Hansard, Wednesday, 26 February 2025

1 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the lessons learnt from the recent MRT service disruptions on the North-South Line on 7 February 2025, North-East Line on 10 February 2025 and Circle Line on 11 February 2025; and (b) what are the actions that the Ministry will take to prevent a repeat of similar breakdowns.

2 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether any of the recent MRT disruptions leading to delays in MRT services on the North-South Line, North-East Line and Circle Line in February 2025 were caused by a maintenance issues; and (b) what steps will be taken to ensure that similar incidents can be minimised or avoided in future.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to provide a combined response for oral Question Nos 1 and 2 in today's Order Paper?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is investigating the root causes of the three incidents on 7, 10 and 11 February. I will share the preliminary findings for each incident.

First, the North-South Line (NSL) incident on 7 February. At around 5.15 am, an engineering vehicle broke down at a railway crossing in Bishan Depot after routine maintenance works. This engineering vehicle comprises three wagons, which are used for carrying equipment and materials for maintenance works and two locomotives, which are used for moving the wagons along the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) tracks. As trains departing Bishan Depot for the mainline need to pass through this railway crossing, SMRT was unable to launch trains from Bishan Depot. To allow operations to resume, SMRT attempted to move the stalled engineering vehicle using a rescue train. When the rescue train started moving the stalled vehicle, SMRT discovered that some of the wheels of two of the wagons had come off the rails.

By the time the engineering vehicle stalled, only three out of 39 trains that were scheduled to serve the NSL that morning had been launched from Bishan Depot.

To ensure that commuters using the NSL could still continue on their journeys, SMRT redirected some trains from the East-West Line (EWL) to the NSL. This allowed train services to continue operating throughout the day on both lines, but with a longer interval between trains during peak hours. SMRT also activated free regular and free bridging buses along the busiest stretch of the NSL between Woodlands and Bishan stations, to provide commuters with an alternative travel option. As there were fewer trains during peak periods, commuters experienced longer waiting times at the stations, but their travel times were largely unaffected once they boarded the train.

Meanwhile, SMRT had continued with their recovery efforts to move the stalled engineering vehicle. Due to the tight space around the depot tracks, SMRT was unable to use heavy lifting cranes. It had to use hydraulic equipment to slowly and safely shift the stalled vehicle onto another track. The stalled vehicle was cleared off the railway crossing by around 5.30 pm. After completing a series of thorough checks to ensure safety, SMRT was able to launch trains from Bishan Depot from 6.36 pm and progressively restored normal train service for commuters on the NSL and EWL.

Next, the North East Line (NEL) incident on 10 February. At around 6.08 am, a signalling fault occurred near Buangkok station. This prevented the NEL trains from being controlled automatically. As a result, while trains could still travel along the NEL, they had to be controlled manually and travel at slower speeds to ensure safety. This led to reduced frequency of service and additional travel time for commuters. In response to this decrease in service capacity, SBS Transit (SBST) activated free regular and bridging buses along the NEL between Punggol Coast and Dhoby Ghaut stations at 6.55 am to provide commuters with an alternative travel option.

Preliminary investigations indicate that the signalling fault was caused by a malfunctioning electronic card in the signalling system. There were no prior signs during the maintenance checks which showed that this card would malfunction. SBST replaced the malfunctioning electronic card, and was able to restore the signalling system’s operations at around 8.00 am, following which normal train service was progressively restored. The faulty electronic card has been sent to the system manufacturer for further examination, to identify the root cause of the malfunction.

Third, the Circle Line (CCL) incident on 11 February. In LTA’s earlier statement on 13 February 2025, it noted that a power trip had occurred arising from a signalling fault. Further investigations show that there was no power trip and that the incident was due to a signalling fault.

Based on LTA’s latest findings, at around 8.15 am, a signalling fault caused a temporary loss of communications between a CCL train and the trackside signalling equipment. Sir, when this happens, the incident train will engage its brakes and stop moving, in accordance with safety protocols. The other trains near the incident train will also come to a stop to ensure safety for commuters, by keeping the trains at a safe distance from one another until communications can be fully restored.

Due to this signalling fault, 17 trains between Paya Lebar and Marymount stations were temporarily halted for safety. SMRT promptly withdrew the incident train from the mainline and after doing the necessary safety checks, train movement resumed progressively from 8.20 am, five minutes after the signalling fault had occurred.

However, when train operations were being restored, SMRT noticed that the Central Automatic Train Supervision (CATS) System, which manages the movement of trains, became less responsive. As a result, it took longer than usual to resume normal train operations, even though trains had started moving on the CCL. The delay in resumption of normal train operations led to longer wait times and travel durations for some CCL commuters.

We had experienced a similar issue with the CATS system in September 2024. After that incident, LTA and SMRT worked with the system manufacturer Alstom to develop a software patch to address the issue. The patch went through extensive testing and was ready for deployment on 15 February. Unfortunately, the incident happened a few days before the deployment date. SMRT and Alstom have since successfully deployed the software patch.

Mr Speaker, we take every incident on the MRT network seriously because rail safety, reliability and resilience will always be our priorities. Not just for LTA, but also for our tripartite partners in the One Transport Family.

Our preliminary findings show that the three incidents were unrelated – they involve different lines, different components, and different operations and maintenance teams. Unlike some previous disruptions where trains were unable to continue travelling on the tracks, the three incidents did not result in a prolonged stoppage of train services. Trains could continue to run along the NSL, NEL and CCL, albeit at longer intervals or slower speeds. However, as these incidents happened during the morning peak hours, they affected a larger number of commuters and lengthened the waiting and travel times.

Mr Speaker, we recognise that every incident causes inconvenience for affected commuters. While we cannot completely prevent incidents from happening in a rail system of this size and complexity, we certainly will do our best together with the operators and our workers to maintain a high level of safety, reliability and resilience, and to minimise the impact to commuters when an incident occurs.

Through this approach, we have achieved our one million mean kilometres between failure (MKBF) target consistently since 2019, which puts our overall system among the best performing metros in the world. As at 25 February 2025, the MKBF for our MRT network stands at about two million train-kilometres and all MRT lines have achieved our target MKBF of at least one million train-kilometres.

Rail safety, reliability and resilience are key priorities for LTA and our tripartite partners. We will continue to work close together on this front to identify areas for improvement, adopt new technologies for more effective maintenance and operations, and invest in the skills of our workers.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions for him. On 13 February, LTA announced that it was looking into the root causes of MRT disruptions after three incidents in a week. I would like to ask the Minister, besides the hardware problems, will LTA also look into the potential problems in the staffing, staff turnover, skill level and morale in the engineering and maintenance department of SMRT?

Second question, during the debate after the six-day breakdown of the EWL after Jurong East station in September 2024, the Minister rejected my call for the convening of a Committee of Inquiry. Now that we have three more MRT disruptions in less than a week, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would now call for a Committee of Inquiry this time?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Leong for his two questions. First, LTA is looking into the root causes for the three incidents that had happened in February. I have explained in my main reply what we think are some of the preliminary findings, why these three incidents happened on three separate lines. I hope Mr Leong would agree with me that these three incidents are unrelated to one another and also the nature would be quite different from what happened to the EWL disruption in September last year.

We have not completed our investigations for the EWL incident or for these three incidents. These are still ongoing. But we will certainly do our best to identify what are the learning points and then, to make sure that we share this with all the operators – not just in this case SMRT for the EWL, Circle Line and NSL, and SBST for the NEL, but we also want to encourage them to share these learning points in the whole One Transport Family so that everyone can benefit and do better.

Mr Leong is right that we should go beyond hardware because it is a review of the whole system of operations and maintenance. And we have certainly been looking at these issues as well and we will continue to do so.

I also want to thank Mr Leong for highlighting the importance of staff morale for our engineering and technical teams, because that is a very important part of ensuring smooth operations and good maintenance. And that is why we always emphasise that we want to continue to work closely together as tripartite partners to make sure that we uphold high standards of safety, reliability and resilience for our commuters.

Mr Speaker, I had explained during the Ministerial Statement in October after the September EWL incident on why the Government would not need to convene a Committee of Inquiry but to ask LTA, which is the regulator and is empowered to conduct a thorough investigation, to do so and then to share, for the EWL incident, the findings when the investigation is completed, to share the findings publicly. So, that remains our commitment. When the investigation for the EWL is completed, we will share the findings publicly, so that we learn from what happened and how we can do better.

And because these three incidents, even though they happened in quick succession, they are unrelated to one another and also to the EWL incident, there is not a systemic issue or concern with SBST or SMRT that I think will change our position on the necessity for a Committee of Inquiry.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Minister for his answers. I would like to ask the Minister, in respect of the disruption caused by the breakdown of the engineering vehicles on track, are the maintenance of the engineering or any other maintenance vehicles subject to the same maintenance standard as expected of passenger trains?

And following this incident, will LTA look into the maintenance regime for the maintenance vehicles, because, obviously, it may impact on the operations of our passenger trains? Relating to that, will SMRT also look at better service recovery of stalled engineering vehicles along the tracks?

Besides the engineering vehicle issue, I would also like to ask the Minister, beyond bridging bus services during a breakdown, how can operators and LTA improve the public communication process at affected stations with commuters during train disruptions? For example, can operators push out information on regular bus services operating near the affected stations to alleviate the demand on the bridging bus services?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Tan for his three questions. The first one, on the engineering vehicle, the maintenance. These are not the same as MRT trains. As I have explained, the two locomotives, three wagons and the nature of how they operate will also be quite different from MRT trains. So, we do not subject them to the exact same maintenance regime as a normal MRT train because they are different vehicles. But we do have a maintenance regime in place for the engineering vehicles as well. This time round, we are still checking what happened. So, I do not want to prematurely jump to any conclusions. We will let LTA finish their investigations to understand what the root causes are and why this engineering vehicle broke down.

To Mr Tan's second question on the service recovery, I do want to be fair to SMRT. They tried their very best to move the train as quickly as possible. So, the first thing that they did was to send a rescue train – and this is part of the standard operating procedure – to try and push the stalled engineering vehicle so that they are able to move it and clear the tracks for the trains to be launched from Bishan Depot. So, that was what they did.

But unfortunately, in the process of doing so, they discovered that the wheels of the engineering vehicle came off the rails. So, they were unable to continue pushing and they had to use a different method. And because of the space constraints, they were unable to deploy heavy lifting equipment at this location. So, it became a very labour-intensive and quite time-consuming process of having to use hydraulic equipment to try and move this very heavy engineering vehicle. It took them a long time to do so. They only managed to do so at about 5.00-plus pm, as I have explained earlier.

So, I do want to be fair to SMRT. It is not due to intentional delays. They were trying their very best to move the vehicle as quickly as possible, while, of course, adhering to the necessary safety protocols.

Mr Tan's third question, Mr Speaker, is on the response during an incident. I think this is an area where we will continue, as part of the learning, to see how we can finetune our communications with commuters and to see what we can do to improve. During peak hours, I think Mr Tan will agree with me that, given the large number of commuters, even on a normal day it is quite crowded. And when there is a delay or when there is a longer headway for the trains, it will cause the crowd to build up.

SMRT and SBS Transit, in these incidents, did their best to try and communicate with the affected commuters, not just those who are already in the system but even those who are not yet coming into the system, to advise them so that they can consider alternative transport arrangements, which could include bridging buses and regular buses travelling along that same route, but also to take alternative MRT lines. That is the other option for commuters to consider.

Mr Speaker, if I may, this is why we want to continue to expand our MRT network to provide greater resilience, so that in case there is a disruption on one line, there will be alternatives for commuters to take to complete their journey. And this is still a work in progress and I hope to share more during the Committee of Supply (COS) debates.

Okay, last supplementary question. Ms Yeo Wan Ling, keep it short. I would like to move to at least Parliamentary Question No 3.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I declare that I am the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union. I recently met with many of our rail workers serving the affected lines and they are proud public transport workers who bear their work with great purpose and a heavy responsibility to commuters and the community. What will the Ministry do to further empower and uplift our rail workers to do their work more efficiently and effectively, given the complexity and age of the infrastructure?

Minister Chee, I hope your answer will be succinct as well.

Mr Speaker, equipping our workers with the skills and the knowledge to be able to do their work effectively, both in maintenance and operations, is certainly a key priority for the One Transport Family. We will continue to invest in this area to upskill our workers and to make sure that they are able to have access to good technologies and a good working environment. And as I have replied to Mr Leong earlier, the staff morale of the teams would also be equally important.

I hope to share more during the COS debates. So, I seek Ms Yeo's understanding that more details would be made available during the COS debates.

3 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of a second instance of assault at a place of worship in less than half a year (a) how does the Ministry plan to strengthen collaboration between religious institutions, their surrounding communities and security agencies to enhance the early detection and prevention of potential security threats; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to take additional steps to provide further assurance to the public of their personal safety at places of worship.

4 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the rise of extremist threats, whether our schools, places of worship, hospitals and public institutions are being prepared to respond to potential terrorist attacks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Parliamentary Question Nos 3 and 4 together?

Please go ahead.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been collaborating with community partners, which includes religious organisations, schools and hospitals, to enhance our ability to prevent, detect and respond to terror attacks.

For more information on the efforts that we have made to enhance safety at places of worship and to engage the public, Members may refer to MHA’s responses to similar Parliamentary Questions on 7 January 2025. Then, I had shared that MHA works closely with community and religious organisations, including places of worship, through the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth’s (MCCY's) Crisis Preparedness for Religious Organisations programme, where religious organisations participate in security self-assessments, develop contingency plans and attend counter-terrorism seminars to understand the threat better.

MHA also works closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE) on crisis preparedness in schools. All schools have a School Emergency Structure, helmed by the Principal, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), to help staff and students deal with, respond to and recover from emergencies, including a terror attack. MOE regularly reviews and updates the SOPs. Besides annual lockdown drills, schools also conduct regular exercises involving the Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). Such exercises and drills familiarise school staff and students with emergency situations and facilitate collaboration between the schools and emergency responders during a crisis.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) continually enhances the security resilience of the healthcare sector through various measures. These include aligning security standards across healthcare institutions and conducting regular readiness exercises with the Police and SCDF for public acute hospitals, where they are assessed on their measures to secure their facilities while responding to a mass casualty incident. MOH maintains close communication with healthcare institutions to uphold security postures and implement security enhancement programmes in partnership with the Police.

When there is a heightened security situation, the Police will step up security measures, such as increasing the frequency of patrols. They will also engage the relevant stakeholders to step up security measures.

At some point, I hope never, but we have to be prepared that an attack will succeed. And when it does, it is important that, as a community, we remain resilient and united. This requires us to be physically and psychologically prepared. Through the SGSecure movement, MHA will continue to work with religious organisations, public institutions and the community at large to strengthen our readiness to terror attacks.

5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) what feedback has the Ministry received from stakeholders to (i) improve the safety of workers transported on the back of lorries and (ii) ban the transport of workers on the back of lorries; and (b) how does the Ministry intend to address such feedback.

Mr Speaker, my response today will also cover related questions filed by Mr Louis Ng and Ms Hazel Poa for subsequent Sittings.

Improving the safety of all road users is a priority for the Ministry of Transport (MOT); and this requires the collective effort by all stakeholders. Over the years, Government agencies have been working together with our tripartite partners to continually review the transportation of workers on board lorries and to put in place practical measures that can help to reduce risks and enhance safety.

The Government takes a coordinated and multi-pronged approach. First, we aim to reduce the need to transport the workers, such as by facilitating the co-location of worker dormitories near to where they work, where feasible. This is the case, for example, in the shipyards and larger construction sites.

Second, we encourage alternatives to lorries, such as buses. We have been engaging our industry associations to encourage their members to transport their workers on buses, and a number of companies have responded. Woh Hup, a homegrown construction firm, has been transporting most of its workers in buses rather than lorries. Other companies, like Straits, are also doing the same. The industry associations and employers have said that they will do their best to transition to safer modes of transport for workers where possible.

Some have suggested that the Government should ban the transportation of workers on the back of lorries. While this suggestion is well-intentioned, it is not a practical solution, especially for some contractors. For larger projects where the workers are housed in offsite dormitories, many are already being transported in buses to the worksite. However, for many micro, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), it is neither practical nor viable for the employers to have different vehicles and drivers to transport a small number of workers separately from their equipment and goods. For instance, those in the specialist trades typically need to transport a small crew of workers and equipment to several locations within a day, and to ensure that both the workers and equipment can arrive at the site simultaneously to minimise downtime.

These are not just financial constraints but practical operational challenges that I hope Members can appreciate will be difficult for our SMEs to implement. Banning the use of lorries is also not feasible due to the acute shortage of bus drivers, which is already experienced by the public transport, tour bus and school bus sectors.

Taking such an approach will have a significant impact on the viability of our SMEs. Many of them could be forced to shut down, causing workers, both local and foreign, to lose their jobs. It will also lead to delays for critical projects like the Housing and Development Board flats, schools, hospitals and Mass Rapid Transit lines, and result in higher cost for Singaporeans. A balance needs to be struck to protect the lives and livelihoods of workers, and to look after the well-being of all Singaporeans.

That is why we continue to push ahead with the third prong, which is to make it safer for everyone when employers need to use lorries to ferry their workers.

We rolled out several measures over the past few years, together with our tripartite partners and the non-governmental organisations (NGOs). These include requirements for dual role drivers, or workers who also have driving responsibilities, to have sufficient rest; for drivers of lorries ferrying workers to have a "vehicle buddy"; as well as for the mandatory installation of rain covers. These measures came into force on 1 January 2023. We had also implemented measures prior to this, such as requiring lorries to be fitted with canopies and higher protective side railings, have lower speed limits and minimum space requirements.

Senior Minister of State Khor, you might want to round up your answer.

Just one more paragraph, Speaker.

Short paragraph, I hope.

It is quite short. Under the Road Traffic Act, all equipment on board lorries must also be properly secured to ensure safety for all road users and workers.

In addition — my apologies, Speaker, the paragraph is not very short.

Please make it short. We are actually out of time. We are giving you a bit more time.

Thank you very much, Speaker. Let me also touch on this point that we also regularly engage key stakeholders including NGOs, industry associations and the academia. At these joint meetings, the NGOs and industry associations update one another about their concerns, as well as the challenges faced on the ground and initiatives to improve the situation.

I want to thank these stakeholders for walking this journey together with us to enhance safety for our workers. NGOs, such as Migrant Workers' Centre, COVID-19 Migrant Support Coalition, HealthServe and ItsRainingRaincoats, have been engaging and educating workers on the various measures that have been implemented and importantly, what workers should expect from their employers.

Let me end by saying that the Government is committed to continue working closely with our stakeholders to improve the safety of our workers and all road users, but we want to do so in a practical and effective manner.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills.

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

[(proc text) "to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2025/2026, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to make supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2025/2026, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [18 February 2025] [1st Allotted Day], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026." – [Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]

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

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, my reply to this second Forward Singapore Budget is in three parts. First, I will address the important Budget announcements related to Singapore's long-term future. Thereafter, I will make some broad comments about the Budget. And finally, I will speak on Singapore's fiscal situation and the Government's Budget marksmanship.

First, the big picture and our physical infrastructure. At the beginning of this term of Government, COVID-19 put plans for Changi Airport Terminal 5 on hold. This year, the Finance Minister announced that Terminal 5 will break ground. With its completion, Changi Airport's capacity will increase by 50%, ensuring that Singapore will remain a critical gateway for global travel and trade.

The development of Tuas Port and Singapore's record highs in vessel arrival, tonnage, container throughput and bunker sales have, in the words of the Finance Minister, reinforced Singapore's role as a leading maritime hub. These are no mean feats and Singaporeans are proud of the achievements of all who made this happen.

The future is exciting and we will herald more changes and transformation. The advent of nuclear power and the signing of the "123 Agreement" on civil nuclear cooperation with the United States (US) portends a future in Singapore that comes out of science fiction. Even the import of electricity from neighbouring countries may be difficult to fathom for some Singaporeans more used to scenarios from not too long ago, where acrimony surrounded the purchase of critical resources, such as water. It is not out of place for the public to ask important and far-reaching questions on nuclear safety and resource resilience. Equally legitimate, are queries on the cost implications for Singaporean households. What will be the impact on the bills for clean power, compared to those for electricity generated by fossil fuels?

The Government, naturally, must address these concerns. As these and other new vistas open, from artificial intelligence (AI) and sustainability to climate change, Singaporeans must be well-prepared by our education and retraining systems, to be the ones best placed to take on the jobs in these areas.

The Finance Minister has sought to assure the public of the Government's intentions in this regard, and there is significant public interest in seeing Singaporeans compete and succeed in securing jobs, created or transformed by these developments.

Let me move on to more general comments about the Budget. Coming on the cusp of General Elections, that Budget 2025 would be an "Election Budget" was not a surprise. The Prime Minister and Finance Minister, and Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong had set the stage by providing numerous assurances that cost of living concerns would be addressed.

The concerns on the ground about cost of living are known to all in this House. We started the first Budget of this Government's term in 2021, with the disbursement of Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers worth $100. Today, the vouchers are at $800.

Cost increases have hurt people from across all segments of society. Beyond the $800 CDC Vouchers and $800 SG60 vouchers, more than a few political watchers noticed the People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MPs) thumping their armrests in unison when the Finance Minister announced that Climate Vouchers worth $400 were being extended to private household dwellers too – a relatively small and, generally, more well-off segment comprising of about 15% of our population. Reflecting on the cost of living crisis, this enthusiastic gesture was both telling and ironic.

