Hansard, Wednesday, 5 August 2026

1 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education in respect of the "O" Level English Language oral examination conducted on 15 July 2026, whether the Ministry intends to review and improve the way the oral examination is conducted notwithstanding the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board's finding that there was no discrepancy in the question displayed on the candidates’ and examiners' screens, to minimise risks of students being unnecessarily affected.

2 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education with respect to the "O" Level English Language oral examination conducted on 15 July 2026 (a) whether any requests for assistance from students or their parents have been received by Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) due to the alleged discrepancy between the question displayed on the candidates’ and the examiners’ screens; and (b) if so, how has SEAB been assisting these students.

3 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Education before the 2026 "O" Level English results are finalised (a) whether the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) will compare candidates’ scores and responses from the 15 July 2026 oral session against other sessions; and (b) what remedies will apply if this shows a material session-level or examination-centre-level anomaly despite SEAB’s finding that one version of the examination video and questions was released.

Mr Speaker, may I please address oral Question Nos 1 to 3 on today's Order Paper?

Please proceed.

My response will also address related oral and written questions filed for the Sitting on 4 August 2026.

Sir, as the questions are about the GCE "O" Level English Oral Language Examination on 15 July, let me first explain the examination process.

Candidates are first seated at the silent preparation station. The candidates view a computer screen with three components simultaneously displayed. The examination instructions, a text prompt and a video.

They are given 10 minutes at this station to prepare a planned response to their oral presentation. After 10 minutes, the candidate is called to the examiners' station. The oral examiner reads out the same text prompt and invites the candidate to commence the presentation. There is another examiner present.

Candidates are given two minutes to deliver their planned response. This is followed by the spoken interaction component, where the candidate engages in a discussion with the oral examiners on a topic based on the video clip.

All examination materials are subjected to a rigorous and secure process of authoring, review and approval. The oral examinations are accessed through the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board's (SEAB's) e-Examination system. Digital logs monitor all activities carried out in the system to ensure the integrity of the processes.

For each oral examination session, only one version of the examination materials is stored on SEAB's e-Examination system. All examination centres access the same materials when they log into SEAB's e-Examination system. The materials are encrypted and can only be accessed by authorised personnel.

Before the start of each session, the Assessment Specialist at SEAB checks that the prompt shown on-screen to candidates during the silent preparation and the prompt shown to the oral examiners tally exactly with the prompt on the question paper in hard copy. Once the examination has commenced, the materials cannot be amended. During the examination, all stations in the examination centres, including the candidates silent preparation stations and the oral examiners stations, access the same approved, secured, encrypted examination materials from the e-Examination system.

There were 389 oral examination teams across schools, with each team comprising two trained oral examiners assessing 13 candidates per session. The video presented to candidates depicted street barbers at work. The prompt for the planned response segment was, "Who do you think would go to a place like this for a haircut? Why do you say so?"

On the day of the examination, 173 candidates from 76 different schools reported that the prompt for the planned response segment displayed on their screen at the silent preparation station was different from the one that was posed by the oral examiners.

In the following days, the number of candidates who reported similar issues concerning the 15 July oral examination increased to 432 from 102 schools. Close to 5,000 candidates sat for the GCE "O" Level English language oral examination on 15 July 2026. On 15 July itself, SEAB took immediate actions to investigate. SEAB verified the examination materials by making system level checks and by logging into candidates' individual accounts in the e-Examination system, which shows the prompt and video accessed by the candidates. The investigation showed that the prompt on the candidates' screens match the prompt in the approved examination materials.

SEAB subsequently also reviewed all the digital logs of the authoring and delivery of the examination material from SEAB's e-Examination system and the digital logs of what was displayed on individual candidates' screens during the silent preparation, for all candidates who reported a discrepancy. In addition, cybersecurity checks were conducted to ascertain if the e-Examination system had been compromised.

Investigations showed that in all examination centres, oral examiners and candidates accessed the same examination materials during the oral examination on 15 July 2026. There was no evidence of a system malfunction. There was no discrepancy in the prompt displayed to candidates and oral examiners. There was only one source that all candidates' and examiners' accounts accessed. There was also no cybersecurity incident detected.

We also observed no discernible pattern of these incidents. The 432 candidates who reported this discrepancy came from 200 different oral examiner teams. There was also no particular order to the affected candidate. For instance, it was the second and eighth out of 13 candidates for one oral exam team. So, in that sequence, this oral exam team would examine 13 candidates, and it was the second and eighth candidate reporting a discrepancy with the other candidates reporting no discrepancy. And for another oral team, it was the third and 10th candidate, for example.

To be clear, the discrepancies reported were not about what the oral examiners asked – only that the recollection of the text prompt at the preparation station was different from what the oral examiner read out.

The reported discrepancies also demonstrated significant variation, with different phrases recalled by different students, including by students that were examined at the same centre and by the same oral examination team. The actual prompt shown was, "Who do you think would go to a place like this for a haircut? Why do you say so?" Some candidates reported reading the prompt as, "Would you go?" Others reported reading the prompt as, "Would you visit?", "Would you be interested?", "Would you like?", "Would you want?", "Would you cut your hair at the place shown?", "Would you get your hair cut?" and "Why would I go?"

Putting together the technical details, the distribution pattern of the incidents across the stations, schools and time, as well as the variety of phrases reported by the students. SEAB has concluded the cause of these incidents was not technical in nature, nor the result of a deliberate or malicious act.

We understand that the experience would have been unsettling for the affected candidates. Parents and candidates can be assured that our oral examiners are experienced teachers who assessed candidates based on what they demonstrated during the examination, including how they developed and presented their ideas and opinions, and how effectively they engaged the examiner during the discussion.

The preliminary data shows that the mean score for the oral examination on 15 July is comparable to that of the other four sessions in 2026. In addition, the mean score of the 432 candidates who reported the prompt discrepancy is also comparable to the mean score of the remaining candidates who sat for the oral examination on 15 July 2026.

So, therefore, as a group, the candidates who reported discrepancies fared as well as other candidates who did not report any discrepancy.

There might be some candidates who experienced significant distress arising from the circumstances. This might have affected their ability to provide a suitable response. Schools are working with these candidates to apply for special consideration. Special consideration is an established evidence-based process by examination boards to review the final subject grades for candidates whose performance had been adversely affected by circumstances beyond their control during the examinations. This is to ensure fair assessment. Each application will be evaluated on its merits.

We thank candidates, parents and schools for bringing their concerns to our attention. We take these reports very seriously. SEAB conducted a thorough investigation before coming to the conclusion that the same prompt was displayed for all candidates. SEAB will review the oral examination processes for students to read the oral prompt more carefully during the 10-minute preparation time. SEAB also remains committed to ensuring that all candidates, including those who might have misread the prompt, are assessed fairly.

Ms Hany Soh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his substantive reply. In relation to the special considerations that he shared with this House earlier, I also understand from my resident that that has been the reply from SEAB to one of my residents whose child has been affected.

In this regard, can I enquire so far in relation to the over 500 cases that were reported of discrepancies that were highlighted – 400 plus in total, I beg your pardon – have any of these students followed up with a special consideration application? And in such an instance, what will be the process taken and whether the students who had put in the appeal would eventually be updated that their results have taken in the circumstances that had transpired?

Sir, I thank Ms Hany Soh for the question. Certainly, the applicants for special consideration will be updated and engaged on the process.

The process of special consideration is still in process. So, I think it is perhaps not appropriate for me to comment on the specifics. Each case will be evaluated. The process of special consideration is to look at the particular circumstances of each case.

Certainly, some applications have been made and potentially further applications will be made. So, I think we have to let that process play out.

Mr Andre Low.

Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions.

First, if I may paraphrase what I am hearing as the explanation or what the investigation has uncovered, is that the system architecture by its very nature would not permit the incident that students are describing from happening – because of the nature of the fact that it is a single question stored in the database and it is a single question transmitted to all terminals. That being said, I understand also that centralised logs were also checked to make sure that this was indeed what happened.

Can the Ministry share if the terminals themselves maintained any logs and whether these logs can be investigated to see whether what was displayed or was it recorded what was actually displayed on the screen of the individual terminals, as opposed to the centralised database? So, that is my first supplementary question.

My second supplementary question is essentially on the nature of the question itself. It would seem that given that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is convinced that no actual variation in the question displayed happened, but about 8% to 9% of students who took the exam experienced this, would MOE consider varying the way they set oral examination questions in the future?

I understand that reading comprehension is one of the elements being tested in an oral examination, but I would argue it is probably not the main element being tested. Would MOE consider in the future of setting questions or user testing questions such that such incidents would not arise again in the future and cause potential distress to our students?

Sir, I thank Mr Low for the questions. On his first point, indeed, the investigation involved the individual terminals, including logging on with the student's ID and authentication, so that the exact same handshake between the terminal and the centralised database was carried out, to see what was returned as material. So, very thorough from a from a technical perspective.

I would point out that his 8% to 9% is on that that day – I presume he is taking the 432 divided by 5,000 – but that was for that day only. The total number, of course, of people taking the examination across the four days is approximately four times as many.

Yes, indeed, SEAB will look to learn from this incident how we can reduce the risk of prompts being misread, guide the students about the preparation better, both in terms of the preparation for the exam and during the exam itself. And part of that technical professional skillset is to look at how specific phrases or words are used within examination prompts. SEAB will certainly do this.

Assoc Prof James Lim.

Sir, I believe the incident reports of the anomaly were made by a number of individuals, not only by – and I have to be careful about the use of this word here – at least 432 students, but also by the teachers themselves.

I accept that SEAB did their due diligence in verifying that there were no computer issues that could have given rise to the alleged outcome, and it is on this basis that the Senior Minister of State has asserted that that there were no errors. I wonder then is SEAB implicitly suggesting that there could have been an occasion of collective hallucination that occurred on that day? And if so, does this mean that the investigation would have perhaps implicitly privileged computer forensic evidence over the contemporary testimony of a significant number of human witnesses?

Sir, implicit in Mr Lim's question, in what he describes as a collective hallucination, is that all the students recalled the same phrase. And as our investigations have demonstrated, the students demonstrated significant variance in the many phrases that they recalled. So, I think his implication that we are privileging one set of information over the other is incorrect.

We are looking at both the testimonies, as well as the technical assessment. And the fact that the testimonies covered a wide variation in the phrases in itself is a very significant data point.

So, I would ask him to perhaps not put words in my mouth about collective hallucinations, nor imply a privileging of one set of data over the other. I think in my response, I have explained how we take all the data very seriously.

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Thank you, Speaker. Three supplementary questions.

First, a factual question. Reports were filed on that day by SEAB's own examination personnel at the schools. So, how many irregularity reports did SEAB receive concerning 15 July English oral exam? Not complaints from candidates, but actual reports filed by its own oral examiners and presiding officers. And if the Ministry does not have this figure today, will they undertake to provide it? It seems very peculiar to me that 432 candidates from 132 schools reported it on day three, and day three alone. They did not report it on day one, day two or day four. So, to me it is highly anomalous.

Supplementary question two: did SEAB examine the candidates' contemporaneous physical planning sheets against the examiner's script?

And supplementary question three: since SEAB has all the evidence needed – the login logs, the examiners' marking comments, the contemporaneous planning sheets, as well as the audio from the session – will the Ministry allow someone outside SEAB to look at them to conduct an external investigation?

