Hansard, Monday, 2 March 2026

1 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower whether more graduated or proportional arrangements for foreign manpower and levy thresholds can be considered for hawkers and small food and beverage operators to meet their essential kitchen and service staffing needs while still ensuring fair wages and protections for all workers.

Mr Speaker, we recognise the manpower challenges faced by small food and beverage (F&B) operators, including our hawkers, given our ageing demographic and rising local aspirations.

As a unique combination of food, space and community, hawker centres are a microcosm of Singapore’s multicultural society. To preserve the local identity of our hawker culture and heritage, the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) only allows Singaporean Citizens and Permanent Residents to be stallholders at our hawker centres. Stallholders can also hire eligible Long-Term Visit Pass and Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus holders, who are already in Singapore and can contribute to our economy.

Licensed food shops, such as restaurants, can hire foreign workers, subject to the services foreign worker levy rates and quota of two locals to one foreign worker. To address the manpower needs of micro enterprises, we allow those with only one local worker to hire their first Work Permit Holder.

Differentiating levies and quotas further to favour smaller operators could incentivise the larger operators to break up into smaller entities to hire more foreign workers. This could result in a large increase in the number of foreign workers, which would not be sustainable given our limited infrastructural and social carrying capacity.

I think if the Member has been reading The Straits Times, she would probably have noticed that there was an opinion piece on 24 February, Tuesday, last week, written by Assoc Prof Lee Kuan-Huei. She is the Chief Research Officer of the Singapore Productivity Centre. In that article, I think there was quite a good data-based opinion of the current state of play in the F&B sector.

If I may just share some of the insights from that particular opinion piece. She said that there is a structural problem in the way F&B operators here still operate. One of the key thing is that productivity gains have lagged behind activity growth. That means that the F&B operators are putting more effort and resources into their operations without the proportionate economic gains. And her suggestion is that productivity and not headcount must be the central lens through which productivity must be assessed and for which business viability has to be looked at.

So, instead of just looking at raising headcounts, the Government has schemes to support small F&B companies. These include the FoodX programme, which supports the outsourcing of labour-intensive food preparation to central kitchens to improve operational efficiency; as well as the F&B Process Optimisation Programme, which supports technological adoption and process redesign. Companies may also tap on broader schemes such as the Productivity Solutions Grant to support transformation efforts to raise productivity.

We will continue to review the foreign manpower policies for hawkers and small F&B companies, together with relevant agencies, including MSE.

Ms Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. I am also very happy to hear that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will continue to review that. I agree with the writer that structurally, there are some challenges, and productivity is important. But here, we are looking at the hawkers and the single F&B operators. They do not have that advantage of scale to be able to take advantage of the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) tier. Therefore, even if they hired just one additional worker, it brings them up to the higher DRC level, if they are even eligible to hire that.

From the way hawkers and these small, single F&Bs operate, honestly, they are working 12 to 14 hours, and many of the owner operators are working those hours. My residents are some of them – that is the reason why I am asking this question. I do hope the Ministry will look at the data of companies, the single operators and hawkers, that are pushed into this higher tier or end up not even deciding to carry on with their business because it is just getting too hard.

Sir, I thank the Member for her comments and questions. I agree with her that it is a challenge for smaller scale operators. But this goes beyond just giving more headcount. It fundamentally revolves around a few key issues. One is the operating model itself, whether it is sustainable. Secondly, it is a broader conversation beyond policy, which is what Singaporeans expect of the food operators when it comes to the authenticity of the of the recipe, the way it is prepared.

It is a question that goes beyond policy, because Singaporeans have certain expectations about the quality of the food from the hawkers, the authenticity of the recipe and whether it still tastes like the good old days that they are used to.

In essence, actually, MOM is agnostic to this. If it makes sense for us to give them more headcount just to produce the food at a certain productivity level and maybe even quantity and efficiency, that is something we are prepared to consider. But that will mean that the authenticity of the recipe could be impacted – that hawkers are selling a particular ethnic dish that is now not even cooked by the actual ethnicity, for example. You see this a lot in food courts, where your typical traditional dish is cooked by a foreign worker. And if that is something that the broader Singaporean public can accept, that is conversation we should have and then decide how best to move forward on this.

And in the end, smaller operators may really also have to rethink their business model and see how they can be more productive so that they are not going just by headcount. See how they can leverage on the rest of the resources the Government has put forth – Productivity Solutions Grant, working with central kitchen, for example – so that some of the backend operations that are very labour-intensive can be outsourced, while they focus on actually preparing the meals, making sure that it is authentic.

2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has received a recent submission for Moderna’s mRNA influenza vaccine; and (b) to what extent Singapore’s safety and efficacy validation process remains independent of the US and European standards.

Sir, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has not received any regulatory submission for Moderna’s mRNA seasonal influenza vaccine.

HSA always exercises its regulatory authority independently. That said, in the healthcare regulatory world, there are many collaborations and partnerships. Highly regarded regulatory bodies become references for others, just as Singapore is a reference for others and we also reference other highly reputable jurisdictions.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. The recent United States (US) Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) hesitation over Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine suggests that regulators around the world can have differing views on assessments. So, can the Senior Minister of State explain how HSA ensures its decisions are not simply aligned to some of these US or United Kingdom (UK) regulators? This matters because Singaporeans must have confidence that approvals are based on what is best and safest for our population.

Sir, as I said in my reply, HSA takes an independent review of all submissions for regulatory approval. We have our methodology that is based on science done by a panel of experts who are well versed in this area. So, we look at comprehensive data that is being submitted by any manufacturer who seeks to license their products here, and this includes parameters looking at quality safety efficacy, including data from Phase 3 randomised controlled trials, where we will also assess the methodology and whether the sample size is adequate for the type of products that are seeking to be registered.

We also look at whether there are adequate follow-up periods after the product has hit the market, typically at least more than six months, to make sure that in the post-launch period the product has not surfaced any unknown side effects that were previously not detected in the randomised controlled trial.

And of course, the manufacturer also must show evidence of compliance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) standards, so that things like detailed manufacturing processes, quality control data with testing methods and acceptance criteria, will allow us to assess whether every batch of product that comes through this manufacturer has a consistency that meets quality standards. And also, we look at the stability data demonstrating that any vaccine or any medical product maintains effectiveness and safety throughout its storage period.

So, I just want to assure the Member that we have a robust system and we will continue to do so.

3 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government currently audits the financial viability and operational sustainability of Student Care Centre (SCC) operators; (b) if so, how are such audits conducted; and (c) whether the Government intends to improve its governance processes over SCCs to avoid future abrupt closures, to reduce the risk of disruptions to children, parents, and staff.

4 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education in relation to the interim plan for the Ministry’s schools and teachers to continue student care centre operations following the abrupt closure of private student care centre operator in February 2026, how does the Government plan to recognise these extra efforts and ensure that the Ministry’s teachers are not further overworked.

5 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Education (a) what regulatory safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of student care centres when they cease operations abruptly; (b) whether there are framework level requirements on financial governance, contingency planning and parent fee protection; and (c) how the Ministry assesses operator resilience to minimise disruption to students, parents and staff.

6 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education in relation to the abrupt closure of Little Professors student care centres, how the Government plans to assist in the recovery of salary payments due to staff and the recovery of GIRO payments unfairly deducted from parents.

Mr Speaker, my response will address Question No 3 through to Question No 6 on today's Order Paper.

Please proceed.

Sir, my answer will also address related oral or written questions filed for subsequent Sittings on the recent issues with Little Professors Learning Centre Pte Ltd (LPLC), a former operator of Student Care Centres (SCCs) and Kindergarten Care (KCare) centres in our schools.

Sir, the Ministry of Education (MOE) was first alerted to the issues at LPLC centres in February this year. Our first priority was to minimise the disruption to students and their families, and to ensure that students enrolled in the LPLC-operated SCCs and KCare centres continued to receive care after school.

Our schools have stepped in to provide interim after-school support. School staff have been deployed on a rotational basis to bridge the gap since the incident first happened. Over the past three weeks, schools have engaged relief manpower, including retired school staff, flexi-adjunct teachers and external instructors, to fill the staffing needs and to reduce the need for continued deployment of school staff. Parent support groups in some schools have also stepped in to provide additional support. MOE headquarters (HQ) officers have been providing onsite assistance and have helped to relieve the administrative load on schools.

All affected schools have been able to continue providing after-school care for students. I would like to express my deep gratitude to all who have stepped in to help. I know that the children and their families are also appreciative of the care and concern. School staff who have put in additional contributions during this interim period will be recognised.

MOE has started sourcing for new SCC and KCare operators to provide after-school care for the students in the affected schools. We want the new operators to start as soon as possible.

MOE is also concerned about former LPLC staff who have been adversely affected. We are working with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Education Services Union, who are supporting affected workers with short-term financial relief, job referrals and career guidance through NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute (e2i). MOE and schools have also been able to employ and pay former LPLC staff in their original centres if they are keen to do so, until a permanent operator is appointed. This will provide some financial stability for these affected staff in the interim, while they continue to care for our students.

Affected LPLC staff have also been advised to reach out directly to the Ministry of Manpower, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management or the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board to file claims for unpaid salaries and CPF contributions.

With reference to the unauthorised General Interbank Recurring Order (GIRO) deductions, MOE has filed a police report when these were reported to schools in February. We had at that point also advised affected parents to cancel their GIRO arrangements immediately and to consider filing a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal. As police investigations are ongoing, I am not able to comment further on this issue. Pending the outcomes of police investigations, we will work with relevant agencies to see how we can further support parents.

Members have asked about our selection and monitoring mechanisms for SCC and KCare operators.

As part of the selection process, operators have to demonstrate adequate financial standing before they are considered. After they are appointed, MOE and schools maintain oversight over operators and monitor their performance in terms of how well they are providing the SCC and KCare services. These monitoring processes are reviewed regularly so that we can continue to improve our safeguards.

We also value parents’ direct feedback about our SCC and KCare centres so that issues can be addressed in a timely fashion. Today, parents can provide feedback to SCC and KCare staff, to the schools, and directly to MOE. In 2025, MOE directly received a total of 212 emails and phone calls providing feedback on SCCs and KCare centres. We reviewed all of them and followed up with the schools and operators when needed.

Before this incident with LPLC, MOE has not had cause to terminate the services of any school-based SCC and KCare operator.

Nevertheless, we do recognise that there is room for improvement within the sector to provide better services, to strengthen the resilience of operators and to better monitor the service provision. We are further reviewing our processes for selecting and monitoring SCC and KCare operators.

Mr Loh.

Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I declare that I am the advisor to the Education Services Union that looks after the affected teachers. Second, I declare that I am the advisor to the Singapore Teachers Union that looks after the teachers who stepped in to help. And third, I declare that Hong Wen school, which is one of the affected schools, is in my constituency. And to that end, I asked not one, not two, but three Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on the matter.

When I visited Hong Wen school the day after the closure, I was glad to see the parents' support group and the teachers coming in to make sure the kids had the continuity of care. They told me that the incident was regrettable, but possibly preventable. So, my two supplementary questions, Mr Speaker, are about how we can prevent these incidents from happening again.

First on MOE's due diligence, both before an operator is appointed and during the operations. What levels of safeguards can we expect MOE to implement to ensure that operators with financial standing are appointed? And during operations, that they continue to be in good financial standing, so that we are assured of the sustainability of the operations. This is conceptually no different from how other Government procurement entities, such as those in the built environment sector, look at the largest contractors and vendors of the Government.

The second and final question is on MOE's whistle-blowing policies. Because parents in our Whampoa and Boon Keng estates told me that they had given feedback about the deteriorating quality of the SCC last year. So, when MOE said that they only found out about it in February this year, the parents told me that this did not gel with the feedback they had given. Whistle-blowing allows us to have this early signal, so I hope that MOE could also consider how we could look at early signals to avoid a situation where MOE and parents and children and staff are caught off guard in the future.

Sir, I thank Mr Loh for his questions and for his efforts in his capacity, both in that school that he mentioned, as well as with the unions.

On his first question about due diligence, the levels of safeguards associated with the financial standing of the operator – these are assessed at the point of the application, the tender, when the operator submits a tender to have the licence to operate the centre at the schools. We do indeed have a series of items that we look at, including the capitalisation of the company, the financial reserves, the depth of their governance and so forth.

He is asking then about whether we have means to do so during the course of the operations. Since January 2025, all the contracts that have been awarded require then a yearly submission of audited financial statements. And so then, we continue to have oversight of this process.

It is an evolving series of mechanisms. We await the investigations as to what happened in this incident and we will see whether there are lessons learnt that will inform us about whether we need to put in further mechanisms, going forward.

On whistle-blowing, indeed, we do have a variety of channels. As I have explained, the parents can feedback directly to the operator, to the schools and to MOE HQ. We went back and looked at the complaints or feedback – not all of them were complaints – about Little Professors over the last year. And there were a variety of things. Indeed, some of the feedback was about, for example, the quality of food, another child's behaviour to a parent's child, reports on services or the teachers, and we also had a couple of reports from the teachers as employees.

There was nothing untoward in the feedback that we have received from Little Professors and nothing different from what we had seen across other operators.

We did indeed have a serious incident in February of this year, and as soon as that information was made available to MOE, we started to take action. And we had as our first priority, been stepping in to provide care for the children, and then subsequently, when there were some issues to do with the finances highlighted, we have made a police report and that matter is under investigation.

Dr Hamid Razak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. One of the affected schools, Westwood Primary, is also in my constituency. I want to thank the staff and the volunteers for stepping up in this uncertain period.

I ask these questions in the spirit of improving the systemic resilience of the sector, the first one being: will the Ministry include a review of its current operators and consider a strategic partnership to have a whitelist of operators that could step in if one ceases to operate, so that we do not have to activate our teachers, who already have increased workload? That is the first one.

The second one alludes to the same early warning trigger system that hon Member Shawn Loh mentioned earlier: whether we can have a broader view of some of these triggers which could include both operational and financial aspects? For example, if a centre rapidly expands across the island, or if we see that staff are being laid off, on top of just the routine reporting that these centres currently do.

And thirdly, are there ways to also ensure that parents' fees are also safeguarded? Most of the parents who came to see me in my Meet-the-People Session were truly worried about recovery of their deposits. Could we weave in, perhaps one of the factors could be ring-fencing parents' fees or deposits in a client's account or by way of some form of an insurance that the providers could purchase to protect parents' deposits? These are my supplementary questions.

Sir, I thank Dr Hamid Razak for his suggestions. I think they are all good suggestions.

We are reviewing, not just this incident, but the sector as a whole and we do want to improve. We want to improve the resilience of the operators within the sector. We want to improve the service provision for our students and we want to improve parents' confidence in the operators and the care that their children are receiving.

The Member had made a couple of suggestions. The first, in terms of systemic resilience, looking at some form of whitelist or strategic partnership with an operator or operators. It is something worth considering. And the idea that perhaps, we might develop capability in partnership with an operator so that there is a systemic resilience, not just an operator resilience, should another incident occur, whether we would have the capability then to rely on such an operator to step in, and not only on the MOE staff and the parent support groups, and all the other people who helped.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again appreciate very much that we did have so many people who were able and willing to help and did so very effectively, so that there was no interruption in the care that our children had.

He suggested another set of ideas about operational and financial monitoring of the operators to pick up in advance, if such a thing occurs. Actually, in general, MOE and the schools work very closely with the operators. We have ongoing discussions, we know the staff very well, we integrate on some programmes and services. There have been issues over the years that we have had to deal with. Some operators, maybe staff are sick or face staff shortage, or perhaps the business issues that we have to think about. For most of the operators, we actually have a fairly close relationship, and hence, we have not had an anxiety about whether we were not aware about what was happening within the operator. But I take his point that perhaps, we need a mechanism to give us systemic confidence that we have sight into the finances and operations, such that we would have an early warning, if there was a resilience issue of a given operator.