The Finance Minister dished out the broad statistics for 2024 in his speech: 4.4% growth; inflation continuing to ease; wage increases outpacing inflation; median income of resident workers rising 3.4% above inflation; and income inequality being at its lowest since 2000.

But for many, the lived reality of Singaporeans over the last 12-odd months does not correspond with the bright summary revealed by these figures. Life is very tough for the Singapore that is in the heartland. Concerns over jobs, prices, housing costs and opportunities continue for many Singaporeans and their households. The numerous vouchers will give us help for a little while, but not for long. After all, no Goods and Services Tax (GST) Offset Package lasts forever.

Sir, 2024 was noteworthy for other reasons too. For the first time in our history, our total fertility rate (TFR) fell below one. For the first time ever, our total population crossed six million. The 2019/2020 Housing and Development Board (HDB) annual report stated that the projected ultimate number of dwelling units in Singapore would be slightly above 1.55 million. According to the latest HDB report for 2023/2024, this number has gone up by 53,000 dwelling units even as the earlier number of 1.55 million was not intended to be a target to be reached, according to the answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) given to Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua in 2021. If the ultimate dwelling units number is not a target, on what basis is it moving upwards?

For some, these realities make the Singapore of tomorrow a difficult one to imagine and for others, a difficult one to find affinity with. With finite land, other Singaporeans question, in the interest of their children, how many more does the Government seek to squeeze in? And what cans are we kicking down the road for future generations of Singaporeans, who will live in a far-denser city than today?

In 2017, it was announced that auxiliary police officers (APOs) would be hired from Taiwan. Last month, the Ministry of Home Affairs confirmed that it was looking at hiring APOs from China, India, the Philippines and Myanmar. A few days ago, it was announced that the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) would be looking to hire foreigners as paramedics.

With a growing population and a manpower shortage in many areas, it is inevitable that more of such basic manpower needs of our country will go down a similar path. Alongside these recruitments are fears that Singaporeans may face competition from foreigners who apply for some of these jobs, which were traditionally filled by Singaporean men and women.

Integration and a sense of rootedness will continue to be a major issue in Singapore in the years to come and no amount of vouchers can make people feel rooted to Singapore. The Government is aware of this and it is no surprise to hear Government leaders extolling the importance of unity and integration of foreigners into Singapore society. This issue continues to be a soft underbelly of our society with fault lines that can be easily exploited.

Government policy leaves much to be desired, for example, with democratically elected opposition MPs being kept away from new citizens during their citizenship ceremonies by design – ostensibly for political expediency and advantage. Creating a sense of unity in Singapore is a work-in-progress that is made tougher by the PAP itself, when it hamstrings integration efforts with such small-minded and short-sighted policies.

Businesses found 2024 tough. More than 3,000 food and beverage (F&B) businesses closed their doors for good in 2024, citing dwindling business and higher operating costs. This is more than eight F&B businesses shutting every single day, the highest number since 2015. While there are even more newcomers to the scene, a CNA report earlier this month identified the entry of cash-rich foreign players, prepared to pay higher rents and salaries as a reality of the local F&B scene.

Sir, 2024 was noteworthy for other reasons too. In business circles, the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone, while on the whole received positively, has also raised concerns about the hollowing out of businesses in Singapore, particularly, those that serve the Singaporean middle class.

Arising from the cost-of-living crisis, the increase of the costs of basic goods in Singapore leads many Singaporeans to make regular trips across the border, to extract a good 30% or more in savings. Services are cheaper in Johor Bahru too, from seeing a dentist to getting a thorough health check-up at a reputable private medical facility.

With the Johor Bahru–Singapore Rapid Transit System Link starting operations in 2026, many businesses will have to seriously review how far they can expect Singaporeans or other local customers to continue patronising them. It also remains to be seen how long bookstores and cinemas will be able to continue surviving in Singapore, and whether the Government is prepared to offer such businesses a helping hand with grants or by requiring building owners to reserve a portion of their built-up areas for such businesses, to ensure that Singaporeans have localised, high quality, holistic and affordable options within our borders.

In May last year, I asked a PQ on JTC and whether it was empowered to lease industrial properties to local small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at a discount to the market rate, and whether the Ministry had plans to expand schemes that reduce business costs for local SMEs by way of lower rentals. The Minister for Trade and Industry shared that his Ministry and the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) had formed an Alliance for Action (AfA) on business competitiveness to deep dive into how businesses can remain competitive amid global uncertainties and structurally higher business costs.

While the AfA's business competitiveness report released last November covered a range of business related issues, in the main, they addressed matters specific to bigger enterprises. With the Government the largest landowner in Singapore and a not insignificant player in the in the industrial space, land costs and rentals are something that need to be looked into more acutely to appreciate the challenges to business and entrepreneurship in the immediate term.

On a separate note and to assist more SMEs, some measures announced at the Budget should be reviewed immediately. For example, the Government should free the second portion of the SG60 Vouchers for use anywhere beyond just participating supermarkets, to include all small businesses and shops located in shopping malls too. Apart from helping SMEs, this will enlarge choice for Singaporeans.

The Workers' Party (WP) spoke on the cost-of-living crisis in a Motion this House debated about 18 months ago, where we looked beyond voucher relief towards structural changes to address the cost of living, looking at utilities and healthcare among others. To that end, and among other subjects, I will revisit the subject of land costs for Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate.

Sir, let me now speak on the fiscal situation and the Government's Budget marksmanship.

Apart from the goodies that were expected in this Budget, it was the fiscal position at the end of the term which raised many eyebrows. The Government's exceedingly healthy fiscal position has led many Singaporeans to question why the GST had to be raised in 2023 and 2024.

A fiscal surplus of $6.8 billion is projected for the financial year (FY) 2025. As for 2024, even after the latest CDC and SG60 Voucher programme, 2024's fiscal surplus, originally estimated at a healthy $778 million, has been revised massively upwards to $6.4 billion.

And if one casts their memory back earlier in this term, it was estimated by the Government that 2021 and 2022 would see deficits. However, these turned out to be surpluses instead. The overall fiscal surplus for the years 2021 to 2025, or this term of Government, is set to hit around $14.3 billion.

Sir, even as the international scene remains in flux with all eyes on the relationship between the US and China, Singapore has been able to leverage its unique value propositions for investment. Some years ago, I spoke of how the chill felt by some multinational enterprises (MNEs) in Hong Kong could result in an advantage for Singapore, as these businesses relocated to other jurisdictions. The increase in corporate income tax collection, overtaking even the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) has been attributed to a change in the investment decisions of MNEs. The Government has also reviewed its position on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS 2.0), and is anticipating even higher corporate income tax revenue from FY2027, provided Singapore remains attractive to MNEs.

With another $3 billion devoted to the National Productivity Fund, in addition to the $2 billion last year, all things being equal, it is hard to see how Singapore would suddenly turn unattractive, despite the US withdrawal from BEPS 2.

0. The fiscal situation appears healthy, notwithstanding the absence of financial medium-term projections, which other jurisdictions publish.

This naturally has led many to question the necessity of raising the GST.

The WP raised this matter on numerous occasions in this House, even participating actively to consider alternative levers of revenue in the Budget debate of 2023. Even as imported inflation contributes to price rises locally, there was no need for the PAP Government to add fuel to the fire and fan the flames of inflation further with the GST hike. Even if a decision was made to raise it in 2023, there was ample policy space to delay the second increase in 2024 when the country was in the thick of inflation.

Why the PAP went headlong and headstrong into raising GST, and thereby turbocharging inflation further, is something only the PAP itself can answer to Singaporeans for. As every Singaporean knows, a 1% rise in GST does not lead to a 1% rise in the cost of a cup of coffee. Increases are incremental, as we have experienced in how purchases from the local shop or weekly supermarket trip have cost a good 30% to 40% for Singaporeans since the GST was hiked in an inflationary environment never seen before in decades.

The decision to go ahead with the GST hike, with inflation raging, was poor. We have seen Assurance Packages and CDC Vouchers dished out to cushion the GST blow for many Singaporeans. But when these handouts stop, as they eventually will, the 9% GST will remain, until any subsequent increase the PAP Government sees fit to impose.

It would not be out of place to ask then, how many Singaporeans would believe the accuracy of a PAP Government's projections about the need or the immediate need for future expenditures? The Government has shown poor fiscal marksmanship in trying to match Singapore's expenditure needs with revenue.

In fairness, at last year's Budget, I recounted the reflection of economists quoted by The Straits Times, who commented that it was getting very hard to project Government revenue because budgeting accuracy in specific tax collections could vary between 17% and 27%, and that gone were the days when Budget marksmanship of 2% was the norm.

Sir, if this continues, it will be difficult to support future tax increases or even accept policy moves meant to equalise the cost of owning a car, such as by introducing new taxes or charges on electric vehicle (EV) drivers announced in this Budget. Singaporeans would not be out of place to ask: why is there a need to collect so much money when the Government's fiscal projections are so unpredictable, but somehow always so healthy when elections have to be called?

While I am sure the fiscal headroom is politically attractive and even desired by the PAP at the end of the term, notwithstanding its constitutional obligations, it should not underestimate the correlation between this poor marksmanship and potential public cynicism in future when taxes must be increased for legitimate reasons.

I anticipate the Finance Minister to reply that all these increases were either down to one-off abnormalities or upsides that could not be anticipated. Even if we accept this, the Government's poor fiscal marksmanship raises and strengthens a different argument – and that is, that the money set aside for spending can certainly be accounted for in a more institutionalised fashion with greater public scrutiny.

The WP brought up the idea of an independent Parliamentary Budget Office at the beginning of the term. This was roundly rejected by the former Finance Minister and with the Leader of the House positing that it would only benefit the Opposition.

My colleagues and I beg to differ; and perhaps in light of unpredictable projections, such an institution would also benefit the Government. Compared to 10 years ago, total public expenditure has close to doubled in nominal terms. The age-old question of greater fiscal accountability and the introduction of institutions that track and account for public expenditure in a dedicated manner are ideas whose time has come.

To this end, and in the throes of COVID-19, the Government committed $25 billion to fund its Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 (RIE2025) plans. In the name of fiscal prudence, is it out of place to ask how well these monies have been spent? Have the plans proved to be value for money? The public has a right to know because while expenditures can be tracked, tracking returns is a different matter altogether.

In the same vein, it would be important for the Government to issue a report card on initiatives that have come to an end. For example, when the Capability Transfer Programme was first mooted at Budget 2017, the aim of the programme was to improve local foreigner workforce complementarity by facilitating transfer of capabilities from foreigners to locals, with the goal of ensuring that there is a sufficient supply of Singaporeans with the requisite job skills.

A number of Members, including myself, have spoken or asked questions about the programme during this term of Government. I hope to see the Ministry of Finance's occasional papers reporting on the outcomes of such initiatives, complete with an impact assessment on jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. Only then can better alternatives be promulgated and advanced, not just by the Opposition, but by ordinary Singaporeans who care about their country and the direction it is headed.

As I have said so previously, the new social compact between citizen and state, as flagged by Forward Singapore (Forward SG), demands it. Our social compact would be strengthened by such accountability for public expenditure and programmes. This scrutiny would represent a different approach to governance, but it is one that the WP would opine is the expectation of a participatory society and of the Singapore that is imagined by the Forward SG report.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I began my speech by talking of infrastructural developments that are taking shape in Singapore in a section titled "The Big Picture". They stand to change Singapore for the better. However, there is a bigger picture whose focus has changed even more sharply since the inauguration of the Trump Administration.

The comments of the Defence Minister at the Munich Security Conference less than a fortnight ago – of the US now behaving like a landlord seeking rent and no longer being the force of moral legitimacy that it used to be – portend a world that may not be changing for the better and a security architecture that may have to be reconfigured.

Much international media attention was focused on the phrase "landlord seeking rent". However, I found the question put to his audience at the end of the speech more significant. The question was, "who, if anyone, any one country or region or bloc, can step in if the US declines to protect the global commons, and how effective and against what resistance". This is even as the 2024 Asian Barometer Survey believe that China far outstrips the US in influence over Asia and this gap will only widen going forward. This is the perspective of Singaporeans who were surveyed.

Only two days prior to the Minister's speech, the new US Defence Secretary at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group said, in the context of pivoting away from Europe, and I quote: "we also face a peer competitor in the Communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific. The US is prioritising deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognising the reality of scarcity and making the resourcing trade-offs to ensure deterrence does not fail".

To this end, Sir, and in my last Budget speech, I devoted a final section on a call to strengthen our national unity – a multiracial national unity – in an uncertain world. The wider strategic atmospherics lead me to reiterate that our national unity, a subject I mentioned briefly in my speech, in these unpredictable times is actually vital. This outlook reinforces the importance of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Home Team and the importance of National Service (NS). The security these agencies provide is an important source of strength for Singapore and all Singaporeans must give our men and women in uniform our full support. Mr Speaker, the WP supports the Budget.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Speaker, there is something unique and distinctive about Singapore's Budget, quite unlike other countries' or jurisdictions', and it about the way we go about doing it. At its core, we adhere to two key main thrusts, to achieve long-term fiscal sustainability: firstly, consistent prudent financial management; and secondly, growing the economy to generate sustainable streams of revenue. It has served us well all these years and has, time and again, enabled us to make available substantial fiscal resources in each Budget to deal with both the immediate and longer-term challenges, as well as still have the financial means to invest into the future, whether it is to enhance our economy or to improve our social well-being.

We see that manifest again in this year's Budget. The immediate task, of course, on hand, remains to help Singaporeans tackle cost pressures. Support schemes have been upsized, such as the CDC Vouchers and the U-Save Rebates, and more broad-based schemes added, such as the Child LifeSG Credits and expanded Climate Vouchers. These are over and above the Enhanced Assurance Package and other earlier announced support packages.

There is also more support for families and the seniors, such as the Large Families Scheme, the Matched MediSave Scheme, the enhanced support for long-term care costs and the enhanced Home Caregiving Grant, to mention a few. These assistances are spread across most calendar months, till January 2026. Taken together, these support packages amounted to substantial assistances for each family. For example, a six-person, middle-income, three-generation family living in a 5-room HDB flat can receive total benefits of about $10,000.

Besides tackling the immediate concerns, the Budget also allocates substantial resources to push our economic growth frontier, investing in technology, enterprises and infrastructure. There is the $3 billion top-up for National Productivity Fund to help us anchor high-quality investments in Singapore; the $1 billion investment is to keep our R&D infrastructure at cutting edge; and up to $150 million is allocated to the new Enterprise Compute Initiative to help enterprises develop bespoke AI solutions. To boost our air hub status, the Changi Airport Development Fund will be topped up by another $5 billion.

In the Budget Statement speech, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also signposted the potential future deployment of nuclear power in Singapore, given the promising developments of safer operational small modular reactors. This could be a game changer in our efforts to build energy resilience.

Sir, there is also no let-up in our efforts to upskill our workers. The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme that supports mid-career Singaporeans to reboot their skills has been enhanced to include part-timers. A new SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant and the redesigned SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit have been introduced to provide funding support to companies for job redesign activities. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) will also get an additional $200 million funding to set up more company training committees and to push for more skills advancement at the company level. These are again, over and above the comprehensive set of schemes introduced to support workers in earlier Budgets.

Sir, allow me come back to the point that I started, which is that our Budgets are unique and distinctive. In each of our Budgets, we make sure that we always have the fiscal capacity to carry out the key priorities of the Government, many of which are multi-year commitments. The ability to always have significant stable funding to tackle short- to longer-term challenges and yet able to invest for a better future and, of course, still have savings for rainy days is what makes Singapore's budgets unique and distinctive.

Many governments in the world would find achieving this an uphill task or an almost impossible task to achieve. For example, let us look at a jurisdiction quite similar to us: Hong Kong. A city economy and a financial centre like Singapore, Hong Kong has been running persistent large deficits in the last three years. In fact, in the last five years, they have run into four deficits. In the current fiscal year, it is estimated that Hong Kong will, again, run into deficit to the tune of around HK$100 billion or S$17.1 billion. This is more than what they have forecast at the start of the year.

Recently, the Hong Kong Financial Secretary has assured the Hong Kong public that its government aims to balance the book in the next two to three years, "primarily through reducing expenditures, complemented by generating revenue". What that could mean is that the Hong Kong government would likely have to either raise taxes and fees, or to significantly cut expenditures, or to do both to reduce the large deficits. Otherwise, the Hong Kong international ratings may be at risk of being reviewed.

In the case of Hong Kong, revenue from land sales form a major source of the government's revenue unlike Singapore and it has seen significant decline due to weaker property market. Based on reports, they have also dipped into their fiscal reserves and which has seen shrinkage to the tune of about 40% from the high.

Today happens to be Hong Kong's budget day and their Financial Secretary has started his speech, so we will wait for more details from there. But Sir, I want to say that I do not wish to critique on Hong Kong's fiscal management, but there are valuable learning points for Singapore here. What happened to Hong Kong, in terms of running multi-year budget deficits, can happen to Singapore as well. Especially in our case, where we have other big-ticket spending items, like defence and foreign affairs as well as strategic areas that we need to invest and commit capital expenditure, such as water and energy security.

Unlike Hong Kong, we also do not have the hinterland of China to help us underpin or backstop the economy. So, for Singapore, it goes back to the twin mantra that I mentioned at the start; prudent fiscal management and growing the economy to generate top-line revenue; which are critically important to achieve long-term fiscal sustainability.

Being prudent has never failed us in our history. It strengthens our financial position for the longer term and provide insurance against our inherent vulnerabilities. Over the years, the Government has stepped up spending in more areas, in particular, healthcare and social support spending. They have all increased significantly and would continue to grow.

These are commitments that the Government made to our people. It gives Singaporean a peace of mind that the Government have their backs and the people take our assurance that the Government will have the sustainable funding to continue providing the subsidies. Just imagine, if we mismanage our finances and are no longer able to fulfil these commitments, it would immediately add anxieties to Singaporeans and, of course, to impact the quality-of-care that they would receive later. So, we must manage our finances responsibly.

Sir, I want bring to the attention of the House this report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on Budgeting in Singapore, published on 13 January 2025. In the report, it mentioned Singapore as having an international reputation for fiscal discipline in budgeting and policies and that has helped ensure Singapore's long-term fiscal sustainability. It credited the Government of Singapore as having "a well-defined budget framework with clear fiscal objectives". It said the fiscal rules, such as the Constitutional requirement to maintain a balanced budget over each term of Government, instill responsible budgeting.

For example, it also mentioned in the report that to sustain Singapore's increasing expenditures and the pressure to spend even more, the Government has to "diversify its tax base and increase tax rates to improve sustainability and to maintain a balanced budget". The report also mentioned that these tax changes has made our tax system more progressive.

Sir, this report is a credible endorsement of our unique and distinctive Budget framework, where the Budget measures are designed for purposeful impacts that clearly aligned with our national objectives and priorities and where the needs of both the current and future generations of Singaporeans are being taken care of. It reflects the value system of this Government and is the foundational bedrock that will ensure Singapore's long-term survivability.

In the Budget speech, the Prime Minister shared that we are now in a fragmented and troubled world, with the situation likely to worsen in the coming years. Singapore, once again, has to find ways to navigate a turbulent and troubling external environment. Like Hong Kong, Singapore is also exposed to the escalating trade tensions, including the potential knock-on effects of a slowing global economy as a result of the trade war. Given this backdrop of greater global uncertainty and downside risks, the last thing we want is to face this turbulent landscape in a position of weakness.

We neither have the domestic scale, the size nor the hinterland to help us to buffer the external shocks. Hence, Singapore must brace the future unknowns and uncertainties that will surely come in a position of strength. Our strong financial position is the best defence and insurance to protect Singaporeans from effects of external shocks, some of which could devastating or prolonged. So, let us not give away that security cover and as a result, fully expose Singaporeans to the ill-effects of any crisis that comes our way. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First, I want to highlight a unique aspect of our Budgets. Prudent fiscal management has enabled us to have substantial financial resources in each Budget to address the challenges before us. For instance, in this Budget, we continue to strengthen our efforts to help Singaporeans cope with the current high costs of living.

Furthermore, we ensure sufficient fiscal resources to tackle our medium- and long-term challenges. These include building more healthcare facilities to meet the demands of future demographic changes, developing long-term stable energy supplies, rejuvenating our towns sustainably, strengthening our national security and defence, and caring for vulnerable groups in our society.

Few countries' budgets can match Singapore's fiscal strength – not only can we address immediate needs, but also pave the way for future development, ensuring steady progress and giving Singaporeans peace of mind.

As the saying goes, "Caution enables a boat to sail for thousands of years."

Since Independence, we have upheld the philosophy of prudent fiscal management. This has allowed us to accumulate valuable resources and prepare for future challenges, greatly enhancing our ability to respond to various international crises. This is indeed our best strategy to enable Singapore to develop and prosper with stability and resilience.

(In English): Sir, in this Budget and the one before, many of our wish lists were answered. I am pleased that a number of my suggestions to the Prime Minister, have also found its way into the Budget. Indeed, many ideas and suggestions from Singaporeans were taken on board, especially those from the Forward Singapore exercise. It shows that the Government is listening. And it reflects a refreshing relationship between the new Prime Minister's Government and Singaporeans.

