asked how we are advancing partnerships with middle powers on the geopolitical, trade and technology fronts.

Indeed, one key strategy is to strengthen and expand our partnerships with like-minded countries, including major and middle powers. With this circle of trusted friends, we will forge ahead in critical sectors, like defence cooperation, but also in new and exciting domains, such as energy, technology and sustainability. Beyond strengthening Singapore's economic resilience and security, such ties can also bring tangible benefits to Singaporeans and our companies.

Last year, Singapore upgraded our relationships with Australia, France, India, New Zealand and Vietnam to the level of Comprehensive Strategic Partnerships (CSPs). We also established a new strategic partnership with the Republic of Korea and deepened our cooperation with the EU. Let me elaborate on some of these partnerships.

With Australia, we have launched an upgraded CSP, or CSP 2.0, the first of its kind. Beyond our already strong bilateral cooperation in defence and trade, CSP 2.0 will anchor our cooperation with Australia in frontier areas, like cyber, digital, space and AI, for the next decade while strengthening economic resilience in sectors, such as energy, sustainability and supply chains.

An example is our Go-Green Co-Innovation Programme, an initiative under the Singapore-Australia Green Economy Agreement. Under this programme, both governments jointly fund green innovation projects, allowing our companies to work together to develop, test and commercialise technological solutions that drive decarbonisation. We are also working together in the region on the Financing Asia's Transition Partnership (FAST-P) initiative that will help finance Southeast Asia's green transition projects.

Singapore and New Zealand have joined hands on many groundbreaking initiatives, particularly on trade. Bilaterally, our Agreement on Trade in Essential Supplies – the first of its kind – will ensure the continued flow of critical goods even during crises.

Singapore, New Zealand and Chile launched the negotiations for the Green Economy Partnership Agreement in October last year. It represents a new rules-based trade agreement that aims to support new opportunities for businesses and enhance trade and investment in green sectors.

With India, the fourth largest economy in the world, we have elevated relations to a CSP. A forward-looking roadmap was jointly adopted during Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's official visit to India in September last year to guide the next phase of our cooperation under the CSP. The CSP roadmap outlines concrete commitments to strengthen our partnership in advanced manufacturing, skills development, digitalisation and connectivity across the air, sea and digital domains.

Dr Hamid Razak asked about how cooperation with middle powers could be expanded to support broader people-to-people ties.

We are doing so under the CSP roadmap through scholarships, study visits and internship programmes.

With France, we upgraded bilateral ties to a CSP, Singapore's first such partnership with a European country. The CSP will strengthen cooperation in existing sectors, like defence, trade, education, research and culture, and expand our collaboration in new areas, including decarbonisation, energy, digitalisation and AI. With the EU, we signed the EU-Singapore Digital Trade Agreement (EUSDTA) in May 2025. This is the EU's first standalone digital trade agreement with another country and Singapore's largest bilateral Digital Economy Agreement to date.

We are also exploring greater cooperation between the EU and ASEAN, as well as between the EU and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. These initiatives support our broader engagement of Europe and complement our new CSP with France as well as existing Strategic Partnerships with Germany and the United Kingdom.

We have upgraded relations with the Republic of Korea to a Strategic Partnership in November last year. This will provide a platform for both sides to leverage our respective technological strengths and deepen cooperation on sustainability, AI, cybersecurity and next-generation energy solutions. It will also promote exchanges between our youths and institutes of higher learning in the arts, culture and other areas of mutual interest. Through the partnership, we also work closely to facilitate two-way agri-food trade.

We also look to do more with Japan as we commemorate the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations this year. Given Japan's strengths, we will deepen collaboration in areas, like the digital economy, green transition and emerging technologies.

These partnerships give Singapore greater resilience and ensure that we remain relevant amongst major and middle powers.

I mentioned earlier in my Mandarin speech that the first line of defence against foreign influence campaigns is a vigilant and discerning public. It is important for Singaporeans to be interested in global affairs so that they can engage the world wisely and confidently. At the same time, Singaporeans need to understand Singapore's core interests and look at global affairs through a Singapore lens.

Decisions about Singapore's future must be made by Singaporeans and Singaporeans only, free from external manipulation. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Foo Cexiang, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim and Ms Eileen Chong asked about how we can strengthen trust, unity and resilience at home, and spoke about the need to build domestic support for foreign policy.