Sir, I do not have the numbers for the officers reporting. We can certainly look it up.

We have examined the contemporaneous planning sheets. It is hard to correlate those with specific reports because many of the contemporaneous planning sheets did not have candidates' names written on them; that is not a requirement. But the information from the contemporaneous planning sheets does, in some cases indicate that the student had misread the prompt. And in some cases, it indicates that the student had misread the prompt, started planning on that basis and then corrected themselves. And so on one sheet, we can see the student having written down what they thought originally what is the prompt, and then crossing that out and then writing the correct prompt and then planning from there.

Indeed, we have had GovTech come in to audit the technical platforms, the processes and so forth. And they have come to the same conclusion as SEAB.

Mr David Hoe.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. My question comes from conversations with parents who accept the fact that their children might have misinterpreted or misread the question under examination pressure. So, three supplementary questions.

First, is the ability to accurately process a question under exam pressure, part of a skill to be accessed under oral examination?

Second, if so, how are students prepared for this, because, unlike written exams, which students experience across many subjects, they may have fewer opportunities to practise this skillset to respond under exam pressure.

Third, parents would like to know, when candidates reported the question has been asked differently from what they saw in the terminal, could we clarify what was the process thereafter?

Sir, I thank Mr Hoe for his questions.

His first two questions, I think, are a little bit outside the remit of this Parliamentary Question, which is about the examination process; and more about the overall preparation for the subject, the curriculum and the approach taken to prepare students. But across all subjects, certainly, the way in which our students approach an examination is very much part of the preparation in the classroom, in the development of the student across the curriculum, across the syllabus and the skills and techniques that they learn in the classroom. And some of that will be about how to deal with errors, deal with the emotional state that they are in. So, I think it is quite beyond the remit of the Parliamentary Question today, but I thank him for highlighting this. It is indeed an important part of the work that is done by the teachers.

He then asked about the process after reporting. Can I just ask what is it he was asking about? I did not quite understand what he meant.

Mr Hoe.

Thank you to the Senior Minister of State. Basically, parents are questioning, after a child report that the question that they saw on the terminal and the question asked was different, what happened after?

With the examiner or what?

With the exam at that point.

Thank you, Sir. Mr Hoe has clarified that he is talking about what is happening with the examiner rather than the investigation of the incident.

The examiners are trained in a process of positive marking. They are not looking for absolute compliance with a template answer. They are looking in this exam, for the students to demonstrate their skill, their oral skill with their language – what vocabulary they are using, their sentence structure, how they use grammar and tense, how they present their ideas, how they organise their ideas and how they build upon ideas over the course of the presentation.

And this is one of the reasons why you can see that the marks are comparable. Because the students were able to speak. Sometimes, they had prepared incorrectly, but nevertheless were able to speak well, either on the initial subject that they thought they were presenting on or when corrected on the prompt that they heard from the examiner. And so, within their presentation was enough material demonstrating their ability with the language.

This approach of positive marking then allows the examiner to draw out the skills that the student has and provide them an appropriate mark. So, that is the process. And it applies regardless of whether the students hesitate, perhaps, ask a question about the prompt. There is this approach of positive marking: looking for the ability of the student to demonstrate the skills that they have, not blind compliance with a template, nor a negative marking approach looking for mistakes.

4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding the Singapore Medical Foundation AI Model (SIMFONI) initiative (a) what are the rationale and cost of developing AI models for conditions that can be diagnosed by routine tests, instead of targeting rare diseases that are harder to diagnose; (b) how will clinicians access SIMFONI and whether private practitioners will be included; and (c) what safeguards protect patient identifiers from data leaks.

5 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) before the deployment of Singapore Medical Foundation AI Model (SIMFONI), whether the Ministry will subject its models to privacy testing by assessors independent of the developers to determine if they can memorise or reproduce identifiable patient information; and (b) whether test standards, findings and response protocol for any disclosure will be published.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together?

Yes, please proceed.

The Singapore Medical Foundation AI Model (SIMFONI) develops artificial intelligence (AI) tools to provide clinical decision support for managing chronic conditions, prioritising conditions with high disease burden in Singapore and feasibility of development. We are starting with a couple of specialty areas and settings in the public healthcare sector. If successful, we will expand its coverage to more specialities and also possibly, to the private practitioners.

SIMFONI's models are built on existing models trained using international data. They are adapted using local patient data, they are de-identified, in a secure national platform with well-established processes, expertise and safeguards. This platform is called TRUST, which was established in 2022 precisely for research, development and innovation efforts.

To further ensure the integrity of this process, an independent safety and evaluation unit will carry out rigorous testing of SIMFONI's models before actual deployment.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. While clinicians will ultimately retain responsibility for medical decisions, international experience has shown that doctors may gradually defer to AI decisions or recommendations – something known as automation bias. Will the Ministry announce specific safeguards to detect and mitigate this risk and how we ensure that AI compliments rather than subtly replaces independent clinical judgement?

We do not really announce what we are going to do to safeguard against this. This is very much in the way we approach AI, how we deploy and how we implement them.

I have given a few speeches on this matter. There is a lot of hype about AI, including in healthcare. And sometimes, you really wonder why are these proposals like that. Because those of us who work in healthcare, you know it is not simple, especially a public essential service.

We have to take a very careful use-case approach. That means, what problems are we facing, can AI solve those problems? Find the right tools. Never treat AI as a hammer going around looking for nails or a solution looking for a problem. We have enough problems. Let us see what AI can do to solve some of these problems.

And when you can find the right AI tool, make sure it is trained in the local context, taking into account security, de-identified data, patient data that is in Singapore.

When the model is ready, when you deploy it, you have to deploy in accordance with clinical protocols. There is a certain way we do things. There are existing legacy IT systems. AI is not something you plug into the socket and suddenly, it solves your problems. It does not work that way. And then, how do you interface with existing legacy IT systems? How the processes are thought through, with the clinicians still making the judgement?

It is early days, but I think we are very conscious that there is a lot of hype, a lot of use or misuse of AI. I think all this hype at some point will subside to a more realistic level, where people are more judicious, thoughtful and even, sober about using AI. And we tell ourselves, "Why wait for that process? Why do we not start off being sober and judicious?" And that is the approach that the Ministry of Health is taking.

Mr Low.

Thank you, Speaker. Minister, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, it is about the scope of the data that is being envisaged to be used to train this AI model. Would it encompass all health data in Singapore of all patients, including data in the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) database?

Secondly, it is about the nature of the consent that will be sought before patient's data will be used for training. Has the Ministry considered, or will the Ministry consider, asking patients for explicit consent before their data can be used for training purposes?

And third supplementary question: I understand the Minister has given assurances that the data will be anonymised and have personal identifiers removed before they are used for training. However, as we can see, I have another Parliamentary Question today for a similar data leak incident with the Singapore Land Authority, where a lot of these processes are fallible. And sometimes, anonymisation of data does not actually pan out and personal identifiable data can leak into publicly available databases. What assurances can the Minister give to the public that their very sensitive health data will remain safe?

I think we all know AI is a breakthrough technology, but we must take a thoughtful and judicious approach. So, we have to decide what we want to do with it. If we start off thinking that we distrust this system entirely and therefore, let us scope down the data to be used to train models – even though we know the data is essential to train models that can improve healthcare, save lives, operate everything better and maybe help us address some of our very stark challenges of an ageing population with rising patient load – and if we accept that, but yet at the same time distrust the system and say, "Let's scope down the data, let's not believe that they can really be anonymised and de-dentified because there can be leaks and traceability", and "Let's seek everyone's consent before we can use", then it is a non-starter. It becomes a non-starter.

I think just take a balanced approach: recognise that this is a breakthrough technology that can do a lot of good, but to do so, we will need to use the data that we have and take the necessary precautions. Make sure that it is anonymised and de-identified. And we started this process some years ago. So, TRUST data has been used in various contexts already – so far, incident-free. I think we make sure it is anonymised and de-identified by international standards.

I think let us proceed on that basis. We must have safeguards, I agree. But we must strike a balance between leveraging that technology, but putting in place the safeguards. And we can proceed on that basis.

And at some point, Singaporeans will see that healthcare services are improving, yet quite incident-free. That is when they have confidence and assurance. I think let the action and the results speak for themselves.

6 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in light of recent disruptions affecting korban services in Singapore, whether MUIS will (i) consider reviewing the current operating model for korban services in Singapore for better oversight (ii) introduce a licensing or accreditation framework for such operators and (iii) establish a service standard for local operators to adhere to.

Mr Speaker, a question on korban disruption during this year's Hari Raya Haji was earlier addressed at the last Parliamentary Sitting on 7 July 2026. Nevertheless, I felt that it was important to address this matter again today because korban is a significant religious observance for our Muslim community.

To recap, on 21 May this year, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura or MUIS) was informed of a delay in the arrival of 400 livestock, which affected local korban services at four local mosques. This occurred because a local korban vendor was unable to secure the necessary export approvals from the Australian authorities in time.

The incident had caused concern and disappointment, understandably, to those who had made korban arrangements at these mosques. At the same time, I was heartened by the way the community responded. Many showed patience, understanding and support during this period, and this reflects the spirit of the community in supporting one another through difficult situations.

MUIS has conducted a comprehensive review of the incident. In the two weeks since I have stepped into this role, I have discussed the findings and action plans with MUIS, and we will implement concrete measures to strengthen the current operating model and better support local korban operators.

Let me briefly recap three key measures that MUIS will implement.

First, MUIS will strengthen oversight of local korban operators, particularly for new vendors. We will work closely with vendors to ensure that necessary overseas regulatory approvals are obtained in a timely manner and that crucial milestones for korban operations are met.

Second, MUIS will introduce stronger contractual and operational requirements, including clearer service standards, contingency plans and obligations. This will provide operators with greater clarity on the standards that they are expected to meet and ensure that korban participants are better informed and protected.

Third, MUIS will start preparations for local korban earlier. Engagements with mosques and korban vendors will now start six to eight months before Hari Raya Haji to provide more time for overseas regulatory approvals and operational planning.

MUIS will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the above measures and make further adjustments if necessary.

The Government will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to ensure that members of the local Muslim community are able to perform their korban with confidence, whether locally or overseas.

Ms Hazlina.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Acting Minister for the responses. I have got three supplementary questions; two in Malay.

First, I appreciate that there is going to be tighter control of contractual obligations as well as service standards. Could the Acting Minister please share, aside from timeliness, what other measures of performance of these vendors will be instituted to uphold this "amanah" or the responsibility of the service provided? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Thank you, Acting Minister, for outlining the measures that MUIS will undertake to enhance preparations for the upcoming korban season, especially the effort to commence it earlier.

To recap, it was mentioned that preparations would begin six to eight months earlier, which means we are almost at that stage. Could the Acting Minister perhaps clarify how far along the preparations are for the 2027 season? That is my first question. Secondly, I would like to seek some clarification from the Acting Minister on the latest update regarding the process of refunds to the sohibul korban (korban participants) who were affected during the recent 2026 season, which was supposed to have been settled by early August.

Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): I understand that there are those who may be disappointed by what has happened. MUIS has already reviewed the korban 2026 process and we have improved the process so that we can carry out korban more smoothly in 2027.

We have made earlier preparations for next year's korban, and the Salam SG Korban 2027 Committee will be formed next month, in September, so that we can focus on further improving the korban process. I do believe this is important because we have not only extended our preparation period, but we are also looking at how we can improve our contracts and processes and take the necessary steps in our operations to further strengthen the korban process.