Sir, in closing, I would like to seek a clarification, put forward a suggestion and make a request. Let me start with the clarification. It is about the overall surpluses for FY2024 and FY2025, of $6.4 billion and $6.8 billion respectively. These are eye catching numbers. Such large surpluses would, understandably, bring into question whether we have prematurely raised the GST rates. Although it should be noted that the Assurance Packages in earlier Budgets would have delayed the effect of the GST rates increase by at least five years for the majority of Singapore households. And with this Budget on, it could be delayed further. Sir, I took a closer look at Annex H-1, in the Budget documents. The main contributor to the large overall surpluses is the significant increase in the corporate income tax collections.

In Budget 2024, the corporate income tax was initially estimated as $28.03 billion and later revised to $28.38 billion. The latest revised figures for corporate income tax, in this year's Budget paper, now stands at $30.88 billion, an increase of $2.5 billion from the earlier estimate. The estimate for corporate income tax for the next FY is a higher figure of $32.67 billion. I can understand that with a stronger than expected economic growth in 2024, the corporate income tax revenue is expected to rise. Conversely, if the economy slows, or enter into a recession, there could be downside to corporate income tax.

In Annex H-1, it also reported high figures for the capitalisation of Nationally Significant Infrastructure, estimated to be $4.17 billion for FY2024 and $4.63 billion in FY2025. These large capitalisation numbers get added into the overall fiscal position and contributed to the larger overall surplus numbers.

So, I would like to seek clarification from the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, as to why are these capitalisation values being added to the overall computation of the fiscal surplus? Is this capitalisation an accounting item or is it a cash item that can be used to fund current expenditures?

Sir, my second point is a suggestion. I applaud the Government for introducing the Large Families Scheme to support families with three or more children. Having more kids would also mean higher household expenditures for families. Hence, any additional assistance and support would be welcomed by families. So, can I ask if the Government can extend this rationale of support to housing as well? It is understandable that families with three or more children would also need more spaces in their home. So, I hope HDB can look into helping these larger families and consider giving them priorities when they apply for bigger flats, like the 5-room flats.

Sir, my final point is a request that is related to public transport fare. At last year's Budget debate, I asked the Government to keep watch of the public transport fare and to consider a once-off assistance to moderate the fare increase if the Budget position permits.

I am glad and thankful that the Government did provide a once-off additional subsidy of $250 million, over and above the $2 billion a year subsidy, to moderate the fare increase. So, this year, I would like to put up a similar request for the Government to consider another once-off subsidy should the Public Transport Council again recommend to increase the public transport fare. It would go a long way to help relieve public transport costs for commuters and, hopefully, help nudge more to move towards a car-lite society. Sir, with that, I support the Budget.

Mr Henry Kwek.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Budget, and I begin by acknowledging the additional support it provides for my residents living in private estates, especially frail seniors and seniors who are asset-rich and cash-poor. The Budget measures help to ease their financial burdens and ensure that they can continue living with dignity and security in their homes.

Today, I would like to centre my speech on three areas: one, evolving our housing and national development policies to further support social mobility and community development; two, developing a holistic model to enable seniors in private estates to age in place; and three, ensuring that Singapore fully harnesses the potential of AI by building a national AI system that is anchored in our values. These are critical issues that will shape our society and economy for the future, and I believe that we must act decisively to ensure our policies remain inclusive, forward-looking and resilient.

Singapore's property market has remained strong, despite multiple rounds of cooling measures introduced in the last few years. This underscores the resilience of our housing market, but it also raises questions about affordability and accessibility for some young families and first-time buyers. At the same time, the global economic uncertainty – rising interest rates, inflationary pressures and external shocks – not to mention the looming trade war, adds to the complexity of ensuring that our housing policies remain sustainable and equitable. In this context, it is critical that we continue to strengthen access to homeownership without destabilising the long-term value of our housing market.

And this is why some of the proposals put forward in this House over the last few years merit serious scrutiny. For example, the Progress Singapore Party's (PSP's) Affordable Housing Scheme and Millennial Apartments Scheme may seem appealing at the surface, but they risk destabilising the housing market without solving the core issues at hand. By removing land costs from the upfront price of new flats, the Affordable Homes Scheme creates a two-tier housing market where older resale flats must compete with significantly cheaper new ones. This will put downward pressure on resale values, affecting homeowners who have spent decades building their housing equity in their flats.

Meanwhile, the Millennial Apartments Scheme, which expands the state-controlled rental housing, could dampen demand for both resale HDB flats and private estate rentals, reducing rental yields and making it harder for homeowners to monetise their flats in their later years. I am raising this issue because for many in Kebun Baru – my constituency – their HDB flat represents not just a home, but a key pillar of their retirement adequacy. A sudden depreciation in housing prices or rental values would mean less financial security for seniors looking to right-size or lease out their flats to support their retirement.

We must not take housing price stability for granted. In China, housing values were seen as rock-solid – until they were not – and now millions of homeowners face uncertainty and financial distress. And it is not just in China. Sweden, Germany, South Korea and New Zealand have seen meaningful drops in their property market value in the last few years. Singapore's housing market is built on trust, careful planning and a fair balance between affordability and asset appreciation. If we introduce policies that artificially suppress resale values and weaken the rental market, we risk shaking that foundation, eroding confidence and hurting homeowners who have worked hard to invest in their future. While we should always strive to make housing affordable for young families and first-time buyers, we must do so without destabilising the savings and retirement planning of existing homeowners. Our push should be one of careful balance, not drastic experiments with uncertain outcomes.

The recent Plus/Prime/Standard model is a powerful way for us to ensure that many Singaporeans, even those with less income, have a chance to stay at central locations. But there is more we can do. Specifically, we can look at the income ceiling and supply of or executive condominiums. Some young and capable Singaporean couples today find themselves earning just above the eligibility threshold for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats but not enough to comfortably afford a private condominium. By increasing the income ceiling, we can ensure that young professionals, some of whom do not have deep financial support from their families, still have access to public housing options. This allows them to own their own quality homes at reasonable prices, rather than being placed into the much higher price points of private condominiums. And now that the supply and demand is more in balance for the BTOs, I believe it is a timely period to consider this. At the same time, increasing the supply of executive condominiums – our hybrid housing model – will provide not just aspirational yet attainable housing ownership for Singaporeans, ensuring that we preserve the well-structured housing ladder that has been a key driver for our social mobility.

By strengthening rather than disrupting the existing system, we can make housing ownership more accessible for the next generation while ensuring that the housing market remains stable and resilient. Singapore's public housing market has been one of the most successful in the world, precisely because it balances affordability with long-term value retention. Instead of drastic experiments that risk destabilising housing values and retirement adequacy, we should enhance our current framework to help young Singaporeans own homes without compromising the financial well-being of existing homeowners. This is how we can continue to preserve the ladder of social mobility, ensuring that capable and hardworking Singaporeans can progress in life without extreme financial stress or strain or undue reliance on family wealth.

Beyond ensuring housing affordability and stability, the Ministry of National Development (MND) can also play a greater role as an enabler of evolving social needs, making our neighbourhoods more vibrant and inclusive. One way of doing so is by working with National Parks Board (NParks), volunteers and grassroots organisations to fully activate our community parks, particularly in private estates, where community engagements may be more limited. Many of these green spaces remain underutilised when they could be more active social hubs. Therefore, I recommend that NParks could facilitate the development of community-driven amenities, such as public tennis courts similar to what you see in Luxembourg Gardens and Paris, or designate, let us say, pickleball courts, creating accessible space for sports and recreation. Additionally, investing in infrastructure to support Sunday markets – such as power and water access for pop-up stalls – could transform these parks, including the upcoming beautiful Hillrock Park within Kebun Baru, into vibrant weekend markets, gathering sports, sparking stronger community bonds and giving local entrepreneurs a platform. By supporting such initiatives, MND can help private estate residents feel more connected to the broader community, strengthening the social fabric of our neighbourhoods.

I am particularly delighted about the introduction of the Estate Upgrading Programme for Silver Estates as well as the extension of the Enhancement for Active Seniors 2.0 programme to private estates which benefit seniors in Kebun Baru. These are very important steps to ensure that our senior Singaporeans, regardless of where they stay, can continue to age in place safely and with dignity. Many of these seniors, especially those in our private estates, face unique challenges when it comes to home accessibility and care support. The Government's efforts to extend accessibility and upgrade and retrofitting private homes with elderly-friendly features are truly commendable. However, I believe that more can be done to help frail seniors, especially those in private estates, to remain independent and well-supported in their own homes.

One important way is to build Active Ageing Centres within large parks within private estates, such as the Kalidasa Estate, which is part of the Teachers Estate in Kebun Baru, which is also going to be benefitting from the upcoming Estate Upgrading Programme for Silver Estate soon. We can go beyond physical infrastructure to rethink how Active Ageing Centres can operate within these private estates. One idea is to develop a framework where Active Ageing Centres can work with domestic helpers, with the full consent of seniors and their families, so that the small team of Active Ageing Centre staff can tap into a larger pool of caregivers to organise activities, providing companionship, and extending support beyond the physical Active Ageing Centres. This will allow frail seniors to benefit from structured engagement within their parks near their homes. Additionally, we should also look at regulating senior care and home care services, ensuring that all service providers are digitally listed, transparent in pricing, and accountable for the quality of care provided. A trusted digital platform could help caregivers, whether it is children, grandchildren or domestic helpers, to track services, billing and medical needs in real-time, reducing the stress of care coordination.

Beyond structured care, technology can also empower caregivers and improve emergency response. One simple but powerful step is to extend the Singpass app and our seniors for local activities, while caregivers can authorise key decisions remotely. Furthermore, we should empower SCDF emergency services with digital access to homes of frail seniors, should a fall detection alert be triggered. With proper safeguards in place, this could significantly reduce response times in life-threatening situations. To truly build an ecosystem of care, we must bring together the private sector, residents and Government agencies to design a comprehensive framework that ensures that every senior, whether in HDB or private estates, receives the support they need.

In Kebun Baru, we have one of the largest numbers of seniors living in private estates. If there is anything I can do as a Member of Parliament to push this agenda forward, I will be happy to step up to work with the Government, industry and community to make these ideas a reality. Ageing in place should not be a privilege; it should be a right, supported by the best that our society can offer.

Lastly, I like to touch about how Singapore can fully harness the potential of AI by building a national AI system that is anchored on our values. AI is advancing at an unprecedented pace and we are rapidly approaching a future where AI will surpass human capabilities in certain domains. Sam Altman, chief executive officer of OpenAI, has observed that AI programmers could soon be among the best in the world within the next few months. Meanwhile, Google DeepMind's AlphaFold 2.0 has effectively solved the complex challenge of protein folding, opening up revolutionary possibilities in biological and pharmaceutical research. These breakthroughs demonstrate that AI will fundamentally reshape industries, scientific discovery, and global competitiveness. It is not an issue of whether AI will transform economies; it is a question of whether Singapore will lead or follow in this transformation.

We have faced this moment before. In the 1990s, Singapore was ahead of the curve in embracing digitalisation and computerisation, even before its full potential was clear. Our early investments paid off, enabling us to build a highly efficient and technology-driven public sector that continues to serve us well today. We must apply that same foresight to AI. We have a unique opportunity to leverage AI to enhance governance, streamline public service, reduce regulatory complexity for businesses, and empower our research institutions to push the frontiers of science and technology. By embracing AI early, we not only improve governance but also strengthen Singapore as a trusted global hub for AI innovation, ethics, and responsible deployment.

However, deploying an AI at a national scale is far more complicated than simply subscribing our civil servants to existing AI tools. Large enterprises and our Government cannot simply embrace and adopt generic AI models off the shelf. Doing so would pose risks to security, regulatory compliance and adherence to our national values. Even cutting-edge AI systems, such as Palantir, which integrates truth-seeking AI models like Grok, may not always align with Singapore’s approach to governance. Such models may optimise for efficiency and raw intelligence, but they may not fully account for humanistic considerations, such as social harmony, security and ethical decision-making. We must ensure that our AI systems are both powerful and aligned with our national priorities.

To achieve this, Singapore must develop a national AI system, one that is sovereign, human-centric and cost-effective. But this does not require us to reinvent the wheel. Instead, we could consider collaborating with AI service providers that prioritise ethical AI alignment, such as OpenAI and Anthropic. Rather than building costly AI infrastructure from scratch, we can finetune existing models to align with Singapore's governance framework and cultural values. A key component of this initiative could be the establishment of a Centre of Excellence for AI Alignment, which will develop AI frameworks that ensure that AI models adhere to our needs.

To keep costs manageable, we can leverage commercial AI data centres for training and finetuning of AI models, rather than investing heavily on on-premise compute infrastructure. This is especially since we may face increased restriction on AI-compute power from America's likely AI-deficient loop. Once finetuned, the national AI model can then be deployed within Singapore, using both locally controlled AI data centres for inference and integration with sensitive national datasets. This hybrid approach balances cost-effectiveness with security, ensuring that Singapore has full control over critical AI decision-making or minimising infrastructure investment.

Building a national AI system, finetuned for Singapore's values, is not just an option. It is essential. AI-driven governance and business processes will increasingly shape regulatory frameworks, public sector efficiency, and economic development. Moreover, as we integrate AI-enabled e-businesses from global providers, our national AI can also act as a check and balance, ensuring that externally sourced AI solutions do not introduce misaligned incentives or governance risks.

Beyond our national interests, developing expertise in AI alignment will also enable and allow Singapore to influence global AI governance. AI will eventually be embedded into international decision-making processes, from global trade regulations to maritime and air traffic systems. By establishing a strong foundation in AI alignment, Singapore can contribute to the development of ethical AI standards globally, shaping the rules that govern AI at the international level. Additionally, this expertise will enhance Singapore's attractiveness as a hub for AI research and development, regulatory alignment services and business continuity planning (BCP) for global AI firms, such as OpenAI and Anthropic.

Let me now conclude. Our policies must strike the right balance between preserving what works, improving what is necessary and embracing what is possible. In housing, we must ensure that affordability for young families do not come at the expense of existing homeowners' financial security. In ageing, we must move beyond infrastructure and rethink care models that empower seniors to live independently with dignity, even in private estates. And in AI, we must act decisively to develop a sovereign AI system that serves Singapore's interests while ensuring alignment with our values, security needs and our ability to shape the world. The choices we make today will define whether Singapore remains a beacon of stability, innovation and inclusiveness in the decades ahead. With that, I stand in support of the Budget.

Ms Hazel Poa.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2025 continues to help Singaporeans deal with rising cost of living through vouchers. While many Singaporeans will welcome the $600 or $800 SG60 Vouchers and additional $800 CDC Vouchers, they are not enough to help Singaporeans in the long-term or solve Singapore's structural economic issues. These vouchers and credits are ad hoc benefits given out by the Government. They are dependent on the availability of surplus collection of tax revenues and at the discretion of the government of the day.

Older Singaporeans may remember the $2.6 billion Progress Package in 2006 and the $3.2 billion Grow and Share Package in 2011, before the General Elections in those years. We have gone from Growth Dividends every few years to CDC Vouchers seemingly every year. It would be unhealthy if Singaporeans become increasingly reliant on these ad hoc gifts to manage rising costs.

In contrast, PSP has proposed a package of systemic measures to reduce cost of living. Our policies are structural and not ad hoc. They are intended to empower Singaporeans and allow Singaporeans to achieve as much financial independence as possible on their own, without being dependent on ad hoc handouts from the Government. PSP's policy proposals are also based on a better balance of social and economic considerations, unlike PAP's current policies, which are too heavy on economic considerations. Let me provide some examples to explain.

The PAP's current policy of transferring the full market cost of land used for HDB flats into the reserves is based on economic considerations. But this places a heavy burden on Singaporeans because the land cost must be recovered from Singaporeans through the cost of flats or additional taxes.

PSP's proposed Affordable Homes Scheme will price new HDB flats to recover only the construction cost but not the land cost at first purchase. Flat buyers only need to pay the land cost upon selling it in the resale market. This places a greater emphasis on social considerations of keeping housing more affordable for Singaporeans. By doing this, we are also empowering Singaporeans to have the financial resources to achieve their dreams, instead of chaining them to 30-year mortgages that are increasingly unaffordable. My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, will speak more on housing later.

Earlier, Mr Henry Kwek has said that PSP's Affordable Homes Scheme has the potential to destabilise the resale market. Perhaps, he does not understand our proposal well. We have already explained repeatedly that under our scheme, when the flats are resold, the owners will have to repay the land cost with interest. So, it is not going to crush the resale market. And in any case, since resale prices have increased by 50% since the last General Elections, far outpacing general inflation or wage increases despite the cooling measures that have been implemented, does the Member not think that the resale market needs some dampening?

Another example is hawker rents. The Government's policy of setting rent based on the highest bid is purely based on economic considerations. But this policy has consequences on food prices. That is why PSP has advocated for a fixed rental system of $500 per month or 3% of the hawker's gross turnover per month. This places more weight on social considerations of keeping food prices lower for Singaporeans. Our proposal is a structural change to lower cost of living. In contrast, Budget 2025 provided a one-time rental support of $600.

Finally, the current policy of awarding Certificate of Entitlement (COEs) to the highest bidder is also purely based on economic considerations. PSP has proposed a new system that incorporates needs factors with bidding, so that those who have greater needs for a car will have a better chance of obtaining one and can do so at a lower cost. This, again, better balances social and economic considerations.

Another contributor to higher cost of living is the raising of GST from 7% to 9% in 2023 and 2024, at a time when Singaporeans were hit with high inflation. PSP has long proposed to either maintain GST at 7% or to reduce GST from 9% to 7%. We believe that any additional revenue required for higher social expenditures can be raised from reforming the corporate income tax.

We have stated before, in my Budget speech in 2023, that under our current corporate income tax regime, companies with the highest profits actually pay the lowest percentage of their profits in corporate income tax. This is inequitable.

The global agreement on a minimum effective tax rate for large multinational enterprises has compelled us to adjust the taxes on the largest companies. We hope that it will not be affected by the US President’s Executive Order that has no force and effect in the US. Even under this agreement, many companies are not covered, because it applies only to very large companies with a group revenue of at least €750 million annually. Adjustments will still need to be made to make our corporate tax regime to make it more progressive and equitable. Corporate income tax reform would allow us to reduce GST, which is a regressive tax, even though the Government says that the GST Voucher scheme makes it not regressive.

The Government has said on many occasions that the tax revenue from different sources all go into the same Consolidated Fund, from which all expenditures are then paid for. We do not designate specific revenue streams for specific purposes. So, there is nothing linking the GST to the GST Voucher scheme. The vouchers can still be paid for even if we raise the additional revenue for it by increasing corporate income tax on the most profitable companies, instead of by raising GST. This will make our tax system even more progressive.

The Government's $6.4 billion surplus for FY2024/2025 and the expected $6.8 billion surplus for the next FY further underlines that there was no necessity to raise GST from 7% to 9% Let us also not forget that larger surpluses that go into the reserves mean bigger cost burdens on taxpayers when the Government collects more than is needed to spend on public programmes.

Finally, I wish to touch on the Large Families Scheme introduced to support married couples who have, or aspire to have, three or more children. The Government has said that this scheme is not intended to incentivise more couples to have three or more children, and, drawing from past experience when large baby bonuses have failed to raise the TFR, PSP also believes that it will not.

What we need are structural changes to incentivise employers to be more family-friendly and to create better work-life balance so that Singaporeans have more time to find life partners and to raise families. What we need is to move the needle for those who want children but do not currently feel ready or that they have sufficient resources to have children. PSP has previously urged the Government to introduce incentives to family-friendly employers. We will pursue this further during the COS debates.

Today, we would like to make two new proposals to improve Singaporeans' work-life balance, by increasing the number of public holidays and enacting the right of workers to disconnect.

The number of public holidays in Singapore has remained unchanged since 1968, when the Government reduced the number of public holidays from 16 to 11 to improve Singapore's competitiveness. Since then, Singaporeans have worked hard and our nation has prospered. Now, we face new problems, such as a lack of work-life balance and overwork that are impacting family formation.

PSP proposes to increase the number of public holidays from 11 to 14, with one additional holiday for each of the three major races in Singapore. The exact holidays should be determined in consultation with each community, but we can consider the possibilities of observing Chinese New Year's Eve, the second day of Hari Raya Puasa and Thaipusam as public holidays. With the increased 14 days of public holidays, it will still be in line with the norms in the region and globally.

Next, PSP would like to lend its support for "right to disconnect" legislation to be progressively implemented in Singapore. Workers in Singapore already work very long hours compared to others around the world, but this may not even include time spent at home responding to work-related texts or emails, which prevent workers from spending quality time with their families. We can first introduce the "right to disconnect" legislation for employees who are on paid leave and eventually extend to the "right to disconnect" between 7.00 pm and 7.00 am or outside the normal working hours of the employee. These would allow employers and employees to adjust to these new workplace norms. We can also do more to create work environments that are friendly to parents, especially single parents, and improve childcare arrangements. Mr Leong Mun Wai will speak more on this during his speech.

These changes also need to be coupled with changes to the education system to reduce the stress and competition for students and parents. I will speak more on this during the COS debates. Mr Speaker, Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, this year's Budget continues to use vouchers to help Singaporeans cope with rising costs of living. While these vouchers can provide short-term relief, they cannot offer long-term assistance nor address structural cost issues. As Singaporeans become increasingly dependent on these temporary benefits, it would not be a healthy trend. Vouchers are not a sustainable solution. The Prime Minister said that the Budget would help Singaporeans cope with living costs, but the result has fallen short of people’s raised expectations.