The Government has stepped up engagement efforts with Singaporeans, including students, youths, businesses and grassroot leaders, through closed-door dialogue sessions and workshops to help Singaporeans better understand our operating context and foreign policy considerations. For example, MFA regularly conducts Foreign Policy Engagement Sessions with all pre-tertiary institutions to explain the fundamentals of Singapore's foreign policy. Last month, I held a dialogue with business leaders from the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce, during which we discussed Singapore's approach to staying relevant and resilient by navigating global geopolitical challenges based on our long-term national interests.

Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Ang Wei Neng also asked about how MFA is working across the Government to protect Singapore from foreign interference.

MFA is working with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to strengthen our safeguards against foreign interference, which will be elaborated on by MHA during its Committee of Supply.

Mr Chairman, foreign policy begins at home. Singapore's relevance to the world depends on both our ability to add value to others as well as our international credibility. Our ability to stand firm on the world stage depends on having our people's trust and support, and our ability to remain calm and collected in the face of challenging external circumstances. We can only act with confidence if Singaporeans are united behind us.

Minister of State Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Chairman, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Chairman, as Members of this House have noted, the post-World War II global order which brought progress and stability to Singapore has ended. It is increasingly difficult for us to see major countries continue to adhere to the long-established principles of multilateral cooperation, as well as respect for international law and principles.

Great powers are now more prepared to flex their military and economic power to pursue their interests. In fact, some feel even less inclined than before to be held legally or morally accountable for their actions.

The cumulative effect is a more dangerous world for small states like Singapore. Like a ship in the proverbial storm, we will feel the effects of more frequent and intense geopolitical disruptions.

But despite the rough seas, Singapore has the ability and space to chart our own course. We cannot allow ourselves to drift with the wind or waves, as without guidance it is easy to lose our way and drift into international waters. If we try to “balance” major powers or choose sides, it means surrendering our ability to determine our own destiny. Rather, we must find a compass to guide ourselves.

In foreign policy, our national interest is this guiding compass. We must continue to clearly identify and assert our national interests – be it safeguarding our sovereignty or protecting our social cohesion – and use our capabilities to chart the right path.

While the world has undergone profound shifts, globalisation continues. A global division of labour is still essential for production at scale. However, flows are becoming more selective and partnerships more strategic.

We will need to adjust to these changes by staying open, but connecting in smarter, more diversified and resilient ways. Singapore cannot journey alone – we must continue to forge partnerships with like-minded countries and deepen our engagement of fast-growing markets.

This strategy gives Singapore space to seize emerging opportunities and build a resilient economy that continues to create good jobs and new opportunities for Singaporeans. But our success abroad can only be achieved with strength and unity at home.

As a diverse, multiracial society, Singaporeans will have different views on international developments from time to time. While we have provided space for such diversity to be expressed, we have not allowed it to become a means to divide us. Rather, Singaporeans have demonstrated their ability to stay united and close ranks on issues of national interest, so that we can secure what is best for Singapore.

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked about the situation in Gaza while Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about Singapore’s support for humanitarian efforts. Indeed, this humanitarian crisis moved many members of our community.

Singaporeans from different races and religions came together, and with local charity organisations, pooled their resources to provide humanitarian assistance for the people in Gaza. It was heartwarming to witness this whole-of-society effort.

To date, Singapore and Singaporeans have contributed 11 tranches of aid and monetary donations to Gaza, totalling over $25 million.

We have continued to work with regional partners in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Egypt, to support the Palestinians in Gaza. For example, through the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s airlifts and airdrops of humanitarian supplies via Jordan, which I had the opportunity to witness first-hand, and the donation of prosthetics through Jordan’s Restoring Hope Initiative. With Egypt, a medical team was deployed in Cairo in September 2025 to support specialised care for Palestinians receiving treatment.

At the same time, Singapore has continued to provide support for human capital development efforts through our $10 million Enhanced Technical Assistance Package for the Palestinian Authority in preparation for their eventual statehood.

A few days ago, Minister Balakrishnan and I hosted Palestinian Authority Minister of Finance and Planning Dr Estephan Salameh who was in Singapore on an official visit. Besides expressing his gratitude to the Singapore Government for their generous contributions towards humanitarian assistance in Gaza, he also expressed appreciation for the Enhanced Technical Assistance Package, and the briefings on Singapore’s education system and smart nation journey. We look forward to continue sharing Singapore’s experience with the Palestinian Authority in certain areas which may be of interest and assistance.