We are studying the sector and we will see if we can find ways to introduce such mechanisms, including, for example, how an operator manages their staff; which I think is something that we have to take very seriously.

His third suggestion about the parents' fees, indeed, that is an anxiety that many parents will have about the deposits that they have paid. The double GIRO deductions that were reported were indeed returned. The double GIRO deductions that were reported to MOE before February this year, that happened last year, were indeed returned to the parents. And so, it is the later round of double deductions which required a police report. And then now, for many parents, there is the issue of the deposits that they have paid, which they have not been able to claim back yet. The matter is still under investigation and we will see how best we can assist those parents, and then see what is the appropriate mechanism going forward to restore parents' confidence in the operators in this space.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. I know you have filed a PQ on this. Yes, go ahead.

Thank you, Speaker. Sir, like many others, I have residents who have been affected by this in my constituency. My question has to do with the pursuit of recourse by many of these. I understand that Senior Minister of State mentioned that the way that they should proceed is by going to the Small Claims Tribunal. But given how collective the nature of those who were affected by this are, I wonder if there is some manner in which the Government will assist with coordinating this process of claims, rather than have individuals try to seek out Small Claims Tribunal, especially for parents who are not well-versed in matters of the law.

Sir, the situation is still developing and investigations are ongoing. We will find ways to assist the affected families and parents.

Last supplementary question, Dr Wan Rizal.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing on the efforts done by MOE and working together with the unions and e2i to support both the teachers and of course, the parents in this process too.

I have also raised the concern whereby the teachers are now given extra load to do interim supervisory duties. How will MOE ensure that such stopgap measures do not become normalised or prolonged, such that it affects their workload? And how can we make sure that those teachers who are currently on those workloads are recognised formally and they can be added into the additional responsibilities?

Sir, I thank Dr Wan Rizal for his questions. I express my deep appreciation for the teachers who have indeed stepped in to care for the students. We do recognise that this is in addition to their workload and that will be recognised by the schools as well. The operational way in which we relieve that workload will vary from site to site. The principals and the site conditions of, for example, the Little Professor staff who have chosen to stay on, or external staff who have been able to come in – means that it is not exactly the same from site to site. So, exactly what the teachers have to do and the intensity of the workload will vary. So, we have to take an operational approach, but our intent is indeed for the teachers then to focus on their primary duties and where possible for us then, to relieve them of these duties.

MOE HQ staff have stepped in to relieve administrative burdens. I have given the example of parent support groups that have volunteered to assist and we have employed the existing former Little Professor staff, as well as external staff to then come in, in the interim, while we are pending the operator to be appointed.

To ensure that this does not ever happen again, well, those are the issues that we have talked about in the previous supplementary questions: that we are reviewing the sector and we will look to see whether we have mechanisms that we can detect earlier, respond faster and perhaps, have better resilience across the system.

But I think the fact that we had such an incident for the first time, a student care operator collapsing in this way, if you like, unable to provide services, and yet across all eight schools, we had a continuity of care and a continuity of service provision – I think it is a testament to the professionalism and capability of our education staff and the entire ecosystem of stakeholders that are involved. And I once again would very much like to thank them for that.

7 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport what measures are being taken to ensure all public footpaths, including roadside footpaths in private estates, provide barrier-free access for mobility scooters and motorised wheelchairs so that users are not forced onto roads, risking both safety and prosecution under the Active Mobility Act 2017.

Public paths are designed to be free from encumbrances to ensure a barrier-free passage. Since 2018, all new standalone footpaths are also required to have a minimum clear width of 1.8 metres, while those adjacent to cycling paths must be at least 1.5 metres. When rejuvenating old footpaths, we will widen them to these standards, unless there are site constraints, such as the lack of roadside space.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) also takes in residents' feedback when planning for footpath widening within private estates, which is often undertaken in conjunction with other programmes, such as drainage or estate improvements.

If riders need to use the road briefly to bypass obstructions or access adjoining paths, enforcement authorities will exercise discretion. We would also like to remind device users and motorists to slow down at residential estates and exercise greater caution during such instances.

We are almost out of time, but Mr Tan, I will allow you to ask your clarification in a very concise manner.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one supplementary question.

I would like to ask whether the Minister of State can advise on the timeline for a private estate, which has not been upgraded, for example. When will the current footpaths, which are currently blocked or not accessible for Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs), when does the Government expect that these footpaths can be modified for use, without the PMAs having to use the road?

As mentioned earlier, such path widening work is usually taken in conjunction with other estate improvement works, for example, drainage or estate improvements and these are not entirely within LTA's jurisdiction.

We really have to bear in mind the constraints in private estates, because you have trees, utilities and it is not so straightforward as in other places. We do take a calibrated approach, looking at the volume of users – whether motorists on the roads or pedestrians and riders on the footpaths. So, therefore, we seek Member's and public's understanding that we will do it in a way that is realistic and practical.

Order. End of question time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.

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

[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day]. (proc text)]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Head R (Cont) — (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [27 February 2026], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100." – [Mr Vikram Nair]. (proc text)]

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

Minister Edwin Tong.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the various Members who spoke last week, in particular, for each of their support of the Ministry of Law's (MinLaw's) work.

Sir, let me begin with history because context matters.

In 1826, the Second Charter of Justice formally established the Court of Judicature of Singapore, at that time, a fledgling colonial legal order in a trading post that had barely found its footing. The law then served a different purpose, a different master and in a very different age.

Nearly two centuries on, what Singapore has built has been nothing short of remarkable. We now rank among the top legal and intellectual property (IP) systems in the world. Our Courts and dispute resolution institutions, like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Singapore International Mediation Centre and Singapore International Commercial Court, are globally recognised for excellence.

Whilst our legal beginnings were inherited, we have since moulded and contextualised the rule of law to serve our nation and our people. This has been the Singapore story of progress. However, none of this happened by accident. Generations of lawyers, judges, academics and policy-makers understood that a rules-based society is the bedrock upon which everything else – commerce, safety and liberty – is built.

Sir, in our bicentennial year, this year, since the Second Charter of Justice, we are facing significant disruptive forces: geopolitical tensions, which escalated just over the weekend, revolutionary technologies, climate risk and pressures on the social fabric. We will therefore have to redouble efforts to keep our laws updated and relevant and also be bold and open to embracing changes. MinLaw will continue to press on with reform and progress in our legal policies.

In my speech this morning, I will set out our overarching vision, the priority areas that we will focus on as well as outline some of the key challenges that we will have to confront.

Let me start with the continued development of our legal industry, which remains a priority.

We will continue our work to build Singapore as a legal and professional services hub. These are powerful growth engines, providing opportunities, driving economic expansion and job creation. In order to achieve this, Singapore must constantly refresh its legal frameworks in an ever-changing and fast-evolving world, and also do it in a timely manner.

We will therefore be reviewing key legislation with a view to updating them to ensure that our laws stay fit for purpose. This will include, this year, reforms in arbitration, corporate insolvency and IP.

Beyond reviewing legislation, we will also identify opportunities in emerging areas. This includes supporting the green transition, the digital economy and major regional infrastructure projects, as well as sports and entertainment dispute resolution that Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh mentioned.

Beyond domestic reforms, Singapore will continue to contribute to international thought leadership. By being present in the global legal mindshare, we ensure that we will not merely be price-takers but we will actively play a role in shaping the law.

The Singapore Convention on Mediation bears our name, our country’s name – a testament to our involvement in shaping international dispute resolution. Maxwell Chambers continues to serve as a leading dispute resolution complex, hosting the highest concentration of international dispute resolution institutions worldwide.

This year, we welcome three more institutions to Singapore: first, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); second, the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre; and third, the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration.

Besides being the first office outside its Washington DC headquarters, ICSID will join the four other World Bank Group organisations already based in Singapore, making Singapore the first country in the world to host local offices for all five World Bank organisations.

Indeed, Singaporeans also contribute to leadership on the international stage, including Mr Daren Tang and Ambassador Rena Lee, as mentioned by Mr Christopher de Souza.

Our international engagement also extends to strengthening legal cooperation frameworks with our partners, ensuring that as commerce and cross-border activity grow, the rule of law keeps pace.

One example is extradition treaties.

To Ms Sylvia Lim’s query on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Treaty on Extradition (AET), the AET requires at least six ASEAN members states to complete their respective domestic procedures and notify the ASEAN Secretary-General that they are ready to bring the AET into effect. The Government will also similarly ratify the AET once we have completed our own internal procedures. On the risks to Singaporeans, there are robust legal safeguards in the AET, which set out the circumstances where extradition will not be granted. One example is if the request is made to prosecute the fugitive based on his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.

Second, we must continue to cultivate a strong legal profession. This is the backbone of our legal progress. And we want Singapore to remain a jurisdiction where the finest legal minds choose to practise here and where homegrown talent is given every opportunity to flourish and remain at the core of our profession. I encourage our law firms to expand their horizons, think about internationalising their practices. Given our market, Singapore’s size, we must build our legal ecosystem with the broader Asia and ASEAN in context.

And the case for doing so is compelling. In ASEAN alone, it is set as a bloc to become the fourth largest economy by 2030, if not sooner. And foreign direct investments into ASEAN have been steadily rising. So, I believe our firms are well-primed to capture these opportunities.

At the same time, we recognise the value that foreign law firms and lawyers bring to our industry and the wider economy. Ms Cassandra Lee mentioned balancing between open competitiveness and preserving a Singapore core. We agree, and the two can co-exist.

Singapore, in fact, has gradually liberalised the legal sector since the 1990s, and we have not changed our posture. Foreign firms have more than doubled and foreign lawyers have more than quadrupled since the year 2000.

They complement our Singapore lawyers, offering advice and expertise on international and foreign law, which we need as a global business hub. This strengthens Singapore’s value proposition. Indeed, over the same period of time, since the year 2000, our legal services exports have gone up eight-fold, which shows that when we bring it together – foreign lawyers, Singapore practitioners at the core – we can extract value.

We regularly review our frameworks to remain attractive to foreign law firms and lawyers. To Ms Lee’s query, we have studied the recommendations by the Committee to Review the Regulatory Framework for Law Practices and Collaborations and gathered feedback from a public consultation and our industry engagements, and we will share our decision on the Committee’s Report shortly.

Third, Sir, we will redouble efforts to develop the individual lawyer. The strength of any legal system and indeed, of our legal profession, lies ultimately in the strength of our people. We will therefore expand education and competency frameworks, not just in technical skills but in civil law, technology literacy and cross-border practice, so that every Singapore lawyer can serve their clients and their community with confidence and competence.

This also means confronting the sustainability of legal practice, issues which Ms Kuah Boon Theng, Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Cassandra Lee spoke on.

Let me start by saying that attrition has remained stable, so far. And in fact, the number of Singapore lawyers in practice grew 26% over the past decade. So, over the last 10 years, the number of lawyers in practice grew 26%. Nonetheless, I agree with the observations made by the hon Members. We must continue to explore ways to alleviate pressures on our lawyers in light of the changing environment.

There is, however, no magic bullet. As Ms Kuah has noted, the challenges are multi-faceted. It will require collective effort, including law firms, which will set the conditions for growth, exposure and mentorship for lawyers, but also lawyers themselves, each of them, who can be stewards of their own careers.

We will have to think collectively and carefully about embracing technology to automate mundane tasks, equipping lawyers with relevant 21st century skills, widening the industry ecosystem, so that lawyers can pursue diverse interests and strengths, and find meaning, purpose and value in the profession that they practise in. Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai will share our efforts on education and the adoption of legaltech.

Sir, what I have found during my time in practice was that while the hours may be long and the pressure intense, a collaborative workplace culture helps in longevity, helps in building the ecosystem and the environment in which each lawyer practises. The Law Society and the Singapore Academy of Law have introduced mentorship programmes and other initiatives to help promote sustainability. The Chief Justice and I will oversee a Committee on the Future of the Legal Profession to consider and tackle these and other pertinent issues that may arise. The Committee will explore these matters, from the holistic perspective of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our legal sector.

In parallel, the Government will also continue to support in-house counsel, who are integral to Singapore’s legal ecosystem and economic competitiveness. As Mr Vikram Nair noted, lawyers joining in-house legal teams are not a loss. Multinational companies (MNCs) present in Singapore have grown to over 7,000 present in Singapore today, and between 2015 and 2024, the number of Singapore-qualified in-house counsel more than doubled.

So, in that period of time, while our industry has remained stable, in fact, with a 26% increase, the number of in-house counsel has more than doubled over the last 10 years. It reflects growth in not just the number of lawyers in practice or in in-house counsel roles but the growth of MNCs in Singapore, which supports the economy, in turn requiring in-house counsel legal support. In-house counsel help companies navigate regulatory landscapes and invest with confidence in Singapore.

Next, Sir, let me turn to enhancing access to justice, ensuring that those who are most vulnerable and most in need can still access our first-class legal system.

Sir, in the preceding years, we have streamlined laws and processes to meet our society’s evolving needs. For example, we have shifted away from the adversarial approach in family proceedings, addressing non-compliance with maintenance orders. We have simplified enforcement of civil claims. We have strengthened the management of community disputes through mandatory mediation and we support those with special needs in our criminal justice system.

We have also made a firm commitment to Government legal aid through the Legal Aid Bureau and the setting up of the Public Defender’s Office. We have continued to work with the legal fraternity and partners like Pro Bono SG to deliver legal aid and expand outreach and assistance through schemes like the Community Law Centres. We have introduced technology, such as LawGoWhere, to bring legal services closer to Singaporeans and help them to navigate the process and empower and enable self-help.

This year, Sir, we will make another shift to expand civil legal aid coverage.

Today, civil legal aid is available to the bottom 25th percentile of households with a per capita household income (PCHI) of $1,050. We will raise the means-test criteria to a PCHI of $1,650. This would cover more households, allowing them to benefit from legal advice in the appropriate cases.

When we did a survey, we found that between the previous threshold of $1,050 and $1,650, about half of civil litigants in this expanded income range remain unrepresented. Some may have done so by choice, but after we put this in place, we will allow them to now avail themselves of legal aid, should that become necessary. This will extend more legal aid to more Singaporeans. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric will share more details on these efforts.

Next, I turn to optimising our state assets and I thank Mr de Souza for recognising our efforts over the years to unlock underutilised spaces for social and community good, place-making, such as providing arts spaces for practitioners and sports and recreational facilities.

But this is no easy undertaking. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) manages a substantial portfolio of around 2,600 state properties and 11,000 hectares of state land – the equivalent of some 15,000 football fields. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric will share how SLA continues to support our economic and social needs.

At this juncture, let me turn to address Ms Sylvia Lim's cut on the appointment of the Attorney-General (AG). Ms Lim's cut was originally filed to the Prime Minister's Office. It was redirected to MinLaw, as I will respond on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Sir, Mr Lucien Wong has served as AG since January 2017. As Ms Lim noted, Mr Wong has had a distinguished legal career. Prior to his appointment, he grew and led Singapore's largest law firm and was widely regarded as the country's top corporate lawyer over many years, with an international standing. In fact, I would say that his reputation stands as amongst the best in the world.

As AG, Mr Wong has made major contributions across almost every area of law. Under his leadership, the AGC has advised the Government on complex legal and constitutional matters; prosecuted criminal offences fairly and firmly; and ensured that legislation introduced in Parliament is clear, sound and fit for Singapore's purposes. His experience and steady hand have also been especially valuable to Singapore in sensitive international matters, some of which are presently ongoing. In January this year, Mr Wong's term was renewed for three years.

Ms Lim, in her speech, has described the appointment process for the AG as "thin", if I heard her correctly. But I would have to disagree and would instead characterise it quite differently.

Sir, the appointment of the AG, whether the initial appointment or any subsequent renewal, is made in accordance with the Constitution. There is a clear, deliberate and very structured process of appointment, with the appropriate checks and balances.