I have also been informed that some korban participants have received their refunds from The Meat Brothers, and for those who have yet to receive theirs, I ask for your patience. For those who still have outstanding issues or problems, please get in touch with MUIS, as we will do the follow up with The Meat Brothers. I have also been informed that The Meat Brothers have given their assurance that they will endeavour to settle all refunds by early August.

Overall, I would like to express my appreciation to MUIS and our colleagues for their efforts in managing this issue. At the same time, I would also like to thank the community for showing their patience and trust in us. InsyaAllah, we will continue to improve this process so that our ibadah korban can be carried out more smoothly and with greater confidence in the future.

Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): I would like to declare that the owner of The Meat Brothers is my constituent and they have worked with me for some events. Thank you, Acting Minister, for your response. I have three supplementary questions.

First, will MUIS consider including enhanced compensation for any sohibul korban (korban participants) affected by disruptions as a future licensing criterion? For example, compensation could include allowing affected sohibul korban to participate physically in a live korban at a reduced rate in the coming years.

Secondly, will MUIS consider prioritising korban operators who source their livestock from countries other than Australia?

And thirdly, does MUIS have plans to work with MFA and our counterparts in the Australian Government to facilitate the process of obtaining export permits for livestock?

(In Malay): Thank you for the questions. For the first and second suggestions, I think we can consider them, but we will need to look at how they can be incorporated into our processes, or whether they are suitable for our current situation.

As for the approval process from the Australian side, I think that this is a matter outside Singapore's jurisdiction. So, in terms of process, we do not have control over Australia's processes, but we will endeavour to work with MFA to facilitate matters for our operators. I am confident in the process where we are giving more lead time, which is six to eight months, to carry out the operations this time. We can hand-hold our operators to give assurance to our community, whereby we will provide a longer timeframe for the operators to obtain approval from the Australian Government.

As for other source countries, we can consider it, but we also need to assess their ability to supply us with livestock in an on-time, on-delivery manner, so that we can have confidence in their operations as well.

So, if we look at the situation today, the issue is not with the source, because the other parties, the two other operators, did not face any problems.

(In English): So, the issue is not on the local front. It is not with the agencies because the other operators who have been very familiar with the process have not had issues. The Meat Brothers is a new operator who is not so familiar with the environment and of course, it was also found that the authorities in Australia had also taken longer because they were operating with a new supply chain.

So, therefore, we are catering for such arrangements in future when there are new operators. And therefore, we are giving more leeway and that is why we are extending the operations time now to six to eight months instead of what it is today.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Mariam Jaafar –

7 To ask the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the amount of deposits collected under the Beverage Container Return Scheme from beverage producers and retailers since the commencement of the Scheme; (b) what is the amount refunded to consumers who returned containers over this period; and (c) how any surplus is accounted for and whether it is retained by BCRS Ltd, reinvested into scheme operations, or returned to Government.

Question No 7.

Mr Speaker, my reply to Question No 7 on today’s Order Paper also addresses related Parliamentary Questions filed by Ms Mariam Jaafar for the Parliamentary Sitting on 4 August 2026 as well as Ms Joan Pereira1 and Dr Hamid Razak’s2 questions for the Sitting on or after 6 August 2026.

I thank Members for their continued interest in the Return Right Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS).

While the scheme remains in its transition phase until 30 September 2026, we have seen encouraging progress in the first three months. To date, the Scheme has handled over one million successful transactions, with 5.5 million beverage containers returned. We expect this number to grow as more BCRS-labelled products enter the market.

Most transactions and returns at Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) have been successful. For the handful of issues that occurred at the RVMs, the scheme operator BCRS Ltd worked closely with the RVM operators to respond quickly to resolve them.

On scheme finances, BCRS Ltd is a not-for-profit company funded through the producer fees as well as revenue from the sale of recyclables collected. Deposits which have been paid for by consumers but are ultimately not redeemed, may be utilised by BCRS Ltd to cover the costs of implementing the scheme. This is a common model adopted in other jurisdictions with similar deposit return schemes. BCRS Ltd is required to submit an annual report to the National Environment Agency (NEA), which includes an account of its finances, within three months after the end of each compliance year.

The consumer pricing of beverages is a commercial decision that is influenced by multiple factors, including fuel and logistics costs, consumer demand patterns as well as producer or retailer marketing strategies. Market players who raise the prices of their beverages will face direct competition with other industry players given the wide variety of beverage choices. Nevertheless, members of the public who notice improper practices among retailers may alert NEA.

On the network coverage of return points, all 1,070 RVMs that were planned for the initial roll-out have been deployed and are operational, allowing over 90% of HDB residents to be within a five-minute walk of an RVM, in addition to machines in the bigger supermarkets.

We have progressively deployed more RVMs since launch and are on track to increase the number of return points to around 2,000 within the first year of implementation. All hawker centres will either have an RVM on site or a machine located close by. Many coffee shops are located within HDB estates and would have convenient access to an RVM.

We thank all members of the public for their feedback, support and patience in adapting to this new mode of clean stream recycling as we continue to refine the scheme. We encourage everyone to participate actively by being mindful of the beverage containers you consume and returning empty beverage containers at designated return points.

Dr Hamid Razak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I want to thank NEA for the roll-out. I saw the officers on the ground helping residents grapple with the machines.

I have got some feedback from residents that there continue as we roll out this programme, some eateries where the RVMs are not located nearby and they said that they feel that the cost is still being passed on to them. So, would the Ministry be able to provide some guidance where the merchants are able to then do the Return Right, therefore not passing on the cost to the residents in such eateries?

Sir, NEA has indeed rolled out the Return Right F&B scheme. I thank Dr Hamid for giving me this opportunity to make a plug for it.

This scheme allows merchants to provide the drink to the consumer but take back the beverage container and to do this at scale.

I would encourage merchants that are interested to contact NEA. This is not relevant to the Parliamentary Question directly, but several thousands have already signed up.

8 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry is taking remedial steps to rectify the instances of erroneous disbursements made by then-SkillsFuture Singapore under the Enhanced Training Support for Small and Medium Enterprises scheme identified in the recent Auditor-General's report; and (b) if so, whether these will have an adverse impact on the businesses or individuals that may have relied on these erroneous disbursements.

9 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether any police report has been filed in relation to the potential gaming by training providers to obtain course fee funding from then-SkillsFuture Singapore as highlighted by the recent Auditor-General's report; (b) whether any efforts will be made to recover any grants that were disbursed to the training providers in question; and (c) if not, why not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take oral Parliamentary Question Nos 8 and 9 together?

Please proceed.

The Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) has zero tolerance for fraud and has fraud detection measures in place. SWDA is currently investigating training providers and trainees involved in potential gaming behaviour. If ongoing investigations indicate that any criminal behaviour might be involved, Police reports will be made. We will take appropriate action, including recovering grants where warranted, if investigations confirm a breach of funding terms or other inappropriate conduct.

In relation to the erroneous disbursements of the Enhanced Training Support for Small and Medium Enterprises (ETSS), SWDA has rectified the erroneous system logic in the information technology (IT) system that led to the misclassification of firms as small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

SWDA has also revised its operating procedures to ensure accurate SME eligibility assessments going forward.

There will be no adverse impact on the businesses or individuals who received disbursements based on the prior assessments. The Ministry will honour the disbursements which were used to support real training that benefited local workers.

Mr Nair.

I thank the Acting Minister for the very clear answer. From my reading of the Auditor-General's report, it said about half the grants, about $2.24 million, were because of erroneous disbursements. I understand that the system has been rectified but the disbursements will still go out. It said another $2.08 million would have been disbursed under other subsidy schemes. Does this suggest that there is no issue within the Government that a different subsidy scheme had been used?

I thank the Member for his question. The total ETSS grant amount disbursed to the affected companies was $4.32 million, but the amount that was over-disbursed was about $2.24 million. And we described it as such because a number of these affected companies would otherwise have been eligible for grants totaling $2.08 million under the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy scheme, which also similarly provides a 20% cost fee subsidy for the workers who are Singapore Citizens aged 40 and above.

Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister for the answer given. My first supplementary question is, how will the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) strengthen oversight over the disbursement of the SkillsFuture cost fee funding? For example, will MOM consider taking such steps, such as asking participants to declare whether they are taking courses from a company they or their immediate family members are working for?

Also, I could not get the last answer. Does the Government have any information on how many SkillsFuture credits were used by course participants on these potentially gamed courses?

I thank the Member for his questions. The investigations on gaming behaviour are still ongoing, so we are unable to reveal more.

But for all such schemes, including SkillsFuture credits that we give out to support training, there will always be a risk of potential gaming. And over time, SWDA will enhance its efforts to detect and investigate different types of gaming behaviours, and where necessary, we will adjust the funding policies to address the risk of gaming.

We are also considerate and we want to ensure that individuals have good access to the grants that we give out and therefore, we do not want it to be too onerous on both individual workers and also employers in supporting Singaporeans to access training.

10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has investigated the root causes of the incidents of bus fires involving Mercedes-Benz Citaro buses in 2026; (b) whether additional safety protocols and mechanical audits are being implemented across older public transport fleet assets to ensure passenger safety; and (c) if so, what are they.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan to outline the steps taken by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) in dealing with the bus fire incidents in the first half of 2026. No one was injured in the incidents, but every such fire is an incident too many.

On his first query as to whether LTA has investigated, the answer is yes. Based on the investigations, the fire incidents involving the Mercedes-Benz Citaro buses were caused by the failure of different parts. There is no indication of a common underlying cause. The parts involved were also within their manufacturer-recommended useful life.

Turning to his second and third queries, LTA directed the public bus operators to carry out additional inspections of their Citaro buses. No abnormalities were found as a result. LTA is working with the bus operators to enhance the bus inspection regime for older buses and assess whether additional preventive measures can reduce the fire risk.

Mr Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I have three supplementary questions.

First, I would like to ask what fire detection or suppression systems are currently installed in the engine compartments of such public buses and whether LTA is reviewing the need for enhanced thermal monitoring or fire detection systems on especially the older buses to provide earlier warning of potential fires?

My next supplementary question; whether maintenance audit requirements and fault reporting standards are applied consistently across all public transport operators (PTOs)? I believe that the buses are used by different operators.

And what measures LTA takes to verify compliance and identify any gaps in maintenance practices?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the first question on suppression system. It is, in a sense, related to the cause of each respective fires. For three fires that happened in the first half of this year, there were different causes. For the first incident, it involved a mechanical failure of a propeller shaft, which then became loose. As a result, the fire was caused. The second incident involved the mechanical failure of a turbo-charger.

So, the systems in place really depends on the cause that resulted in the fire. I would say that as far as the buses' electrical systems are concerned, there are indicators which will indicate the start of a fire and the bus captains would have to take the necessary steps if the bus is being used. Of course, beyond that, we have the maintenance regimes and each manufacturer would indicate the service length or time for each parts that is being used.

Moving on to the maintenance regime of these buses, indeed, the Citaro buses would have a certain manual that has to be complied with and LTA's expectation would be that the manual for the maintenance must be followed.

On the third point about audits, I would say that for the three cases, LTA has not just been in contact with the PTOs, but has also been in contact with the manufacturer – in this case, Mercedes-Benz. They have also come in to check the systems and they have found no abnormalities which may have a system-wide impact. We are continuing to monitor the situation and will not hesitate to take any further steps necessary to maintain passenger safety.