In contrast, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has proposed a series of structural measures to reduce cost. Our policies consider not just economic factors but also carefully weighed social factors. These policies aim to enable Singaporeans to achieve economic independence rather than creating dependency on temporary Government subsidies. For instance, regarding public housing, PSP has proposed the Affordable Homes Scheme, where new HDB flats will be priced at construction cost only, excluding land cost. Compared to PAP's policies, we are more concerned about whether Singaporeans can afford their HDB flats. The Affordable Homes Scheme would also give Singaporeans more financial resources to pursue their dreams rather than letting a 30-year mortgage become a lifelong burden. PSP has also proposed reducing hawker stalls' rentals to lower food prices at hawker centres, reducing GST to 7% and having the Government pay for healthcare insurance to reduce the burden of medical expenses on citizens. These are long-term measures based on social considerations, not one-off solutions.

We also need more structural changes to create a more family-friendly environment for citizens. To help Singaporeans better balance life and work, PSP proposes legislating the Right to Disconnect, giving citizens the right not to respond to work-related messages and emails. PSP also proposes increasing public holidays from 11 to 14 days. While the Government can discuss with various ethnic groups which specific holidays to add, PSP suggests considering Chinese New Year's eve, the day after Hari Raya Puasa and Thaipusam.

(In English): Mr Speaker Sir, PSP believes that our cost of living issues should be addressed through structural policy changes, of which we have proposed several, rather than the band-aid approach of ad hoc gifts and handouts. Notwithstanding our reservations, PSP will support the Budget because short-term assistance is necessary for Singaporeans to cope with the rising cost of living, until structural changes are implemented.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we round out this term of Government, I have taken stock of the support provided to Singaporeans over the years, with a longer-term holistic view on various schemes and programmes.

In my speech on last year’s Budget, I had appealed for more support for the sandwich generation, whom I referred to as the group that is providing for the care and expenses of children and elderly parents, while having to plan and prepare for their own retirement needs.

I am heartened to note that in the year since then, and in this year’s Budget, we have seen additional support for large families, and subsidies and grants for the caring of our elderly. We celebrate the amount of support given, but we must recognise that some of our families continue to be under significant financial strain as they navigate higher costs of living and a challenging job market globally. While assistance has been provided, much more remains to be done and I hope that our Government can continue to focus on addressing this issue in this current term and successive terms of Government.

Today, I would like to propose several specific and actionable recommendations that have yet to be fully implemented to ease the financial and non-financial burdens on the sandwiched group.

First, caregiver support beyond tax reliefs. Currently, we have tax reliefs in place for those who support their parents at home and I am fully supportive of the enhanced Home Caregiving Grant which provides direct cash support of up to $600 per month. I also see that we have increased subsidies for residential long-term care services as well as home and community long-term care services.

The maximum household income per capita has also been raised to $4,800. However, there are instances where the elderly are not staying with their children and grandchildren, and yet the working children are still providing for their elderly parents. Since we have a staggered approach for subsidies by per capita household income, can we also continue to provide some level of support for those earning per capita household income above $4,800? Otherwise, can we ensure that parents or grandparents who are dependents but have a different residential address be included in the computation of per capita household income for such subsidies?

The MediSave top-ups for large families are very much welcome. I hope that the Government can also consider additional MediSave top-ups for large families not simply because they have more children, but also if they have elderly dependents. Since October last year, MediSave funds could already be used for home medical and nursing providers supported by the Ministry of Health (MOH). I look forward to the early extension of MediSave funds to cover a greater variety of caregiving-related costs such as private home and nursing care providers, respite care and other home care costs like adult diapers and other related items. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Medisave top-ups for large families are very much welcomed. I hope that we can also consider additional Medisave top-ups for large families, not simply because they have more children, but also if they have elderly dependents. Since October last year, Medisave funds could already be used for home medical and nursing providers supported by MOH. I look forward to the early extension of Medisave funds to cover a greater variety of caregiving-related costs, such as private home and nursing care providers, respite care and other home care costs, like adult diapers and other related items.

(In English): Second, the transportation needs of middle-income families. The cost of private transportation in Singapore is relatively high and families with young children are worried about the safety of their kids on public transportation. While there are already subsidies for low-income groups, middle-income families face challenges in covering daily transport costs in a safe and sustainable manner. We have also seen how school bus fares have increased the past few years, and school bus operators continue to struggle with manpower and cost pressures as well.

I would therefore like to propose a targeted transportation subsidy scheme for middle-income families, especially to partly subsidise school bus fares.

Third, a comfortable living environment for all. Over the years, there have been steps taken to improve the support given to residents living in private estates. However, we must also recognise that the property tax hikes have also affected some of these residents, especially the retirees who are living in their own homes and did not rent them out. I hope that there will be continued and frequent reviews of our property tax regime to ensure that it remains equitable and sustainable, especially for groups that do not necessarily have the cash resources to afford taxes in the long run.

There are 32 private estates in Singapore who will have new or improved facilities, such as new recreational spaces, wheelchair-accessible ramps and estate markers in the next five years under the Estate Upgrading Programme. While this is very encouraging, there are private estates in my Henderson Dawson Division that will also require works to be done as the population in our estates continue to age rapidly as well. Therefore, I hope that the Government can consider extending senior-friendly works to all private estates around Singapore as well.

For HDB estates, I would also like to shine the spotlight on HDB flats nearing or above 40 years, which would require more extensive estate upgrading or maintenance works. Could the Government consider offering the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme on an accelerated timeline for these flats, or additional support to help ensure that the infrastructure of these flats remain liveable for our residents?

The Government needs to continue looking after the needs of our sandwiched group, given that their very specific financial circumstances are addressed with targeted, meaningful solutions. These proposed initiatives are designed to provide both immediate and long-term relief, ensuring that no family is left behind as the cost of living continues to rise.

By introducing comprehensive caregiver relief, enhancing transportation subsidies and improving their living environment, we can create a Singapore where our sandwiched families are empowered to thrive, rather than being left behind due to the pressures of daily life. Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Budget 2025 that is a Budget for all Singaporeans and a Budget for the future. Since last week, after the Prime Minister delivered the Budget Speech, I have heard and seen many Singaporeans comment that it is "more of the same" – distributing more vouchers, investing in research and development (R&D) and upskilling our workforce.

In some ways, I beg to differ. I think Member Liang Eng Hwa has laid out in detail earlier, measures and efforts, which are extensive in this current Budget and not to forget past Budgets which are still ongoing, in helping our residents and helping Singaporeans.

But "more of the same" is not a bad thing. It means our Government is not going to take short-term and populist stances just for special events happening this year. More importantly, it means our approach is working and achieving its aims. Income inequality is at its lowest since 2000 and we achieved better-than-expected economic growth of 4.4% last year.

But one thing that is clear is that the global environment is different and fast-changing. Trump 2.0 has just kicked off and many asset managers and funds are already predicting more volatility and turbulence ahead.

The first area, Mr Speaker, I would like to speak on is attracting investments and good jobs to Singapore. This is key to a small and resource-lite country that we are. Even as we debated our unexpectedly high corporate income tax collections on several occasions last year, and I am sure this year, some Members will raise this, there is little disagreement that we cannot take it for granted that corporates will always choose to stay in Singapore and not move somewhere else. As global supply chains shift in the wake of the pandemic and geopolitical tensions, we are also seeing de-globalisation as countries seek to secure their resources and protect domestic jobs.

With that backdrop, countries are competing more aggressively to attract investments and multinational companies (MNCs) to set up operations and bases. We cannot afford to lose ground. According to the Economic Development Board's Year-in-Review 2024 statistics on commitments to invest into Singapore, we are seeing falls across the projected contribution of value-added per annum, the number of jobs expected to be created and total business expenditure per annum.

While Amazon Web Services and pharma giant AstraZeneca have announced major investment commitments into Singapore, other MNCs, like Dyson, Samsung Electronics, Shein and Electrolux, have either scaled down or shut down their Singapore operations. Given the evolving changes in the global economic, business and political environment, the question I have is whether we have performed an in-depth study of the impact of specific factors on a company's decision to reduce or completely remove its presence in Singapore. This falls back to the volatility of corporate tax revenue going forward as well.

So, the general points are well-known and often repeated – that Singapore cannot afford to compete on cost, that we need to focus on value-add and that our attractiveness lies in our political stability and the rule of law. But from industry-to-industry or company-to-company, do we have the mechanisms to study the particular factors that are causing a company to "offshore" its functions from Singapore to another country?

The risk is always there. Think of it as an "exit interview" for a departing employee. We should take the chance to learn what did not go well, what we can do better and whether there will be further opportunities to collaborate again in the future.

Second, besides doing reflections after the fact, we should also think forward and rationalise our existing investment attraction toolkit. I had raised this when we debated the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill in November 2024. The Minister of State Mr Alvin Tan responded that both the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and MOF have been continuously refreshing our incentive toolkits to ensure relevance and competitiveness, and updating legislation under their purview as required. On top of incrementally adding, tweaking and removing specific incentive schemes, is it time for a holistic rethink of our investment attraction toolkit and how they fit together to achieve our strategic objectives and which Ministry should take the lead in such an effort?

This is all the more the case when we have recently passed relevant measures that are based on OECD's BEPS 2.0 rules. In light of President Donald Trump's Executive Order on 20 January 2025 withdrawing the US from the BEPS 2.0 consensus, how will Singapore respond?

In view of our recent moves to implement BEPS 2.0, the 50% corporate income tax rebate announced by the Prime Minister is a positive surprise. Nonetheless, would such rebates be BEPS 2.0-compliant? If not, I would have thought that corporates in Singapore should be conditioned to accept and understand that large corporate tax breaks are a thing of the past.

Third, I was hoping to see plans to accelerate novel growth pillars in Budget 2025, such as cybersecurity or AI, and possibly, these might be discussed during the COS debate. But I use these examples because I believe they are horizontals which have the potential to shake up different industries with their development and deployment.

What concrete programmes or schemes are we going to push out to further the 15 Actions and 10 Enablers in our National AI Strategy 2.0? What is the Government's assessment of our businesses' uptake of AI presently, especially our SMEs? And whether the Government play a greater role in facilitating our Singaporean businesses' AI transformation, as I believe it would be a massive gamechanger in the years ahead. I am sure the Prime Minister cannot mention all of that in his Budget Statement and I look forward to the COS debate from the different Ministries on this.

Fourth, the continued emphasis on worker upskilling and reskilling will certainly boost our attractiveness as a hub to do business. There are some concerns in this House whether the OECD's Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) flagged a significant decline in literacy after the age of 35, from the Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who were surveyed. It is a good idea to redesign the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit to operate like an online wallet, so that companies can use the credits to immediately offset staff training costs rather than do so on a reimbursement basis. While not exactly similar, I think of this like the LifeSG credits, which can now be used through PayNow to shops and vendors directly.

Is there scope to do something similar to make it even easier for individual Singaporeans to utilise their SkillsFuture credits? In response to a PQ last month, Minister Chan Chun Sing shared that only about 26% of eligible Singaporeans have used their one-off SkillsFuture Credit top-up of $500, even though the top-up was given in 2020 and expires by the end of this year. Have any surveys been done to study why Singaporeans are not utilising these training benefits which the Government has given to them?

Mr Speaker, the second part of my speech is on helping families with dependents, such as elderly parents. And I would like to thank the Prime Minister and MOF for the Budget measures to help families in general. But in particular, families, middle-income families with dependents, such as elderly parents. Families are the building blocks of our society as well as an individual's closest support net.

Based on the Department of Statistics' 2024 data, at least 51.7% of resident households comprise children staying together with their parents or parent. This does not include "other" household living arrangements, such as a divorcee living with elderly parents only. When I was preparing this speech, it was also difficult to find the number of households with other dependents, such a person with special needs. Based on the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore's (IRAS') data on dependent reliefs claimed, how many resident households have dependents, such as elderly parents, minor children and persons with special needs? These are important, as if there are a significant number of families with these dependents, the increasing need for financial help to them might be important.

As they do their best to support their family members, it is only right that we provide them with whatever support that we can. At a Budget dialogue I attended last year, interestingly, there were a number of questions and feedback requesting for help for working adult children taking care of their elderly parents and whether more help can be done to help them – the sandwich class, middle-class, who are also living with their parents.

So, Budget 2025 provides support for families and even more for vulnerable families, and I am very thankful for that. I share the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) and Minister Indranee’s hope that the Large Families Scheme will encourage more Singaporeans to have three or more children and bring our Total Fertility Rate up from 0.

97. My three children are way older than six years old now, but even without enjoying the Large Families Scheme benefits, the joy and fulfilment brought by my kids to my life have been immeasurable and irreplaceable.

But I have also heard from some parents with young kids who have expressed some disappointment because they were expecting more help. While I would explain that the Government cannot cover all child-raising expenses, and that there are more affordable children's programmes compared to others, I do see their point in the message that we are sending across. Do we risk looking out of touch for thinking that amounts newly offered would be sufficient to move the needle or are we interested in getting only the married couples who would like, but cannot afford, to have a third child to do so?

Ultimately, as this House has heard in a Motion filed by my fellow PAP colleagues, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Zhulkarnain, promoting parenthood is a multifaceted endeavour. We should, therefore, work continuously to address the various issues that are currently discouraging our people from having children or from having more children. But besides financial support, perhaps one area that the Government can facilitate more is in creating a family-friendly environment at work and, like I mentioned earlier, the feedback from the Budget dialogue last year, could we, perhaps, look at increasing parental leave and family care leave for working, adult caregivers?

As our Baby Boomers age and health issues emerge, working children and caregivers would need more family care leave to send their elderly parents for medical visits, health checkups and emergency health needs. So, I understand that policies for additional parental leave to care for children who are not newly-born can vary greatly from company to company, but such parental leave will not only allow for working parents to bring their children to the doctors when they are sick, but it can also provide time for working parents to attend at preschool events and celebrations, or just to spend meaningful time with their children or parents during official school holidays and for emergency needs, for example.

Another area which will alleviate the burden on working caregivers is flexible work arrangements (FWAs). So, since the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests were launched in April 2024, how many complaints has the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received regarding employers who are not complying with the guidelines? What is the next step for us to strengthen the regime and set some standards on flexi-time, flexi-load or flexi-place arrangements that employers must offer?

Mr Speaker, my third area would be to touch on retirement adequacy, and I have raised this for the past four Budget speeches that I have highlighted. It is the third consecutive Budget debate in which I focus on this issue, given the extraordinary inflationary environment in recent years, which has diluted Singapore's nest eggs and I have been hearing concerns.

So, Mr Speaker, I will do this in Malay and not English. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With an ageing population, it is important that our workers today are able to take care of themselves when they eventually retire. We try to achieve this aim through the CPF system, which is recognised as one of the top pension systems in the world.

In recent years, there has been increasing concerns over whether our retirement savings will be enough. The pandemic and other global issues are causing our daily costs to keep rising. A mee soto that cost $2.50 just five years ago, costs $4.00 today. So, we must protect ourselves against more inflationary pressures ahead.

Last year’s Budget contained several measures to boost our seniors’ CPF savings. We enhanced the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) for Singaporeans aged 55 and above. The Government also provided bonuses through the Majulah Package.

How effective have these measures been in ensuring that our seniors’ long-term needs are taken care of? What criteria was used to assess the state of retirement adequacy of each senior, and of our society as a whole? For example, it may be useful to find out if the MRSS’ utilisation rate has improved and whether more families are taking advantage of such dollar-for-dollar Government support.

In contrast, Budget 2025 does not seem to announce any specific measure to boost the CPF or retirement funds of seniors. But I am also looking forward to the discussions during COS debates, for instance, for MOM. Given the long-term inflation outlook and the fact that market interest rates continue to be above 2%, how can we enhance the CPF LIFE Escalating Plan, which increases payouts by 2% annually?

At the same time, we must continue encouraging and facilitating seniors to stay employed longer. This requires a change in mindset. Instead of looking forward to retiring at 55 years old, Singaporeans will need to see the value of staying active and be a contributing member of society, amid increased life expectancies of 80.7 years old for men and 85.2 years old for women.

The Senior Employment Credit and the increased senior worker CPF contribution rates will help. But as I had suggested during the debate of the Workplace Fairness Bill last month, we must go beyond anti-age discrimination to provide positive reasons for employers to employ seniors. What is being done on this front in engaging employers or otherwise?

May I also ask whether there are any concrete timelines for the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment, which Annex D-3 to the Budget speech says, “MOM will convene later this year”? When will the workgroup be expected to come back with their recommendations and when will public consultations be held? Are there general time periods where we can expect such progress?

(In English): So, I mentioned earlier about the retirement adequacy in Malay, but I think it is a very important topic for Singaporeans at large going forward, especially with the rising cost and also the longer age that we might achieve because of health improvements.

A final point I just want to highlight is to address social equity and social mobility and on the cost-of-living support in Budget 2025. I have received feedback asking why this is being given to all Singaporeans and not just the less well-to-do, like in previous Budgets. Members in the first few earlier speeches, including the Leader of the Opposition, mentioned this. The suggestion seems to be that we are taking a step backward in making Singapore a more equal society. But we must not forget that costs are rising for everyone, not just lower-income groups. Middle-income households also need help. Ultimately, it is not a zero-sum game.

It is not true that every dollar that we take from upper- or middle-income households will, otherwise, have automatically gone to a lower-income household. That is too simplistic. We also should not ignore all other programmes that are aimed at helping lower-income groups. Just in Budget 2025 alone, there is the tiered U-Save utility support as well as the Progressive Wage Credit scheme that we are enhancing. There is also ComCare, for which I thank the Prime Minister for raising the financial assistance amounts from April 2025. Anyone who has been involved in constituency or community work would know the important role that ComCare plays in taking care of those in need around us. So, may I ask how often are the financial assistance amounts reviewed and how is the quantum of the upcoming increase determined?

For ex-offenders, another area that the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech, who are another group of Singaporeans that Budget 2025 seeks to uplift, the extension of the uplifting employment credit to end-2028 is a welcome announcement. I thank the Prime Minister for that and look forward to hearing more about our plans at MOM's COS.

How much has the Uplifting Employment Credit been tapped on since it was introduced in Budget 2023? Besides tracking the number of ex-offenders who have benefited from the uplifting employment credit, do we also track how long each individual manages to stay in employment? In assessing the success of the scheme, we should also consider how many of these individuals managed to progress in their employment, securing higher roles and even better jobs. What else can we do to help ex-offenders secure good and suitable jobs beyond the Yellow Ribbon Project's employment assistance?

And since I am on the topic of leaving no one behind, there is one other group which is not mentioned as often, that is, Singaporeans working and living abroad. They are Singaporeans as much as you and me and, this year, being election year, essentially, many of them will travel distances and even across states to exercise their Citizens' right to vote. Whereas many of us here would just need to cross the road from our home to a nearby school or HDB block to do so, but because they might not have an address in Singapore, they may not be able to get many of the vouchers, rebates and other benefits that are given to Singaporeans in Budget 2025.

One avenue where we can include them is to extend the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme to Singaporeans working overseas. A resident has recently informed me that Workforce Singapore had told him that overseas Singaporeans will not be eligible for monetary help under the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme because one of the requirements is that you had to be previously employed in Singapore for at least six of the past 12 months.

If we would like more younger Singaporeans to dare to venture abroad to build Singapore's competitiveness in the longer term, we should extend the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support to cover the more than 200,000 overseas Singaporeans. This will provide them with the protection we think Singaporeans deserve in the event of overseas layoffs.

My final point, Mr Speaker, before I end, is on the point of inflation and the cost of living. And I have highlighted this in same part as social equity and being equitable across all groups.

Earlier, Members have highlighted and many of those outside this Chamber have also raised the point about inflation and the cost of living. And I think some Members here today have highlighted that as well about inflation being turbocharged due to GST and the question is whether that has actually raised concerns about whether that will continue to have an impact on the cost of living.

I do note that point. The cost of living is a major concern —

Mr Saktiandi, you have a minute left. Just wrap up.

— but inflation being impacted by GST, been turbocharged, may not be a fair point in general. Because inflation went up in Singapore, like all other countries, due to other things, like war and supply chain disruptions. Inflation at its peak was not as high in Singapore as compared to many other countries in the region or even globally.

In fact, in a PQ on 6 February 2024 which Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa had raised, the response highlighted that GST rate increase is estimated to contribute only slightly less than one percentage point to core inflation. There are other factors, such as high electricity and gas tariffs which are due to increase in oil prices, as well as production costs.

So, I just want to highlight that point in general about the impact of GST on inflation, but there are other factors beyond GST and GST impact is quite slight.

Mr Speaker, to end off, the world has become more uncertain. It looks to continue down that path. Geopolitical tensions continue to be unresolved. Global supply chains are shifting as countries seek to protect their supply chain resilience as well as their domestic economy and priorities.

But despite all that uncertainty, Budget 2025 demonstrates consistency – consistency with past Budgets to continue the good work we have done to bring an unexpected level of growth amid our lowest level of income inequality since the turn of the century; consistency with our ideals as identified in the Forward Singapore exercise to help involuntarily-unemployed jobseekers bounce back stronger, supporting families and seniors, empowering and uplifting those in need; and consistency in our Government philosophy that the long-term interests of Singaporeans must remain the key priority regardless of how the upcoming General Election will turn out. That is why I support Budget 2025.