Let me explain. In the appointment of an AG, Article 35 of the Constitution provides that the Prime Minister must first consult the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC) before tendering his advice as to the appointment to the President. After receiving that advice, the President in turn consults the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) and makes an independent assessment of the appointment.

Sir, this is not a perfunctory process; nor is it "thin" by any measure. It involves consultation with the head of the Judiciary, the leadership of the PSC and the elected President exercising his constitutional role, in consultation with the CPA, before the AG is either appointed or renewed. This process reflects a careful and considered balance between executive responsibility and institutional safeguards.

Ms Lim then goes on to suggest that there should be public disclosure of these deliberations.

Sir, I do not think that would be wise.

First, these are matters for Chairman PSC and the CPA to assess independently and take a considered view of. The CPA, for instance, does not publish its advice to the President, nor is the Government privy to its deliberations.

Second, confidential deliberations also serve an important function when it comes to making such appointments.

If you put it out publicly, you put the candidates out for public debate. Even the best of candidates will have some detractors; a small minority, but there will be some. Suitable candidates may well then be deterred from even being considered if discussions as to their suitability and perhaps their rejection were to be made publicly.

The consultation process also requires candour and frank assessment. Turning it into a public debate risks politicising an office that must remain scrupulously non-partisan.

It is easy to say, let us have more information, let us have more public debate, public discourse and deliberations. But we have seen other countries using such methods in other systems. And the question we have to ask ourselves is, are they better?

Singapore's legal system, our corruption levels, our adherence to the rule of law has consistently been marked internationally very well and I think we want to continue with this.

In some jurisdictions, the AGs are elected office holders, but Singapore has had a different model since our Independence. Our AG is not a politician. He is appointed based on professional excellence, integrity and judgement. The safeguards, however, lie in the constitutional requirements and qualifications required, the consultative process that I have just outlined and ultimately, in the performance and the conduct of the office.

Ms Lim also says that there are many qualified persons for the position. That may be so, if one considers only the basic eligibility criteria. However, the selection of an AG is not simply about meeting the basic criteria. It requires a careful assessment of who is best suited to discharge the heavy and very important responsibilities of the office. We want the best, not just those who might qualify.

What then does the Government look for in an AG? There are several considerations.

As I said, the role of an AG is a demanding one. It is, in fact, one of the most critical offices in our constitutional framework. So, beyond formal qualification, it calls for an individual of high professional standing, wide-ranging legal experience, sound judgement and a strong sense of public duty.

The AG must also have unimpeachable integrity and strong moral fibre. He must render objective advice and act fairly in the conduct of prosecutions, even when doing so may be difficult or unpopular. He must be prepared to uphold the law impartially and apply it equally to everyone, whether one is a Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.

Individuals with the requisite experience, judgement and integrity for this office are not easily found. The Government continually looks out for suitable candidates, one who can shoulder the full weight of these responsibilities.

At the same time, in making any appointments, the Government also takes into account a range of considerations, including the performance of the incumbent, his ability and willingness to serve and whether there are significant ongoing matters that require continuity and careful oversight. In particular, the Government continues to rely on Mr Wong's counsel on significant matters that remain in progress today, including negotiations on maritime boundaries; tax and financial sector legal reforms; and complex cross-border criminal matters. These and others are substantial responsibilities that will benefit from deep expertise, sound judgement and a steady hand.

Mr Wong has had a proven track record. We have seen and worked with him, we have assessed and we know the quality of the work, including on sensitive matters. He remains fit, able and willing to continue.

So, having considered all these factors and after the required consultations, the Prime Minister advised the President to re-appoint Mr Wong for another term based on the constitutional mechanism. The President then exercised his constitutional functions. And I believe this is a system of appointment which is careful, structured and designed to preserve both independence and public trust.

Sir, I have sketched out our areas of priority in broad terms. My colleagues, Senior Minister of State Murali and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua will set out further details in their speeches. However, even as we pursue these priorities, we must be very clear-eyed about the challenges that lie ahead of us. We are entering into an era of profound disruption, the kind of disruption the legal industry has not encountered in recent memory. And the most consequential driver of this disruption is artificial intelligence (AI). The numbers tell a striking story. Based on Thomson Reuters' survey findings last month, the proportion of legal professionals using generative AI in their organisation has roughly tripled since 2024. That is just about a year and a half, two years ago. Legaltech funding in 2025 reached US$5.99 billion, up from US$3.88 in 2023.

Closer to home, Singapore law firms, some with MinLaw's support, have begun piloting AI tools. The Supreme Court's own Court Audio Services System integrates audio recording and automated AI-driven transcription technology, allowing real-time conversion of spoken words into written text. This and other examples, many other examples, shows a profession already in motion, moving and evolving with the advent of technology.

But we have to ask ourselves, what does this mean for us, as a legal profession, in practice? AI-powered tools are already conducting document reviews, drafting contracts and flagging regulatory exposure across multiple jurisdictions at speeds that no humans can replicate or even match. Some platforms can even analyse thousands of precedents and generate predictive assessments of case outcomes – work that previously demanded years and years of legal experience.

These are genuinely impressive capabilities. But they also raise very important questions for the future of our profession. How does a young lawyer develop judgement, intuition and professional instinct if the AI performs the basic tasks and gives the answers to these young lawyers? How will our lawyers develop these instincts which are honed by a process of doing and redoing and repeating it? Who bears responsibility when the AI produces errors with commercial implications? How do we regulate cross-border AI-generated advice without, at the same time, allowing regulation to stifle innovation? And perhaps most fundamentally, how do we harness AI to serve the public interest, and not just allow it to widen the gap between those who can afford sophisticated legal technology and those who cannot?

The impact on legal education is equally pressing. Our law schools have, for generations, trained lawyers through a well-established pedagogy, where the process of reading and analysing cases, drafting legal memos and crafting oral arguments – all of these, which I described as the process – is as important as the outcome when it comes to training.

But if the AI can do the research or draft a memo in minutes, what happens to this training? What happens to the cultivation of hands-on experience, in making mistakes?

Perhaps the law degree ought then to redouble its emphasis on what AI cannot replicate. Ethical reasoning, empathetic client engagement and the exercise of judgement in areas of genuine ambiguity and moral courage.

The challenge is equally acute for those who are already in practice and in continuing legal education. Can our structures support a landscape where skills need to be updated every once in a while, more recently, every once in a few months?

These questions, Sir, do not admit easy answers. They go to the heart of what it means to practise law, to train lawyers and to uphold the standards of a profession entrusted with the heavy responsibility of the administration of justice.

Some of these issues will be studied by the Future of the Legal Profession Committee, which I spoke about earlier, and we will have to work with the profession and the broader legal industry to understand these issues deeply and come together to find a solution.

But I want to emphasise this point. These are not matters which any single institution can resolve in isolation. The challenges before us will require a collective response – from practitioners, in-house counsel, academics, regulators, policy-makers, law students as well as members of the public whose interests the legal system ultimately serves.

As a first step, MinLaw is organising a gathering of the legal industry later this week, we titled it, "The Next Charter: Shaping Singapore's Legal Future Together" on 6 March. This is an opportunity for an open, frank and candid conversation about the challenges we face, starting with AI and technology, but also understanding the road ahead and the opportunities that might lie ahead for us and the future we want to build, collectively, for Singapore's legal industry.

Sir, as I conclude, I want to close with a direct appeal to every member of Singapore's legal community. What you do matters a lot, not just to the profession, but to Singapore's development and our continued success. In this extraordinary age of change, perhaps it matters more.

Singapore did not build our legal system by accident, as I sketched out earlier, nor can we hope to preserve and strengthen it by accident. It will require all of us – my Ministry, the Bar, the Judiciary, our law schools, the firms and every single lawyer – to engage with purpose and genuine commitment and intentionality to tackling the disruptive challenges.

On this endeavour, what I can assure this House of is that MinLaw will not be a spectator. We will be an active, present and engaged partner – listening carefully and investing purposefully in our people and in our institutions.

Sir, AI will not replace the lawyer, but the lawyer who harnesses AI thoughtfully and more effectively will outpace the lawyer who does not. And the legal system that navigates these changes wisely will command far greater trust and attract more commerce and investment, than one that responds with uncritical enthusiasm, or perhaps, unexamined fear.

The 1826 Charter of Justice gave Singapore a foundation. We worked on it. Generations that followed built upon it. Now it falls to us – this generation, to ensure that the next chapter is worthy of all that came before it.

Sir, MinLaw remains fully committed to working with every stakeholder in Singapore's legal landscape to advance a legal system that is excellent, accessible, adaptive and just. And that is work that we must continue together. [Applause.]

Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai.

Mr Chairman, the law cannot generate a single cent in commerce or bring a single idea into market. It powers neither our economy nor our society. It collapses on itself when it stands alone. Yet, we will have no peace, no security, no comfort, neither prosperity nor progress without the law.

The law underwrites both the private and the public sectors of our world. Today, I will speak about both and how they, together, secure the livelihoods of fellow Singaporeans. MinLaw will steward the next bound of our development in three ways: first, the private – empowering businesses through IP as an engine of growth; second, the public – facilitating resolution of disputes by deepening capabilities and reliability of our dispute resolution pathways; and third, the people – to grow the capabilities of our legal profession.

First, intangible assets (IA) and IP are critical for enterprises to develop – as mentioned by the hon Members Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Mark Lee. The most valuable resources of a business are often intangible.

These assets are generated by the ingenuity and creativity of men, but they are given specific value by the law. Singapore has been working for decades to harness IP for economic growth. Since 2021, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has stepped up to attract and grow innovative enterprises using IA and IP, guided by the Singapore IP Strategy (SIPS) 2030.

While the assets may be intangible, the benefits of focusing on IA and IP are tangible. This year, IPOS celebrates 25 years of empowering businesses to turn ideas into tangible assets. In the second tranche of SIPS 2030, we will work harder to uplift enterprises and strengthen Singapore as a global IA and IP Hub. This includes – first, supporting businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs), in managing their IP and unlocking its value. For example, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) will exchange a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in a few days to set up the WIPO IP Business Centre @ ASME – the first in ASEAN. From there, more SMEs will gain access to initiatives like WIPO's IP Management Clinic Singapore programme to develop IP strategies and overseas expansion.

Second, stepping up work on IA and IP valuation. This includes developing frameworks with financial institutions, public agencies and industry partners, to help companies realise IA value and commercialise their ideas through licensing and partnerships. IPOS will support our partners in publishing the IA valuation guidelines this year. To Mr Mark Lee's queries on research attachments as well as IP financing – on the former, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) seconds researchers to SMEs. IPI Singapore, a subsidiary under Enterprise Singapore, also assists SMEs with technology matching services and advisory support to develop go-to-market strategies. On the latter, IPOS is studying the market gaps in enterprise financing.

I now move to AI. Human creativity is the lifeblood of innovation and progress. As we harness AI for growth, we are committed to maintaining a balanced and robust IP regime. Ms Goh Hanyan and Mr Jackson Lam spoke about concerns relating to the training and use of generative AI (GenAI), particularly from the creative sectors.

Our approach to developing our IP regime is human-centric. We are working with stakeholders to refine our regime, for example, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) supported by MinLaw and IPOS, organised industry and expert roundtables.

The feedback was broadly supportive of Singapore's copyright framework which balances AI development with guardrails to protect rights-holders' interests. It also raised suggestions for further consultation and refinement, which we will study.

Last year, IPOS also launched explainers to help the public and businesses understand how copyright laws address key GenAI issues. We are monitoring international developments to remain competitive. To take our work further, MinLaw and IPOS will conduct a public consultation later this year on potential refinements. This aims to engage broader perspectives and co-create our approach to AI-related IP issues.

Next, I turn to dispute resolution. Businesses need clear, reliable and impartial pathways to resolution, providing predictability and certainty in their relationships. Singapore has long recognised this and worked hard to be an international dispute resolution hub, as hon Members Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Vikram Nair said.

Over the past decades, our ecosystem has deepened. Our institutions refined their rules and procedures, expanded their international panels and strengthened their case management capabilities. Signature platforms, such as the Singapore Convention Week, reinforce our reputation as a global node. This contributes to Singapore's standing as a services centre and signals our openness for commerce.

However, the landscape is evolving and we must continue to innovate. Technology is transforming dispute management, from virtual hearings to AI-assisted document review. Our institutions have also deepened offerings in specialist areas.

Reinforcing our frameworks and institutions is insufficient without looking at our people. MinLaw is working with industry on three thrusts: first, education and professionalisation – to deepen the strength of our legal industry; second, adoption of legaltech – to reduce repetitive, low-value tasks; and third, providing opportunities in emerging areas of work, such as the environmental, social and governance (ESG) sector.

First, on legal education and professionalisation. We have been implementing recommendations of the Reform of Legal Education Working Group since late 2024. These better equip legal professionals for cross-border work with civil law partners. In the professional sphere, SAL has published the national legal sector competency framework for disputes and corporate lawyers and in-house counsel. By 2027, a framework and training roadmap for allied legal professionals will follow.

Second, harnessing technology. Hon Members Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Cassandra Lee spoke on AI adoption. MinLaw is committed to supporting our legal professionals adopt AI. First, we are addressing the adoption barriers directly. Change management remains a challenge, especially for smaller Singapore Law Practices (SLPs) alongside cost. We launched the pilot of the Legal Innovation and Future-Readiness Transformation (LIFT) initiative in June 2025 to support these firms to diagnose technology needs and implement tailored legaltech solutions. To date, seven SLPs have joined the pilot. Their experiences will guide how we will support the broader industry in 2027.

Second, we are ensuring responsible GenAI use – a point raised by Mr Nair. We conducted a public consultation in September 2025 on the draft Guide for Using GenAI in the Legal Sector and received over 20 constructive responses. We will be publishing the Guide in the coming weeks. On Ms Lee's point about AI skills, we are also partnering the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to build AI fluency amongst our lawyers and in-house counsel through upskilling and training initiatives, together with professional bodies including SAL and the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association (SCCA).

Third, we are creating more avenues for lawyers, including in-house counsel, to discover legaltech, through initiatives such as LegalTech GoWhere and the Singapore Open Legal Informatics Database (SOLID) with our partner, the Singapore Management University.

Besides assisting legal professionals, AI can transform the way our society interacts with the law. This has tremendous potential for good – provided it is harnessed responsibly, as hon Member Mr Nair mentioned. Users ultimately remain responsible for how they use these tools and the attendant risks – knowing that the algorithms are incapable of weighing consequences or applying ethical reasoning in the way legal professionals do. MinLaw will monitor these developments and raise public awareness on the responsible use of GenAI tools in legal matters.

My final point is on capturing opportunities in emerging areas of legal demand. One example is ESG, which Ms Gho Sze Kee spoke on. Sustainability is one of the paradoxes of the business world, even as it is one of the most important and consequential factors in business decisions, it is often overlooked or under-considered. Being an emerging area, the Government is taking a targeted approach to build capability across the legal profession. For firms with a dedicated ESG practice, we launched a pilot ESG-Legal Secondment Programme this year. MinLaw co-funds secondments for lawyers into participating corporations, giving secondees exposure to ESG business contexts. The pilot began in February with a small initial cohort and we will review its outcome later this year.

Mr Chairman, I have spoken today about the importance of the law in giving value to ideas. I want to end on the need to give power to the law.

In a world increasingly dominated by might, money and manipulation, it is vital for us to remember that it is the law that enables justice, reason and rightfulness to find strength and standing.

There are no shortcuts to give power to the law, but one unvarying path is to remember that law is inextricably tied up with the human condition. Even as I spoke about the need for technology, I have spoken more about the need for people. We must build and grow a profession with the skills, courage and moral instincts suited for our tumultuous times. The law underwrites both the private and the public sectors, but it is for, and in the people, that the law finds its surest power.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

Chairman, the Rule of Law underpins our society's broader objectives and continued development.