Mr Tan, a quick one.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a clarification. Actually, my first supplementary question was asking about what fire detection or suppression systems are currently installed in the engine compartments and whether LTA is reviewing the enhanced thermal monitoring or fire detection system on the buses – not just the cause of the problem.

I am obliged to the hon Member for his clarification. I can confirm that there are fire suppression systems available for the engine compartment. But as to the specifics, I do not have the details at this point in time.

11 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how frequently is the Cancer Drug List (CDL) reviewed and updated; and (b) what measures are in place to reduce the risk of Singapore lagging behind prevailing international standards of cancer care.

Mr Speaker, my response will also cover Question No 93 raised by Mr Christopher de Souza from the 7 July 2026 Parliament Sitting.

The Cancer Drug List (CDL) mechanism enables the Ministry of Health (MOH) to negotiate better drug prices and keep cancer care affordable and sustainable for more patients over the longer term. Since the implementation of the CDL, we have managed to reduce cancer drug prices by an average of 30%, and up to 60% for some drugs.

MOH updates the CDL three times a year, in consultation with an expert committee comprising cancer specialists from public and private sectors. We take into consideration medical advancements, evolving evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness and alignment with international standards of cancer care. Through this process, we have listed 400 drug-indication pairings, which is comparable to all the pairings approved in 2022, before CDL was implemented.

For patients that require cancer drugs not yet listed on CDL, there are avenues for financial assistance in public healthcare institutions on a case-by-case basis through MediFund.

Dr Hamid Razak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I ask this question because we know the statistics: one in four Singaporeans will be facing a cancer diagnosis by the age of 75.

I would like to ask if the Ministry tracks if there are cancer drugs, say, on a Food and Drug Administration- or European Medicines Agency-approved list that are currently not on our CDL, and also by extension of that, because companies may not be submitting some of these drugs because our market is small, whether there are other routes of applying for a drug to be evaluated for inclusion to the CDL, including that of clinician scientists locally or clinicians for their patients? Because they know that a particular recent trial or a research studies will be published, showing clinical benefit and efficacy for such drugs.

Also, by way of feedback, some clinicians have also given me feedback that despite drugs being on the CDL, some Shield providers and insurers are still asking our clinicians to go through onerous administrative processes of filling up forms and pre-approvals, which really takes time away from our clinicians from doing their clinical practice.

I note the Member's concerns and we are also equally concerned about the current situation of increasing prevalence of cancer. That is why we also put this in place to make sure that the cancer drug costs are kept in check.

On the question about tracking, yes, the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) conducts horizon scanning to track approved drugs overseas and proactively identify priority drugs in consultation with the Cancer Drug Sub-committee and also engage companies to encourage them to put in the submissions.

On the other point, I also just want to highlight that, separately, we also have broader cancer research efforts to make sure that we are also kept abreast of development of new cancer drugs and treatments to keep pace with international standards. We have two National Cancer Centres – the National University Cancer Institute as well as the National Cancer Centre Singapore – so that we are kept abreast of some of the developments and new drugs that are in place.

I note the question about the submission aside from the default company submission. In certain instances, yes, the clinicians may directly submit requests to ACE to evaluate treatments for potential inclusion in the CDL. This is intended largely for treatments for very rare cancers, for example, where there are fewer than five to 10 patients per year where the treatment is not Health Sciences Authority-registered due to the very small patient numbers, but there is clinical need and the treatment has been approved by at least one reference overseas regulatory authority. In such cases, ACE may undertake an internal evaluation.

I also note the separate point the Member made about the administrative burden that the doctors and clinicians have to undertake. We could take that separately and we could see how best we could streamline those processes.

12 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past three years, how many reports of cruelty to community animals has the Animal and Veterinary Service received, investigated, and referred for prosecution; (b) whether the Ministry assesses that existing enforcement powers and penalties adequately deter such offences; and (c) whether stronger protections, better reporting mechanisms, or restrictions on animal ownership for repeat offenders are being considered to safeguard animal welfare.

Mr Speaker, over the past three years, the National Parks Board received and investigated an average of 75 alleged animal cruelty cases involving community animals each year. Two cases were referred for prosecution during this period.

To ensure that the Animals and Birds Act (ABA) remains effective in deterring animal cruelty and abuse, we are reviewing the ABA to enhance enforcement powers and strengthen the penalty framework for animal welfare offences. This includes reviewing imprisonment terms and disqualification orders for both first-time and repeat offences.

Ms Pang.

I thank the Minister of State for the response. For the community animals, because they do not have a specific owner per se, is there a possibility for the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) to make it easier for them to report cases?

Sir, for caregivers and feeders of community animals, in fact, AVS works very closely with them through our lead Trap-Neuter-Rehome/Release-Manage partner, the Cat Welfare Society, providing services such as free sterilisation and free micro-chipping. In fact, I was there at Cats' Day Out last month, and I think the Member Diana Pang was also there, where we worked with Cat Welfare Society, the community feeders, to get feedback and to see how we can better support them.

I was also at the Cats' Day Out.

Thank you for supporting, Speaker.

13 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what assessment the Government has made of the effectiveness of Collaborative Sharing of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing (ML/TF) Information & Cases (COSMIC) as a platform for financial institutions to share information on customers exhibiting money laundering red flags; and (b) what is the timeline of implementation for the planned expansion of COSMIC to include additional major banks and a wider range of significant cases.

Sir, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) launched the Collaborative Sharing of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing Information and Cases (COSMIC) on 1 April 2024, to facilitate the sharing of risk information among banks to detect and disrupt illicit fund flows in the financial sector. COSMIC's initial phase involved six major commercial banks in Singapore, and targeted three key financial crime risks: (a) misuse of legal persons; (b) misuse of trade finance for illicit purposes; and (c) proliferation financing.

Since its launch, COSMIC has enhanced participant banks' ability to detect bad actors and strengthened our financial sector's defences against financial crime. Arising from information shared on the platform, COSMIC participant banks filed additional suspicious transaction reports. Further, following participant banks' review and investigations, a significant number of suspicious customer accounts were closed.

The information shared on COSMIC also allowed participant banks and the MAS to identify suspicious networks for timely review and supported authorities' investigations. COSMIC's effectiveness was affirmed in the recent Mutual Evaluation assessment of Singapore by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

Given these positive outcomes, MAS has been working with the industry to expand the use of COSMIC. We are widening COSMIC's scope beyond the three targeted financial crime risk areas that I have mentioned above, and we are also onboarding other major banks that are close partners in our Anti-Money Laundering, Countering the Financing of Terrorism efforts. This expansion is scheduled for completion within two years. MAS will carefully manage COSMIC's expansion, to reap the benefits of information sharing while at the same time, balancing against considerations of undue de-risking and confidentiality of customer information.

Ms He.

I thank the Minister of State for the update. I have some supplementary questions.

The first is, given that this is a more or less voluntary platform to which the six banks are contributing information, I would like to ask the Minister of State on what is the participation rate and a bit more details about the volume of transactions that were shared. The Minister of State had mentioned earlier that there was a significant number that were eventually followed up on.

And then, my next supplementary question relates to how MAS assesses the effectiveness of COSMIC against other platforms, such as the United Kingdom's Schengen Information System (SIS) and also Hong Kong's Financial Intelligence Evaluation Sharing Tool (FINEST) system? What are the specific metrics that the MAS uses to do the evaluation?

And the last supplementary question is whether or not there is any indication or any exploration about whether or not the platform will eventually be shifted from a voluntary regime to a mandatory one?

Sir, I thank Ms He Ting Ru for questions. I think her questions revolve primarily around the effectiveness of COSMIC. As I mentioned, we are expanding the scope. We are also expanding to have more other participant banks to join COSMIC. We have a two-year timeframe to do so.

I can give her some specifics. In the first year of operations, COSMIC participant banks filed additional Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) relating to aggregate fund flows of more than $1.6 billion dollars. And following the participant banks' review and investigation, more than1,000 suspicious customer accounts were closed.

So, we are reviewing the efficacy and effectiveness of COSMIC, and the mutual evaluation by the FATF also gives us some feedback on whether this is effective.

We will continue to monitor this as we expand the scope of the offences and the financial crime, as well as expand the number of participant banks into this. So, we will continue to monitor this and review this COSMIC platform.

14 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Government will consider extending the Home Caregiving Grant to families caring for persons who require assistance with two, instead of three, activities of daily living, particularly where the ability of care recipients to live independently is significantly impaired.

Sir, there is a range of schemes to support residents with care needs. These include the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF), Migrant Domestic Worker Levy Concession and subsidised home- or centre-based care such as the enhanced Home Personal Care.

The Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) is targeted at those with higher levels of functional impairment, who require permanent assistance with at least three of the six activities of daily living (ADLs).

Mr Kwek.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification and answer. I have a supplementary question. Let us say right now, the threshold is three ADLs, but from time to time, we, like many of my colleagues here, meet residents who only meet two ADLs threshold, but for significant certain reasons they are not able to live independently. And for such situations, will the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and the Ministry of Health be open to appeals and what is the likelihood of such appeals being taken very seriously and being approved?

Sir, the HCG has a common three ADL-eligibility threshold, which is applied consistently and fairly across all applicants. Individual circumstances are instead considered in assessing the persons for the wider range of care and caregiver support available.

As the Member mentioned, and I am sure many Members in the House would have encountered residents who approach us, those requiring short-term care due to, perhaps, temporary disability or other medical conditions may be eligible for subsidised care under the other kind of care schemes. I have mentioned a few just now, for example, the enhanced Home Personal Care or the Interim Caregiver Support.

These schemes help to offset caregiving expenses, while supporting both the care recipients' recovery and caregivers' respite needs. These subsidised care schemes are not tied to the ADL threshold. I have mentioned some of the schemes earlier. I can mention a few more just to provide some context to the Member's question, for example, the SMF, which subsidises up to 90% of devices and home healthcare items, are for eligible seniors who are assessed to require these items to support ageing in place. So, it is not tied to ADLs per se.

There are also other schemes that there are individuals with significant short-term care needs who cannot be cared for at home or in the community, they can apply for schemes such as the Nursing Home Respite Care.

So, there are many subsidised schemes out there that we provide, and we are continually enhancing and reviewing them. We do not just look at the HCG. So, I encourage the Member to check out the AIC website to look at some of the other care schemes available.

15 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the mandatory water efficiency requirements in effect since 1 January 2024 for new water-intensive projects consuming at least 60,000m³ annually (a) how many projects are subject to the requirements; (b) how many have been found non-compliant; and (c) what enforcement actions have been taken.

Since the mandatory water efficiency requirements took effect on 1 January 2024, seven new projects have been subjected to and met the design requirements. Accordingly, no enforcement action has been taken.

Mr Muhaimin.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I have two supplementary questions.

First, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how many of the projects subjected to requirements are actually in operation, as opposed to still at design or construction stage, given that the 50% recycling rate is assessed at the operation stage?

The second supplementary question: does PUB independently verify the recycling rates reported in these plans, for instance, through metering or audit, or does it rely on self declaration by companies?

My third question — oh, sorry. Just two questions.

Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. To the first one, out of the seven that we said were covered, most of them are in the construction phase and one is in the design phase.