This spirit of giving extends to other humanitarian crises around the world. When Southeast Asia and South Asia experienced a series of natural disasters last year, Singaporeans likewise stepped up to contribute assistance and support fundraising efforts by the Singapore Red Cross and other charity organisations.

Singapore and Singaporeans’ contributions reflect our shared values as a “we first” society in how we are united to work together. Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim spoke about strengthening domestic support for foreign policy.

Our sense of “we” will be more critical than ever. The foreign policy positions we take may displease major powers and external countries. While difficult, we make such decisions to support our national interest.

Foreign actors may impose their narratives or agenda, exploit our differences and pressure us to see and accept their views. But we must remain calm in judgement, clear in principle and direction, and confident in our values. Most importantly, we must stay united and strengthen our social compact.

Singapore’s success is intertwined with the region and our immediate neighbours.

As in any close relationship, disagreements in views and policies are bound to occur from time to time. When they do, we manage them on the basis of mutual respect, goodwill and a long-term view of our shared interests. At the same time, there is much that we have done and will continue to do together.

Mr Patrick Tay asked about the emerging domains that we can pursue practical projects on, including at the state or provincial levels. Mr Victor Lye asked if MFA could play a stronger role in fostering a connected regional ecosystem so that our enterprises and young professionals can navigate these ecosystems with confidence. Mr Gerald Giam called for greater people-to-people ties with our neighbours, particularly among youths.

We continue to work closely with Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei to expand bilateral cooperation and deepen regional integration, including at the state, provincial and even city levels.

Such engagements aim to foster a conducive environment for our companies and young professionals to harness new opportunities, strengthen business linkages and people-to-people ties and foster win-win outcomes in strategic sectors.

We have much to look forward to with Malaysia this year. We are working with our economic agencies to ensure the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone will herald a new era of economic integration. Singapore-based companies have already committed over $5.5 billion in investments, with potential for further growth.

The Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link, which is targeted to commence service in end-2026, will greatly reduce the journey time from Singapore to Johor and ease congestion on the Causeway.

We look forward to deepening our engagement with East Malaysia. The opening of our new Consulates in Sarawak and Sabah will expand cooperation and unlock greater connectivity, integration and trade. It will also enable the Ministry to provide better consular services to the Singaporeans living and travelling there. This is an example of how we engage state-to-state and city-to-city.

With Indonesia, we will continue to forge win-win partnerships in new and emerging areas like the green economy. We are exploring projects, such as cross-border electricity trade, carbon capture and storage and the development of a sustainable industrial zone in the Riau Islands.

Initiatives such as the Youth Mobility Programme, which facilitates annual cross-border internship opportunities for 300 students from Singapore and Indonesia, help maintain our close people-to-people ties into the next generation.

We are stepping up engagements with the Indonesian provinces. I visited Batam last year and had constructive meetings with their leadership and key business figures there.

We share a special relationship with Brunei. This year, we mark the 50th anniversary of defence relations. I am sure that many generations of our National Servicemen and women remember training in the Temburong forest. That Brunei continues to allow our soldiers to train on its grounds is not to be taken for granted. We must continue to take this special relationship to higher levels.

We look forward to celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Currency Interchangeability Agreement next year, which remains a hallmark of our relationship and a symbol of our mutual trust and shared commitment to facilitate mutual investments, trade and tourism between Singapore and Brunei.

Mr Alex Yam asked about the continued relevance and importance of ASEAN and Singapore’s role in strengthening integration. Regionally, we remain deeply committed to ASEAN. It is a valuable platform for member states to meet and discuss differences constructively and peacefully; and to work together on mutually beneficial issues, such as trade, connectivity and people-to-people links. We have cooperated effectively, including during the COVID-19 crisis.

We will continue to support the Philippines as ASEAN Chair, and work with them to deepen regional integration and promote external partnerships, in the lead-up to Singapore’s ASEAN Chairmanship next year.