In my speech, I will focus on two key areas: first, optimising land and creating good spaces for our economic and social needs; second, upholding the Rule of Law and expanding access to justice to strengthen our social fabric. We do so by ensuring that no one is denied legal access and by supporting vulnerable groups.

Let me start with land. Sir, we are committed to optimising state properties to better meet community and business needs. This safeguards land resources for our current and future generations. To this end, SLA engages public agencies and industry to better understand market needs and identify opportunities to put state land and properties to good use, in a pro-enterprise manner.

Mr Christopher de Souza and Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked about the use of state land and properties. I will share some examples.

Responding to arts practitioners' call for a dedicated space, SLA collaborated with the National Arts Council (NAC) to transform state properties at Kampong Java Road, into "Flock" – an artist-led innovation and creation hub.

SLA has also been activating suitable spaces in response to requests for "weather-proofed" sports spaces. One creative example is the placement of sport facilities under viaducts. These were previously under-utilised due to noise and lack of essential utilities. But we saw potential in the natural shelter and worked with Sport Singapore to transform the Gali Batu Flyover area into ARK Sports Village @ Segar. What was previously unused space is now a thriving sports facility.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh also asked about a longer tenure for more state properties. Currently, state properties are let out for a range of interim uses, typically with tenures of under 10 years, to retain planning flexibility. In response to feedback that such tenures may not facilitate capital expenditure recovery and may limit investment in property rejuvenation, SLA has leased out selected state properties on longer tenures, subject to planning considerations.

For instance, SLA recently launched the sale of the Adam Park heritage bungalow cluster on a 30-year lease. Such extended tenure allows time for investment recoupment and greater business certainty.

Ms Goh Han Yan asked about improvements to the Land Betterment Charge (LBC) regime. We have enhanced various aspects of the LBC framework since it came into force in 2022. Minister Edwin spoke about the enhancements just last week at the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS) Spring Festival Lunch. More details may be found in his speech on the MinLaw website.

It is also vital that our legal processes and frameworks remain accessible, fair and effective. We continue to review our legal frameworks to adapt to trends and societal needs so that Singaporeans can seek recourse and resolve frictions whenever they arise.

First, in community justice. Legislation was passed in 2024 to enhance the Community Disputes Management Framework. We have made mediation mandatory in appropriate cases. Second, a new Community Relations Unit (CRU) has been created to investigate neighbour disputes and to act. This is being piloted in Tampines. Third, we have enhanced the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) to improve the service journey for victims and enable them to obtain relief more quickly.

Mr Gerald Giam made several points on the CDRT's processes.

Sir, the CDRT is but one component of our broader community disputes framework, which also includes mediation and the CRU. Many disputes arise from misunderstandings or lifestyle differences. Calm, neighbourly exchanges can usually go a long way. But if informal communication fails, parties should attempt formal mediation. Mediation at the Community Mediation Centre is quick, effective and free. About 80% of cases reach an amicable settlement and that is why we made it mandatory.

The CDRT is an avenue of last resort, after all other measures have failed. As it is a court of law, some proper processes are necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice. The pre-filing assessment is not designed to redirect or deter residents. Instead, it is meant to help residents assess whether their dispute is suitable for the CDRT.

For example, residents should attempt mediation before filing a CDRT claim. So, the form asks whether mediation has been attempted before.

Residents also cannot file a CDRT claim against persons who are not their neighbours. Again, the form highlights this point. This ensures that residents do not spend time, money and energy filing a claim, that cannot be heard in the CDRT.

Those who need help navigating the e-filing system, including those with specific language needs, can contact the State Courts Service Hub. On the $150 filing fee, those with financial need can apply for a waiver. But again, parties should always attempt mediation first. It is entirely free and mostly effective.

Second, we have been studying ways to streamline the enforcement of civil judgments, as mentioned by Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Gabriel Lam and Mr Alex Yeo.

We received feedback that the time, the effort and the cost of enforcing judgments can be disproportionate to the judgment sum, leaving some judgments unenforced. This is undesirable. We aim to simplify the enforcement process, therefore, to be more effective, efficient and affordable.

We intend to do this by: one, giving the Court greater powers to identify a judgment debtor's assets and means; two, by introducing new enforcement modes to deter and punish non-compliance with Court orders; and three, creating new Civil Judgment Enforcement Officers to assist parties with enforcing their civil judgments.

We have been consulting with relevant stakeholders, including the Bar and the Judiciary, and aim to introduce a Bill later this year.

Third, in family justice. We have made changes to help families move forward with minimal acrimony, including addressing non-compliance with maintenance orders, as noted by Mr Nair and Mr Yeo.

Since establishing the new Maintenance Enforcement Division in January last year, the Family Justice Courts have referred around 1,000 cases to the new Division. So far, about two thirds of concluded cases settled during or after conciliation. This is a good start and we plan to expand coverage in future phases.

Another area is ensuring will-making remains accessible to Singaporeans. Singaporeans have a range of options. Depending on complexity, budget and personal preference, they can write their own wills, engage will-making services or even ask a friend for help.

Ms Hany Soh asked if wills can be registered for free in SAL's Wills Registry and suggested regulation or mandatory insurance for non-lawyers.

On the former, the fee defrays the costs of the service, which includes maintaining records for up to 120 years of the testator's life. Those with genuine financial needs can apply for a fee waiver. I would add that the validity of a will does not depend on registration with the Registry.

On the latter, we do not plan to impose insurance requirements to encourage options for legacy planning. If the public is unsure whether their service-provider is a licensed lawyer, they may check the MinLaw webpage. It has a search function that lists lawyers who have valid practising licences at the date of the search.

Lastly, I turn to access to justice. It is a key pillar that ensures our laws and justice system are not just for those with means, thereby preserving our social fabric, as mentioned by Mr Nair.

We have been helping those in need through the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) and the Public Defender's Office (PDO).

Since 1958, LAB has provided the vulnerable with civil legal aid, including matrimonial, monetary claims and probate matters. The impact of LAB's work is significant – receiving an average of around 7,000 applications annually.

In 2022, MinLaw established the PDO, which institutionalised criminal defence aid. PDO received about 2,400 applications in 2025. A portion of applications is referred to Pro Bono SG's Criminal Legal Aid Scheme under a co-delivery model. Additionally, LAB and PDO partner with social service agencies, Family Service Centres and Social Services Offices to provide holistic assistance and referrals for applicants with social needs, such as family violence, addiction, mental health and housing problems.

Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Alex Yeo, Mr Gabriel Lam and Mr Jackson Lam asked about ensuring access to legal aid for lower-income and lower-middle-income Singaporeans.

We continue to review the means test thresholds regularly. In 2022, we expanded the income coverage for criminal defence aid from the bottom 25th to the bottom 35th percentile by PCHI.

In 2024, we adjusted the PCHI and annual value thresholds for civil legal aid and criminal defence aid, accounting for the increase in household income and property value over the years.

As the Minister announced earlier, we will expand civil legal aid coverage by the LAB. We will raise the PCHI threshold for civil legal aid from $1,050 to $1,650. This could potentially benefit up to 1,000 more Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents annually.

To account for rising household income, the bank savings and non-Central Provident Fund investment threshold for both civil legal aid and criminal defence aid will be raised from $10,000 to $12,000 to ensure that the truly needy remain eligible.

We target to implement this later this year.

Applicants with extenuating circumstances will continue to be reviewed by an independent means test panel comprising legal and social service professionals.

Beyond Government schemes, we continue to partner with the legal fraternity and key stakeholders, such as Pro Bono SG to strengthen the legal help ecosystem for all Singaporeans.

Mr Alex Yeo asked about those facing legal issues arising from the loss of mental capacity of family members. In 2025, we amended the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995 to allow means testing based on the mentally incapacitated person, not the volunteers applying to be their deputy. This has reduced financial barriers and encouraged more volunteer deputies for vulnerable persons without family support.

Finally, we are also examining how our justice system may better serve those with disabilities or mental health conditions as needs for these individuals often go beyond legal support. This was mentioned by Mr Vikram Nair.

In better serving these individuals, we have in the past made some efforts. In 2010, we introduced community-based sentences, including the Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO). The MTO allows certain offenders with treatable psychiatric conditions to be treated in the community rather than be incarcerated in appropriate cases. In 2018, we expanded the MTO scheme to benefit more suitable offenders. Other measures include the Appropriate Adult Scheme for Persons with Mental Disabilities, administered by MINDS to support such persons during interviews with investigating officers.

But we fully recognise that more can be done. We want to finetune how our system caters to these vulnerable individuals' unique needs while delivering just outcomes. For instance, effective rehabilitation may differ for offenders with different underlying conditions. While some may benefit from psychiatric treatment, others such as those living with autism or intellectual disability may benefit from other interventions.

These questions intersect multiple areas such as law, social services and healthcare, and involve stakeholders from the private and public sector. Thus, MinLaw formally announced the launch of the Inclusive Justice Taskforce (IJT) in January this year. The IJT will examine how society can better support individuals with such conditions and disabilities who risk offending or who interact with the criminal justice system.

Our objective is simple. It is to raise public awareness of what works and recommend tangible improvements.

The IJT has begun its work and we will provide updates in due course.

I am privileged to co-lead the IJT alongside Ms Peggy Yee, founding director of PY Legal LLC and a long-time advocate in this space. I am also grateful for the IJT members across the private and public sectors – lawyers, policy-makers, law enforcement officers, social service professionals, healthcare experts, community partners and caregiver representatives.

Sir, to be sure, we face both challenges and disruptions, but also tremendous opportunities. Our Ministry's priorities are crystal clear. We will enhance legal services and intellectual property to support the economy, uphold the rule of law and expand access to justice and, at the same time, optimise land to meet our community needs. Together with our partners, we will press on.

As we commemorate the bicentennial anniversary of the Second Charter of Justice this year, we look not only to our own history but to the future – one where the law continues to serve Singapore and Singaporeans well. [Applause.]

We have time for clarifications. Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, I have some clarifications for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

On filing CDRT claims, can vernacular translations be provided on the online application form and can evidence exceeding the two-year limit be allowed to better deal with long-running disputes?

Secondly, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that filing help is available at the State Courts' service hub. How many individuals has the service hub assisted to successfully file applications in each of the last three years? I asked this question in my cut.

Does the hub provide end-to-end guidance for applicants who are not digitally savvy and not just advice? For example, if a resident does not have a Singpass, can the service hub help the resident to complete the filing of the CDRT claim?

Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications. On the provisions of information in vernacular languages on the website, I think that is something that we can potentially explore and look at. Of course, we are also mindful not to provide for content in a variety of languages such that it affects the way in which the content can be consumed. So, accessibility of how the website presents itself to users is also something that we consider.

With regard to the two-year framework, what we want to prevent in many cases, because a lot of times, community disputes verge on "he says", "I say". And what we want to prevent is the return of vexatious claims made by parties. So, a two-year framework removes the potential for these vexatious claims to come back on a recurrent basis.

On the next question about the cases, about 400 CDRT-related enquiries last year were handled by the State Courts Services Hub.

And can the Member repeat the last point about end-to-end services again, if you do not mind?

Mr Giam.

I would like to ask if the service hub provides end-to-end guidance and not just advice. So, that means if an applicant needs to file the claim but does not know how to do it, can the hub actually help them to do it step by step rather than say, "You just do this, do this" and then you go back home and do it on your own.

I think the Service Hub provides assistance on a case by case basis, and to the best of their ability in each case to really walk through the service journey with each individual user.

Ms Hany Soh.

Thank you, Chairman. I wish to first declare that I am a practicing lawyer, serving on the Law Society's pro bono practice committee, as well as our Pro Bono SG's community legal clinics committee.

I have two clarifications for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua. The first is in relation to his explanations that the registration fees for the Wills Registry cannot be waived at this juncture and the reason is because it is to defray the fees for maintaining such a service. In this regard, I wish to propose, can we consider instead that waiving the fees but instead increase the search fees component. Fundamentally, the reason is because we really want to enable the Wills Registry to become a reliable and accurate repository where we are able to know exactly how many wills are accurate registered and done in Singapore.

The second suggestion or clarification is, to strengthen the comprehensive legacy planning, apart from the suggestions that I have made on Wills Registry and LPAs waivers, I wish to enquire whether can we also explore for the advanced medical directives, whether currently it is only allowed for the doctors to witness the signing of this legal instrument? Akin to the same principle for registrations of LPAs, can we also work with the Ministry of Health to explore for the lawyers to do a comprehensive legacy planning which allows them to also witness the signing of an Advance Medical Directive (AMD)?

Chairman, I thank the Member for her clarifications. On the second part about AMDs, I understand that to look at it comprehensively for a full suite of future care plans instruments, AMD definitely is one of the instruments that we can potentially look at. But in my own exchanges with, say, seniors on the ground, I think it is oftentimes far easier to broach a conversation on setting up an LPA and also drafting or talking about an Advance Care Plan. And then the AMD, which is actually much further down the line, is something that we can potentially look at after all these more upstream instruments have been addressed.

On the Member's first question, do you mind repeating that again?

Ms Soh.

The first question is, can we explore rather than to not totally include or consider the waiver of fees, instead can we explore increasing the search fees instead, so as to achieve the objectives that Senior Parliamentary Secretary had mentioned in terms of defraying the fees for maintaining such a services in the Wills Registry?

I thank the Member for her clarifications. I think that is something we can explore and we will take it back to consider.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

Thank you, Chair, and I thank the Ministers for their response. I just have two clarification questions. The first question has to do with what Minister has shared about support for the green transition, the digital economy, major regional infrastructure projects, and sports and entertainment. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that.

My second clarification question has to do with the resourcing of PDO to ensure that there is access and a manageable case load for the lawyers. I think it is good that legal access is made more available to more Singaporeans, but I think we also want to ensure that the quality of service is comparable, and so whether PDO is adequately resourced; how does the Ministry think about that?

And in line with that as well, whether there are stronger support and incentives for lawyers doing pro bono work?

Sir, I thank Prof Goh for his support for MinLaw's work and our position. Overall, we have focused on Singapore being a hub. A hub that we built up. As I explained earlier, in dispute resolution, we have now one of the foremost number and the profile in terms of international institutions located in Singapore, so it made Singapore a hub for transactions. And the stronger we are in terms of having an infrastructure to resolve disputes in a clear, fair, transparent manner, the more likely it is that investors will see opportunity in Singapore.

We take the same approach when it comes to IP as well as in international restructuring. So, these are areas in which we have built up a hub.

Prof Goh mentioned sports and entertainment. I think this is an option and avenue for us to explore, and in fact, when I discuss with members of the Bar, with the Law Society, there are already lawyers who are interested in the areas, they practise in those areas and they are keen to elevate their practice areas.

We have also had initial discussions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport with a view to seeing whether we can have collaboration with them, again, to bring it in here.

And we do that on the same principle as what I have articulated for dispute resolution. If you have a system of being able to resolve disputes here, then you are more likely to be able to attract the entire ecosystem of investment and economic opportunity into Singapore as well. So, on that basis we have been working very closely with various practitioners, people who are interested in this area, and also, as I said, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which represents one of the foremost global bodies on resolving sports disputes.

To make one other point to Prof Goh's question, there is a degree to which IP can intersect with sport as well. In fact, WIPO is making this year's focus on World IP Day, the theme of in "IP and Sports". Looking at sports, not just in terms of the resolving disputes around what you might do with transfers and the like, but also in terms of commercial marketing, licence rights, broadcast, image rights and the like. So, WIPO is working on promoting IP and sports, and we see an opportunity there, because, as I mentioned earlier, IP is one of our areas of focus for building the hub status in Singapore.

My colleague Senior Minister of State Murali will talk a little bit more about green transition, but I will address your point on PDO. Since we started the PDO, the number of cases, applications have gone up. We started with about 1,500 in 2023. Last year, it was in excess of 2,300. So, the cases have gone up.