To the second question on how we monitor the compliance, the water users are then required, once they start operations, to submit their water efficiency plans on a running basis, so that PUB can verify and identify opportunities for further reduction of water use and efficiency.

16 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Law regarding unauthorised access to a vendor-managed Singapore Land Authority test environment containing real personal data of about 70,000 individuals (a) how did the data enter and remain in a dataset intended for mock or anonymised data; (b) when was the environment last audited against Government data-security requirements; and (c) what contractual action will be considered after investigations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the data security incident involved unauthorised access to a data set in a development and systems-integration testing cloud environment managed by IBM. IBM was the vendor appointed to support and maintain the Singapore Land Authority's (SLA's) Singapore Titles Automated Registration System (STARS) and the eLodgment System (ELS). The affected environment was separate from SLA's live operational systems, which were not affected.

The data set was created in 1998 for major system tests and updated periodically over the subsequent years. Although the data set was intended to contain only mock and anonymised testing data based on property ownership and lodgement records, SLA subsequently uncovered that the data set contained personal information which was not anonymised. STARS and ELS are subject to regular audits, with the most recent audit carried out in 2025.

The appropriate contractual action will be determined after the full facts and respective responsibilities have been established. SLA is investigating the matter.

Mr Low.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. First, will SLA also be undertaking audits of any other development or test environments arising from this incident to make sure that no similar issues are occurring elsewhere?

And secondly, it seems like the Senior Minister of State has acknowledged that the audits that were previously undertaken might have had some gaps, and especially, it sounds like the audits were being undertaken on the nature of the technical controls, but not of the actual data, given that the data set has been in existence for almost 20 years and it was only uncovered now. Will SLA reform their audit process going forward, so that the actual data is audited periodically, to make sure that no personal information inside is leaked?

Sir, in response to the first question of the hon Member, indeed SLA has completed checks across its other systems and found no similar issues.

Turning to the second question about audit, I would like to clarify that the 2025 audit was determined through a risk-based scoping exercise that was conducted in late 2024. Based on the IT risk landscape known at that time, the audit prioritised broader information and communications technology (ICT) security and resilience controls, such as cloud security management, privileged access and third party management. The incomplete anonymisation was not identified during the audit.

The hon Member makes pertinent points. This is something that we can consider once the investigation is complete.

17 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government tracks trends in insufficient sleep among school-going children and adolescents; and (b) what measures are being considered to improve sleep health.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) monitors sleep sufficiency by surveying Primary 5 and Secondary 3 students. Based on the latest survey in 2025, Primary 5 and Secondary 3 students reported getting seven hours of sleep on average on school days, with a slight increase compared to 2023.

In schools, students are taught healthy sleep habits, self-management and time management skills through Physical Education, and Character and Citizenship Education lessons. For example, students learn about the recommended sleep duration and good habits such as setting regular sleep hours, and avoiding caffeine and digital devices before bedtime.

Starting from January this year, the personal learning devices for secondary school students have been set by default to go into sleep mode earlier at 10.30 pm.

Parents too play an important part in role-modelling and developing healthy sleep habits. MOE, in partnership with KK Women's and Children's Hospital, has engaged parents on practical ways to support students' sleep health through engagement sessions with medical experts on sleep matters. Through MOE's social media platforms, parents are regularly supported with tips to better manage children's screen use before bedtime.

MOE will continue to work with other Ministries and agencies through Grow Well SG to help our children inculcate healthy sleep habits.

Dr Choo.

Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. The first one, beyond sleep quantity, has the Ministry considered assessing sleep quality as well? Secondly, has the Ministry considered piloting later school start times for older students and what factors would guide such a decision?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions as well as her concern with regard to sleep in our students.

Certainly, in the context of sleep quantity, it is a proxy for the ability to sleep and maintaining a healthy sleep routine at home. We do not have data with regard to their sleep quality at this point of time.

On her question with regard to later school times, as mentioned in our Committee of Supply in 2026, earlier this year, in terms of school start times, schools are given the autonomy to decide on their start time. They start no earlier than 7.30 am.

In determining school start times, schools do take into account specific context and trade-offs that arise with pushing back start times. For example, when we push back school start time, it would also mean that lessons might continue well into the afternoon when it can also be hot and humid, and perhaps less ideal for learning. School dismissal time will also be delayed, and after-school and inter-school programmes could also be impacted.

I ask that we take a balance with regard to school start times and give the schools the specific autonomy to do so.

More importantly, we want to be able to engage our students in inculcating healthy sleep habits, including self-management and time management skills. At the same time, it is also about working with our parents, engaging them to role model and develop healthy sleep habits at home. And therefore, allowing our students to be able to rest well before they engage in a day of school thereafter.

18 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has considered developing workplace psychological safety indicators or benchmarks to complement existing workplace well-being initiatives; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry intends to do so.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) recognises the role of psychological safety in fostering a positive work environment where employees feel comfortable in raising their ideas and views. At the same time, there are other important factors that influence workplace mental well-being, such as job demands, peer relationships and supervisor support.

MOM's approach is to support employers to assess and address mental well-being in their workplaces holistically rather than develop national level indicators or benchmarks for psychological safety alone.

For example, we have developed iWorkHealth, an online psychosocial health assessment tool that employers can use to identify common workplace stressors and psychosocial risks. Participating employers will receive an aggregated, anonymised report on the key work stressors or risks affecting their workforce, including psychological safety within the organisation. They will also receive recommendations to address the findings, which can be complemented by other resources on fostering a supportive workplace culture such as the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces.

Mr Tay.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. Just one supplementary question, whether MOM can do more, especially with the stakeholders in the mental health ecosystem, to help workers feel safe discussing their mental health concerns, both at work and at workplaces.

I thank the Member for the question. I agree that we can do more. In fact, for this particular case, there is no single stakeholder that can act alone. I suggest for Government employers and unions work together to foster a more conducive culture and ecosystem.

I am moving on.

19 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Government will engage Malaysia to establish an affordable long-stay or retirement-residency pathway for Singaporeans who wish to age in Malaysia and access more affordable eldercare there, in view that the revised Malaysia My Second Home scheme now targets investors rather than retirees through high fixed deposits and property purchase.

Sir, every country will determine its residency requirements and policies for foreign nationals' access to their social services. Some countries may offer a lifestyle service for foreigners to retire in their countries. Our focus is on ensuring that all Singaporeans have access to quality and affordable eldercare in Singapore as they age, now and into the future.

Mr Tiong.

Thank you, Speaker. One supplementary question. I had originally posed this question to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, though I appreciate the Ministry of Health taking up the concerns.

Sir, we want to enable the greatest amount of retirement choices for Singaporeans. There are some Singaporeans whom I have met who do wish to retire in Malaysia. The pathway I am describing already exists in Malaysia. The East Malaysian state of Sarawak runs its own second home scheme with no property purchase, 30 days a year, a 10-year renewable pass and it lets the holder bring a parent aged 60 or above as a dependant.

Will the Government try to negotiate at the Malaysian federal and state levels for an expansion of this no-investment-needed residency to West Malaysia?

Sir, firstly, we recognise that some Singaporeans may choose to live, retire or take private healthcare elsewhere for their own reasons. We respect the choices that Singaporeans may make about those choices.

We also respect every other sovereign nation, including Malaysia, on the policies they make with respect to allowing for foreign nationals to access their social services, care, or for their residency status.

On our part, we have come across many seniors, many families and caregivers who want to age in place in the community, age in place near their family, near their friends, in the neighbourhoods which they are familiar with. Our priority and focus must be on our Singaporeans to support them in those desires, and there are caregivers too, making sure that there is an eldercare ecosystem, making sure that there is a good standard of care, making sure that there is recourse for individuals if the quality of care falls short. We are always constantly bringing new partners into the community and enhancing our Active Ageing Centres to make sure that our seniors age well in our neighbourhoods. That is why we have the Age Well SG programme, we have the Age Well Neighbourhoods programme. That is our priority.

20 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what data does the Ministry collect on after-hours work expectations and digital connectivity among employees; (b) what assessment has been made of the adoption and effectiveness of workplace policies governing after-hours communication; and (c) whether the Ministry will study the relationship between workplace hyper-connectivity, family life and fertility intentions.

21 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed the implementation of the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-Being at Workplaces in relation to after-hours work communications; and (b) if so, what findings have emerged regarding its impact on workplace practices.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to address the Parliamentary Questions filed by Dr Charlene Chen and Dr Hamid Razak together.

Go ahead.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) monitors the adoption of workplace practices related to after-hours work communication. Based on MOM's data, in 2025, 55% of full-time resident employees reported that their employers had policies governing after-hours communication. This is up from 48% in 2022. These policies include practices such as not expecting responses to non-urgent messages until the next working day or providing time-off-in-lieu for after-hours work. We have not conducted a separate assessment of the effectiveness of each of these individual policies.

Mental health and well-being, family aspirations and fertility intentions are influenced by a wide range of personal, societal and economic factors. Supporting work-life harmony plays an important role of creating an environment that is conducive to these aspects of Singaporeans' lives. We will continue to work with our tripartite partners to encourage workplace practices that support work-life harmony, including through the Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony and Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces.

A Marriage and Parenthood Reset Workgroup has also been set up to develop a whole-of-society approach to better support Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood journeys.

Dr Chen.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask if the Ministry has assessed whether after-hours work-related digital connectivity is becoming a significant workplace well-being issue in Singapore? If so, what other policy levers can the Ministry explore to help employees disconnect from work outside working hours where appropriate and whether the Ministry has studied what has been done elsewhere in other countries?

Speaker, I thank the Member Dr Charlene Chen for her questions.

We need to understand that technology has brought many benefits, including greater flexibility for employers and employees to communicate and work. But at the same time, we also recognise the concerns of this digital connectivity that may blur the boundaries of interaction between work and personal life.

Our approach is not to focus on the connectivity per se but on the broader impact on employee well-being and workplace practices. Through engagements with employers, the unions and employees, we highly encourage the employers to be mindful of the workload management, the work expectations and also how communication is done outside of working hours.

One thing to highlight is the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-Being at Workplaces emphasises the importance of addressing work stressors – workload itself and organisational practices – that may affect the overall well-being of employees. In addition, there are tools, which I have mentioned earlier today, such as the iWorkHealth, which helps employers identify the workplace stressors and psychosocial risks that employees may be subject to. It is important for these organisations to implement very targeted interventions and build solutions together with the unions or their employees to build a better workplace ecosystem.

On the question on whether MOM has studied overseas on the right to disconnect and some of the approaches, I would like to say that we are monitoring the situation and developments in other jurisdictions including those who have implemented some forms of code of practice. But we need to understand that different countries have different approaches and it depends on their labour market structures, how their unions are organised, how their industrial relations are created and what are some of the workplace norms and culture.

In Singapore, Singapore has a very unique tripartite model which places very strong emphasis on employers, unions and the Government working closely together to develop most importantly practical solutions that can be adapted to different circumstances, to different workplaces.

Our current focus is to really talk about encouraging responsible workplace practices, address the workplace stressors and support employee well-being. And at the same time, promote more constructive employer and employee discussions and relationships and how they can bring more value together.

We will continue to study these overseas developments and if there are of these practices that may be useful, we will most certainly study them and adapt them for Singapore's context.

Dr Hamid Razak, sorry, we have run out of time. Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will proceed to read the Notice of Motion.

[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.]