Mr Darryl David.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget 2025 debate is taking place amid some truly tumultuous times around the world.

In the last 12 months, right-wing and ultra conservative movements have made significant in-roads worldwide, with Europe bearing the brunt of the surge in such right-wing politics. The Parliaments of several European countries are now held together by shaky coalitions that could fragment at any moment due to the fundamental differences that the coalition partners have with each other.

Societies are also fraying, often due to tensions between immigrants and locals over access to economic opportunities and differing ways of life. Countries that could not transform their economies and workforces are struggling with persistently high structural and non-structural unemployment, with unemployment and underemployment among youths being particularly worrisome. Topping all this off is a capricious and less-dependent USA with mercurial policies that could sometimes leave the rest of the world scrambling for a response.

Sir, these are not alarmist statements, but rather the reality that many countries, Singapore included, is facing. If left unchecked, each of these issues could easily derail a country from its trajectory, potentially plunging it into an irrevocable slippery slope.

I started off this speech with reference to the global landscape because, in today's increasingly fragmented world, only good policies and good politics will ensure that we continue to thrive.

Singapore's economy and social compositions are more complex today than 60 years ago. Of course, cost of living is a significant and righting concern for many Singaporeans, as with many aspects of our lives, like job security, raising a family, living a dignified life, retirement adequacy, inclusivity and so on. While many of these are "wicked" problems that do not have easy solutions, this year's Budget, I am heartened to say, has, to a significant extent, tried to tackle these challenges, especially the cost of living and helping our Singaporeans.

The Budget has been lauded by many as a generous one that not only provides relief to alleviate immediate cost of living concerns of Singaporeans, but also one that aims to transform Singapore's economy in the longer run by nudging businesses to innovate and individuals to continue to embrace lifelong learning and upskilling.

I would like to speak now about elevating our workforce, Sir. In this era where technological breakthroughs are occurring at an unprecedented pace and countries are trying to outdo each other to incubate the next tech unicorn or to develop the next global company, we need to continue to motivate Singaporeans to strive to be the best versions of ourselves and to inspire Singaporeans to chase their dreams both locally and on the global stage.

I laud the Government's effort to support our local companies to innovate, as well as the range of schemes that have been put in place to support our workforce, especially lower-skilled workers and workers whose jobs are facing disruptions, to upgrade and upskill themselves.

Amid implementing these schemes, I hope that the Government can consolidate our efforts to nurture Singaporeans to not just be the best versions of themselves as workers but also to be global leaders. I believe that Singapore's future success depends on a bifurcate workforce strategy, comprising renewing the skills of our local workforce so that we are the most competitive, the most educated, well-skilled and productive workforce in the region. But at the same time, I hope that the Government will not neglect the efforts to nurture and develop Singaporeans with the potential to lead. I would like the Government to consider introducing a more programmatic approach on a national and international level to provide Singaporeans with the exposure and training that they need to step up to be global leaders.

Ultimately, we do not want Singaporeans to known only as good workers, but also good global leaders as well. And the dividend of the bifurcation strategy will take years to realise, I understand that. But it will certainly pay off in the longer run when we have an ambidextrous workforce that is not only hungry, capable and competitive, but also excels in leadership and leading.

I would like to talk also, Mr Speaker, Sir, on SkillsFuture. It has been a decade since SkillsFuture was introduced. Today, there are thousands of SkillsFuture and micro-credential courses offered by training providers and a plethora of funding schemes that Singaporeans can leverage on in their skill acquisition journey. But while this is good, my question is: how strongly are the SkillsFuture and micro-credential courses driving employment outcomes, especially for mid-career and senior Singaporeans? How do these courses translate into tangible employment benefits like job growth, career transitions and wage growth?

SkillsFuture was introduced with the noble intent to support workforce transformation and was designed to encourage Singaporeans to embrace lifelong learning and acquire new skills so that they can continue to be relevant in emerging industries. The intent of the programme must and should rightly remain so. The programme must therefore never be reduced to a numbers game where the focus is on introducing as many courses as possible so that Singaporeans have a wide range of courses when it comes to upskilling. But neither should it be seen as an avenue for some to turn a quick profit by cashing in on the Government's funding.

Mr Speaker, I hope that the Government can share more information on the efficacy of the SkillsFuture programme in supporting career growth, and whether the various jobs-related schemes have led to actual and tangible career outcomes. In the same scheme, I would like to know whether SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) has conducted audits on the courses offered to find out their correlation with tangible employment outcomes. Would SSG thus consider tightening the number and the genres of courses offered and deregister courses that do not lead to strong employment outcomes?

And lastly, apart from what Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) is currently doing, are there specific programmes to support long-term unemployed individuals or those who have chosen to take a break from the full-time employment to get back to work?

Sir, Singapore celebrates SG60 this year. It is a wonderful accomplishment for us to come this far. But while we bask in a general mood of celebrations, let us not forget that there are dark clouds gathering on our horizon and take heed that SG60 did not happen because it is meant to happen, but rather, it happened because we, collectively, as a country made it happen.

SG60 belongs to all Singaporeans, past and present, and to everyone who has, in their own way, made this happen. I hope that Singapore will continue to defy the odds, thrive in this age of uncertainty and be an exemplar of how a country can stand united, with every member of the society being given the support and opportunity to succeed, regardless of our station in life. I thus end my speech in firm support of the Budget, Sir.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today in full support of the Budget and wholeheartedly echo the Prime Minister's call for Singapore to become a more inclusive society. When our nation was young, our priorities were clear and urgent: grow the economy, create jobs and ensure every Singaporean had a chance to thrive. And 60 years ago, in 1965, unemployment rate stood at a staggering 10%. Today, thanks to decades of hard work and sound policies, unemployment has fallen to less than 3% and our median household income has risen to $11,297. This is a testament to our collective resilience and determination.

Yet, as we celebrate these achievements, we must also recognise that not everyone has benefited equally. While the majority of Singaporeans have seen their lives improve, there are still those at risk of being left behind. This is why I am heartened to see our Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, reach a new low after Government transfers. This is a healthy sign, but it is not enough. We must do more, especially for those who need our help the most: people with special needs (PSN).

Some may refer to this group as people with disabilities, but I prefer the term "people with special needs" because it reflects their unique challenges and extraordinary potential. Over a decade ago, I had the privilege of being involved in the Enabling Master Plan 2 and 3, initiatives aimed at improving the lives of PSN from cradle to grave. Since then, we have made significant progress. Special Education (SPED) schools, for instance, are no longer run as charities but are now well-funded by the Ministry of Education (MOE). This means these schools can focus on what truly matters: providing quality education and improving outcomes for PSN.

Today, the focus has shifted to employment outcomes for PSN. I am proud to share that my son, who has special needs, has been able to work part-time in a factory – thanks to the School-to-Work Transition Programme run by the Enabling Village. In recent years, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has developed the Enabling Master Plan 2030, effectively implemented by its Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Eric Chua. I am also grateful that Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has agreed to extend the Enabling Employment Credit to the end of 2028, ensuring employers continue to receive wage offsets for hiring PSN.

But while we celebrate these milestones, we must not forget the unsung heroes in this journey: the caregivers. As a parent of a child with special needs, I know first-hand that caring for a PSN is a lifelong mission. It is not easy. When a PSN behaves differently in public, bystanders often rush to judge, blaming the parents for a lack of discipline, unaware of the immense challenges that they face. This is why it is crucial to provide caregivers with the support they need, whether it is connecting them to resources, offering emotional support or providing respite care.

In Nanyang, we have taken a step in this direction with Project Purple Heart, inspired by the Purple Parade. This initiative brings together caregivers of family members with special needs. Our early sessions were emotional as caregivers candidly shared their struggles. But as we connected them to resources and to one another, a strong support network emerged. Today, we have about 60 caregivers in our network and we have renamed the initiative “Family of Purple Heart” to reflect our long-term commitment to their well-being. These caregivers meet monthly and stay connected through a WhatsApp group, offering each other tips, encouragement and emotional support.

Just last night, I received a message from one of the caregivers stating her concern on how her son with special needs can claim the SG60 vouchers as he would not be able to use it, the $600 vouchers, on his own. I hope MSF can look into this concern. One of the members of the Purple Heart, Mdm Sim, joined us recently. At 58, she cares for her 25-year-old daughter, who has Angelman Syndrome. Both Mdm Sim and her husband work as delivery personnel with low wages and they also have to support two younger daughters who are still studying. Life is tough for Mdm Sim, but through the Family of Purple Heart, she has found solace and strength in the company of others who understand her struggles.

Mdm Sim's story is not unique. There are countless caregivers across Singapore who are equally — who are also quietly bearing the weight of their responsibilities with little recognition or support. That is why I urge MSF to consider providing caregivers with a quarterly grant of $200, similar to the Silver Support Scheme, through LifeSG credits or otherwise. While this amount may seem modest, it would serve as a meaningful gesture of recognition and help ease the financial burden that many caregivers face.

Mr Speaker, now, let me turn to another pressing issue: residents living in HDB segmented units without direct lift access. About 30 years ago, when HDB built these segmented blocks, residents appreciated the privacy they offered. Back then, climbing stairs was not a problem. But today, as these residents age, mobility has become a significant challenge. What was once a prized feature has now become a source of frustration and hardship.

Last month, I met Mr and Mrs Chew. Mrs Chew, who has mobility issues, struggles to navigate steps, especially when going down. They stay in a segmented unit. They have tried multiple times to apply for a BTO flat but have been unsuccessful due to their status as second-time applicants. When Mrs Chew shared her story with me, she was on the verge of tears. I promised her then, as I have done year after year since becoming the MP for Nanyang, that I would raise this issue in Parliament once again. Mr and Mrs Chew are not alone. Many households staying in the 2,000 segmented units across 140 blocks in Singapore share similar hardships and challenges.

In Nanyang alone, there are 224 such units in 14 blocks. I urge HDB to explore the latest technology to install lifts in segmented blocks to relieve the pain of residents staying in these units. If technical or cost constraints prevent the construction of additional lifts, I propose the following solutions.

Firstly, allow owners to sell their segmented units back to HDB at the market value, ensuring they are not financially disadvantaged. Secondly, grant these owners priority when applying for HDB BTO flats, akin to the first-time applicants, to ease their transition. Thirdly, repurpose these segmented units by leasing them to workers through agencies like JTC, rather than reselling them and repeating the cycle again. Fourthly, provide cash assistance to owners of segmented units, with higher assistance for families with members who have physical disabilities, to help them relocate to flats with direct lift access. Last but not least, waive the resale levy, if applicable, when owners sell their segmented units to purchase a BTO flat with lift access to reduce their financial burden.

With over a million HDB flats in Singapore, almost all of which have direct lift access, it is only fair that we find a permanent solution for the residents still staying in these 2,000 segmented units. Let us not leave them behind. Let us make a bold decision to end their hardship and ensure that every Singaporean can age with dignity and ease.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong conveyed a clear message in the SG60 Budget. We will not forget any group, including persons with special needs (PSN). With this in mind, we established the Project Purple Hearts in Nanyang to provide support for residents who care for family members with special needs. We call them caregivers.

The hardships of caregivers are often difficult for outsiders to understand. To lighten their burden, I suggest MSF consider providing a quarterly grant of $200 to caregivers who hold a blue CHAS card, similar to the Silver Support Scheme. We could call this the “Caregiver Support Scheme” to express society's care and support for them.

Next, I would like to focus on the segmented HDB units, flats where residents cannot access the lift on the same floor. In Nanyang, 224 units face this issue. Taking Mdm Er for example, she has a seven-year-old child with special needs who has mobility difficulties, requiring her to carry him up and down the stairs. As the child grows and gains weight, Mdm Er is finding it increasingly difficult to manage. She thought of applying for a BTO flat but she knows it is not easy as she is not a first-time buyer, and she faces the pressure of paying the resale levy.

Mdm Er's predicament is not unique. Residents living in segmented units face similar challenges. Therefore, I urge HDB to utilise advance technologies wherever possible to install lifts which will allow residents to access them on the same floor.

If this is not feasible due to technical limitations or high costs, I hope MND could consider the following: (i) first, allow segmented unit owners to sell their units back to the Government at market price, ensuring they are not financially disadvantaged; (ii) second, grant these owners priority for BTO applications and waive the resale levy to reduce their financial burden; (iii) third, provide grants for owners who want to purchase new flats, with enhanced grants for families with members with mobility issues; and (iv) fourth, units bought back by the Government should not be resold to Singaporean or Permanent Residents. Instead, the Government can work with JTC to rent these units out to young foreign workers, preventing the problem from recurring.

Mr Speaker, the segmented unit issue has been around for years, affecting not just residents' quality of life but also their dignity and sense of well-being. I urge HDB to take bold steps to resolve this issue once and for all, so these residents no longer have to struggle with daily stair climbing.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, I urge this House to remember that progress is not just about numbers and statistics. It is about people, real people with real struggles, hopes and dreams. Let us continue to build a Singapore that leaves no one behind, a Singapore that is not only prosperous but also compassionate and inclusive.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, for my Budget debate speech this year, I will start with the issue of our ongoing efforts for green transition, as I have done in past years, followed by the issue of support for adults with disabilities before touching on a few issues relating to healthcare and support for our seniors.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister announced in his Budget speech that Singapore submitted our new climate target, that is, Singapore's 2035 nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the United Nations Framework two weeks ago and that we have committed to reducing our emissions to between 45 and 55 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035. The NDC is a concrete commitment we have made to the international process and I am glad that for the first time the Government has committed to a downward trajectory in the country's emissions after the plan peak in 2028.

On our latest NDC, I would like to ask how much our plan is currently aligned with the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degrees warming target. If it is not aligned, how much warming is our plan consistent with, that is, is it a two-degree warming world, three-degree warming world, or so on.

Second, can the Government clarify what is stopping us from bringing forward our transition even further? Is it possible to accelerate negotiations on renewable imports with our neighbours?

On transport, which I often speak on in this House, I hope the Government can incentivise a faster shift towards vehicle electrification for private vehicles, as well as to expedite the electrification of our public fleets, given that it has more direct control over it. A Straits Times article on 12 November 2024 reported that a number of public buses currently running on batteries have risen to 420, which is 7% of the current overall public bus fleet.

I have also previously spoken on my concern for the slower electrification of our logistics vehicles, including lorries and other heavy vehicles. I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement of a new Heavy Vehicle Zero Emission Scheme and an Electric Heavy Vehicle Charger Grant, providing incentives for the purchase of heavy vehicles and co-funding of charging infrastructure. I hope these incentives will help push the needle on heavy vehicle conversion. I look forward to Ministry of Transport's elaboration of these features and other clarifications during the COS.

Mr Speaker, in this Budget, about a year since its launch, the Prime Minister also doubled the Future Energy Fund to $10 billion. I would like the Government to explain how each disbursement is accelerating our energy transition as well as to give more details on the nature of projects that have been funded.

Thirdly, the NDC does not explain the proportion to which novel tools, such as carbon captured utilisation and storage and carbon credits, will contribute to the downward trend in emissions after 2028. To what extent will Singapore be relying on them? Is the Government's view that such tools will be as predictable as incentivising efficiency and emission reductions through higher carbon taxes from 2028 onwards?

On carbon capture, utilisation and storage, the responses to the public consultation on the NDC included concerns on the use of carbon capture and storage, which may not be fully proven and difficult to scale. Can the Government explain how it took into account feedback on the NDC from the public who are key stakeholders in this climate crisis?

Fifth, my understanding is that emissions from international aviation and shipping are not covered under our climate targets. Is there a timeline for when our targets will eventually cover these two sectors?

In this Budget, the Government will provide $5 billion more to the Changi Airport Development Fund, some of which would go to Terminal 5, which the Prime Minister has said that when completed, will increase our airport capacity by 50%. While Singaporeans may all look forward to our air hub expanding, the 50% increase in capacity will, if it goes according to plan, mean a staggering increase in flights and, consequently, aviation emissions. What are our Government's plans of cutting aviation emissions per plane seat so that we will not inadvertently be accelerating climate change with the increase in airport capacity and flights? How will our sustainable air hub blueprint be stepped up in the next few years to mitigate the increase in aviation emissions after T5 opens?

Mr Speaker, I have spoken previously on the green transition of our petrochemicals industry. Our linkages in the brown economy are still deep for now, even as we see in 2024 a significant sale by Shell of their assets in Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island. I would like to seek, once again, the Government's update on the green transition of our petrochemicals industry, where we stand now with the Shell sale and other developments in the petrochemicals industry. Are there any shifts toward green transition following the sale, which the Government is able to provide some updates?

I would also like to ask about the manpower transition efforts for our workers in this industry, whether following Shell's sale or generally, what are being done to transition our workers as the industry undergoes green transition? I have asked about this previously and I hope we will get some assuring answers from MOM this time. Mr Speaker, I look forward to the Government's responses and elaborations on the concerns that I have raised, whether at the Budget debate or at the Committee of Supply.

Although global geopolitics has changed dramatically over the past year, climate change is still the number one existential risk to the world and to Singapore. To be clear, the Workers' Party supports ambitious climate action, we have and will continue to back the Government on good, effective climate policy.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement that he will provide more support for adults with disabilities. In my Budget debate speech last year, I have said that, as a society, there is a lot more that we can and should do for adults with disabilities among us. In particular, adults with serious special needs as well as their caregivers. I spoke on doing more for the care and education of adults with special needs, including post-SPED school education and training as well as doing more for their caregivers. I am therefore happy to hear that the Government is looking into the post-18 pathways for persons with disabilities, to see how more support can be given to those transiting to work, building up work readiness at the workplace.

For persons with disabilities, the range of disabilities do vary a lot. Reasonable accommodations are essential for a person with disability in entering the workforce and attaining and maintaining employment, and this would be consistent with the requirements the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I note that there are already state funding and subsidies for improvements to workplace, job redesign, assistive technology to aid persons with disabilities in their workplace and there is also the Enabling Employment Credit, which has just been extended to end-2028 under this Budget, and these are all beneficial for persons with disabilities in the workplace.

On the other hand, knowledge and appreciation of the importance of reasonable accommodations to persons of disabilities can be instilled from young in school in both children and youth with or without disabilities. This can be specifically included in the character and citizenship education syllabus, where we have been told that the current curriculum aims to develop students to be empathetic, sensitive and respectful to all, including those with special educational needs or disabilities. Can the MOE clarify or consider whether the concept of reasonable accommodations or at least the key aspects of it are currently being taught to both children and youth, with and without disabilities, to better prepare them to foster any inclusive work environment for all when they enter working age?

Mr Speaker, I hope the Enabling Masterplan 2030, with its focus on inclusive employment practices, will continue to facilitate improvements in employment experiences for persons with disabilities, getting more support for employers to provide appropriate accommodations in their workplace that can facilitate a working environment where persons with disabilities can thrive. However, transiting persons with disabilities and getting employers to be PwD-ready is one thing.

A suitable working environment for disabled persons will also require good understanding, empathy and support from their colleagues. And, indeed, when we talk about disability, there is a wide range. Provisions can range simply from rent for wheelchair access for the physically handicapped persons to providing assistive technology for those with sight problems and so on. For those with special needs, for example, mild autism, depending on the individuals, it may involve suitable calibration in lighting or noise or providing for task management assistance or specific communication modes at work and so on.

How many of us can say we know with some details, of the workplace needs of different categories of disabled persons? I recently had conversation with some Singaporeans who are high-functioning autistic working adults, including a resident. They shared with me their life journey of struggling with their autism at their workplace, both before and after discovering, belatedly, their autism after they became adults. A person shared with me her fear of group projects causing her to do badly in school, right through to university and even at work. Another successful, highly educated and intellectual individual shared with me that he will often struggle if his superior did not provide clear instructions or guidance or understandable guidelines for certain administrative tasks, or when he had to conduct seminars or workshops.

A sticking issue is the lack of understanding from colleagues of their condition and their needs at work. There is even fear of discrimination of affecting promotion or job security, preventing one from sharing about one's own condition or challenges. I hope that SG Enable can consider how to continue to enhance public education and understanding of the disabled persons at work, so that employers, colleagues at the workplace and, indeed, all Singaporeans will have better knowledge, understanding and empathy for their colleagues with disabilities or special needs.

Mr Speaker, in my Budget debate speech last two years, I had spoken on issues relating to our Active Ageing Centres, including staffing. While Active Ageing Centres are expected to reach out to many seniors in the cluster they are assigned to, given the number of seniors, there may inevitably be a shortage of resources in terms of spaces for centre activity, time as well as staff or volunteers attending the residents. This may create a situation in centres that residents may not get to participate in as many organised activities as they wish or to use the centre space as often as they would like to.

I am only concerned that this will lead to loss of interest for some residents, which will be a great waste after centre staff have tried so hard to bring them to the centre. So, I hope MOH and other stakeholders can give some thought as to how centres can be given more resources so that they can take care of more residents assigned to their cluster and residents can use their centres for activities more optimally.