But I would like to assure the Member that we had catered for this. When we set up PDO, we had a plan to scale up our resources and manpower, expecting that the numbers would rise. We are also working with Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) to share the case load; and so that is manageable for the foreseeable future. We now have grown the PDO with 22 public defender officers, and they are full-time, they are very professional and dedicated. And I think they also find reward and value and purpose in the work that they do.

So, on that note, the Member's last point was what can else can we do? We work with a variety of different organisations, including the Law Society, Pro Bono SG, with CLAS, and with the Bar in general, to promote giving back through pro bono work. And Pro Bono SG, CLAS and the work that we do with PDO are some examples of this.

Sir, I would like to respond to the hon Member, Prof Goh's clarification on green transition. Here, the law's role is to shape how businesses operate, invest and structure transactions. And in this regard, IPOS has done studies on green trademarks and green economy. We also provide patent analytics insights to support the green economy.

Over and above that, we are strengthening the ESG capabilities across the profession in partnership with key legal associations. For example, we supported initiatives such as the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association's (SCCA's) inaugural Sustainability Connect, a dedicated platform that brings together legal and sustainability professionals for knowledge exchange.

SCCA Academy has also started to roll out ESG-focused training programmes, including a course delivered in partnership with Nanyang Technological University's Carbon Market Academy of Singapore. At the same time, the Law Society of Singapore and SAL have introduced a range of ESG-related training and thought leadership initiatives, equipping legal professionals with relevant capabilities.

We are approaching the end of guillotine time. I know a few of you still have clarifications to make. Priority will be given to those who have spoken on this earlier. So, please keep all clarifications and responses short.

Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications for the Minister. But before that, I would like to thank him for the additional information that he has just given to us on the recent reappointment of the AG, which was information we did not have before. So, that was actually the thrust of my cut.

So, my two clarifications. One, can he confirm then that the Prime Minister did not shortlist any other candidates in the recent round of appointment of AG? And the second is this: he mentioned that the current AG is required to continue managing some ongoing projects, which are quite complex. Is he saying now that the AG has become individually indispensable in the managing of these projects, there is no one being groomed to take over? Because from a system point of view it sounds to me precarious, and in three years' time we might be facing the same argument again.

Thank you, Ms Lim. I cited a lot of public source information and data. Mr Wong's qualifications, his reputation, his CV and what he has achieved in both in public service as well as in private practice, I think it is really common knowledge.

The ongoing projects that you mentioned and you seem to say that they are new, the fact that we have maritime boundary discussions, I think is not new. I have not gone into the sensitive materials because I cannot and I will not, but I think it suffices to say that we take this into account.

And on the Member's second question, it is not that any individual is indispensable. But at a given point in time, a multitude of factors are taken into account, as I said, including whether he is available, whether he is able to continue. Continuity is one factor, but it is not the only one. But taking all of this into account, factors such as what are the ongoing projects, his ability to contribute, the projects that are ongoing, the stature and reputation of the individual at hand, all of these are factors that we take into account in selecting the individual for the office.

As for the Member's first question, I am not going to go into whether there is a long list or a shortlist, but it suffices to say that we will consider this carefully, think about what the incumbent has done, whether there is a need to change at that point in time and if so, what are the options, and take all of these factors into consideration before deciding on making a recommendation to the President.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Sir, I have two clarifications for the Minister. The first is regarding making mediation mandatory in appropriate cases. Can the Minister share what is the requirement and what are the type of cases for which mediation can be made mandatory? My second clarification is on both mandatory mediation and the CRU. Can the Minister share whether there are any plans for the Government to expand mandatory mediation and the CRU beyond the Tampines pilot?

Sir, we have taken the view that mediation is effective. Members heard Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua outline some of the statistics. Broadly, although I know that they currently apply to consensual mediation, 80% of cases are resolved amicably through mediation. So, we think this is an effective mechanism and framework.

More importantly, in the context of community disputes where you are talking about two neighbours who live in proximity to one another, we think that it is, in fact, the most appropriate means by which you should resolve a dispute. So, we have designed the enhanced framework in the Community Disputes Resolution Act, which we passed in Parliament some months ago as having a lower threshold for driving parties to mediation, and in this case, mandatory mediation. We think that in most cases, matters ought to be resolved in the first instance and maybe even in the second instance through mediation.

Therefore, the threshold for issuing a mediation direction is low. There is no a need to investigate the case. So, the officer who issues the direction does not have to ascertain whether one is right or the other one is wrong. As long as there is a prima facie basis for believing that there is a valid complaint and that they are not trying to bring a neighbour to mediation vexatiously. In those circumstances, the threshold having been met, the direction will be issued.

In terms of an expansion, let me say that we are studying the pilot that is being conducted at Tampines, learning from the experiences, understanding the processes and streamlining it, and in some cases, finetuning it. We are thinking about what more can be done and we are studying the expansion, both in terms of the pilot, as well as thinking about what other functions of the CRU can be expanded. When we are ready with that, we will come back and explain that in due course.

One last clarification. Mr Mark Lee.

Sir, I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Murali that IPOS is actually studying recommendations on IP financing. I think in this day and age, businesses will need as many financing options in their arsenal. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if IPOS has an indicative or targeted timeline, and whether we will be piloting initiatives in this area?

Just a short response, Mr Chairman, Sir, because I do not want to be guillotined. The point about enterprise financing is that we need to figure out the blind spots as well as the moral hazards. What we do not want is for, in respect of the Member's suggestion, the Government to assume the risk and then, as a result of which, financial institutions may not necessarily be minded to do their due diligence and that creates a problem as well. So, we will study this very carefully and make the announcements in due course.

The hon Member Mr Vikram Nair had earlier officially applied for leave from Parliament for today because he has to attend a Court hearing. I had accordingly approved his leave. Therefore, since Mr Vikram Nair is not here to withdraw his amendment, I will now put the amendment to a vote.

The Question is, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100." Those who agree say "Aye". Those who disagree say "No".

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated dissent. (proc text)]

I think the "Noes" have it, the "Noes" have it.

[(proc text) Amendment negatived. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $417,819,500 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $287,047,600 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]

Head V, Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

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

Mr Chairman, our economy today is less about weathering cyclical volatility and more about navigating deep structural change in the global order.

Geopolitical fragmentation, industrial policy competition, supply chain reconfiguration, decarbonisation pressures and rapid technological disruption have fundamentally reshaped the landscape.

Recent volatility in global technology stocks also reminds us how quickly shifts in risk sentiment can transmit across financial markets, trade and investment flows. This is now further amplified by escalating tensions in the Middle East, which are already driving energy price volatility, safe haven flows and heightened uncertainty across global markets and can translate into higher inflation, tighter financial conditions and weaker global growth.

For a small and open economy like Singapore, these external forces will continue to shape our growth trajectory.

In this environment, Singapore’s strategy must do three things simultaneously: strengthen business resilience, move decisively into higher-value growth areas and translate growth into quality jobs for Singaporeans. Ultimately, with constraints on labour and capital, growth must increasingly come from within, by deepening capabilities, innovation and knowledge, in other words, productivity. Both labour productivity and total factor productivity must become our primary engine of growth.

First, supporting businesses through structural transition. Externally, trade realignment, onshoring trends and slower global growth are making the operating environment more complex. Internally, firms must navigate digitalisation, artificial intelligence (AI) adoption, workforce redesign and sustainability pressures.

Government support schemes are necessary. But the key question is whether they are sufficiently deep to drive real transformation. How are our Industry Transformation Maps evolving to move firms up the value chain, rather than simply helping them manage costs? How are we measuring genuine productivity gains, not just adoption of digital tools, but outcomes such as management upgrading, process redesign and business model transformation?

More fundamentally, how are we ensuring that firms build internal capabilities, in management, innovation and operations, that generate sustained productivity gains and diffuse across the wider economy? More broadly, we should continue refining how our fiscal tools support transformation. For example, can we design more targeted AI diffusion support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), tied to measurable outcomes such as productivity improvements, cost savings or new market access?

Can we strengthen wage and training co-funding for job redesign, particularly in sectors exposed to global competition, so that firms upgrade jobs rather than displace workers? And given the increasingly volatile global environment, should we consider a counter-cyclical accelerator, pre-approved support that can be activated quickly during downturns, so that firms and workers receive timely assistance without delays? More broadly, our fiscal tools should be fast, targeted and where appropriate automatic, supporting adjustment while reinforcing long-term discipline.

Second, strengthening non-tradeable sectors. While we focus on tradeable sectors, we must not neglect domestic sectors such as tourism, retail and food and beverage (F&B). Could the Minister provide an update on the Tourism 2040 roadmap? What are the key milestones for achieving "quality tourism"?

In an increasingly competitive region, with strong investments by neighbours such as Malaysia and Vietnam, how are we sharpening Singapore’s differentiation while managing the churn in attractions, restaurants and lifestyle offerings?

On the Greater Sentosa Master Plan, what progress can be made, and what is the projected economic contribution and job creation?

More broadly, are we developing precinct-level strategies, such as waterfront, cultural and lifestyle clusters, in a more coordinated way? A vibrant domestic services sector is not just supportive. It can itself be a source of innovation, productivity and capability development.

Third, capitalising on growth and frontier sectors. I agree that Singapore must stay ahead in advanced manufacturing, high-trust services and frontier domains, such as quantum, decarbonisation and space. But how will this translate into jobs? What are the projected job creation numbers over the next five to 10 years and how are these distributed across skill levels?

In advanced manufacturing, how are we ensuring that investments deepen local technical capabilities, not just raise output per worker? In trust-based services, such as financial services, arbitration and digital trust, how are we sustaining Singapore’s advantage as global regulatory regimes evolve? And in frontier sectors, what is the realistic timeline for scalable job creation? Growth must not only create jobs. It must build capabilities that endure and diffuse across the economy.

Fourth, anchoring capabilities locally. It is not sufficient to build capabilities. We must anchor them in Singapore.

One key area is the transfer of capabilities from foreign talent to Singaporeans. How effective has the Capability Transfer Programme been in practice? Where foreign expertise is required, are we embedding structured and measurable capability transfer requirements as part of investment conditions? Are firms receiving incentives required to demonstrate progression of Singaporeans into higher-value roles? Sustainable growth must ultimately be driven by the accumulation of local human capital and knowledge.

At the same time, skills supply must keep pace with demand. Is the Ministry working closely with our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to anticipate manpower needs in priority sectors? Given the cross-Ministry nature of this effort, how is coordination being strengthened to ensure timely and aligned talent development?

Fifth, Mr Chairman, energy security and economic resilience. As a resource-scarce country, we must accelerate our transition to greener energy to reduce vulnerability to global price shocks, especially in an era of heightened geopolitical fragmentation.

Kenya, whose President has expressed an ambition to be the "Singapore of Africa", now generates about 90% of its electricity from renewable sources. How does Singapore compare and how has our progress evolved over time?

What is the projected job creation from our decarbonisation push, across renewables integration, hydrogen, carbon management and grid resilience? How do we ensure that our sustainability ambitions are achieved while keeping energy reliable and affordable for households and businesses? And how can this transition catalyse new capabilities and industries locally, rather than simply raise costs?

Mr Chairman, our economic environment is undergoing deep structural change, requiring bold and coordinated action rather than incremental adjustments. Resilience without growth is stagnation. Growth must translate into jobs for Singaporeans and openness without anchoring local capability is unsustainable.

In a more volatile global environment, fiscal discipline and buffers give us the space to respond to shocks. But ultimately, our long-term competitiveness will depend on how deeply we build, retain and renew capabilities within our economy.

I look forward to MTI's clarifications on how it is sequencing these priorities and measuring success, not just in investment commitments, but in sustained capability development and meaningful employment outcomes for Singaporeans.

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

Mr Chairman, before I begin, I declare my interest as the group managing director of Commonwealth Capital Group.

I have spoken in this House before about the importance of growing Singaporean multinational companies (MNCs) that are deeply rooted here. Ultimately, size matters. When a Singapore enterprise scales successfully, it anchors high value headquarter (HQ) functions here. It develops local managerial talent pipelines, and it contributes to economic and supply chain resilience. Singaporeans will benefit if we have more local companies crossing the $1 billion mark in annual revenues.

MTI could consider setting an ambitious target for a number of new local companies to reach that scale by 2035 so that all Government agencies can marshal their resources to achieve this.

While it remains important to help the broad base of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), as defined by those earning below $100 million of annual revenue, there are unique challenges for companies to scale beyond $100 million. At the $100 million-level, these companies are still small enterprises on the global stage.

MTI could consider adding a separate tier of companies between $100 and $200 million in annual revenue, with slightly lower support than the SME tier, so that there is a gentler cliff effect in support levels, which are typically more generous for SMEs. Today, the support levels can drop from 70% to 30%. I wonder if this is incentivising some companies to stay below the $100 million mark in annual revenues unnaturally.

This is similar to legislation passing through the European parliament last week on a new tier of small mid-cap companies. Coincidentally, this new tier was set at 200 million Euros.

Many of our larger local companies are already winners in their respective industries. They are capable and ambitious, yet few manage to break into the next tier. That is because unlike other countries, we do not have a large domestic market. So, to scale further, our firms have to internationalise when they are smaller while operating headquarters with a higher-cost base. This is a structural disadvantage and makes scaling much more difficult.

So, to be clear, when the Government supports larger local firms to scale, it is no longer about picking future winners. It is instead about doubling down on current winners, helping them win even bigger in the future and thereby bringing more benefits to Singaporeans.

To scale, firms must do two things.

First, firms must develop more products and services with market fit. The Government has no business in telling companies what to do or how to do it. That is the job of entrepreneurial enterprises. But the Government can create a conducive economic infrastructure to improve the chances of success.

MTI's efforts to sustain a dynamic and vibrant enterprise ecosystem will help. Such an ecosystem can foster broader, deeper and richer collaborations that lead to a faster cycle of product development and market testing.

We also need to consider whether our factors of production, taken holistically, are competitive. These include manpower, land, energy and capital, to name a few. I will focus only on capital today.

Firms need access to sufficiently affordable capital in order to invest in fixed assets, such as machines to increase output, as well as working capital, which can grow quite quickly as firms scale. To that end, I have no objections to the Budget announcement to improve the Enterprise Financing Scheme for trade and fixed asset loans.

But organic growth is way too slow. We should be more impatient and help firms get to the moon faster. Focus on inorganic growth through mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to turbocharge our local companies. Affordable capital is also required for M&A.

Currently, the Enterprise Financing Scheme supports domestic acquisitions undertaken by firms up to $500 million in revenue, but this support lapses in a month. This was not mentioned in the Budget Statement. The Ministry should consider extending or broadening this support.

Second, once firms have product-market fit, they need to scale through new markets. We can do this in a few ways.

We can bring those markets into Singapore through tourism. This speaks to our tourism strategy to bring more high-spending tourists who can revitalise traditionally domestic-oriented industries, like F&B and retail. More tourists also mean more GST collections.

Of course, the more conventional way is to go into new markets overseas. When our firms expand overseas, the biggest constraints are often networks, credibility and distribution channels. This has traditionally been Government-led, but strong business-led communities can complement Government efforts. They can engage regulators and partners in a more informal and commercially driven manner; facilitate peer-to-peer sharing of intelligence and experiences; and build a sustained Singapore-branded presence.

I sometimes wonder why there are not more Singaporean business chambers of commerce overseas. For example, there does not seem to be one in the United States (US) or the United Kingdom (UK). Is the Government aware of any coordination challenges preventing similar business-led platforms from forming? Does the Government see any value in playing a stronger catalytic role to address these challenges?

Mr Chairman, I hope the Ministry can consider these perspectives to strengthen our enterprise landscape. Singaporeans can look forward to a new generation of Singaporean global enterprises with pride.