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Speaker, I move*, "That this House, notwithstanding the suggestions in the Economic Strategy Review on the future Singapore economy, believes: (a) in a more equal and inclusive economy, with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive, and ideas and innovation to flourish; and (b) in an economic engine driven by dynamic local companies, healthy domestic demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad."

[(proc text) *The Motion was also entered on the Order Paper under the name of Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim. (proc text)]

Why this Motion? Why now?

Singaporeans face a uniquely challenging set of circumstances. The major model of Singaporeans getting on the economic ladder has been jobs. Without a job, you are not able to afford renting a place or buying a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat.

Without your own place, it is difficult to think about having children. And for these children, few dream of being entrepreneurs with nine in 10 working here, becoming someone's employee. For almost all of us, the jobs ladder is the main route up, with not many Singaporeans becoming entrepreneurs.

The reasons given are variously these: that the market is small and the cost of business daunting, that they lack social safety nets for risk taking, that not enough true growth capital exists for all the private wealth attracted here, that the biggest competitor to Singaporean startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are the Singaporean Government-linked Companies (GLCs). These we have the power to influence.

Property has been a lottery ticket to many Singaporeans, but with asset prices as high as they are, it is highly questionable if a new generation can follow this model without parental support, given initial conditions of wages lagging asset prices and declining employment prospects.

The persistence of property as a wealth vehicle breeds a rentier mindset. One generation's ideology hardens into the next generation's psychology. As inter-generational transfers come to dominate socio-economic status, they threaten to entrench inequity.

Let me recap why our job structure is threatened, though I suspect this is not news to many.

Our job structure rests on being the best place in the region for foreign companies to base themselves. We host many large companies but build few of them.

Singapore has three companies in the Fortune Global 500. All three are commodity traders. Two were founded elsewhere and moved here. Korea has 13. Taiwan has six. Theirs make semiconductors and ships. Theirs were built by their own people. Ours came here and can as easily go.

At the high value end, tariffs are pulling production home and to friendly countries, reducing the supply of marginal new investment available to Singapore. And less of what moves can be won on tax competition. For an increasing number of research and development (R&D) and manufacturing jobs, speed of iteration, equipping and supplying are decisive factors.

At the cost sensitive end, high business costs and slow manpower approvals accelerate offshoring to regional centres based in countries like Malaysia and Vietnam. The examples are not unfamiliar to this House. H&M moved its Southeast Asia Regional headquarters (HQ) from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur. Tiger Beer has been brewed here since 1932. By the end of next year, it will not be. Heineken is winding down brewing at Tuas and moving production to Malaysia and Vietnam, and about 130 jobs go with it.

For a younger generation, they face a changed playbook. The high paying entry level tech jobs that many aspired to have largely dried up. Many entry level roles have been offshored due to the high cost of business. And capable artificial intelligence (AI) agents and models are set to reduce the need for entry level hiring. But whatever the cause, it is undeniably hard for young Singaporeans to find a job today.

What follows is adaptation. Entrepreneurship by necessity, rather than by choice, second and third jobs, structural underemployment.

In a high-cost economy, the work most likely to stay is work that cannot be done more cheaply somewhere else.

The standard answer for advanced economies has been R&D. Build what others cannot easily copy so that firms come here in spite of our costs. But after decades and tens of billions, not one local R&D champion has emerged worth more than a billion dollars.

Of course, we should continue to invest, but the upshot is that our R&D complex is sadly not ready to be our growth engine. And as individual Chinese provinces and groups thereof become increasingly fiercely competitive ecosystems, every economy will need to reckon with the necessary scale, energy availability and the cost required to compete.

Alone, it is difficult. That is why I believe we must have greater industrial coordination between Southeast Asian countries and engage in transnational industrial policy, as I elaborated in both my maiden speech last September and my Adjournment Motion this July.

These are structural challenges to the industrial underpinning of jobs. I acknowledge the Government continues to try to do its best under these circumstances. Investment into Singapore is holding up. The Economic Development Board (EDB) committed $14.2 billion of fixed asset investment last year, up from $13.5 billion the year before and $12.7 billion the year before that – so three years rising.

But for it, we get the opposite trend in jobs. In 2023, 20,000 jobs; in 2024, 18,700 jobs; and last year 15,700 jobs. The value added expected went from $26.7 billion to $23.5 billion to $18 billion. So, even on official statistics, the engine of investment to jobs is faltering.

Faced with such a panoply of problems, what can and should we hope for?

First, we need an updated growth model that cares not only about the headline gross domestic product (GDP) growth figure, but the structure of growth. If we truly believe this is a changed world, then our policies must change with it. The structure of growth matters, and growth and distribution are not two things to be done in sequence.

It is acceptable as an exigency to grow first and then redistribute by vouchers and rebates. But over the medium and long term, we should be building an economy where a fair distribution is produced by the growth itself, rather than repaired afterwards out of the proceeds. Pre-distribution over redistribution.

And that is why we need an economic engine driven by dynamic local companies, healthy domestic demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. Only when Singaporeans thrive and believe the ladders of opportunity are fair to all, can this country be open.

Second, we need honest measurement and prioritisation of what matters from growth. Let me offer three North Stars for the distributional aspect of growth.

One, the indigenous share of national income, which captures the contribution to national income of Singaporeans as workers, owners and entrepreneurs. Its internationally comparable cousin is the labour share – how much of what stays in Singapore goes to the people who work here. Ours, at about 40%, lags most advanced economies. We should resurrect the indigenous income series and measure the whole of what Singaporeans contribute.

Two, real income growth that keeps pace with productivity, not lag it. Overall, labour productivity has grown by 2.5% per year from 2016 to 2024. But over the same period, real mean income only grew at 1.3% per year.

Singaporeans have always been model workers. From 2016 to 2024, according to the International Labour Organization (ILO), Singapore's output per worker grew 2.3% per year, outstripping major economies, such as the United States (US) at 1.6%, Israel at 1.6%, Hong Kong at 1.3%, Korea at 1.3% and Switzerland at 1.1%.

We need to repair this lag. Singaporean workers have kept their end of the bargain. Their compensation has not kept up with it.

Three, whether Singaporeans can still afford the city they built. Not how much we produce, but how much variety ordinary Singaporeans on an ordinary wage can enjoy. The diversity of services available, how much they can afford and the leisure they can afford to take.

The independent kitchen, the second-hand bookstore. We cannot in one breath lose our heritage businesses and our art spaces, and in the next tell Singaporeans that the city is thriving. Cities compete on the variety of things there are to consume, not only on what they produce, and high-amenity cities grow faster.

So, we should measure it. How varied the choices are and how many choices an ordinary wage can afford.

These three North Stars point us towards a more equal and inclusive economy, with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive and ideas and innovation to flourish.

Mr Speaker, the various Members of Parliament of the Workers' Party (WP) will touch on eight questions to answer the challenges I have laid out.

First, I will discuss innovation under constraint. How do we foster a dynamic enterprise and innovation system that maximises value regardless of the high business cost and physical constraints?

Second, my colleague, Jamus Lim, will discuss dynamic local firms. How can we create a business climate in which dynamic local firms emerge as drivers of innovation and become future cornerstones of the economy?

Third, my colleague, Louis Chua, will discuss land and the roof over the household. How do we ensure that attractive affordable housing is available for every Singaporean household?

Fourth, my colleague, Andre Low, will discuss the start of a working life and ask how we ensure our tertiary students and young workers find meaningful opportunities and good jobs in a challenging economy.

Fifth, my colleague, Gerald Giam, will discuss pathways to a middle-class livelihood. Taking tradespersons as his exemplar, he will ask how we create accessible pathways for them to earn a middle-class livelihood.

Six, my colleague, Fadli Fawzi, will discuss replacement and re-entry and ask whether our system of continuing education actually works. The journey, the destination and the proof.

We close the WP contributions with our two most expansive views of the economic model.

Seventh, my colleague, He Ting Ru, will discuss the lesser measured parts of the economy, in the domestically oriented sectors and ask what parts of this economy our national statistics fail to capture?

And eighth, my colleague, Eileen Chong, will discuss venturing abroad. How do we empower Singaporeans to seize opportunities in the region and beyond?

Mr Speaker, beyond these questions, there really is one question. What does it mean to take a changed world seriously?

If we mean to rebuild the ladder of opportunity in this generation, the answers to these problems must be the centre-piece of our evolved economic model. In these speeches, my colleague will lay out in eight steps, structural solutions to structural problems.

Today, the problem I will tackle is enterprise and innovation under constraint.

For two generations, we have been good at bringing other people's companies here. We have been slow to put the same land that we own behind our people building their own. Why do we take a high land price as a law like gravity? Universal land pricing is a coherent and convenient accounting ideology, but in the last accounting, the people of Singapore need to decide if this ideology still serves them.

Families already know this. Tuition is expensive and no tutor can promise a good job 20 years out. We pay anyway. Investments require outlays. We do not ask a child for an immediate pay-off.

So, the proposition: Singapore should stop treating market land value as a natural price for every socially productive use of land. And the test: a university-centred special zone where state land is priced at development cost rather than market scarcity value.

What is our offer to the young? We should remake the system with the young as the first consideration rather than the last adjustment.

Today, we tweak – a discount on a co-living room, a grant, a priority band in a ballot. Adjustments at the edge of a system designed around somebody else in a different decade. Treating the young as a first order principle means the opposite. We design for the 20-something year old foremost.

This is a supply side problem of policy.

Before we can remake society to be young, we must remake society for the young. The bargain has four parts: a place to live, near where the work and the research happen; at a price a starting salary can carry, in service of something the country needs – more local enterprise and R&D – with the upside staying with the risk-takers and a say in the rules.

What we should create a special zone surrounding Nanyang Technological University (NTU), where the state land is charged as cost recovery rather than market scarcity value and takes its returns in the companies that grow there, rather than rent. This experiment will span land rates for both residential and commercial space, spanning co-living, local enterprise and R&D.

It must be centred around an existing core, a university – because one cannot rustle up a cluster from nothing. But one can take one that exists and play to its strengths. It will be zoned for organic messiness, a district that is pro-worker and pro-business, built around the needs of young people and young companies.

And this experiment is reversible. If it does not work, we can simply revert to the Master Plan. But surely, today's Singaporeans should have as much say over scarce land as the master planners of decades ago.

So, let me take the argument in this order: land, our tertiary institutions, then governance and money.

First, land. Thirty years, tens of billions in R&D and more again on fostering entrepreneurship. Both R&D and the ladder of growing local giants have underperformed. We are worldclass at marshalling inputs but commercial outcomes, in terms of Singaporean-grown companies, have not appeared at the rate the spending implies.

On talent, we want to attract the very best to work alongside a strong local core. On capital, we disagree about design but perhaps not ideology.

But there is a serious methodological point. The state runs on taxpayers' money. Prudence is its duty. Innovation requires the opposite: calibrated risk-taking. Which is why risk capital belongs in a policy investment bank rather than inside Government, as the Prime Minister proposes. A prudent-first posture is difficult to unlearn.

Where we do have an ideological disagreement is the price of land. My colleague, Mr Louis Chua will also speak about this later.

The Economic Strategy Review (ESR) organises itself around inputs to production: capital, labour, productivity. But land is an input distinct from capital. It is discussed as revenue and not as a cost – a constraint to live within and not as a lever to change. And it is not a small cost.