(In English): Beyond our neighbourhood, we must expand our global footprint. This includes strengthening longstanding friendships and building new ones. We have diversified successfully into fast-growing markets, particularly during COVID-19, where we broadened our food sources, strengthened our supply chains and built resilient economic connections. But we can do more.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Mr Victor Lye and Ms Joan Pereira asked about the Ministry’s plans to engage emerging regions and encourage our citizens and businesses to explore opportunities there. We have been pursuing a whole-of-Government approach in engaging emerging regions such as Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, South Asia and the Pacific Islands. This includes establishing new embassies and touchpoints and unlocking economic opportunities for our companies. We are also working to expand people-to-people and cultural exchanges to build mindshare and familiarity of these countries among Singaporeans.

For example, we are stepping up cooperation with Latin America, including growing our trade and business linkages. During President’s visit to Mexico last year, we announced a new resident embassy in Mexico City. This will be our second resident Mission in Latin America and our first in the Spanish-speaking world. We have negotiated Free Trade Agreements with the Pacific Alliance and Mercosur, two of the region’s most prominent trading blocs.

Our companies benefit from the increased linkages and access. CrimsonLogic is providing digital solutions in the Bahamas, Mexico, Panama, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago, while Olam International operates in Brazil, Mexico and Peru to actively diversify our food sources.

We also enjoy broad-based cooperation with countries in the Middle East. We established our first Strategic Partnership in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia and we look forward to convening the inaugural Strategic Partnership Council meeting co-chaired by our two Prime Ministers soon.

With the UAE, we share a Comprehensive Partnership which spans seven clusters, from political and economic affairs to health, sustainable development, and education. We also engage our Middle East counterparts through regular exchanges and multiple ministerial platforms such as those with Oman, Qatar and the UAE. We have also bolstered our connectivity with countries in the Middle East, which will foster greater business and people-to-people links. Singapore Airlines is scheduled to launch direct flights to Riyadh in June, while Oman Air will do so between Muscat and Singapore in July. Last September, President made a State Visit to Egypt, and our two countries agreed to study the feasibility of a bilateral Free Trade Agreement.

In Africa, which is a key driver of future global growth, we are also doing more. In August, I met 14 African ministers and deputy ministers who were in Singapore for the Fifth Singapore-Africa Ministerial Exchange Visit. This was the largest turnout for the exchange visit to date.

The Prime Minister also visited Ethiopia in November and announced that Singapore would establish an embassy in Addis Ababa. This will be our first diplomatic mission in East Africa and our third in the African continent. It will support deeper engagement of the African Union, which is based in Addis Ababa, and support our businesses seeking to access new markets.

Finally, in Central Asia, South Asia and the Pacific Islands, we are expanding exchanges and technical assistance to foster goodwill, deepen people-to-people ties and support their development priorities. We engage the Pacific regionally through the Pacific Islands Forum in our capacity as a Dialogue Partner, as well as bilaterally with individual Pacific countries.

Cultural exchanges have increased our familiarity with each other. For example, in 2025, a group of Kazakh artistes performed for the first time in the Chingay Parade.

We have also deepened technical assistance cooperation with South Asian countries. For example, we supported the establishment of two technical training centres in Bhutan to provide skills training in automotive and facility technology. We signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Maldives government on capacity building during Maldives President's State Visit to Singapore in June last year.

Mr Gerald Giam asked if the Ministry will be establishing more resident Missions in the regions I mentioned. We are reviewing the need for more resident Missions, taking into account our limited manpower and resource constraints. Meanwhile, we will continue to explore opportunities to do more in these fast-growing regions, including through our excellent Non-Resident Ambassadors.

Mr Chairman, despite the transition to a more tumultuous world, Singapore has agency to shape the future we want. But we must know our interests, stay united and we must build on our strengths. Only then can we seize emerging opportunities, secure our place in an evolving world, and build a resilient economy that continues to create good jobs and new opportunities for Singaporeans.

The seas may be rough, but with unity as our compass and our strengths as the keel, Singapore will not drift along with global tides. We will chart our own course and sail forward with purpose. Like in Greek mythology, Atlas who bears the weight of the heavens, a small nation survives not by size, but by strength, in unity and with resilience – so will Singapore. [Applause.]

Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.