Mr Chairman, before I begin, I declare my interests as president of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) as well as the co-chair of the Consumer Protection Review Panel.

Sir, our consumer protection regime must move faster against errant businesses. Today, when CASE refers a business to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) for breaches of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (or CPFTA), it can take well over two years before an injunction is granted by the Courts. In recent cases, the process has taken between 28 and 39 months from referral to Court Order.

I do appreciate CCS for taking enforcement action and securing injunctions. But when enforcement takes years, consumers continue to suffer losses while cases are being processed. Errant businesses are allowed to continue their unfair practices for far too long.

We can and we must do better.

Today, CCS already exercises administrative powers under the Competition Act. I call on the Government to grant CCS similar administrative enforcement powers for breaches of the CPFTA. Such powers would allow CCS to act more swiftly – to issue directions, require compliance and stop harmful practices without relying solely on lengthy Court proceedings. This will free up judicial resources and, more importantly, protect our consumers earlier.

This is especially critical as unfair practices evolve.

We are already seeing a rise in dark patterns – deceptive online design tactics that manipulate consumers into making unintended purchases. These include hidden subscriptions, subscription traps that are difficult to cancel and AI-generated fake reviews that mislead consumers.

These practices spread quickly online. Our enforcement tools must move just as quickly. A nimble digital economy requires a nimble regulator. Beyond digital practices, we are also deeply concerned about the sharp rise in prepayment losses.

In 2025, consumers suffered over $2.7 million in prepayment losses. This is a 40.4% increase from 2024. While many of these cases arise from certain sectors, the broader concern is this – businesses with weak financial standing continue to collect large prepayments to sustain cashflow. When such businesses fail, consumers are left bearing the losses.

The risk is asymmetrical. Businesses gain immediate cashflow. Consumers bear the downside. I therefore call on the Government to introduce a mandatory cooling-off period for all businesses that collect significant prepayments. Consumers should have time – away from sales pressure – to consider their purchases carefully and to reconsider large prepaid commitments. A cooling-off period restores balance. It encourages responsible selling and gives consumers space to make rational decisions.

Finally, I would like to update that the Consumer Protection Review Panel has been studying a range of issues affecting consumers, including better monitoring of unfair practices in the digital age and prepayment safeguards. Public consultations will begin on 16 March 2026.

I must stress that consumer protection is not anti-business. It is pro-trust. Let us act decisively to protect that trust —

Mr Andre Low, you may take your two cuts together.

Chairman, let me begin with a Latin phrase every lawyer knows – caveat emptor. Buyer beware. This was a doctrine that was borne for a simpler world – a world of physical retail and handshakes, where buyer and sellers stood on more equal ground.

This world is gone. Today, the ordinary Singaporean faces sophisticated commercial machinery engineered to extract compliance in revenue through confusion, inertia and sometimes even fear. The CPFTA was not designed for this world. It is falling short today and Singaporeans are paying the price.

I will address two dimensions to this failure: first, the deceptive commercial practices that quietly train our wallets of everyday consumers; and second, the physical predation targeting our most vulnerable and destroying their retirement savings.

First, deceptive commercial practices. Long part of the playbook of usual suspects, like telecommunications companies (telcos) and gyms, the CCS has already demonstrated that such misconduct is spreading to other industries, like direct-to-consumer brands and e-commerce.

In August 2024, CCS took action against Sterra, a water filter brand that falsely claimed that Singapore's tap water was unsafe to drink and sold products marketed as being manufactured in Korea and Singapore when they were in fact manufactured in China. Last December, CCS acted against PRISM+ for fake countdown timers on their website that served no technical function and simply reset to zero; and against COURTS for silently adding unsolicited products to customers' shopping carts. COURTS knew about this in 2024 but they made no changes until the CCS intervened.

These are just the headline cases, but beyond them, quieter practices extract money daily from consumers: fixed-term contracts advertised at introductory rates that apply only to the first few months, deliberately creating the impression that the full contract is cheaper than it really is; trials that convert silently to fully paid subscriptions with no active consent; and third-party services bundled into telco packages, like Netflix subscriptions, free for three months and then cancellable only by navigating a maze designed specifically to outlast the consumer's patience.

Each year, CASE and the CCS, between them, receive 40 to 50 complaints about such cases. This is just the tip of the iceberg and many similar tactics abound.

The Government has convened a Consumer Protection Review Panel last March. I welcome this and I look forward to its findings. But I also want to add my perspective about what I see as most urgent.

One, any advertised price for fixed-term subscription must reflect the average cost across the full contract term. A promotional rate that applies only part of the term cannot be used as the headline figure. Two, we should ask for explicit active consent before any trial converts to a paid subscription. Silence is not consent. Three, we should enforce contractual symmetry. If it is one click to sign up, it should be one click to cancel. Four, we should empower the CCS with direct administrative powers like the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, which can levy fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue for consumer law breaches without going to Court.

Today, many companies behave well, but some bad actors act with impunity until they are taken to task. We need to give the CCS stronger teeth to tackle their bad behaviour. Voluntary compliance agreements after the fact are not deterrence.

Deceptive commercial practices drain wallets, but what I turn to now is worse – physical, face-to-face predatory behaviour that has cost some Singaporeans their retirement savings entirely.

CASE's February 2026 report recorded a 76% surge in beauty industry complaints last year, with consumers losing over $2.1 million.

Consider what happened at a hair salon chain, where an elderly man came in for an $8 haircut. Midway through it, a staff member showed him images on a monitor and told him his scalp was haemorrhaging although no scanning device was ever used. His personal identification number (PIN) was entered into the payment machine while his payment total was covered. He left having paid nearly $1,000 for treatments he never consented to.

Another chain of beauty salons – 53 complaints, exceeding $980,000 in total. In one case, a single consumer was charged at least $370,000. More than 40% of complainants were aged 60 and above.

Finally, Nail Palace. Its managing director was sentenced to four months' imprisonment in September 2024 – but note this – for contempt of Court, for failing to notify customers of injunctions against the chain, but not for the original predatory behaviour. That was handled as a civil matter throughout. The gap in the law is precisely what must be closed.

So, this is my final ask: I invite MTI to consider working with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Chambers to examine criminalising severe predatory sales tactics that are directed at vulnerable people. France's consumer code already does this. The "abus de faiblesse", abuse of weakness crime, carries up to three years imprisonment for exploiting a consumer's age, illness or psychological vulnerability. The UK's consumer protection legislation similarly expressly prohibits aggressive commercial practices, with penalties extending up to two years imprisonment.

Chairman, when a business confines a vulnerable senior in a room, manufactures a medical scare and then extracts their life savings through coercion or psychological tactics, the law must have a name for that and consequences to match.

Mr Chairman, I would like to declare that I have innovation studios which create and invest in technology and innovation ventures for the global market.

We are actually living in a very exciting time, with lots of disruptive innovations and technology. The question is how we in Singapore explore and exploit such opportunities.

If we look at the, let us say, air taxi market that I am involved in, you can see that there are, on NASDAC or NYSE, companies that are worth between about $8 billion and $16 billion in valuations, but they have not sold a single craft. They have pre-orders, but they have not actually sold a single craft. So, they are pre-commercialisation, but the market recognise the opportunities and fund them.

Do we have such an exchange in Singapore? I think that is the big question. For technology companies and especially new ventures, really, we need to find a different formula. If you look up north, a little bit further, in Hong Kong, they have the pre-commercialisation listing rules for biomedical under the listing 18A rules or the 18C rules, which is specialist technology companies.

We can learn a little bit from that, but they cater for a bigger market.

In Singapore, we have lots of startups, technology ventures resulting from the universities' research, and also from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), from our research institutes. There are also a lot of AI innovation opportunities from the private sector. The question is always a gap, the gap between the people that are looking for money and the people looking for exit from the investment. So, they are all staring at each other. Who is going to move first? That is where the pre-commercialisation stage funding is required for all these technology ventures.

I would like to propose that we close this gap. That for technology ventures that are globally oriented and leadership driven, g-o-l-d, I will call it these gold nuggets that we have. And I believe we have a lot of gold nuggets. My doctorate is in innovation. I have trained a lot of innovative teams in the universities. So, how to bring these gold nuggets to become actually a big gold bar? I believe that our exchange can be structured for special listing rules for the technology ventures in the size of about $50 to $100 to 150 million, giving them the special access so that the —

Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, micro and small enterprises are the backbone of our community. They provide economic stability for the nation and livelihoods for many workers. However, their economic contribution remains disproportionately low. They employ 45% of our workers but contribute only 11% of nominal value added. This productivity gap translates into lower salaries. These businesses can afford to pay their workers.

ASME has observed that the current classification of SMEs is too broad. A micro enterprise with 10 employees and $1 million in revenue, faces fundamentally different hurdles compared to a medium-sized company with 200 staff and $100 million in turnover. By grouping them together, we risk applying one size fits all solutions that may not reach the smallest players.

Would the Government adopt ASME's suggestion to delineate micro enterprises and SMEs in national policy-making and data collection? Tailoring grants and other assistance to the specific operational realities of each tier will make Government support more effective for them. ASME estimates that a 10% uplift in the value added of this segment could translate to an additional $6.5 billion dollars in annual gross domestic product (GDP), equivalent to more than one percent of growth. Focusing more on these micro and small enterprises is a significant opportunity to lift the wages of many Singaporeans.

Mr Chairman, I would like to speak on SME transformation. SMEs employ seven out of 10 workers in Singapore and form the backbone of our economy. In supporting transformation, we must recognise that many SMEs are family-run businesses facing generational succession and ownership transitions. This is not only a governance issue. It is an economic and cultural one.

Business transformation often cannot progress meaningfully until ownership structures are stabilised. Where succession is unclear or governance frameworks remain informal, it becomes difficult to invest in digitalisation, expansion or strategic pivots. Transformation requires clarity of leadership and ownership.

I therefore suggest that our SME transformation framework integrate succession planning and family ownership transition as core components of enterprise upgrading.

Cultural nuances also shape how ethnic family businesses approach governance and decision-making. This was evident during a Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) of Finance, Trade and Industry engagement with the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI), where heritage businesses shared how cultural norms influence succession and continuity. Different communities may view succession and professionalisation differently, and a one-size-fits-all model may not be effective. Enterprise Singapore could deepen engagement with ethnic chambers such as the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI), the SMCCI, and the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SICCI) to support more tailored approaches.

Enterprise Singapore could also expand support to cover family ownership transition, including grants for succession planning, governance restructuring and ownership transfers. Institutions such as Singapore Management University’s Business Families Institute can partner with chambers to develop tailored succession playbooks.

As more heritage SMEs reach generational handover points, a smooth ownership transition is critical to preserving long-established enterprises. By integrating succession support into SME transformation policies, we can strengthen long-term enterprise resilience while retaining the cultural and social value that these businesses contribute to Singapore.

Chairman, about 70% of our Singapore workforce, approximately 2.5 million people are employed under the SMEs. SMEs are the backbones of our economies. This is not a small number. When SMEs do well, Singaporeans do well. If no Singaporean should be left behind, then I think no SME should be left behind too. Instead, they should stay ahead.

Much has been said about supporting individuals across different groups in the past few days. These are important sharing and decisions, yet, beyond assistance, many Singaporeans are asking fundamental questions. Where are the good jobs and how do we secure them?

Singaporeans want opportunities and not depend on just Government handouts. They ask not for a fish, but for the skill and an environment that can allow them to fish for themselves. For that to happen, our SMEs must thrive. I believe strong enterprises create good jobs. When a company grows, workers grow with them.

Over the years, many schemes have been introduced to support SMEs. The issue today is often not about availability, but the ease of accessibility.

Many SME owners are fully occupied in their daily operations. They do not have the bandwidth to navigate multiple schemes. Firms with stronger administrative support navigate the system easier. Smaller enterprises, often those who need the most help may not even know where to begin. This is not about unwillingness. It is about bandwidth and capability.

Perhaps the next step is to make the access to support the more proactive and intelligent. When an SME logs into a Government portal, whether it is for a licence, grant or financing, could there be an integrated AI assistant that understand the firms' profiles and suggest relevant programmes and schemes automatically? Using secure login data, such a system could guide business owners in real time and outline the next step clearly. This would simplify navigation and help ensure that no SME is left behind simply because it lacks time or administrative capability.

Chairman, let me share a simple analogy. For a seed to grow into a healthy and strong tree, sunlight alone is never sufficient. It needs fertile soil and a stable environment. In our economics, we can imagine enterprises are the seeds and Singapore business environment is like the soil. The rule of law, financial stability and open trade networks form the foundation for growth. On this foundation, institutions play distinct roles. For example, the Economic Development Board (EDB) shapes the strategy direction. Enterprise Singapore supports the upgrading and capability building. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) advances job redesign and skill upgrading so worker grows alongside with businesses.

The question is not whether support exists today, but whether it operates in sync. First about execution. This year's Budget provide tax rebates and expansion support. This comes timely, yet businesses ask, are the processes clear? Are the timelines predictable? For many SMEs, complexity itself becomes a barrier. If the soil is stable, business will take root. If the pathway is clear, they will grow.

Second, practical AI adoption. AI must deliver productivity and not just promise. Enterprises care about outcomes, reducing administrative work, improving responsiveness and strengthening data management. Our objective must reflect real productivity gains and not cost inflation.

Third, coordination within agency. When strategy investments are brought into Singapore, are local enterprises supported to build capability at the same time? When company upgrades system, can job redesign and skill upgrading move together? If policies too, are better aligned, businesses will spend less time navigating schemes and more time transforming.

Chairman, enterprise upgrading and AI adoption are a matter of national competitiveness and not just for SMEs. As our region accelerates transformation, Singapore must ensure that our SMEs are active participants and not bystanders. The Budget has set the direction. Our task is to keep the soil fertile so that our enterprise, the seed of our economy can grow steadily and strongly. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] SMEs are the foundation of the economy. Enterprises are like seeds and the environment is like soil. When enterprises are able to develop, the people benefit. The key to policy lies in ensuring that supported projects and initiatives truly take root, work in synergy and operate efficiently.

If I could describe this in one sentence, it would be: "Strengthen enterprises to invigorate business; invigorate business to benefit the people." That is to say, when we strengthen enterprises, we also invigorate business, and when business is invigorated, the people will benefit.

Chairman, besides an income and wealth gap, I would like to explore a third gap, the enterprise ecosystem gap. A strong business ecosystem requires both MNC investments and a resilient SME base. They are two sides of the same coin. When MNCs grow, they bring capital and technology. But our SMEs must be able to grow alongside them and support them locally and regionally.

Today, many MNCs are incentivised to invest heavily in AI and robotics. While this strengthens our economy, it also accelerates disruption across supply chains. With the recent changes to our Preferential Additional Registration Fee rebates, let me use example of a car workshop.

With EVs, there is no engine oil change and fewer mechanical components. Maintenance cycles are longer. These shifts recurring revenue patterns and affects the broader after-market value chain, from workshops to parts distributors. At the same time, newer EVs require proprietary diagnostic software. Independent workshops may lack authorised access or compatible systems. This results in a technology and access issue.

On the other hand, many workshops are not yet using AI tools for diagnostics, inventory planning or cash flow management. They face restricted access on one end and slow digital adoption on the other. This could create an enterprise ecosystem gap where larger firms surge ahead due to technology and skill, while smaller enterprises struggle to keep up with access, tools and capabilities.

One practical way to narrow this gap is to offer SMEs a year-long subscription to enterprise AI tools, similar to the approach I suggested in my muted Ministry of Finance (MOF) cut. This lowers the barrier to adoption and allows business owners to experiment, learn and integrate AI into daily operations before committing long term.

As we push ahead with AI and advanced industry, we must ensure our SMEs are equipped to adapt alongside the industries we are transforming.