In December 2022, the Government put the development cost of that year's 13,506 completed flats at $396,000 each – $234,000 of land against $154,000 of construction. Land was 59% of the cost of a flat.

But of course, we can test and change this cost. We have been here before. The Centre for Liveable Cities, the Government's own urban research arm, records what happens when One-North was planned: "The idea of providing residential uses in the form of affordable housing was put forth. However, it was difficult for HDB to change its public housing policies for a single project like One-North. Therefore, the JTC approached the private sector."

National policy then could not bend for One-North. But it should have. What we need for R&D and entrepreneurship matters more than dogmatic inflexibility.

A high price homogenises. It prices out the independent kitchen and the lab with no revenue yet, and leaves to whoever can pay the rent – chains and franchises.

It also programmes space. And market scarcity rate, selects for what can be proven in advance – and nothing new can be proven in advance.

By definition, the novel has no track record. Thus, the experimental messiness of life is competed out.

A zone of lower commercial pressure is a zone for messiness, a zone where land is cheap enough for the young to make their own places and their own future organically – the first variable and not an accommodation.

If land pricing is an unnecessary drag on the young, on enterprise, on an R&D cluster, how do we test it? There is a formidable constraint: Singaporeans need land prices low – to start something, to live somewhere – and we need them high, because many of our savings sit in HDB flats and the state leans on land revenue.

To have both high land pricing and low land pricing simultaneously, we must do away with the constraint of universal land pricing. There are at least three ways to vary a price. First, across time, the island-wide price itself. Second, across a policy-targeted group, as the Build-To-Order (BTO) does for young parents. Third, across a geographic boundary – fence one area and change the pricing function inside, in service of agglomeration and enterprise, people and firms packed close enough to make each other more productive.

I believe that the third is the least disruptive theory of change if one believes that our land pricing assumptions need to be tested. And the question becomes where to test such a zone. For the young, for the R&D economy and for an entrepreneurial spirit. It belongs around our tertiary institutions. And looking at the map, I believe NTU is the obvious candidate.

Why NTU? The research cluster is already there. A large number of labs are sited on campus. And unlike the National University of Singapore (NUS), whose Kent Ridge and One-North districts have little room left, NTU can still expand. And yet, what is planned for Bahar and CleanTech Park, with 116 hectares adjoining NTU? It is another industrial park – the same answer the Party opposite has given again and again.

If we are to clear scarce greenery, the use case must be distinctive enough to be worth the sacrifice. I believe ours is, and another industrial park is not. That is something priceless and irreversible, traded for something cookie cutter.

Take Punggol Digital District. It is 50 hectares, JTC-developed and anchored on Singapore Institute of Technology's (SIT's) campus. It proves that the Government will build a district around a university. But it is more of the same we have done – a business park with a campus in it, on market terms.

If one accepts the first-principle case for a special zone, then two empirical facts must be dealt with.

First, the Jurong Region Line is being dug into NTU, with campus stations arriving at the end of the decade. Tengah's flats are rising beside it. Kept as separate plans, they make one more park that people commute into. The Jurong Innovation District, 620 hectares, holds in Bahar the next greenfield precinct, already zoned with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) underway. The better bargain is a district for living, working and playing, and for enterprise, and this new district around NTU would be our last chance to run this sort of experiment. Whatever we settle on this parcel becomes how we price the ground beside every campus after it.

Second, the Johor Zone Agreement was signed in January 2025. It is an experiment we must try to make succeed. But for all our hopes on foreign economic policy, it sits in another country and carries the risk that comes with that. We can and should run these experiments for ourselves, by ourselves, if we can – and we can.

If we want to re-orient our culture towards the spirit of independent living, towards the spirit of risk taking, towards the spirit of collaboration, then we must provide the conditions for the spirit to flourish. We should not be distracted by procedural arguments that Bahar and Jurong are already zoned in a Master Plan. The experiment can be run as things stand. The question is whether we will.

So, NTU as a centre of a live, work, build district, distinguished by charging land for housing at cost recovery. By cost, I mean cost in the ordinary sense, with all scarcity value excluded – the actual cost of constructing, financing, servicing, maintaining and renewing the buildings, not the hypothetical market value of the ground beneath them.

What would that come to? We have a few indications. At NTU this academic year, a non-air-conditioned double room costs about $412 a month, and an air-conditioned single room about $657. At NUS, a double in hall runs about $494. Under the co-living scheme announced in late July this year, under the SG Youth plan, a room starts at $1,800 a month at 1925 Quarters; $1,950 at Coliwoo Boon Lay and $2,000 at Coliwoo Lutheran, before utilities and deposits – roughly 30% below the usual rate, with operators absorbing the difference.

The one at Boon Lay is about four kilometres from NTU and cost roughly five times what the university charges its own students. Is it affordable? I do not think it is. The median fresh graduate from our six autonomous universities earns $4,500 a month last year. After Central Provident Fund (CPF), about $3,600 in hand. The Boon Lay rate, plus its fixed utility charge, takes about 60% of it after the discount.

This is not treating our young as a first order consideration. Our young want space of their own and financial autonomy as a precondition for life, not as a byproduct of marriage.

And 30% below market is measured against the scarcity market. Before the discount, the same room took more than three quarters of a graduate's take-home pay. Affordability must be benchmarked against what a young Singaporean actually has to spend rather than market rate discounts.

So, what can we offer with a different basis?

On a cost recovery basis, a room comes to well under the half the going rate, closer to a third. Take one calculation that owes nothing to a university subsidy. A 500 square foot unit at $200 a square foot – above the construction cost implied by the Government's own 2022 figures, so, it is a conservative assumption and not a hopeful one – if you put three people in it and amortise over 10 years at 5%, it comes out to about $1,061 a month, or $2.12 per square foot, roughly $380 a head, with a sinking fund in. Stretch amortisation to 20 years and it is $1.32 per square foot. Other calculations land in the same place. The university's own rate, annualised over 12 months rather than the 35 weeks a term, actually runs, comes out to about $478 to $549 a room.

The universities are already housing people at close to cost. So, we can arrive at a figure between $350 and $550 a month a room.

I know the reply this will draw. All state lands form part of the reserves. Land must be sold at fair market value. Otherwise, the reserves are depleted. So, let us look at practice and not just theory. Start with an instrument we have already written.

The Land Betterment Charge (Concessionary Relief) Order 2022, waives the betterment charge on state lease university land, put to education and institutional use, and defines "university" as NUS and NTU. So, concessions already exist for the universities.

Nor is that the only place the state prices by decision. Land for a place of worship or a civic and community institution is already valued at half of full land value. On the Land Betterment Charge Table effective this March, this is about a tenth of what residential land in the same sector is assessed at.

That red line is not only for rates of places of worship. Educational and institutional use sits in the same group and is charged at three rates across the whole island, while every residential and commercial rate moves across 118 sectors.

For one class of use, the state already sets a price by decision rather than location. And in 2023, the Government moved places of worship from competitive tender to fixed price ballot, precisely because bidding had driven prices to levels that distracted religious bodies into fundraising. Prices fell. Apparently, nobody raided the reserves.

What can we surmise?

For the Party opposite, fair market value is already a function of the interest granted. It is not a single number attached to a plot. Once you change the use class, the fair market value changes with it lawfully, with the Chief Valuer still doing the valuing. The Government identified a market mechanism was pricing a use out of its own purpose, replaced it with an administered price, got a lower number and the Chief Valuer still called it fair market value. So, let us use the rules as they are. Let us create a use category for non-tradable restricted-tenure, mixed housing and enterprise land, and let the Chief Valuer value that restricted interest.

A clear valuation to build productive capacity for the next generation is not a raid on the reserves. It is the outlay side of an investment. It is what every family who pays for tuition for better economic prospects for their kids already knows: it is long-term economic foresight over short-term economic thinking.

How would the zone work if demand exceeds supply? We could ballot. Once in, the rent stays low once you are part of the zone – studying, working, building or serving it. A firm gets a fixed term and an option to renew and graduates out upon success. And a person who loses a job or whose startup dies, gets a year's of grace before the rent resets. And if the housing is rented, never sold, it does not become an asset to be traded.

Mr Speaker, the price of land matters greatly. But it is not sufficient on its own. You must get the other conditions right too.

On governance, an innovation district is a place where things are tried and most of them failed. That requires us to tolerate some untidiness. Most of what I am asking requires no new legislation. JTC let its land on contracts it writes itself – rent formulas, renewal test, quotas, carve outs, occupancy covenants. These are lease terms and not statutes with already existing latitude.

We should lift the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) planning circular, capping non-academic use of a campus at 5% of floor area or 30,000 square metres. We can hasten visa decisions for deep-tech researchers and for the people the enterprises need, and aim to have every major decision in such a zone made within two weeks.

We should aim to devolve operational decisions to the zone's own board, small and nimble, with the anchor university on it, able to make the bundled decisions on space, pilots, housing allocation, visas and procurements. And the board should be responsive to the people living in the zone who should have a say in how it is run.

On money, we should give this zone the ability to back its founders and enterprises. Lower rent is part of a draw. The bigger draw should be growth capital – the zone taking a stake in the enterprises that grow inside it.

Singapore and China established Suzhou Industrial Park in 1994. The zone grew its own investment arm, Oriza Holdings – state-owned, controlled by the Parks Administration Committee, incorporated in 2001, with about US$14 billion under management today.

So, while we are not involved in Oriza Holdings, a zone-based financing body is not unknown to us. Many financial innovations have come from zones. China's New Third Board, its national over-the-counter equity market for unlisted small companies, began in 2006 as a Zhongguancun Science Park Share Transfer pilot and went nationwide in 2013.

So, we should capitalise a zone authority that can invest while providing optimal conditions for its startups and enterprises to succeed, taking a capped equity or revenue stake, and allow it to appropriate a portion of the funds it generates to further develop the zone. A zone of lower immediate commercial pressure for these enterprises is a place where experimentation and diversity can flourish.

Speaker, the zone is one bounded, reversible way to try on available land at a price that takes nothing from the reserves, with land prices outside the zone exactly the way they were – a way to make more Singaporeans involved in enterprise and R&D, and not only employees.

So, the ask is threefold: a zone around NTU; a new use category for restricted tenure, non-tradable, mixed housing and enterprise land, valued as the restricted interest it is; and a zone authority that runs its own operations and takes stakes in the enterprises it grows.

It is a controlled experiment in whether Singapore's land pricing regime is suppressing agglomeration, entrepreneurship and indigenous capital formation. If there is a Singaporean secret sauce that inheres beyond the cost pressures of land and wages, then a zone here, alongside the one in Johor, will tell us. It is a test we should run for our younger generation.

We have spent 30 years making this country a good place for other people's companies to succeed. I am asking that we spend the next 30 making it a place where our owners can – not just a better deal for the young, a country which is built categorically for the young.

Speaker, in closing, there has been much talk that the world has changed and it is not changing back. We can all feel it. So, here is the test of whether we are serious. We must reform significant parts of our present economic structure to deal with a changed world, to pursue growth that distributes more fairly and to measure what makes that growth worth having – a fair share of national income, real income growth in line with productivity and a widening range of what an ordinary wage can afford.

Many of these changes must come at the national level, but some are assumptions, long in the tooth, that must be tested. Universal market land pricing is one. And a policy laboratory at real scale is how we test it. The zone is one part.