Mr Chairman, much has been said about the changing international order. Against the backdrop of a world that is marked by geopolitical competition and great power rivalry, MFA’s work has become more salient. To safeguard Singapore’s national interests, we need to expand our international partnerships and support a rules-based multilateral approach towards solving global challenges like climate change. I will talk about how Singapore supports the development of other countries and how MFA provides consular assistance to Singaporeans who need help overseas.

At the 2025 S Rajaratnam Lecture, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong set out how Singapore must meet the challenge of an increasingly uncertain world. Rather than retreat, he urged us to “reach out; not to build barriers, but to build bridges”.

We believe in the transformative role of human capital in driving social progress and economic prosperity of a nation. This is Singapore's development story. It is a story that we are happy to share to help others in their development journey.

This was why Singapore started the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) in 1992, to enhance the capabilities of developing nations through capacity building and knowledge sharing. Through SCP, we built bridges that support and connect countries.

To a large extent, the SCP is our way of paying it forward after having received assistance from our foreign friends during our early years of Independence. Our investment in development partnerships also forms a key part of our strategy to engage with the global South and create future opportunities for collaboration.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked about strengthening our capacity-building platforms. We have revamped MFA's Development Partnership Directorate to better integrate Singapore's development assistance across Government agencies, international organisations and foundations to deliver the best possible outcomes. We are now better able to mobilise Singapore's full ecosystem – combining policy expertise, industry capabilities and practical know-how – and expand our focus to new domains, such as the digital economy and climate resilience.

Our development partnerships span over 180 countries and territories. Altogether, we have supported more than 163,000 foreign officials through training and capacity-building programmes.

The ASEAN region is especially important as 60% of the SCP's participants hail from Southeast Asia. Programmes such as the Initiative for ASEAN Integration, aim to narrow the development gap within ASEAN and enhance regional integration, while we tailor customised bilateral programmes for countries' specific development needs. Our capacity building initiatives in Southeast Asia extend to both major cities as well as cities in the provinces, such as Batam and East Java in Indonesia, as well as Hai Phong and Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam.

One of our key focus is supporting ASEAN's newest member, Timor-Leste, in its capacity-building. It is in Singapore's interest for Timor Leste to become a successful and contributing member of ASEAN. In 2025, we launched an enhanced Singapore-Timor Leste ASEAN Readiness Support (eSTARS) package.

The eSTARS package helps to familiarise Timorese officials with important aspects of ASEAN, including key ASEAN economic agreements. For example, MFA co-organised a two-day training programme last year, conducted in Dili by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)-ASEAN Studies Centre, on key ASEAN issues and ASEAN's work. Timor-Leste Prime Minister Xanana Gusmão said during his visit to Singapore last year that Singapore's support has made "a real difference" and reflected a friendship that was "measured in actions, not words".

For the African region, our most recent development assistance programme, the Singapore-Africa Partnership Leading to Growth and Sustainability (SAPLINGS) Package, was launched by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong during his bilateral visit to Ethiopia in November 2025. Under SAPLINGS, we welcome African officials to visit Singapore on customised study visits and education programmes to learn about our development journey and also, to exchange learning points.

Dr Hamid Razak asked about expanding Singapore's networks with middle powers and international organisations. We are working with like-minded partners to pool our strengths in delivering and developing assistance programmes to third parties. Such partnerships allow us to amplify our contributions and ensure that our development assistance is relevant, sustainable and impactful.

We have nearly 30 third-country training programmes today. In Latin America, we are partnering Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Argentina to deliver courses to officials in ASEAN, Latin America and the Caribbean, on digitalisation, food safety and disaster risk management. Our Regional Training Centres in Oman, Jordan and Qatar train officials from Middle East, Asia and Africa on topics, such as public governance and digitalisation.

Closer to home, we have also refreshed our partnerships with China, Australia and Korea to conduct courses on topics, such as sustainable development and green economy. In addition, we launched a new training programme with New Zealand in 2025 for the Pacific islands on leadership training for the public service.

We have also forged development partnerships with international organisations, just to name a few – the United Nations Children's Fund, UN Development Programme, World Health Organization, WTO, World Bank, International Civil Aviation Organization and International Maritime Organization.

With the IMF, we worked with the IMF-Singapore Training Institute and IMF Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Centre to provide training for senior finance officials from the Pacific Island countries.

We also started a collaboration with Google to tap on private sector expertise into our programme for AI Policy Leaders.