Mr Speaker, in our 2020 manifesto, WP called for residential long-term care to be more heavily subsidised so as to relieve the out-of-pocket financial burden of social care for many families. We are heartened to note that the Budget has stepped up quite significantly to this end and we support the raising of the maximum subsidy level to 95% for the non-residential long term care services for per capita household incomes below $1,500, to allow more people to age in place with financial support. We also welcome the maximum subsidy level of 80% for residential long-term care, which we had proposed in our manifesto. We are heartened that the qualifying income for their maximum level of subsidy has been raised to $1,500 per capita.

Mr Speaker, in November 2023, during the WP Motion on the cost-of-living crisis, I spoke about removing the annual value as a method of means testing when the household income is zero. Earlier that year, the hon Member for Aljunied GRC Mr Gerald Giam, had also urged the same in a PQ. WP continues to believe that the annual value should be removed as a means testing criterion for healthcare subsidies.

Firstly, healthcare affordability should not be tied to property values. They are determined outside of one's control as they are influenced mainly by the rental prices of neighbouring units. Imagine a retiree couple who have lived in their low value walk-up apartment for decades. As a result of gentrification of their estate and perhaps the work from home habits of younger people, the area is sought after. Rents rise in their area. The annual value of their flat goes above $21,000 and, just like that, they lose the entirety of the healthcare subsidies they had enjoyed. The rise of rents since COVID-19 makes this scenario more common than we know or admit.

Secondly, looking at the household data from the Department of Statistics, particularly, the recent key household income trends 2024, released on 13 February 2024, we have found that households with no per capita household income and those who live in properties with annual value above $21,000, which assume are private properties, make up just 3% of total household. By extension, at any one time they occupy less than 600 beds in the residential long term care sector, based on bed numbers as at end-2023.

Thirdly, as I have spoken in my cost-of-living Motion speech, there may be a variety of reasons why individual owners are unable to monetise their property, and they are not the only people who are affected by the annual value. There are also family members living together who are caught by the rule. They are sharing a high annual value property to help care for each other, but they may not be able to get their relatives in the same household to pay for their unsubsidised medical expenses. For all these reasons, I hope the Government will reconsider and to remove the annual value criteria and provide the same subsidies to all household that have no income.

Next, the cost of dental care in Singapore has become a concern, anecdotally, we have heard of Singaporeans crossing the border to Johor Bahru to seek cheaper treatment, a subject of the PQ in November 2024 by my colleague, MP for Sengkang, Ms He Ting Ru. For more serious conditions, they are riskier. It may be a case of paying for more expensive treatment locally or ignoring the problem that will worsen with neglect. Is it surprising that the National Adult Oral Health Survey of 2019 revealed that three-quarters of those aged between 21 and 64 in Singapore suffer from periodontal disease? Much more can be done to overcome the accessibility and affordability of local dental services by addressing the overlooked role of dental health in our healthcare system. A few experts have weighed in over the last few months.

First, the subsidy framework should be expanded to holders of the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) green card, so that subsidised care may be available for all at private dental clinics under the Primary Care Partnership scheme. Second, increase the capacity of the current public dental system, which is currently overburdened. By shortening the waiting times, we may encourage regular visits and turn more patients that need urgent attention away from having to seek more expensive private dental clinics. Last but not least, in my speech during the 2022 Motion debate on Building a Healthier Singapore, I have asked for oral health to be covered in the Healthier SG programme.

In his Straits Times Forum letter on 22 November 2024, the dean of the National University of Singapore dental faculty, Prof Chris Peck said that the omission of dental care from Healthier SG "needs rectification". With encouragement on prioritising prevention over corrective treatments, I hope MOH will consider this.

Mr Speaker, in closing, I look forward to the replies to all the concerns I have raised.

Ms Tin Pei Ling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we started we started this year with a generous Budget, one that offers something to everyone. From babies to seniors, from families to enterprises, this Budget addresses immediate needs and prepares for the future. Of special mention is the SG60 vouchers that are to be given up in celebration of our 60 years of Independence. These SG60 vouchers are not handouts. They symbolise the economic progress we have achieved since nation building. Our forefathers sowed the seeds of resilience and foresight, coupled with the careful stewardship by our leaders and, today, we reap those benefits.

Two days after the Budget Statement, I did my house visits, went around to visit my residents and shared with them what would be encompassed in the Budget. Many of them have expressed joy and excitement. Seniors, themselves, were also especially heartened to know of the enhanced measures, such as the enhanced CDC Vouchers, the long-term care support and, of course, the SG60 vouchers. They were excited that they now have more support to help them cope with the daily cost of living.

Economic growth is not just about statistics or gross domestic product (GDP) percentages. It is about the lives that we touch. It means better standards of living, meaningful employment opportunities and the resources to fund public goods and services. As highlighted in the latest MTI report, Singapore's economy grew by 4.4% last year, with median incomes rising 3.4% above inflation and income inequality reaching its lowest since the year 2000. This is progress. But as history has shown, past success is no guarantee of future prosperity. This bears repeating and remembering.

We are operating in a world rife with geopolitical contestations. The intensifying US-China rivalry tests countries around the world in many ways. It is reshaping global supply chains, technology ecosystems and economic partnerships. Singapore, as an open economy, feels these ripple effects. The most recent example is that of DeepSeek.

DeepSeek's emergence prompted multifaceted response from the US, ranging from government scrutiny, industry reactions and strategic reassessments. Countries, such as Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Taiwan and South Korea, also indicated that they would ban the AI app, citing privacy and security concerns.

Then, Singapore came under the spotlight and pressure as the US alleged that DeepSeek got Nvidia chips through Singapore. This issue was clarified in the media and thoroughly discussed in this House last Tuesday, so I will not belabour these points. But what is clear is that Singapore can get caught when major powers contest. If the geopolitical contestation continues to escalate to a point where even breathing the same air becomes offensive to the other party – obviously, I am exaggerating a little bit here – how shall Singapore manage these sensitivities going forward and ensure that our own national survival and interests are served?

Then, domestically, we are also not without challenges. An ageing population, low total fertility rate – now, very low, at below one, at 0.97 – high cost of living, these are potent combinations of challenges that we face. In MacPherson, we are a mature estate with a higher than national average proportion of seniors. Over the past many years, I have met with senior residents who are struggling with old age, with having little or no family support as well as the pressures, the worries from having to cope with daily living needs.

Just very recently during the Chinese New Year period, I went with my team to visit one of our rental blocks. And at the very last part of my visit, I met an uncle who was living alone. Just about a month or two before that he had a fall, fractured his leg and found it very difficult to move around. He used to be very active, but because of his fracture, his ability of mobility becoming affected, he has been coping up at home.

So, even though at the beginning when I knocked on his door, he was still generally positive and joyful and cracked a few jokes with me. But towards the end of that visit, towards the end of our conversation, he broke down in tears. Why? Because he has been feeling so lonely. He felt that his sense of ability, that self-esteem has been debilitating, has been regressing and that fear gripped him. So, when we suddenly came to visit him, even though we have been seeing each other before that, but when we were there at his doorstep, he realised that he has not been forgotten, that there is still someone caring about him. He broke down into tears.

So, obviously, we mobilise community resources to support him, to help him, to make sure that he is connected. We also found Befrienders through our community partners to continue to engage him, but this is one of those manifestations of how Singapore could be like with an ageing population, with dwindling family support and, if we do not manage this carefully, we are going to have a lot more seniors who will feel very lonely, isolated and then, the whole psychosocial state of them will be affected.

This is our future, so we must avoid this. I must say that our Government has put in place a robust system to support our seniors and the entire population for healthcare, subsidies, the three Ms and also, with this budget, we have greater support in terms of the longer-term care, as well as the caregiver home grant support.

But more than the financial support that we can give them, it is also us, people within the community, across the nation, through our partners, what can we do to help them to give them that moral support, that human touch that cannot be replaced. So, we need to do our best to keep them healthy. We have Healthier SG, thankfully. We need to help them recover after they become unwell. I know that the hospitals are working with our community partners to follow-up with them on that, but we also need to socially engage with them. And this, beyond our usual grassroots, I think this needs all of us to come in to support them.

So, this is just one of the challenges that I can see from my ward, my constituency. And we ourselves are also doing our best to support them. Not only are we mobilising our own fellow neighbours and volunteers, but we also raise funds to put in place schemes to also give them the extra support, like the MacPherson Care Fund, helping them, to give them that assurance that, apart from what the Government is able to offer them, we help them with their medical needs, including dental needs, as well as other areas that they find important to them.

With challenges looming large, whether if it is outside of Singapore and inside, opportunities are still abound. For example, in technology and innovation leadership, Singapore is a global leader in semiconductor manufacturing and life sciences, producing over 10% the world's chips and 80% of DNA chips. A continued investment in R&D will anchor our relevance in global supply chains.

And, of course, in sustainable energy and climate resilience, something that has been termed as an existential one for us, the Budget's $5 billion top-up to the Future Energy Fund and investments in hydrogen, nuclear and renewable energy sources are forward-thinking steps toward energy security and carbon neutrality. Yet, with these opportunities, we must continue to remain vigilant.

Against a dynamic world and widespread digitalisation, Singaporeans today worry about job security, skills obsolescence and whether the Government can continue to have their backs in times of crisis. These concerns, if unaddressed, can fray social cohesion and erode trust in institutions. Hence, not only must we continue to ensure we have the right policies, infrastructure and resources for economic success, we must also continue to build up our people so that they can continue to ride waves.

In this budget, we have many measures that address immediate pain points and needs of Singaporeans, mitigating cost of living and costs associated with caring for the old and growing families. These measures are so notable that several commentators wondered if the Government has given a bit too much, but at the same time, together with Budgets over the past many years, we can clearly observe the long-term provisions and strategies that our Government has in place and this is heartening.

Hence, I am in favour of the many measures targeted at building up our nation's capabilities. These include continued investment into infrastructures, R&D, specific enterprise support, such as the Enterprise Compute Initiative, aiming to help businesses harness the power of game-changing technologies as well as enhanced SkillsFuture schemes and employment credits to empower our workforce to stay employed and keep pace with the latest market demands.

Building capabilities and resilience in our people and enterprises is far-sighted and the best way in inoculating ourselves against the possible challenges of our future. That being said, to keep Singapore resilient, I still have a few points to raise.

Firstly, on replenishing our Reserves. Given that we had a relatively good fiscal year with surplus, I would like to reiterate my call on the Government to put back into the Reserves what we had taken out during the pandemic. This need not be done at one go, but in tranches over the next few years, whenever we can, will be assuring. This pot of gold accumulated by our forefathers served us well during the crisis of our generation and we owe it to the next generation to restore it whenever we can, if not in full, at least, in part, for the benefit of future generations.

Second, strengthening economic resilience. As geopolitical competition continues to intensify, there will be impact on our economic structure, supply chains and even how we deploy technologies. Hence, I hope the Government will continue to build redundancy into our supply chains, foster local tech ecosystems and reduce reliance on external shocks.

Third, securing sustainable energy. As a related point, competition between major powers is expected to still escalate in the realm of technology, which, in turn, rely on energy. It will thus not be surprising that the competition overspills into the energy space. As a small country, how do we secure sustainable sources of energy while maintaining low carbon emissions? As such, the exploration of nuclear options, hydrogen fuel and regional electricity imports must accelerate to buffer against future geopolitical shocks.

Fourth, sharing the fruits of growth. It is important that we continue to share the fruits of our collective labour with Singaporeans. This helps to keep our social compact strong. This gives meaning to why we are pursuing economic growth. This is definitely demonstrated in the many social policies and schemes that our Government introduced or enhanced over the past years and, most definitely, this year.

Specific to SG60 vouchers, which is quite unlike the GST or CDC Vouchers that are purposed to address everyday costs and also, in a large part, to help drive business to our micro-SMEs within the heartlands and beyond, it is a special commemorative benefit for Singaporeans age above 21. But given that there are many vouchers already, would MOF reconsider distributing part of it in cash so that individuals can choose to save it, donate it or use it for other legitimate purposes? In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the new year began with a generous Budget. This is a Budget that benefits all Singaporeans. The SG60 vouchers are not just a one-off gesture; they symbolise our economic achievements since Independence. The fruits we enjoy today come from our pioneers' vision and perseverance, the careful stewardship of our successive leaders and the full cooperation of our people. Economic growth is not merely about statistics, nor is it a report card to boast about. A vibrant economy with opportunities means higher living standards, more meaningful employment opportunities and more fiscal revenue to fund public services and infrastructure. In short, economic growth is not just a country’ s heartbeat; it is the continuation of hope for families and people.

Globally, we are in an era of intense geopolitical competition. The intensifying US-China rivalry is reshaping global supply chains, technological ecosystems and economic cooperation. Singapore, as a highly open economy, cannot remain unaffected. Any trade restrictions or technology decoupling will directly impact us. As the saying goes, when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. Therefore, Singapore must be like bamboo, flexible yet firm, and needs to maintain a manoeuvring space and capability in this complex environment.

Domestically, we face our own challenges. An ageing population, low birth rates, high costs of living and workforce transformation amid AI and automation waves are all pressing concerns. Therefore, our leadership and Government must not only address immediate concerns like costs of living but also continue to invest for the future, strengthen foundations and pursue new opportunities. I believe this year's Budget addresses these various aspects comprehensively. However, I have several points to raise.

Firstly, regarding putting back the draw on Reserves. Considering this year's fiscal surplus, I would like to again urge the Government to gradually replenish the Reserves used during the pandemic to assist Singaporeans and businesses. I hope that at least some portion of the surplus can be returned to the Reserves. Even if not all at once, I hope it can be gradually returned in future years when there are surpluses. This treasure trove, which is passed down through generations, played a crucial role during the crisis in our generation, and we have a responsibility to preserve this important national asset for future generations.

Secondly, regarding sharing the fruits of economic growth. Social cohesion depends on fair wealth distribution and, with economic growth, we naturally hope to share these achievements with all citizens. The SG60 vouchers are a sincere gesture to Singaporeans. However, I suggest the Government reconsider distributing part of the vouchers in cash, giving people options to save, donate or spend it.

(In English): In conclusion, in these uncertain times, we must do all we can to build for the future, while giving assurance to Singaporeans, present and future. With this Budget, it is clear that opportunities will remain, that safety nets exist and that the Singapore story will continue to be one of success and solidarity. So, come what may, I believe we will forge ahead together as one Singapore, for a better tomorrow. With that, I support the Budget.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is difficult to quarrel with this year's SG60 Budget Statement. It has been generous and there is something for almost everyone. That is why Prime Minister and the Finance Minister had said that it is a Budget for all Singaporeans. But the Budget Statement is more than an announcement of the goodies dished out to the citizens. It is also a statement setting out the Government's plans to address the current concerns of citizens, to rally Singaporeans together and it is a roadmap to chart the future direction for Singapore.

Sir, I support the Budget Statement. I agree with the proposals to help businesses plan for growth, the push to help our citizens upskill themselves and the plans to prepare Singapore for the future which is always changing. And I am grateful that, with a Budget surplus, the Government has decided to share more with its citizens, for example, by providing $3 billion in MediSave top-ups.

Sir, the global minimum tax rules, which more than 136 countries have joined to establish a minimum corporate tax of 15%, this has caused uncertainty about our tax revenue. It makes budgeting a lot more uncertain, especially with a new US government with uncertain government policies and quick to impose tariffs.

Social expenditure will go up and corporate and tax revenue may be uncertain. So, in an uncertain global economy, I urge Members of this House not to take tax revenue for granted. Sir, allow me to make three comments for the Finance Minister's consideration.

The first is equitable treatment for all citizens, regardless of housing type. For the past many years, I had advocated for Budget surpluses to be distributed in a manner that does not consider a citizen's housing type. In previous years, the Finance Minister had always given GST Vouchers, U-save rebates, and service and conservancy charges rebates to residents living in HDB flats only. Residents who live in private estates are left out. In July last year, several Members and I had asked the Government why it did not provide Climate Vouchers to private estate residents because energy efficiency should be practised by every resident.

I also recall my Budget speech a few years ago, where I had urged the Government to consider ways in which we can allow our retirees and middle-income Singaporeans to share or enjoy the growth of the country and to move together as a nation, regardless of where they stay.

Thus, for this year's Budget, I am really pleased that the Finance Minister has heard our pleas and given Climate Vouchers to all households, including those in private properties. I am also glad that the SG60 vouchers, SG60, ActiveSG credit top-ups and SG60 Culture Pass will be given to all Singaporeans, regardless of housing type. Many of my residents who are retired or are in the lower- middle-income will certainly appreciate the Government sharing the growth of the Singapore economy with them.

Some of my residents who live in private estates and may be better off, they do not need such vouchers. However, I think it is important that the Government signals that it acknowledges the efforts of all Singaporeans who have worked hard, paid taxes and contributed to the growth of the country. So, my hope is that Budget 2025 will mark a slight shift in the Government's financial policy to recognise the efforts and contributions of all Singaporeans who have built up Singapore, regardless of their house type.

Next, Sir, if I can touch on cost of living. In a recent survey by Blackbox Research's SensingSG, a large number of citizens have expressed concern about rising costs of living and inflation. Whenever I speak to my residents, they, too, complain at the rising costs of consumer products each time they go to the market, supermarket or hawker centre. And this is despite the fact that over the past few years, the Government has been giving CDC Vouchers and outright cash payouts through the Assurance Package to the residents. The payouts from the Assurance Package did not seem to alleviate the concerns of Singaporeans about the increased costs of living.

For residents in the middle-income squeeze, they simply have to tighten their belts as they get much lesser help from the Government schemes.

In a recent CNA article, former newspaper editor, Mr Han Fook Kwang, said, "The problem is that handouts are at most band aids that do not address the issue itself which is, the rising prices of things that people need. They will hence never be sufficient, especially if prices keep going up."

Sir, I think the Government must review this concern, which is valid. How can the Government do its part to manage costs of living? When I speak to businesses, they invariably raised two concerns of running a business: manpower costs and rental. I think it is time to consider whether we should review the need to allow more foreign workers in areas where Singaporeans clearly do not want to work in. So, I urge the Government to consider adjusting the foreign worker ratio for industries like cleaning, shipping, construction and the service line. A cleaning contractor told me that he is forced to look for 60- or 70-year-old Singaporean senior citizens to work as cleaners. This is to allow his company the ratio to employ more foreigners. So, reviewing the foreign worker ratio will enable businesses to keep their labour costs down. I also urge the Government to adjust rental costs for businesses on JTC- and HDB-owned industrial and commercial properties and also to consider reducing rental costs for hawker stalls. I hope that these issues are not sacred cows that cannot be reviewed.

Sir, early this year, our local banks have announced increased profits for the year. While I am happy for the banks and happy for the shareholders, I do urge MAS to review whether borrowing costs for businesses can be reduced. Excessive profits for banks may simply mean that some organisations down the chain may be paying a higher price for these financial products.

Sir, finally, the Large Families Scheme. I truly appreciate what the Government is intending to do by providing more financial support to couples with more children. Indeed, it will ease some of the concerns of the couples because of better financial support. However, if this scheme is intended to encourage couples to have more children, I think the Government must go back to the drawing board to ask why are many couples not even having children. The Catholic Pope Francis has also urged couples to raise children and build families, and not just keep pets.

Sir, is the reluctance of having more children due to a lifestyle preference? Or is it because many couples do not want their children to be stressed due to the education system? Or is it due to work stress that makes it difficult for couples to plan for children? I personally think that Singaporeans lead too stressful a life. We need to reset our definition of what is success in life.

Many of us work long hours, with reduced family time. Even in Parliament, Sir, our Clerks and other staff work such long hours because MPs debate long hours, spend time debating Bills until late in the evening and sometimes until late at night.

Sir, I have on many occasions, received emails from Ministers late in the middle of the night. Sir, if the entire civil service were to follow the lead of their Ministers, then, sadly, all of us will have a stressful life and we know the reason why many couples feel burnout. So, I urge the Government to please review this culture of working long and stressful hours.

When I visit Australia or the European countries, I see many people out there enjoying the weather and parks from 5.00 pm onwards. Will a better lifestyle allow us to consider a bigger family? Sir, I do not have the answer, but I think there is scope to carry out a thorough study if we want our TFR to improve.

Sir, in closing, let me thank the Finance Minister for his Budget Statement. I repeat my support for Budget 2025.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan, thank you for acknowledging the hard work of our Parliamentary staff. [Applause.] Ms Foo Mee Har.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this year, as Singapore marks 60 years of Independence, we celebrate not just our remarkable journey but also our continued ability to plan with foresight and responsibility. Budget 2025 is a testament to this vision: a Budget that is both generous in addressing immediate needs and disciplined in preparing for a brighter future.

The Prime Minister and Finance Minister has unveiled a landmark Budget to tackle cost-of-living pressures, support the development of workers and businesses and commemorate SG60. At the same time, it invests in Singapore's long-term needs, including climate resilience and energy security.

Despite these comprehensive measures, the Finance Minister reported a surplus of $6.4 billion for FY2024, and a projected $6.8 billion surplus for FY2025. This unexpected surplus is primarily attributed to strong corporate income tax revenue.

With 20/20 hindsight, there have been questions about whether we could have delayed the GST increase or been even more generous with the handouts.

These reflections must be viewed in context. With geopolitical tensions and trade frictions intensifying, Singapore, one of the most trade-dependent economies, faces heightened risks from geoeconomic fragmentation. In this volatile landscape, it is absolutely prudent to maintain some fiscal dry powder to respond swiftly to unexpected economic shocks that may come our way. Moreover, this fiscal strength will give us the agility to seize opportunities as they arise in this rapidly changing world order.