Chairman, on helping our SMEs grow and thrive. Singapore is not short of schemes. We have advisory support, such as CTO-as-a-Service; intermediaries like the Singapore Business Federation, SME Centres and ASME; platforms like GoBusiness; the Productivity Solutions Grant and the Enterprise Development Grant, even AI Centres of Excellence.

On paper, the ecosystem looks comprehensive. SMEs can be segmented by digital maturity and sector. They can access advice on human resources, marketing, finance and operations. Yet outcomes remain uneven. Many SMEs are still struggling; not just to transform but to stay afloat.

From industry conversations, three structural challenges emerge.

First, bandwidth. Owners are consumed by rent, manpower, compliance and cashflow issues. Transformation requires time and focus. Many simply do not have that headspace.

Second, capability depth. Diagnostics can identify gaps, but implementation requires managers who can redesign workflows, integrate systems, manage change and measure returns. Many SMEs lack this internal execution capability.

Third, structural fragility in certain sectors. In F&B especially, margins are thin and volatility is high. Entry barriers remain however relatively low, yet closure rates are high. Many enter without fully appreciating labour intensity, rental volatility and tight margins. Even with grants, a fragile cost base makes transformation daunting.

Sir, another perspective is this: not all SMEs are equally positioned to transform at the same pace. Some are willing but lack capability. Some are capable but constrained by structure. Some may not yet be ready.

In a resource-constrained environment, should we more deliberately prioritise SMEs that are willing and able, or potentially able, to scale, to innovate and uplift productivity meaningfully? Can we develop clearer readiness indicators, so that support is more disciplined and catalytic? At the same time, how do we avoid leaving behind firms that require capability-building before they can qualify for deeper transformation support?

We have built platforms, provided grants and created segmentation tools. Yet the implementation gap persists.

So, I ask: do we need more precise industry segmentation, not just by size or digital maturity, but by structural conditions? Are we investing enough in building internal execution capability and upgrading the capability of intermediaries who advise SMEs? Can we introduce measures that free up leadership bandwidth for strategic upgrading? Are we confronting structural fragility in sectors like F&B, so new entrants can assess their viability more realistically? And most importantly, how do we help SMEs move beyond digital adoption to sustained, measured productivity growth, especially those with intent and potential to compete?

In the AI era, survival and superficial adoption are not enough. Transformation must be real. So, how will the Government help bridge this implementation gap, so that our SMEs can truly thrive?

Chairman, Singapore SMEs face distinct challenges alongside day‑to‑day operational constraints and pressures to transform, they must internationalise because our domestic market is limited.

Rental and manpower are among their largest cost components. Compliance burden is also a concern, and I had raised this in my cut to MOF last week.

Beyond general labour shortages, firms increasingly need digitally skilled talent who can deploy AI to raise productivity, automate routine tasks and scale operations. They also require coherent enterprise‑level AI strategies and rapid transformation to stay competitive in this AI era. The measures in Budget 2026 are therefore welcome.

I just have one question on this particular point. Learning from past experiences administering grants and credits, how will the Government ensure that financial support and eligibility criteria for tax deductions are precisely targeted, so that funds are spent effectively to create the intended impact. In Chinese, “钱用在刀口上”.

On rentals, there had been speculations that foreign capital inflows are pushing up commercial rents and crowding out local operators. Notably, based on the Parliamentary reply by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong in January 2026, China is the second largest owner of retail businesses in Singapore. Even though Chinese owners account for only 3% of retail businesses, the perception of displacement cannot be ignored, and this can affect community sentiment and our unique Singapore “personality”.

What steps will MTI take to ensure local SMEs remain the anchor in Singapore? Can the Ministry consider targeted measures, such as rental relief schemes, tenancy support for heritage and neighbourhood retailers, incentives for landlords to prioritise local tenants or co‑investment platforms that enable local businesses to secure long‑term premises?

Finally, SMEs need help managing rising costs and reaching beyond our shores. Will MTI expand programmes to help these SMEs further optimise costs in areas, such as group procurement, energy efficiency grants, shared services, market access and trade facilitation?

Chairman, I would like to declare that I am the executive chairman of Enercon Asia, a company with presence in seven countries.

In light of the tariffs imposed by the US on various countries, including Singapore, it is crucial for the Ministry to explore potential partnerships with other nations and develop additional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).

The importance of diversifying our business relationships cannot be overstated. It would be beneficial for the Ministries to provide guidance on which countries present valuable opportunities for our businesses to establish connections and a presence. As a small nation, Singapore must seek assistance and explore opportunities globally to thrive in the current economic landscape.

Mr Chairman, first let me declare my interest as chief executive officer of an investment firm and advisor to companies investing in Singapore and other parts of the world.

During the Budget debate, I spoke about trust as Singapore’s competitive advantage in a fragmenting world. We need to expand our economic space, to change from a GDP to a gross national product (GNP) mindset, linking up in a network with cities, their hinterlands and their peoples who are aligned with us. Today, I propose four practical ways to shift towards becoming a networked economy.

Shift one, let us measure economic value created beyond our borders. For decades, we measured GDP, activity within Singapore’s borders.

But over the years, more and more Singaporeans and firms operate and create value overseas. We should measure their overseas activity, their value added, to reflect our actual economic network strength. I suggest that MTI develops GNP indicators to track value created globally by Singapore and Singaporeans overseas.

Shift two: let us encourage Singaporean firms to hunt as a pack overseas. A good place to start is the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (SEZ). We should view the SEZ as an extra lung, where our SMEs can grow and thrive.

How? I offer four suggestions.

Suggestion one – position Singapore as the trusted gateway to the SEZ. Let us take a proactive approach in marketing the Johor-Singapore SEZ. As I shared in my Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Committee of Supply (COS) cut, foreign policy can support our economic effort to expand our economic space as a networked economy. We need to work closely, more closely, with our Malaysian counterparts. This can deepen interdependence and create stronger ties for mutual benefit.

It will need a calibration of the mutual trust, given our past experience. But the strategic direction is clear from the perspective of any inward foreign investor. Johor and Singapore can and will play a synergistic role for them. Singapore anchors the trust-dependent core – headquarters governance, treasury, IP, data, compliance and legal, while the Johor hinterland provides scalable economic space. We in Singapore capture the trust premium here, while unlocking cost and space constraints that we have right next door as one integrated operating model.

So, my question is, how can MTI direct EDB, Enterprise Singapore and other economic agencies in coordination with MFA to package and to market a two-side deployment proposition, where inward investors or anchors enter Singapore through Singapore as the trusted gateway and deploy into the Johor-Singapore SEZ?

The second suggestion – how can we organise a plug-and-play SME ecosystem? Singapore's effort to bring inward investments into the SEZ should become business opportunities for our local SMEs. To achieve this, we can structure a SEZ supplier programme where we, for instance, can identify the inward investors, input requirements and standards. We pre-qualify SMEs who can meet such standards and finally, we match them to these anchors or inward investors.

Suggestion three – let us develop sectoral investment packages. These can be identified in certain strategic industries, for example, manufacturing and logistics, digital and data services, food production and coaching, businesses that can take advantage of Johor's strength and Singapore's complementarities. Each package can include shared infrastructure options, regulatory playbooks, talent and professional services support and a directory of Singapore SME suppliers.

Suggestion four – publish a Johor-Singapore SEZ outcome scorecard. MTI can track outcomes, such as the number of two-side deployments across Singapore and the SEZ by sector. We can look at the number of Singapore SMEs matched successfully with inward investors, and we can also measure incremental SME revenue as a result of using such complementarities across Johor and Singapore.

And let me continue with shift three, creating good jobs overseas for Singaporeans. Mr Chairman, there are young and mid-career Singaporeans who may not be aware of the opportunities in the region or some who are unable to price in the risk of working overseas. So, I suggest considering: one, curating overseas job placements for Singaporeans from entry to senior roles. Two, we can offer incentives for firms to rotate staff regionally so that it becomes part of their career development.

Three, we can provide support and flexible childcare or education pathways for Singaporeans returning home. Shift four: towards a network economy, developing artificial intelligence (AI) as our trusted Infrastructure. Singapore's advantage is not about adopting AI but being the most trusted place to deploy AI.

For example, regional ports are adopting AI independently. But who sets the interoperable standards? Who provides the trusted platform where competing ports can share data for network optimisation?

In cross-border finance, each financial institution is building its own AI infrastructure. But who can offer the coordination layer for these tools to work together so that capital can flow efficiently? Singapore can. How? By developing and leading effective AI governance and secure data exchange frameworks. In a fragmented world, the trusted coordinator becomes invaluable.

In closing, Mr Chairman, MTI, MFA, the Ministry of Manpower and our economic agencies are doing a fine job. However, going forward, in this very fragmenting world, we need to change the way we look at how we grow our economy.

I have shared four shifts: from measuring domestic to tracking global value; from individual expansion to ecosystem; from a locally-bound workforce to an overseas one; and finally, AI as trusted infrastructure. With these, we become a networked economy.

Chairman, over the past 30 years, many MNCs have based their Asia Pacific headquarters in Singapore, positioning us as a gateway for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In a volatile global environment, economic connection is more critical than ever. Regional collaboration with ASEAN, including initiatives, like the Johor-Singapore SEZ, has unlocked competitive and strategic advantages for all parties.

In my Budget speech, I shared that four in five Singapore SMEs plan to expand overseas. Yet only 3.1% of our resident workforce has worked overseas full-time for at least six months. Many businesses and workers lack experience operating beyond Singapore. This may deter regional expansion.

Schemes, like the Enterprise Development Grant, help defray the costs of setting up businesses abroad. Will MTI consider strengthening such support to provide smoother, lower-risk entry into foreign markets? On the manpower front, will MTI expand the Global Ready Talent Programme or explore grants to co-fund Singaporeans' relocation costs within ASEAN?

If not, can MTI share how it plans to build capacity in three areas: first, increasing international firms' readiness to appoint Singaporeans to regional roles; second, strengthening business leaders' ability to operate in diverse markets; and third, encouraging Singaporeans to relocate for regional opportunities?

If Singapore is to remain a gateway to ASEAN, we must not only host regional headquarters, we must raise a generation of Singaporeans ready to lead beyond our shores.

Chairman, in a tighter Singapore, domestic scale alone will not sustain enterprise growth. For Singapore businesses, internationalisation is essential for long-term competitiveness and resilience.

The Middle East conflict that unfolded over the weekend reflects how quickly geopolitical conditions can shift. Energy markets react, insurance premiums adjust, shipping routes are reassessed and payment and compliance risks increase. In such an environment, uncertainty can cause firms to hesitate.

How will MTI continue to send a strong and consistent message that despite heightened geopolitical risks, Singapore firms must press on with internationalisation and that the Government will stand behind them as they do so?

At the same time, we must recognise internationalisation risk is not uniform. It varies sharply by market. Parts of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America often carry elevated political, regulatory and receivable risks. Working capital cycles are longer. Payment discipline can also be less predictable. Could MTI consider differentiating internationalisation support not only by firm size, but also by market risk profile, with enhanced working capital guarantees, political risk coverage or expanded risk-sharing mechanisms in higher-risk corridors?

Second, many overseas projects today are too large or too complex for individual SMEs. Procurement frameworks favour scale, track record and integrated capability. Encouraging consortium-led bids, enabling firms to "hunt as a pack", would allow complementary Singapore companies to pool capabilities, share risk and compete for projects none could secure alone. Could existing schemes be restructured more explicitly to support consortium-based international bids, including shared financing and coordinated market entry?

Finally, as firms from Northeast Asia and Europe increasingly view Singapore as a gateway into Southeast Asia, our ecosystem must deepen its regional fluency – regulatory expertise, multilingual advisory capability and strong in-market partnerships anchored through our trade associations and chambers. We must strengthen not just financing support, but market intelligence, corridor expertise and in-market execution platforms.

In a more uncertain world, the answer is not retreat. It is a calibrated expansion backed by credible risk-sharing and a confident ecosystem —

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

Thank you, Chair. Budget 2026 positions AI, alongside strategic capabilities such as quantum, advanced manufacturing and space, as critical to Singapore's ability to thrive in a changed world. The thrust is clear – upgrade firms, reskill workers and build new growth engines.

That is the right direction. But transformation will not be fully realised without our entrepreneurs.

Technological shifts do not only upgrade incumbents, they create new markets. AI lowers startup overheads. Advanced manufacturing and deep tech open new value chains. As we build capabilities within firms, we must also enable more Singaporeans to build new ventures around these emerging domains.

Let me raise three areas.

First, de-risk entrepreneurial participation. About half of new firms do not survive beyond five years. Fewer than 1% become unicorns. When people see these statistics, the instinctive response is, "It's too risky. We don't want to try."

But if too few are willing to try, the economy suffers. Innovation slows. New growth engines do not emerge. To bridge that gap, we must reduce the perception that entrepreneurship carries a permanent career penalty. Entrepreneurship should be normalised as another step in a career journey, not a make-or-break endpoint. It should be seen as part of lifelong learning – a period of experimentation, skill development and value creation.

May I ask the Ministry, beyond capital incentives, how are we strengthening pathways that allow Singaporeans – from fresh graduates to mid-career professionals – to venture into entrepreneurship and return to employment without stigma or structural disadvantage? After all, research shows that the average founder of high-growth firms are in their early to mid-40s. Experience and networks matter, especially in complex sectors. Small nations, like ours, cannot afford permanent talent loss from temporary setbacks.

Second, we can convert national missions into startup growth. As sectoral missions unlock opportunities in AI, manufacturing, connectivity and healthcare, how do we ensure Singapore-based startups are meaningfully plugged into these platforms? Can procurement pathways, pilot projects and structured partnerships be strengthened so that startups led by Singapore-based founders can validate and scale? In frontier sectors, such as quantum and space, can cross-agency sandbox models support experimentation and co-learning while accelerating deployment?

If we get this right, national missions can catalyse local venture growth and not just enterprise upgrading.

Third, we need to anchor long-term value. It is one thing to grow new ventures here, it is quite another to ensure that as they scale globally, they remain anchored in Singapore. If strategic decision-making, IP and leadership functions relocate elsewhere in pursuit of capital and customers, we risk losing gains in control, capital formation and ecosystem spillovers.

The expansion of the Startup SG Equity fund and the Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP) are all important steps, but my question is, as more Singapore companies scale globally, how do we ensure leadership, IP ownership and value creation remain anchored here so that —

Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

Chairman, I would like to speak on three things: funding, founders and talent for our startups.

With the additional $1 billion injection into our Startup SG Equity, I would like to ask MTI what specific gap we are trying to close? Is the constraint today early-stage formation or is it at the growth stage, where companies have product-market fit but struggle to scale regionally? Is it a shortage of later-stage capital or is it a lack of sector depth in areas, such as deep tech and industrial solutions?

I would appreciate clarity on how MTI has diagnosed this gap and how the capital will be deployed? Are we crowding in experienced regional and global growth funds? Are we co-investing alongside operators who can help companies to expand beyond Singapore? We should also avoid concentrating public funds within the same small pool of startups. Co-investment should widen participation, deepen sector capabilities and bring in new founders and new markets.

Beyond funding, I would like to check on the Startup SG Founder scheme. I heard that one of the founders must be a first-time founder to get this scheme. But we know that startups fail due to a myriad of reasons. In the spirit of supporting and encouraging entrepreneurship, I would like to check if this criterion can be reviewed?

On talents, hiring a full-time chief AI officer can be costly for early-stage firms. This is distinct from the chief technology officer (CTO) advisory schemes. A CTO builds the product. A chief AI officer shapes data strategy, model development and responsible AI use across the organisation. Could we explore a chief AI officer as a service model, allowing experienced AI leaders to support multiple startups so that they can deploy AI properly and scale with confidently?

Funding, talents and founders help companies to grow.

Deputy Prime Minister Gan.

Mr Chairman, let me thank all Members who have spoken on MTI's COS.