Collectively, these efforts allow Singapore to play a part in the capacity-building needs of developing countries. This is especially salient today when there are fewer global resources available to support development assistance. Our programmes and partnerships profile Singapore as a responsible member of the global community and pave the way forward for further collaboration.

Mr Chairman, even as we expand our external partnerships, we remain deeply focused on our core mission: caring for Singaporeans overseas. Ms Joan Pereira asked about how MFA is strengthening consular service to Singaporeans.

Today, more Singaporeans live, work, study and travel abroad than ever before. In 2025, Singapore residents made a total of 10.6 million overseas trips. Some encounter unfortunate situations while overseas and require consular assistance.

The nature of consular cases handled by our officers has increased in complexity, as geopolitical conflict and natural disasters can sometimes strike without warning. To better equip our teams to handle consular cases, MFA is strengthening our capabilities and systems. We are leveraging on digital tools to serve Singaporeans more efficiently.

We have enhanced our eRegister system so that Singaporeans travelling overseas can now easily eRegister using their Singpass. In 2025, more than 600,000 Singaporeans eRegistered with MFA. This was twice as many of those who eRegistered their travel in 2019.

We have also enhanced our 24/7 Consular Response Centre to provide effective and timely support. The Centre operates around the clock and keeps a watchful eye on developments worldwide, reaching out to Singaporean travellers during emergencies.

Beyond digital tools, human connection is at the core of MFA's consular work. When Singaporeans abroad face distress, it helps to hear a Singaporean voice on the line. Our officers, supported by the 24/7 Consular Response Centre, are that first line of support.

In January 2025, a tour bus carrying 27 people, including 26 Singaporeans, veered off the road in Lofoten, Norway, due to poor driving conditions caused by inclement weather. Six Singaporeans were injured, with three of them suffering traumatic injuries that required urgent medical treatment.

With the help of our Honorary-Consulate General in Oslo, our MFA staff, Ms Estelle Ho, maintained close contact with the affected Singaporeans and assisted them in reporting lost passports, obtaining temporary travel documents and making police reports. Estelle stayed in contact with the Singaporeans in distress until their safe return home.

In January 2025, our Beijing Mission assisted a family whose non-verbal teenager with special needs went missing in Beijing. The family was also not Mandarin-speaking. Our MFA officer, Mr Lin Jiayi, accompanied the parents during their search, coordinated with the local police, assisted in translation and offered practical assistance and emotional support to the family. The teenager was eventually found by local authorities after being missing for 12 hours.

During the Hat Yai floods in December 2025, MFA dispatched a Crisis Response Team to assist Singaporeans affected by the floods. This included providing basic necessities, like food and water, to stranded Singaporeans, liaising with their next-of-kin and facilitating their safe return home. One of our officers helping Singaporeans evacuate to the airport, Mr Ashlyy Ashmadi, was also left stranded overnight in Central Hat Yai when his hired driver refused to return to the airport due to the floods.

He and a Singaporean, whom he was assisting, both ended up finding temporary shelter until they could both safely evacuate the next day. So, when Ashlyy said that he understood what Singaporeans were experiencing, he truly meant it!

Apart from our Overseas Missions, we have Honorary Consuls-General (HCG) or Honorary Consuls in 30 countries, which extends the reach of our consular assistance. However, in countries where we do not have resident embassies or HCGs, cooperation with our close partners is key. Miss Rachel Ong asked about the importance of developing partnerships with other countries to provide consular assistance.

Amongst ASEAN Member States, there are standing guidelines on consular assistance where ASEAN Missions render consular assistance to ASEAN nationals who do not have a resident Mission in the country. Beyond this, we also partner other friendly countries on the consular front. For example, MFA facilitated the evacuation of 11 Singaporeans from Iran during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June last year. While Singapore does not have a resident Mission in Iran, MFA worked closely with the governments of Oman and Malaysia to evacuate four of the eleven Singaporeans.

Our officers, based in Missions around the world, including in countries with active conflict, sometimes face real danger. The team at the Singapore Embassy in Doha were in the vicinity of an airstrike last year and experienced loud explosions and tremors while at work. MFA officers in Moscow and Tel Aviv have had to seek shelter during drone attacks on their host cities.

Despite these dangerous moments, our officers have never once asked to leave their posts to come home.