At the same time, we must recognise that Budget 2025 already provides substantial support across key areas. From FY2019 to FY2024, overall expenditure surged by over 50%. In FY2025, this year, healthcare spending alone will grow by over 16% to about $21 billion, while defence spending will rise by over 12%.

Other critical areas, including sustainability, trade and industry and social development, will see spending growth of around 20% and more. So, by any measure, this year's Budget is not just generous, but a demonstration of fiscal resilience, reflecting a financial strength that few economies can rival.

Sir, our ability to sustain significant public spending growth while maintaining fiscal discipline is what sets Singapore apart. This has been made possible through years of strategic and disciplined adjustments to our tax system, ensuring a resilient and diversified revenue base.

Hong Kong offers a stark contrast. Its over-reliance on land sales and property market cycles has led to ballooning deficits whenever the market turns, forcing the government to make painful fiscal adjustments. At its peak, Hong Kong's land sales revenue contributed 27% of total government revenue in FY2017. But in the last three years, it has declined to an average of less than 7%. So, as a result, it has recorded annual fiscal deficits exceeding the equivalent of US$20 billion in three of the past four years. So, Hong Kong just announced its Budget today and it is now taking painful steps to address deficits by cutting expenditure by 7%.

Sir, let me remind this House that PSP and WP have long advocated a similar approach as Hong Kong: using land sales revenue to fund recurrent spending. Had we followed this path, Singapore could be facing the same fiscal vulnerabilities as Hong Kong today.

Instead, we chose a more stable and forward-looking approach. We manage land sales revenue prudently, investing the proceeds as part of our Reserves and spending only the investment returns through the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC). This has provided Singapore with fiscal stability, allowing us to support economic growth and social development without being at the mercy of market fluctuations.

Mr Speaker, some SMEs have voiced concerns that they have been left out in this year's Budget. However, while certain measures may not be explicitly labelled as SME-specific, I think many initiatives in Budget 2025 will directly benefit them.

For example, providing CDC Vouchers instead of cash for SG60 Vouchers will strongly channel and boost footfall to local enterprises, ensuring that our SMEs benefit from increased consumer spending. Increase in co-funding levels for the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme and extension of Senior Employment Credit and Central Provident Fund (CPF) Transition Offset will help SMEs manage wage costs, easing pressures on their operations while ensuring fair wages for workers.

Sir, the introduction of the Global Founder Programme, the establishment of the Private Credit Growth Fund and the launch of the Equity Market Development Programme are timely and strategic moves to drive investment, foster entrepreneurship and strengthen capital market vibrancy. These initiatives send a clear and confident signal that Singapore is serious about attracting world-class entrepreneurs, anchoring high-impact innovations and deepening our financial ecosystem to remain a leading global hub. However, for these initiatives to truly deliver on their promise, their design and execution must align with market realities.

An example is the new requirement under the Equity Market Development Programme, which mandates that all new single-family office applicants under the Global Investor Programme category eligible for Permanent Residency, allocate at least $50 million of their assets under management to equities listed on approved Singapore exchanges.

While I agree that mobilising capital from family offices add vibrancy to Singapore's equities market, the implementation details require careful consideration.

Sir, from a strategic asset allocation perspective, this new requirement represents a significant overweight to Singapore equities for Global Investor Programme family offices investing across global public equity markets, given the relative size and liquidity constraints of our market. Moreover, the historical performance of Singapore equities relative to the global benchmarks presents an implicit opportunity cost for investors.

Additionally, the current investment options tend to cater to selected objectives, such as dividend stocks or yield plays. Unlike the US and China or Hong Kong markets, which offer a broader mix of tech, healthcare and high-growth innovation-driven firms, Singapore has relatively fewer such listings. As a result, any new capital inflows into the local market will likely benefit only a small subset of Singapore-listed stocks. Beyond these concerns, there are also questions regarding investment timeline, lock-in period and the consequences of non-compliance over time.

Furthermore, I note from an answer to a PQ that only 200 individuals were granted Permanent Resident status through the Global Investor Programme from 2020 to 2022. So, to fully tap the family office capital for a more diversified investor base, we should consider engaging the 2,000 family offices already established in Singapore.

However, any adjustments to the rules must be carefully calibrated, timed and aligned with strategic asset allocation principles, ensuring that they do not impact Singapore's competitive position relative to other global family office hubs.

Mr Speaker, Budget 2025 provides generous support for AI adoption, reinforcing Singapore's commitment to harnessing technology for economic growth. However, as AI adoption intensifies in the workplace, it is critical that we also address its impact on the workforce, particularly on less experienced workers who are most vulnerable to automation.

As AI models continue to rapidly advance, they will not only boost productivity but also commoditise skills and automate tasks. It is often junior inexperienced staff or those involved in routine tasks who face the greatest risk of displacement.

This raises urgent questions. How do we prepare new workforce entrants for a future where traditional entry-level roles shrink or disappear? How will they gain the necessary experience to progress in their careers if they struggle to secure their first job? Indeed, based on the latest Joint Autonomous University Graduate Employment Survey, we are already seeing fresh graduates' employment outcomes softening.

AI adoption must go hand in hand with comprehensive strategies to manage job displacement, retraining, career redefinition and industry transformation, ensuring that workers are equipped to adapt and thrive in an AI-driven economy. For institutes of higher learning, exposure to industry AI tools must be integrated into all curricula.

Mr Speaker, my next point is on Singapore's commitment to climate change even as the global momentum on climate has slowed. Climate change is real, accelerating and unforgiving – nature waits for no one. Budget 2025 reflects Singapore's firm commitment to sustainability with a $5 billion top-up to the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund and other initiatives, such as the extension of climate vouchers to private properties.

Staying the course is not just about mitigating risks. It is about seizing opportunities. The green economy represents one of the biggest growth frontiers in the coming decades. Renewable energy, green finance, sustainable infrastructure and carbon services are all high-value industries where Singapore can play a leadership role. By investing early and also decisively, we strengthen our position as a global hub for green innovation, attracting investment, creating jobs and securing long-term economic competitiveness.

Sir, as we celebrate SG60, we must recognise that our greatest asset is not just our economic success, but the trust and confidence that the world has in Singapore. Over six decades, we have built a Singapore brand defined by trust, stability, unity and good governance. These values are what make Singapore stand out globally and they will be even more critical in the years ahead.

It has even transformed what it means to be Singaporean. On my overseas travels, I have had bizarre experience of encountering "fake Singaporeans", including professionals, business owners, even tourists who claim to be "Singaporeans", even when they are of some other nationality. They do this so as to appear more trustworthy, more capable or more professional.

So, the Singapore brand has become so exceptional that it is well worth faking, much like a Rolex watch or a Louis Vuitton handbag. And, like these global brands, you know you have made it when imitation becomes the greatest form of flattery.

In an increasingly uncertain and fragmented world, the Singapore brand will be more valuable than ever. As businesses and investors seek stability amid volatility, our reputation for transparency, consistency and long-term planning will be our trump card. It is what justifies our premium cost position. Let us never take this hard-earned advantage for granted, but instead, build upon it to secure our place in an ever-changing world. Sir, I support the Budget.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.39 pm until 3.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm.

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

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

Order. Mr Neil Parekh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on Budget 2025.

In my view, Budget 2025 is not just a financial plan, but a significant milestone that underscores the Government's unwavering commitment to economic resilience, worker reskilling and fostering a stronger business ecosystem.

As we celebrate 60 years of Independence, Budget 2025 holds a special significance for all of us. It is a testament to our resilience, unity and unwavering commitment to progress. This Budget is not just a financial plan, but an opportunity to reflect on our achievements, acknowledge the challenges ahead and reaffirm our collective vision for a prosperous and inclusive nation.

The SG60 Package is a targeted and timely initiative that not only eases cost-of-living pressures but also reinforces our long-standing commitment to shared prosperity. It reflects our nation's approach to ensuring economic growth, translating into tangible benefits for all Singaporeans. This is a result of our strong economic performance in 2024, with Singapore registering GDP growth of 4.4%, a notable acceleration from the 1.8% growth we saw in 2023. This expansion has been driven by increased productivity, workforce upskilling and strategic investments in innovation and sustainability. Such economic resilience underlines our ability to navigate global uncertainties and presents an opportunity to strengthen social mobility and economic inclusion, ensuring that every Singaporean benefits from our nation's progress.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to support businesses in managing costs, a 50% corporate income tax rebate, capped at $40,000, will be implemented for the Year of Assessment 2025. This is further complemented by a cash grant to help enterprises mitigate financial pressures and focus on growth.

The Partnerships for Capability Transformation initiative has played a crucial role in fostering MNC-SME collaborations, thereby fostering a more dynamic business ecosystem. Perhaps, the Government can provide an update on the number of SMEs that have benefited from Partnerships for Capability Transformation over the past year and explore increasing funding support or tax incentives to encourage deeper and longer-term SME-MNC partnerships, driving greater industry transformation.

Even as we provide direct support to Singaporeans, we must continue strengthening our economic fundamentals to remain resilient and competitive in an increasingly uncertain global landscape.

As we navigate the global landscape, the expansion of the National Productivity Fund is not just an investment, but a strategic move that enables targeted investments in high-growth industries. These investments will drive innovation, boost productivity and create employment opportunities. This investment is key to securing Singapore's position as a global economic leader and in instilling confidence in our financial future.

As we plan towards Singapore's next stage of economic growth, strengthening our position as a global hub for startups and innovation is crucial.

I look forward to the Government sharing its plans for attracting and supporting high-performing, innovative companies and growing our research and innovation ecosystem, particularly in semiconductors and biomedical sciences.

Businesses appreciate the Government's extension of the mergers and acquisitions (M&As) scheme until December 2030, demonstrating our continued commitment to supporting business growth through M&A. May I make two suggestions to strengthen the M&A landscape?

First, our SMEs need broader support to navigate complexities of M&A successfully. The Government could possibly partner trade associations and chambers to establish dedicated advisory units that provide end-to-end support for SMEs pursuing mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures.

Second, we must leverage existing foreign demand for cross-border M&As, especially in the energy and technology sectors. I suggest introducing a legal framework facilitating cross-border corporate amalgamation, like the European Union, United Kingdom and Delaware frameworks. This should include establishing reciprocal agreements with key jurisdictions – particularly with our ASEAN trading partners as well as developed financial hubs – to enable smoother deal execution.

Strengthening business resilience lies at the heart of the Enterprise Financing Scheme, which has been enhanced to provide SMEs with better access to funding and working capital support for internationalisation and mergers and acquisitions. However, to address the evolving financing needs of enterprises, particularly startups and high-growth firms, additional flexible financing mechanisms tailored to businesses at different stages of growth are needed.

One such improvement could be introducing alternative financing options, such as revenue-based financing, where repayments are tied to business performance. This would reduce the burden on companies facing temporary cash flow constraints. Additionally, streamlining the application process and improving loan approval transparency will help SMEs access funding more efficiently, ensuring that financing remains accessible to a broader range of businesses, especially those that may not fit traditional credit assessment models.

We must also strengthen our intellectual property framework to complement these financing initiatives. While the IP Grow initiative has made commendable progress in educating businesses, we must take further steps to help SMEs commercialise their IP and integrate it into their M&A growth strategies. I propose extending incentives for SMEs to acquire and license strategic IP for business expansion, possibly integrating these into existing M&A grant schemes.

The newly established Private Credit Growth Fund will provide alternative financing options to businesses, particularly in emerging and high-growth sectors. This fund is an essential step in enhancing Singapore's financial ecosystem, allowing companies to secure capital from diversified sources. At the same time, the Enterprise Compute Initiative will play a crucial role in equipping our businesses, especially our SMEs and startups, with greater access to computational resources, ensuring they can harness artificial intelligence and high-performance computing to stay competitive. To ensure accessibility, I suggest that the Government explore subsidised access to computational resources for SMEs and provide structured training programmes so that local enterprises can maximise their use of advanced digital technologies.

Singapore's position as a financial hub will be further solidified with the new listing tax incentives designed to encourage more businesses to list on the Singapore Stock Exchange. The move will enhance our capital markets, attract investors and offer companies more opportunities to raise funds locally. I welcome the Government's focus on strengthening our equity markets. The recent initiatives announced by the equity markets review group chaired by Minister Chee Hong Tat align well with this objective, with significant measures for improving liquidity, enhancing research coverage, introducing incentives for institutional investors as well as simplifying the regulatory framework. These reforms are essential in boosting investor confidence and fostering a more vibrant capital market.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a strong commitment to social progress must match a resilient economy. Budget 2025 takes a significant step in uplifting low-wage workers and enhancing social security. The Progressive Wage Credit Scheme has been further improved, providing employers with higher co-funding support to encourage fair wages and career progression for lower-income workers. However, while wage increases are essential, they must be accompanied by broader efforts to enhance job quality, provide workplace protection and facilitate long-term career development. I urge the Government to ensure that training and upskilling programmes for these workers remain industry-relevant and accessible, helping them transition into higher-paying, sustainable careers.

Finally, a word on the Budget surplus. Our nation's continued fiscal prudence has allowed Singapore to maintain a surplus, reflecting the Government's commitment to long-term financial stability. I suggest to the Prime Minister and Finance Minister that the Government may want to leverage this surplus to address emerging challenges with even greater allocations to help businesses to adapt quickly to a digital economy and to the changes brought about by AI. I would also like this surplus to help our citizens over 60 who have paid their dues, to be able to retire with dignity and maintain the quality of life they were used to during their working lives.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise today in support of Budget 2025, a bold and forward-thinking Budget that strikes a balance between providing immediate support for Singaporeans and businesses while laying the foundation for our nation's future growth and competitiveness.

Let us move forward with confidence and determination, embracing the opportunities that lie ahead while staying true to the Singapore spirit. I wholeheartedly support this Budget.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Budget. For many Singaporeans, this Budget addresses some of the key concerns that they have in an increasingly uncertain world.

First, it provides broad-based assistance with the cost of living. While inflation seems to be lower in the last quarter, people are still adjusting to higher prices of the last few years. Against this backdrop, the continuation of the CDC Vouchers and GST vouchers will be appreciated, especially by families with lower incomes who look forward to these. The CDC Vouchers also encourage spending with our local merchants and small business owners in the heartlands whose businesses have been impacted over the last few years.

Second, we are living in an age where jobs and work are facing disruption like never before. The latest disruptor is AI. Many companies, including major tech companies and banks, have announced job cuts and restructuring over the last few years. The Government’s intervention in providing assistance for retraining through SkillsFuture, as well as, importantly, generous allowances that make up for lost income while people retrain, will be important buffers for people as they cope with this disruption.

Related to this, there is extensive Government spending as well as tax breaks in a range of sectors, including heavy investments in transport, education and health infrastructure as well as tax breaks for qualifying tech startups. I would suggest that it will be important to tie and track these investments against local job creation as far as possible so that the economic opportunities being created by these investments will translate into jobs and opportunities for our people.

Third, the Budget provides comprehensive support for families to gently encourage people to have families and children. It is heartening to note that the Government is catching up on the supply bottlenecks for construction of new HDB flats that occurred as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and that it has plans to continue with construction of significant projects in the coming year. The delays and shortages in BTOs had been a concern over the last few years, especially for young couples hoping to start families, and I am glad that we are now crossing this hill.

One point I would ask for though is for the Government to consider bringing back larger HDB flat formats. This will be important if we want families to have more children. Currently, the largest flat formats in BTOs are 5-room flats, and these generally have three bedrooms. If we are considering multi-generation families or families with more children, three bedrooms may not be enough for them. Many have given feedback that as children get older, they prefer to have their own rooms. Additionally, large families may need domestic help, and domestic helpers will also need their own bedrooms under the law.

I understand that the reason for holding back on development of larger flat types in recent years has been that there did not seem to be much demand for them among first-time buyers. But I think it is also important for us to consider not just first-time buyers, such as young couples, but also older, middle-aged couples who have higher incomes but are also likely to have larger families and extended families to care for. Many of the older large HDB flats, such as jumbo flats, are popular and fetch high prices in the resale market, which suggest that it would be good to have a pipeline of new supply of them as well.

I had also argued for the socialisation of early childcare costs from my early days in this House, even before I was married or had a child of my own. My view was that, given that having more children is a national priority that benefits the country, more of the costs should be socialised rather than privately borne by the parents in the early years. Costs for older children, from primary school onwards are generally well covered, but the earlier costs, when couples have lower incomes, may have been a concern.

I am glad that this Budget continues with the Government's plans of the years of subsidising a greater part of these costs. The cost of early childcare will now be comparable to the costs at the primary school level of education. I welcome this move. Additionally, there is significant financial support for families with three or more children. These measures will hopefully make it easier for couples who decide to have children, to have bigger families as well. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Tamil, please.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Singapore Government has been generous in its support for programmes that support the Tamil language in Singapore. The Tamil Language Learning and Promotion Committee, which I chair, is a committee under MOE that supports the learning of the Tamil language outside the classroom and has several signature programmes. This committee also supports community organisations in their efforts to organise activities for schoolgoing children.

Separately, the Tamil Language Council, of which I am an advisor, a committee under the National Heritage Board (NHB), promotes the use of Tamil in Singapore and organises the Tamil Language Festival each year, which sees more than 40 events organised by different community organisations. These initiatives help keep the Tamil language vibrant in Singapore.

In this year’s Budget, I note that $300 million is being set aside for the SG Cultural Pass. This translates into $100 to every Singaporean to spend on local arts events. The Indian arts community in Singapore is a thriving one. I would strongly encourage local groups to consider organising events that can tap on these funds. These vouchers can be redeemed from September 2025 to the end of 2028, so there is a good window of time for groups to plan activities.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a wide-ranging Budget that provides support that Singaporeans need in a range of areas, including cost of living, employment and having families. I support this Budget.

Ms Ng Ling Ling.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of Budget 2025 which reflects the Government’s commitment to building a resilient, inclusive, and forward-looking Singapore. As we mark Singapore’s 60 years of Independence this year, the well-thought-through Budget not only sets a path for the survival of Singapore in a more uncertain and dangerous world, but more importantly, a lamp to light the way for Singaporeans to seize opportunities at every stage of life to continue to thrive individually, as a family, and as a nation together.

Singapore’s economy grew by 4.4% last year against all odds, driven by better-than-expected performance in wholesale trade, finance and insurance, as well as our manufacturing sectors. Looking ahead, our gross domestic product (GDP) growth is projected to moderate between 1% and 3% in 2025 as global uncertainty and emerging market risks continue to impact our economy. However, our core inflation rate is expected to ease to an average of 1.5% to 2.5%. These economic figures, working together, will hopefully alleviate the cost-of-living pressures that have been hanging in the minds of both Singaporean households and businesses this past year.

Last year, I spoke on support for three key groups during my Budget 2024 debate speech. They are: one, supporting working adults; two, caring for seniors; and three supporting young families and couples. These three groups form most of my residents in Jalan Kayu constituency living in both HDB and private estates. I am heartened to know that Budget 2025 continues to address their needs. Today, I will again focus on the Budget support for these three groups.

Firstly, as technological advancement in areas like AI and intensifying global economic and geo-political competition place pressures and need for continual transformation on our workforce, it is crucial to ensure that Singaporean working adults have the knowledge and skills as well as opportunities and support to continue thriving. I am encouraged by the key measures in Budget 2025 to empower Singaporeans at every career stage, while promoting a more inclusive and resilient workforce.

I welcome the enhanced tier of support under the Workfare Skills Support Scheme, which allows lower-wage workers to upskill earlier with financial assistance for longer-form courses. I have three blocks of rental flats in Jalan Kayu, mostly comprising families with young children. One or both of their parents, my residents, may have been struggling with drugs, incarceration or divorce problems which render them many difficulties in coping with life and work.

I hope that the Government will continue to support Workfare Skills Support Scheme training courses aligned with industry needs so that these residents can have the best chance of keeping and progressing in better jobs. In this regard, I would like to ask the Government what the job placement support for participants who completed Workfare Skills Support Scheme courses are and those who are still struggling with just being able to continue with lower wage tough jobs like food delivery even if they aspire for better jobs through Workfare Skills Support Scheme training.

Second, I am pleased that the Senior Employment Credit has been extended to 2026. This can continue to encourage employers to hire and retain older and experienced employees and recognise their contributions. With the upcoming enactment of Workplace Fairness Act 2025, I believe that there will be more protection against discriminatory employers’ behaviours due to age of employees or would-be employees.

In my Jalan Kayu constituency, our Ang Mo Kio Town Council’s contracted cleaning vendors actively employ our residents who want to work as our cleaners. Among about 70 cleaning supervisors and cleaners in Jalan Kayu, about 10 of them are our residents or those living in nearby constituencies. All of them are aged above 60 years, with the oldest almost 80 years old. They are a jovial group who shared with me during my Chinese New Year luncheon and ang pow distribution with them that cleaning keeps them active and happy. I would like to share what my Jalan Kayu resident, Ms Karen Lai, who lives in Buangkok Crescent and works in Eng Leng Contractors Pte Ltd which provides cleaning services to JTC and our army camps said about older Singaporean cleaning employees to me. She said: “They are responsible, punctual, seldom take MC and keep active by working.”

I hope that the Government will continue the good efforts to help our senior employees and that everyone in Singapore take responsibilities to render them with respect, care and consideration as they work.