Last year, Singapore's economy grew by 5%, performing better than expected despite a challenging global environment. At the same time, we must be clear-eyed. Singapore is entering a new phase in our economic journey. The rules that allowed Singapore to prosper for decades have fundamentally changed. We face a more complex global environment, marked by heightened great-power competition, rising protectionism and a more fragmented global order.

The United States (US) Supreme Court has struck down the reciprocal tariffs that were imposed last year and the US Administration has since replaced it with a new Section 122 tariff of 10% for up to 150 days. President Trump has also announced that he intends to raise it to 15%. The details are not there yet. There is still considerable uncertainty about how the tariff will evolve over time.

We are working with the Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce (SERT) tripartite members to provide information to and gather feedback from businesses and workers to help them navigate these uncertainties.

These developments exemplify the unpredictable and uncertain global trading environment that we must now navigate. That is not all. Over the weekend, the conflict in the Middle East escalated, with the US and Israel launching an attack on Iran, and Iran retaliating by counterattacking Israel and US' bases in the region. The Strait of Hormuz, which is a key shipping route for crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), has been closed.

In the near term, this could result in an increase in global energy prices. Depending on how protracted the conflict is, higher energy prices could lead to higher costs for businesses and consumers and weigh on the global and Singapore economies. We are monitoring the developments closely and will reassess our GDP and inflation forecasts if necessary.

Major structural forces are also reshaping industries, businesses and jobs.

AI and automation are transforming how value is created and how work is organised. The global push to decarbonisation is also changing industrial processes, influencing investment patterns and impacting relative competitiveness.

Together with our demographic constraints that I spoke about last week, sustaining growth and creating good jobs will become more challenging. Yet even in this more difficult environment, there are good opportunities for Singapore as a trusted, knowledge-driven and connected hub.

This is why the Government set up the Economic Strategy Review (ESR) to take a hard, honest look at how Singapore must reset our economic strategy. We will have to work harder and smarter, be creative and take calculated risks, and explore bold solutions to reach the higher end of our GDP trend-growth of 2% to 3% per annum, on average, over the next decade and create good jobs.

Let me outline broadly five strategic thrusts and my colleagues in MTI will elaborate later. First, we will establish and deepen our leadership in key growth sectors, while pushing the frontier into new areas of growth. As our economy matures, growth and good jobs can no longer come from scale alone. Growth must increasingly come from depth – by establishing and deepening global leadership in sectors where Singapore already has strong foundations.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about our plans for the advanced manufacturing, trust-based services and frontier sectors. Singapore is already a global node in advanced manufacturing sectors, such as semiconductors, medical products, specialty chemicals and aerospace, which contribute significantly to our economy and provide good jobs.

We want to secure and extend our leadership in these sectors – we will step up investments in AI, automation and digital technologies to raise productivity, improve quality and reliability, and become more flexible and resilient. As factories become more automated and data-driven, demand will grow for skilled jobs, such as automation and robotics engineers, process engineers, data specialists and advanced equipment technicians, that command higher wages.

We will also focus research and development (R&D) resources to sharpen our technological edge, shorten innovation cycles and help firms move ideas faster – from the lab to the factory floor and into the market. In parallel, we will accelerate the adoption of low-carbon and resource-efficient technologies, so that our industries remain competitive as the world transitions to a low-carbon future. By reinforcing these strengths, we will build deep, competitive ecosystems that anchor high-value activities here and support good, skilled jobs for Singaporeans.

Beyond manufacturing, we are also extending our lead in modern services. In this volatile and uncertain world, trust has become the most sought-after asset. Our trust premium has enabled us to establish ourselves as a global hub for finance, capital and IP. We will build on this to develop Singapore as a global hub for trust-based services, such as risk advisory, cybersecurity, AI assurance and Testing, Inspection and Certification. This will create new opportunities in modern services.

Even as we deepen our existing strengths in advanced manufacturing and modern services, we must also push the frontier into new areas of growth, such as quantum, decarbonisation technologies and space-related industries. As these industries grow, they will open up new career opportunities for Singaporeans.

Taken together, these will deepen what we already do well in advanced manufacturing and modern services, while creating new engines and expand Singapore's growth frontier, and secure high-quality jobs for Singaporeans.

Second, we must sustain a dynamic and vibrant enterprise ecosystem, spanning multinational corporations, high-growth companies and a vibrant start-up community. Leading MNCs, both local and foreign, will continue to be a core pillar of our economy. They bring scale, advanced technologies, global networks and high-quality jobs. We will continue to work with MNCs to anchor high-value activities here, including R&D, advanced manufacturing, regional and global headquarters functions, and strategic roles.

At the same time, the next phase of growth will increasingly come from a new generation of emerging enterprises – growth-stage companies that have yet to establish themselves as a leading MNC but have demonstrated both the potential and ambition to become future industry leaders.

We must be prepared to take some risks to support such promising enterprises by providing them with a trusted base to operate from, and scale to international markets. One such company is Workato, an enterprise software firm that helps businesses automate workflows and integrate systems across their operations. Workato's Asia Pacific revenue has increased 10-fold over the past five years, with a customer base of more than 12,000 companies across sectors, such as manufacturing, financial services and healthcare.

Singapore can serve as a strategic base for Workato's global expansion, anchoring product development, AI innovation and regional leadership here, while creating high-value opportunities for Singaporeans and strengthening our talent pipeline.

I agree with Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh that anchoring and partnering companies, like Workato, in Singapore at an early stage of their growth is important as it would allow us to shape where strategic HQ decisions are made, where core capabilities are built and where long-term value is created. As these companies grow from Singapore, they will create new roles here in areas, such as R&D, product management, marketing and business development.

EDB will step up efforts to identify and anchor such companies, working closely with leading venture capital and private equity partners. We will provide bespoke, end-to-end support, such as market access assistance, regulatory facilitation and access to ready-to-use facilities, to help these companies anchor in Singapore and grow their presence here.

Done well, this will allow us to capture long-term economic value, strengthen our pipeline of leading enterprises and reinforce Singapore's position as a trusted base for globally leading companies to be here and to scale. We will not just be a landing pad, but also a launching pad for potential global companies.

Alongside this, we will continue to sustain the vibrancy of our start-up community and foster an entrepreneurial culture where people dare to dream and take risks. Minister of State Alvin Tan will share more on our plans for our startups. By sustaining dynamic and vibrant enterprise ecosystems, we will reinforce Singapore's position as a trusted and connected base for global business and ensure that our economy remains at the forefront of innovation and growth.

For our enterprises to raise productivity, upgrade capabilities and scale innovation faster than before, AI is the critical enabler. Our third thrust is therefore to establish Singapore as an AI leader, as well as an AI-empowered economy. We want to empower our companies to harness AI end-to-end, by redesigning business processes, embedding AI into core operations, developing proprietary applications, transforming workflows and upgrading jobs and skills.

To date, we have supported over 60 companies to establish AI Centres of Excellence. These are in-house teams focussed on developing and deploying AI solutions. We will take this further by launching a "Champions of AI" programme later this year. Under this programme, we will target a select group of Singapore-based companies with the ambition and commitment to make AI a core driver of productivity, innovation and growth. We will partner these companies to transform their businesses, by embedding AI across core operations, organisational processes and workforce practices.

This includes leadership and workforce training, as well as support to develop and execute AI transformation projects with clear and measurable business impact. These companies will also invest in retraining and upskilling their employees, enabling their workers to take on high-value AI-enabled job roles.

Let me give DBS as an example. AI has been embedded throughout the bank's operations, from customer engagement to risk management and operational efficiency. For instance, through personalised AI-driven nudges, DBS guides retail customers to make better investment and financial decisions. These customers saved twice as much, invested five times more and had nearly three times higher insurance coverage than those who did not.

In risk management, AI analyses millions of transactions daily to detect unusual patterns and intercept suspicious activity in real-time to better protect its customers. DBS has also deployed AI in institutional banking, reducing processing times for trade documentation by 60%. This helps businesses move faster, with greater certainty, especially in cross-border transactions.

DBS is equipping all 40,000 of its employees with foundational understanding and practical exposure to AI. It is also reskilling employees into new job roles that are being created through the integration of AI – for example, from customer service officers into AI agent monitoring managers and GenAI evaluators. AI has also provided some employees with the opportunity to move into new career pathways – for instance, from customer service roles into relationship management roles.

DBS' journey demonstrates how companies can deploy AI to enhance business value while strengthening their workforce. In 2025, DBS reported that economic value from its data analytics, AI and Machine Learning initiatives achieved a record of approximately $1 billion. AI champions are pathfinders. We will learn from their experiences, show the way forward and give other firms the confidence to move faster and deeper in their own AI journeys.

We also want to be an AI leader in the development, testing, deployment and scaling of AI. We will drive AI transformation at the sector level through AI Missions, starting with advanced manufacturing, connectivity, finance and healthcare – sectors where Singapore already has strong foundations.

For each Mission, we will work with the industry to define sharp, sector-specific problem statements in areas where AI can drive breakthrough transformations. Around each Mission, we will build full-stack ecosystems, including datasets, computing resources, regulatory sandboxes and solution providers. This will shorten the path from development to deployment and from testing to scale.

These Missions will generate demand for new skills, creating clusters of expertise anchored in Singapore. AI Missions serve as rallying flags to attract global AI talent and companies focused on real-world applications, mobilise whole-of-nation efforts across the Government and industry, and concentrate investments and enablers for greater impact.

We will also establish an AI Park as a focal point where talent, problem owners, researchers and resources can come together to create synergy and nurture a deep ecosystem. We already have Lorong AI; and we will now also build an entire "Kampong" – Kampong AI at One-North. "Kampong AI" will accelerate collaboration and serve as a centre of gravity for AI excellence.

These efforts – "Champions of AI", AI Missions and "Kampong AI" – will position Singapore as a place where AI solutions are built, proven and scaled, empowering firms across the economy and establishing AI leadership in key sectors.

Even as we grow our economy, our competitiveness will depend not only on innovation, but also on the ability of our businesses to adapt, reposition and transform. Firms will increasingly face the need to relook at how they operate. Business models that once worked well may no longer be viable under the current and future environment. In response, firms may need to pursue different pathways, transforming their business models, restructuring their operations or, where necessary, scale down or even exit specific products, services or parts of their operations.

Our next thrust is therefore to support our businesses to proactively and confidently navigate these transitions. Such adjustments are a normal and necessary part of economic renewal. But we recognise that the process can be difficult, challenging and sometimes, painful.

We will work closely with trade associations and chambers, enterprises and the Labour Movement to support firms as they go through these transitions, helping them assess their options early, restructure responsibly, pursue new growth opportunities, including exploring overseas markets and manage change in a way that strengthens long-term competitiveness and supports workers through the transition.

I agree with Mr Shawn Loh that with our small domestic economy, many growth opportunities lie beyond Singapore's shores. We want to help our companies to not only export their products and services, but also to expand and invest internationally. This will allow them to benefit from the growth of the global economy, while anchoring value, capabilities and leadership functions here in Singapore.

We will step up support for leading companies pursuing significant overseas ventures that may involve higher risks and capital outlay, especially in developing and emerging markets, but which give them a real and lasting foothold in key markets and value chains. In addition to growing their revenue and profits from overseas, these companies will bring value back to Singapore through better jobs, stronger demand for local capabilities and deeper integration into global growth opportunities.

I agree with Ms Elysa Chen and Mr Victor Lye on the importance of supporting and preparing our entrepreneurs and workers embarking on internationalisation. The Ministry of Manpower will share more on this.

We will also safeguard and expand our international economic space. Minister of State Ms Gan Siow Hwang will elaborate more on our plans to deepen and diversify our economic links with our trading partners.

Mr Chairman, the global environment will remain uncertain. The road ahead will not be easy. But Singapore has succeeded so far not by waiting for certainty, but by planning long term, acting early and moving ahead decisively.

The ESR has outlined our strategy going forward. Our five strategic thrusts build on our strengths, embrace new opportunities, harness technology, keep Singapore open and connected and support our people through change, every step of the way.

We will ensure growth must translate into good jobs for Singaporeans. Above all, our strategy is to give workers the confidence to adapt, businesses the ability to compete and every Singaporean a share in our progress and a stake in our future. If we continue to stay united, remain agile and nimble and keep investing in our people, Singapore will not just navigate change – we will shape it. [Applause.]

Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

Chairman, I declare my interest as a business owner that manufactures, assembles and distributes batteries locally. But I rise to speak about batteries not just as a product, but as an enabler for economic growth.

Singapore may not manufacture battery cells at scale, but that is not where our competitive advantage lies. Our strengths and high value segments, such as system design, integration, battery management software, safety engineering, testing, compliance and project management. These are areas where our Singapore-based companies can compete and differentiate themselves.

Today, many local companies are already working with IHLs and research institutes for technology capabilities, while leveraging regional manufacturing to produce competitive solutions. With the right positioning and partnerships, we can serve Southeast Asia and beyond.

Industry platforms, such as the Singapore Battery Consortium, have played a useful role in bringing in together the different players. I understand that National Research Foundation's (NRF's) funding for the Consortium will end on 31 March. May I seek clarification on whether support for this platform will continue and whether its scope can be expanded beyond research collaboration to include commercialisation support and market access.

Sir, I would also like to raise a practical trade issue affecting some of our companies. A handful of firms have shared that while they carry out substantial work in Singapore, including system integration, battery management software, safety engineering on compliance, this value-add may not always be fully reflected for trade purposes. I hope MTI can review whether our frameworks adequately recognise modern system integration and software-driven value-add in sectors like energy storage.

Batteries enable solar deployment, power data centres, electrified fleets and strengthen grid resilience. With the right policy support, Singapore can capture meaningful value in this growing sector.

Chairman, secure energy and we secure our destiny. Beyond meeting Singapore's basic needs, our energy demand will rise as we digitalise and double down on AI.

Singapore's energy strategy has always been shaped by three structural realities: we have no natural resources, we face land constraints and we depend almost entirely on imported energy. These constraints constantly force us to balance the energy trilemma – security, sustainability and affordability.

Today, natural gas supplies roughly 95% of our electricity. It remains our most viable transition fuel, reliable and relatively lower in emissions. We have diversified supplies through pipeline gas and LNG imports and invested in critical infrastructure, such as our LNG terminal.

At the same time, we are accelerating decarbonisation. I welcome continued efforts to maximise solar deployment on rooftops and reservoirs, pilot regional electricity imports under the ASEAN Power Grid initiative and study hydrogen as a potential long‑term option. These are necessary steps.

Yet, our strategy must continue to evolve in the face of rising geopolitical uncertainty, supply chain fragmentation and intensifying climate pressures. The latest conflict involving Israel, US and Iran is a stark example. Disruptions to key shipping routes like the Strait of Hormuz where a large portion of LNG passes could send energy prices soaring.

I therefore pose several questions to the Ministry.

First, on energy security. As we deepen regional electricity imports, how is MTI assessing geopolitical concentration and supply risk? What plans are in place to diversify sources and build redundancy into our long-term energy import strategy?

Second, on supporting our national AI push. With rising demand for computing power and data centres, how is MTI working with local and international partners to ensure sufficient, sustainable power supply while promoting energy efficient digital infrastructure?

Third, on hydrogen. Hydrogen is promising for low carbon power and for hard to abate sectors, such as maritime and petrochemicals. But costs and supply chains remain challenging. When does the Ministry assess hydrogen to be commercially viable at scale for Singapore? How are we positioning ourselves early enough to shape, rather than follow, regional hydrogen supply chains? What support is being offered to firms and startups to deepen R&D and commercialise hydrogen technologies in Singapore?

Fourth, on carbon pricing and competitiveness. Singapore's carbon tax is expected to rise to signal decarbonisation. How does MTI balance competitiveness for trade exposed sectors with the need for credible carbon pricing? Are there plans to deepen international carbon market linkages or other measures to manage domestic cost pressures?