In 2021, I spoke in this House about the importance of balancing legislative amendments with tripartite consensus, ensuring that employers and employees both benefit from flexible and sustainable re-employment strategies. As we extend the Senior Employment Credit, can the Government also track and evaluate whether companies which have received the offsets have effectively supported their older workers. I also urge the Government to create more platforms for good companies with exemplary age-inclusive human capital practices to share with more companies so that we can create a conducive workplace and culture that allow Singaporeans who want to work as long as they can, a good environment to do so.

Third, promoting inclusive employment is essential in building a fair workplace. I am encouraged that the Enabling Employment Credit has been extended to 2028 to support employers who hire PwDs. Likewise, extending the Uplifting Employment Credit to 2028 is essential to assist ex-offenders in reintegrating into society. I note that the credit supported nearly 700 employers in hiring over 1,000 ex-offenders last year.

Employment not only provides financial independence but also builds dignity and fosters social inclusion for PwDs and ex-offenders. I would like to ask if the Government can track and publish more granular employment data to track the job retention and progression of PwDs and ex-offenders, so that employment schemes for them can be improved continually. This should include persons with mental illnesses as this unseen disability and illness have been increasingly afflicting Singaporeans from all ages and walks of life.

Finally, on the employment of our young Singaporeans. In a most recent report by CNA on 24 February, the Joint Autonomous Universities Graduate Employment Survey 2024 showed that fewer graduates found jobs six months after graduation compared to 2023, although the median gross salary for fresh graduates in full-time permanent employment increased 4.3% to S$4,500 in 2024. The recent results cited in a Straits Times article on 6 February from the Graduate Employment Survey by the five polytechnics in Singapore released on 13 January showed that 54.6% graduates were in full-time permanent jobs in 2024, compared with almost 60% in 2023 and 59% in 2022. I await to see the results of our ITE graduates’ employment rate in 2024.

In my 2023 Budget debate speech two years ago, I already raised my concern then that while I celebrate the 87.5% of fresh university grads for landing in full-time permanent jobs with higher pay than the year before, the 6.3% in freelance or part-time or temporary jobs and 3.6% who remained unemployed and still looking for a job need some attention. The continued downward trend since 2023, according to results of the annual surveys for our university and polytechnic grads warrant deeper analysis by the Government to understand the trends are due to expectation-reality gaps, educational-career interest gaps or some emerging phenomenon leading to unemployment or underemployment of our young people. This is to ensure that our young people do not fall behind the career start line without understanding the implications of such delays.

Next, let me move on to the seniors in Jalan Kayu, whom I care dearly for as most of them are at the age of my own parents and parents-in-law, and the younger seniors are my age. I am heartened to read the enhancements in healthcare affordability, retirement support, senior mobility support, long-term care, caregiving and community care options are all key priorities in Budget 2025.

Healthcare costs has been inevitably increasing as our population ages, like all developed ageing societies are confronting. I welcome the introduction of the Matched MediSave Scheme to alleviate some of the financial pressures faced by seniors and their families. The Matched MediSave Scheme will offer dollar-for-dollar matching grants of up to $1,000 annually for lower-income seniors aged 55 to 70, complementing the existing Matched Retirement Savings Scheme. I would like to ask the Government how much this additional $1,000 annual matching grant will defer on average in healthcare expenses of a typical 70-year-old Singaporean at today’s healthcare costs in our public hospitals and polyclinics?

To support seniors in their desire to age in place, we need to ensure they have access to quality long-term and end-of-life care that respects their preferences. Building on my previous call in this House through my Adjournment Motion titled “Enhancing End of Life with Choices and Dignity” in May 2023, I urge the Government to create greater awareness and accessibility for long-term care and palliative care to Singaporeans. I am heartened to know that the Government will increase subsidies for home and community care to alleviate long-term care costs for seniors.

Nonetheless, I hope that the Government would also continue to consider enhancing more use of MediSave funds by seniors and their family members to manage long-drawn commitment to long-term and palliative care costs.

I recommend increasing the lifetime withdrawal limit for seniors with limited MediSave savings when utilising a family member's MediSave, currently capped at $2,500 per patient to an amount more commensurate to the real cost of such long-term care costs of an average Singaporean senior at the average lifespan that we are enjoying as one of the longest, if not, the longest living people on earth now. On the same note, I propose reviewing the daily MediSave withdrawal limits of $250 for general palliative care and $350 for specialised care to ensure they remain aligned with the rising healthcare costs.

I strongly advocated in a PQ in this House last year on providing senior-friendly enhancements under the MND's Estate Upgrading Programme for private estates as seniors ageing in their private homes require similar support as those living in HDB estates, especially if they are asset-rich but cash poor and unwilling to sell a home that they have bought many decades ago and where they have treasured memories of bringing up their children in. I am thus extremely delighted to hear that the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme will be extended to also cover private properties for three years until 2028, in addition to HDB flats.

This initiative reflects the Government's commitment to supporting seniors across different housing types. I hope that the Government will not be too quick to take away this extension after 2028, even if take-up rate may not be high in the first three years as outreach to private estates are usually more onerous even for MPs like me who are committed to conducting regular evening house visits to have the best chance of meeting residents in my residents in the four private estates in Jalan Kayu.

I have also previously advocated for senior-care facilities under Age Well SG to be cited in both HDB and private housing estates. I hope to see more such facilities in the public spaces of HDB and private estates alike, with a higher proportion of seniors, to promote social engagement, intergeneration interaction and community inclusion for our seniors in their familiar neighbourhood. An Active Ageing Centre cited in the heart of larger private estates, like Seletar Hill and Luxus Hills in Jalan Kayu, will be another public policy and implementation breakthrough that I keenly hope for. I also recommend that the Government consider expanding the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme in both HDB flats and private houses to include technological features, such as installing Smart Home devices, for seniors with mobility challenges or cognitive impairments.

Lastly, supporting seniors to age well requires many hands-on board approaches with also caregivers being well supported. On this front, I welcome the Home Caregiving Grant enhancement, which increases the maximum grant to $600 monthly and raises the qualifying income ceiling to $4,800 per capita, ensuring more caregivers can receive financial support to defray caregiving costs. Building on my previous inquiry regarding the adequacy of Home Caregiving Grant in covering caregiving expenses, I hope that the Government will also, over time, tier support for caregivers of seniors based on the required intensity and duration of care they need to sustain. For instance, caregivers supporting seniors requiring assistance with all six activities of daily living could receive a higher subsidy to offset the costs associated with more complex care needs.

To the final group of Jalan Kayu residents, the young couples and families, whom I feel strongly for, having experienced the ups and downs of settling into a marriage, having a child and constantly juggling with work-life balances throughout the past two decades myself. Strong and resilient families are essential for Singapore's long-term social and economic well-being. As young couples and families in Jalan Kayu navigate the complexities of starting and building a family, I am happy that Budget 2025 offers several good supports in critical areas of: one, childcare affordability; two, assistance for large families; and three, enhancing social support networks.

Access to affordable and quality childcare is vital for working parents balancing their careers and family responsibilities. The reduction in the monthly fee caps of Government-supported preschools will go some way in lightening the financial load on young parents.

I was excited to hear the announcement of the Large Families Scheme by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Finance Minister in his Budget 2025 speech last week. In my speech just last month in this House regarding the Motion on Supporting Singaporeans in Starting and Raising Families, I opened with the sharing of the large extended family that I was blessed to grow up in and concluded with stories of Jalan Kayu residents and Singaporean friends I know who have three or more children. I am so grateful to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong that I can convey the good news of the big "ang pow" that he and his hardworking team in Prime Minister's Office (PMO) have prepared for some more of my residents and friends who are expecting to deliver their third child this year in SG60 and, I hope more, for many more years to come.

As we bring children to this world, we must take care of the vulnerability that some will face due to family circumstances that are not of the children's doing. Initiatives like ComLink+ to offer personalised coaching and mentorship to lower-income families, assisting them in overcoming challenges and achieving greater social mobility, are thus important to be continued in earnest. I hope that my inquiries previously about family coach-to-family ratio and family coach's qualification and experience will be continually reviewed to ensure that vulnerable families receive the guidance they need to enhance their lives. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to say some words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Budget 2025 demonstrates the Government's commitment to building a resilient, inclusive and future-ready Singapore. Amid a complex and changing global environment, this Budget not only addresses Singaporeans' practical needs but also charts a blueprint for Singapore's future development.

This year, I will focus on three key areas that are supported by the Budget: (i) first, supporting working residents; (ii) second, caring for the elderly; and (iii) third, helping young couples raise family.

For working residents, the Government has strengthened support through the enhanced Workfare Skills Support scheme and extended the Senior Employment Credit, the Enabling Employment Credit and the Uplifting Employment Credit to help employees of different ages and backgrounds upgrade their skills and keep their jobs. These are very good schemes.

I hope the Government can promote more training courses aligned with industry needs and provide clearer career development pathways. I suggest strengthening job matching services for employees participating in the Workfare Skills Support scheme to ensure training leads to actual employment opportunities.

To encourage companies to hire senior workers, I suggest increasing the wage subsidy ratio of the Senior Employment Credit for employers offering full-time, part-time or long-term positions. This will benefit seniors who wish to continue to work.

Regarding elderly care, I suggest further integrating elderly-friendly public facilities in both HDB and private estates alike, with a high proportion of seniors. to promote active and healthy living in their neighbourhoods. Furthermore, as more seniors choose to spend their golden years in familiar surroundings, I hope the Government can expand the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme to include smart home technologies, helping seniors with social mobility or cognitive impairment challenges to age safely and comfortably at home.

Excuse me, Ms Ng Ling Ling, could I ask you to wrap up as you are approaching your 20-minute mark?

(In English): I will wrap up. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to applaud Budget 2025 for its comprehensive capture of many needs of Singaporean households and businesses. I spoke in my maiden Parliamentary speech in this House in 2020 about happiness, which is one of the aspirations for our people in the Singapore pledge.

I would like to end my Budget 2025 debate speech with a intimate conversation I heard from a sacrificial old grandma, who has been through many hardships in her younger days, with her wise and thoughtful grandson, who is doing very well in an investment banking job today. The grandma asked, "Tell me the truth, when old people talk of suffering, isn't it tiresome?" The grandson answered, "Isn't that the point? To burden us." I felt the profound depth of wisdom and love of both the grandma and the grandson for each other. As an advocate for healthy living, intergenerational bonding and sustainability in my Jalan Kayu constituency, my sincere hope is that our residents and all Singaporeans can make the full use of the benefits provided in Budget 2024 to chase after your true happiness that can be passed down from generation to generation. Sir, I support Budget 2025.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Mr Dennis Tan, do you have a clarification for Ms Ng Ling Ling?

No, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a clarification regarding a point that I made earlier, just correcting the figures for my previous speech this morning.

So, you want to make accurate your previous speech?

Yes, just a clarification on the figures.

Yes, proceed, please.

Very, very brief, Sir. Just now, in my earlier speech, I said that in Singapore's NDC recent submissions, we had committed to reducing our emissions to between 45 to 55 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035. I wish to clarify that the correct figure should be between 45 to 50 million tonnes instead. That is all.

Is there anything else you wish to add, Mr Dennis Tan?

No, Sir.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Over the course of the past year, inflation has tamed substantially. At the brink of 2024, prices were rising at an uncomfortable rate of 3.7%, relative to the previous year. But by the end of last year, this had slowed to 1.6%, lower than the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') unofficial target of just under 2%.

It is amply clear to all Singaporeans, however, that while the speed by which prices increase have slowed substantially, price levels remain painfully high. We need not go again into comparisons of just how much kopi-o or mee rebus or biryani now command, compared to a few years ago. But suffice to say that, especially for those reliant on fixed incomes, the cost of living has become ever harder to bear.

Yet, even those who are still currently working for a living feel the pinch of how costly things are. And if we look at the data, it should not be much a surprise. Annual real basic wages, that is, take home pay, after adjusting for sticker prices, has failed to keep pace with rising costs. From increases that were mostly between 3% and 4% in the 2010s, this fell to 2.3% in 2020, 0.9% in 2021, -1% in 2022 and 0.2% in 2023.

While, as Prime Minister Wong shared in the Budget, this has rebounded last year, real wage growth over the past half-decade has lagged overall. This was, perhaps most distressingly, against a backdrop where labour productivity actually increased, especially in 2021 and 2022, and remains at a level substantially higher today as compared to the pre-pandemic period.

By a similar token, the employment rate has consistently improved, hitting highs for all age groups, with the exception of youths, aged 15 to 24 years, in 2024. In other words, it was not for want of productivity improvements or a soft labour market that wages have been suppressed.

The Government routinely trots out numbers for how measured real median household incomes are high. In 2024, it clocked in at $11,297, higher than most comparable advanced economies and have steadily progressed, with median earnings growing at an average annual rate of 3.8% over the past five years. Annual earnings per employee have also moved gradually upward, from around $5,500 per month in 2019 to $6,500 in 2023. But these impressive figures mask some important truths.

For starters, the large headline number applies to a typical resident household where both husband and wife work, in contrast to other countries where it is possible to survive on a single breadwinner. More importantly, the dual-income household is not always the result of how both father and mother would like to work, but because they feel that they must, if they hope to make ends meet.

Furthermore, once we correct for inflation, wage growth over the most recent five-year period is actually much lower. By the MOM's own calculus, real wages grew by only 0.7% between 2019 and 2024, significantly lower than the prior decade where it was closer to 3%. And as every worker will attest, this high gross wage quickly dissipates once standard deductions are made. After subtracting CPF contributions and taxes, disposable incomes have to be made to stretch further and further.

Perhaps most troubling in terms of actual progress among local households is that this median may actually be capturing a moving target. Recall, the numbers trotted out apply to residents, which include permanent residents (PRs) and new citizens. This resident population has, of course, been creeping up. But since the criteria for those granted PR or citizenship explicitly require economic contributions, it should be unsurprising if the new additions tend to be higher income.

The data support this: wage growth was three times higher in the top decile relative to the middle ones. The upshot of all this is that, whether one relies on mean or median wages, we are faced with a moving benchmark, one that is steadily drifting upward, even if the standing of our homegrown workforce may be changing much more slowly, if at all.

That is why claims like rising standards of living – like what Prime Minister Wong articulated in his Budget speech – sometimes ring hollow to many low- and middle-class families here. To be clear, what I am stating is not meant to foster discord between native-born Singaporeans and new arrivals. Like the Government, I agree that immigrants that come here – and make Singapore their home – enrich the economy and society of our Little Red Dot.

But we must not deny how many local households feel – that despite impressive statistics, they do not feel like they have enjoyed much of the vaunted progress that the Government crows on about, since the growth of their median earnings do not reflect their own absence of economic progress.

If we accept this state of affairs, then the relevant question is what policymakers can do about. The Government’s approach – which, to be clear, I had supported, and even called a moral imperative, has been to rebate much of the higher nominal tax take to workers, as illustrated by the giveaways in last week’s Budget speech which I support. But such handouts, while welcome, are also perceived by many Singaporeans as palliative measures and insufficient to meet the structural changes required in escalation in costs of living.

For the remainder of my speech, I will offer some suggestions on how we can better realign the seemingly stagnant incomes of working Singaporean families with the harsh realities of a seemingly inexorable rise in the cost of living.

The bottom line is actually remarkably simple: nominal wages will need to rise and more decisively than they have in the post-pandemic era. In the short run, this may add some near-term pressure in terms of wages. In the medium to longer run, however, so long as the increases are in line with overall productivity trends, we should see a rebasing of wages in a manner that reflects the overall higher sticker prices that have emerged over the past half-decade. This will restore the purchasing power of our workers to what had prevailed prior to the post-COVID-19 outbreak of inflation.

Sir, I believe that this process should begin with the civil service. The reason is simple: doing so will have a salutary effect. It not only sends the message that the Government is taking leadership in setting expectations for how economy-wide wages should evolve in light of higher prices but also ensures that our hardworking agents in the public sector are not shortchanged in their service to the nation.

And how has wage growth been for this class of workers? Unfortunately, the Government does not make public granular data on civil service salaries. Still, we can make some inferences, indirectly, using the expenditure on manpower line item in fiscal budgets from years past. In what follows, I will use data from MOE.

Based on my calculations, between 2019 and 2024, wages grew, in inflation-adjusted terms, at an average annual rate of 1.1% for this group. This means that our school teachers and other education service professionals – the ones that we entrust to preside over our children’s learning and development – saw their incomes increase at a rate not much different to the very modest nationwide increase of 0.7%.

Is this sufficient? If MOE is representative of how the rest of the bureaucracy is paid, civil servants are, at least, not falling behind. But if we believe in the signal value of Government action in nudging the private sector, then we must surely feel that this relatively slow rate of wage progression, in the face of high inflation rates, falls short.

Of course, the Government has not entirely abdicated its strategic role in the economy. The National Wages Council (NWC) has consistently offered advice on the direction that wages should trend, and in its most recent guidelines, it stressed that, and I quote, “employers who have done well… should reward their employees with [either] built-in wage increases [or] variable payments”.

The NWC has advocated for built-in wage increases of between 5.5% and 7.5% for lower-wage workers. This push is welcome and helps redress the still-yawning gap in income inequality. And NWC direction on this front has not been for naught: last year, this group saw their real incomes expand at a rate that was more than 1% faster than that of the median.

However, the council held back from analogous recommendations for the workforce as a whole. Admittedly, it is harder to dictate similar increases across the diverse economic conditions faced by different sectors and industries. But we need to remember that much like lower-wage earners, the middle class has seen their purchasing power erode in recent years. The inflation tax is borne by everyone, regardless of income.

Just as important, wage increases premised on addressing rising costs of living should not be made conditional on upskilling and productivity improvements. This is not to say just let real wages rise indiscriminately over time, in blatant disregard of efficiency improvements. Rather adjustments to nominal income that neutralise the effects of past inflation is the very least that employers owe to their workers, especially with so many companies also posting record profits, due to higher sticker prices alone.

Notwithstanding the difficulties of prescribing generalised increases, NWC guidelines I believe should at least recommend that all workers in profitable firms, not just those at the lower end of the distribution, be inflation-proofed. With cumulative inflation over the past two years of around 7%, it is fully justifiable for the NWC to expand its recommendations to an across-the-board, one-off wage hike of between 5.5% and 7.5%.

To help expedite adoption, the Ministry could also monitor adherence to these guidelines across companies, not least how the civil service has fared. While NWC recommendations should not be mandatory, an economy-wide stocktaking – especially for firms reporting sales turnovers in excess of $10 million – will nevertheless impress on businesses that the Government does indeed care about the extent to which corporations take guidelines seriously.

In my classes in macroeconomics, I teach my students about the benefits of stabilisation policy. Typically, I talk about either monetary policy, via the interest rate, or fiscal policy, via taxes and government spending. But interventionist policies also include those affecting the exchange rate and, crucially, wages. Wage policy is tricky, however; in most economies, workers, that is, voters would often be up in arms if the government were to recommend wage cuts, even if it could, in principle, shore up the aggregate economy during downturns.

When asked for an example, I use our CPF system. The employer’s share does not generally factor into household day-to-day expenses – families make ends meet with their take-home salaries. So, Singapore has historically used this tool to promote economic recovery, with temporary cuts of the employer’s CPF contribution. There is grumbling and discontent, but the implicit understanding is that there would be compensation, after the storm has passed.

Contribution rates have certainly changed over time. When the scheme was in its infancy, forced saving amounted to a mere 10% of wages, with 5% each from employer and employee. In these early decades, the employer share was even occasionally higher than that of the employee's. Overall contributions gradually rose to a peak of 50% in 1984 before tapering down to 40% in the late 1990s. Through it all, the shares borne by workers and their companies were roughly equal.

This changed in 1999. In response to the Asian Crisis, the employer share was slashed in half, to 10%. While this was then incrementally increased to 16% at the turn of the millennium, it was cut again in 2003. This rate then crept up to the present 17% by 2015, but we never again saw a restoration of an equal employer share.

Two Budgets ago, the Government raised the CPF monthly ceiling, from $6,000 to $8,000. This move, as Prime Minister Wong shared at the time, allows CPF contributions to better keep pace with rising salaries. But the policy is only material to those who earn above the ceiling. In contrast, raising the employer share will help all workers.

I understand that, ultimately, employers look at an employee’s overall cost in making hiring decisions and that any call for restoring the employer’s contribution to a higher rate amounts to an increase in the company’s overall wage bill. Regardless, the imbalance in employer and employee shares should be redressed. Others have suggested the same. In 2014, the Labor Movement asked that employers’ contributions be increased to more than those of employees’. In other instances, NTUC has also called for a delay to employer contribution cuts or an accelerated restoration. But momentum behind this has stalled and our workers have endured an extended wage cut for the better part of two decades. With costs of living so high, there is no better time than now to make workers’ gross incomes made whole again.

Sir, I have focused on policies that will promote faster adjustment in overall wages. For lower-income earners, we can do more, notwithstanding the gains that the group has managed to eke out over the past year. In particular, the time is right for us to formalise our minimum wage.

Following revisions to the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) framework in 2022, which expanded the scheme to all companies hiring foreign employees, rather than just those bound by a foreign worker quota, there is now an effective minimum wage for all Singaporeans. At the same time, the LQS salary, which used to be around $1,000, has been revised upward. In last year’s Budget speech, Prime Minister Wong set this at $1,600 for full-timers.