In this Motion, each of my hon friends will bring another – structural solutions to structural problems. Singaporeans deserve serious answers; and serious answers are what the WP will provide. That is why we have moved this Motion to create an economy of the future that works for all. Sir, I seek to move. [Applause.]

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

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Speaker, I second the Motion in the name of my hon friend Kenneth Tiong.

I cannot agree more that we need both dynamic local companies and opportunities for businesses to succeed, which is why my contribution to this debate will focus on how we can wean ourselves away from a top-down foreign investment, reliant multinational corporation- (MNC-) centric economic model; and instead build a bottom-up domestic capital led small and medium enterprise- (SME-) focused one. I will also weave in constructive critique on the recently released ESR.

To start, it is useful to sketch out what our traditional growth model has been. Essentially, the strategy was to accumulate. Accumulate more of what economists call factors of production, to ride on increases in the labour force due to demographic change, while simultaneously building up complementary capital, both manufactured in the form of machines, factories, equipment, as well as human through education.

For the former, we marshalled foreign savings with heavy foreign direct investments from MNCs in the early years and since the turn of the century, inward portfolio investment from global funds and family offices. We supplemented this with forced domestic saving from households in the form of CPF and from the state by maintaining large fiscal surpluses.

For the latter, we cranked up educational attainment by rapidly educating our school-aged children, then starting in the 1990s, by increasingly absorbing skilled workers from abroad.

We coupled this build-up of factors with fundamentals, exploiting our geographical location, we fostered an economy open to trade in goods, services and finance.

We also placed emphasis on quality institutions and attractive low tax climate, respect for property rights and rule of law and a high functioning civil service.

We fired on all these cylinders, which brought us famously from a per capita income of around $1,600 at Independence; to more than $121,000 today – a massive increase by any stretch of the imagination.

Notwithstanding how we were already ahead in the 1960s, at least relative to the rest of the developing world, our growth story is undeniably impressive.

This model is not unique to us. It was successfully deployed by Japan in its early industrialisation and the approach, with some idiosyncratic variations, was how the other East Asian dragon economies of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea became wealthy. And starting in the 1980s, China has adapted the self-save model.

As successful as this traditional model was, it had embedded within it several pathologies. It made us obsessed somewhat with courting foreign capital and fearful of right-minded pro-worker policies that would reduce our attractiveness as regional headquarters. Our educational system to churn out a formidable number of excellent operators, but far fewer risk-taking entrepreneurs. And in the drive to economise on scarce land, our Government's leasehold model has fostered a rent-seeking mindset in real estate, rather than treating land as just another normal input to production.

Perhaps the most damning drawback is a known design flaw in the relentless pursuit of accumulating inputs to production, we have lagged in productivity growth. To be fair, this was also the case with the other dragon economies. Yet even among them, Singapore has fared the worst.

Just as important, these other economies, once they entrenched their high-income status, began to evolve their model toward a more internally driven, self-sustaining productivity led one. We have yet to do so decisively.

Some may argue that we should make no excuses for growth. I believe that this is incomplete at best and misguided at worst. After all, we already know how to drive good growth – crank up capital expenditure to the detriment of labour income and productivity.

Indeed, this has been the consistent criticism of Singapore's growth model during its rapid growth phase from the 1960s through to the 1990s and was arguably the impetus for the menagerie of productivity campaigns and bodies that, alas, has not overturned our nation's productivity woes.

And while it is tempting for us to look at bolstering growth from tried and tested tools, such as building up yet more of our already intensive capital stock, we must resist because it is clear that disproportionately prioritising resource allocation into hard infrastructure investment, especially in real estate, is running up against diminishing returns.

Sir, what would such a new model look like? For starters, we must evolve away from our traditional reliance on foreign MNCs as a driver of our growth and pivot toward SMEs as our homegrown economic engine.

While the ESR speaks about both, it betrays, somewhat, an implicit bias toward the former. We need a conscious shift from not too much fixation with tax competition and undervalued exchange rate and the wooing of footloose MNCs. We must instead promote bottom-up formation and growth of our indigenous companies and unleash the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of our local workforce. This means weaning our companies off a race-to-the-bottom focus on cost cutting as the only means to be competitive.

Revenue and wages should instead hinge on productivity gains, not a relentless search for cheaper inputs. Margins can and should be driven by elevating value add and quality. What we want is a "made in Singapore" to be synonymous with better, not just faster or cheaper, which is best left to economies lower down the income ladder.

To be clear, this is not simply an appeal for faster growth, not just for growth's sake. It is of existential importance, especially in the age of AI. Research shows that worldwide, small firms drive destructive innovation, and startups are the bulwark of sustainable growth through this process of creative destruction. Yet, while SMEs account for 99 out of 100 registered enterprises here and provide jobs for seven out of 10 Singaporean workers, they currently only contribute to half of the economy's value added.

If our SMEs are stifled because business or funding opportunities are crowded out by the bigger players, we will never discover our own homegrown globally competitive unicorns. Or if they simply choose to coast along without feeling empowered to challenge large incumbent firms, we will never build a vibrant body of SMEs that form the backbone of our economy, like Germany's Mittelstand or Japan's Taiheiyo Industrial Belt.

To enable this transformation, we need a domestic body of medium-sized enterprises capable of growing to become the next wave of national corporate champions and driving a 21st century innovation-led economy. We need Singaporeans to start Singaporean companies and for these companies to grow and succeed domestically and on the world stage.

Singapore is no stranger to support for SMEs. The Government would undoubtedly point to a veritable grab bag of schemes, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit, Enterprise Development Grant, Market Readiness Assistance, Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package – I could go on.

The question is not whether these are useful. They are. The issue is whether these catalytic grants will spur SME activity sufficiently to allow them to systematically advance to the next stage of growth, or whether there are other structural impediments that inhibit them from transforming themselves from small local firms to medium sized, globally competitive ones.

Businesses themselves report several key constraints to growth. Most notably, SMEs struggle with low levels of productivity, something that the Government itself has explicitly acknowledged. Many report an inability to attract and retain the sort of talent that will allow them to elevate their efficiency and output.

To be fair, our SMEs have to confront business costs among the highest in the world. And to compound the challenge, SMEs must secure financing for investment, which is especially scarce once they exit the startup stage. Our SMEs must stand ready to be the source of development innovation, the "D" in R&D.

I have shared with this House previously about how at less than 2% of GDP, our nation's R&D remains squarely below the global average and significantly behind that of leading innovation nations. But I also explained that this was because of anaemic R&D spending by the private sector, not the Government. Alas, among SMEs, this is even worse. The overwhelming majority of business R&D expenditure (BERD) is likely to be from large enterprises.

The ESR talks about R&D, but it does not underscore the importance of this pivot.

I note that the Prime Minister's Office announced last year a $37 billion commitment to research, innovation and enterprise funding over the next five years. This will bring our public expenditure to around 1%, which will be among the global leaders. But we need to accelerate private R&D, not just with more public funding, but with complementary funding from our private capital markets as well.

To be fair, tax incentives for corporations to undertake R&D are already very generous, with up to 400% deduction for the first $400,000 of qualifying expenditures every assessment year, supplemented more recently by up to 100% in Refundable Investment Credit. SMEs have been major beneficiaries, making up 85% of R&D claims.

But improving productivity is not about innovation alone. Research has shown that one important impediment to improving the efficiency of smaller firms is the quality of management. This means there may therefore be a case to expand the scope of qualifying R&D activities for the purposes of tax deductions for this group. This is especially for activities aimed at product commercialisation, enhanced internal business operation or overseas expansion.

What is also missing is a coherent innovation pathway for all SMEs, not just those oriented towards sexy, cutting-edge fields. Founders of old economy startups may not necessarily possess the technological sophistication to navigate the GoBusiness Directory or the awareness to seek out business advisors in Enterprise Singapore. They may not be able to string together the myriad packages available or even put together credible applications.

What is needed is a push rather than pull strategy, where new business registrants are automatically and routinely offered information on how they can access support from the Government to roll out business development innovations over the course of their initial years. Even better, startups can match with seconded experts that grow their R&D capabilities in-house, akin to the Agency for Science, Technology and Research's (A*STAR's) Technology for Enterprise Capability Upgrading (T-Up) programme.

There remains additional room for the state to act as well, through its indirect influence on GLCs. Despite being half of our economy's value-added R&D spending by domestic enterprises account for only $1 of every $5. Our GLCs can lead the way by dedicating more of their retained earnings toward expenditures in applied R&D, subject to a reasonable return on investment period. Over the medium run, they can look more towards elevating their spending to more closely match those of other MNCs.

Finally, we can also support SME productivity indirectly by tackling our sky-high business costs. Speaking to SMEs, the subject of crushing manpower and rent inevitably emerges. Yet scaling up and relocating is not always an option. Hence, we need to look for alternatives. One simple strategy is to cap the maximum quantum that rents may increase every year to the historical increase of about 3% annually.

This is a limit on the rate, not the level. Market rents will still prevail in the long run. Still, doing so will give time for businesses to adjust to jumps in their fixed costs. Such restrictions have been employed by many jurisdictions worldwide. Even if we limit it to Government and agency landlords, such as the HDB or JTC, it will be a major step forward.

It may also be time to revisit the dependency ratio ceiling for certain sectors, like F&B, where Singaporeans continue to shun open positions that are advertised even at attractive wages.

Sir, at the heart of the challenge of raising up our local SMEs is the difficulty of attracting and retaining talented workers. Singaporeans often view small firm jobs as small-time, second-tier operations compared to a more lucrative prestigious MNC career. The ESR report, while rightly emphasising the importance of good jobs, remains largely silent on the gap between SME and MNC positions and how they may be bridged.

Bridging this gap must recognise that smaller firms often struggle to round up sufficient financing for investment compared to larger ones. Relieving internal and external access to finance for the purposes of easing cash flow that will unlock hiring is first order if we wish to improve the viability of our young dynamic companies.

There are already schemes that support small enterprise business development. For example, the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) is aimed at projects and the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) is aimed at IT equipment. They ostensibly relieve financial constraints. The EDG even explicitly recognises human capital development projects as a core capability.

Our PSG should do the same since productivity is boosted as much by human capital as it is by IT equipment.

While one may argue that the Workforce Development Grant (WDG) does much the same thing, the WDG appears overly restrictive, reliant on an approved consultant panel and is not available on an ongoing basis.

I believe the scope should be more flexible and allow SMEs to bolster compensation and benefits to better match starting salaries offered by MNCs.

Beyond salaries, jobseekers may be attracted to work in SMEs because of the promise of greater work variety and flexibility, and greater exposure to business roles and functions. Internship and apprenticeship programmes, including those from polytechnics, universities and the Graduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme should actively look to enfold SMEs into their slate of potential employers. The Career Conversion Programmes should not be limited to the wholesale trade but be expanded to encompass a wider range of SME sectors.

That said, application and reporting requirements for these programmes are often onerous, stretching the already thin resources of small businesses. While I accept the need for prudence in managing public funds, we should not turn SMEs into another Government bureaucracy. There should be a simplified application process for grants and reporting process requirements should focus on fraud audit rather than extensive documentation compliance.

Moreover, funds are provided on a reimbursement basis at the moment. But any small business owner, especially one that is starting up, knows that one of the principal challenges that they face is sustaining cash flow. We should also reimburse any support we offer upfront and trust SME owners to deploy these grants wisely. Of course, supporting SMEs with young talent can occur even earlier upstream. SMEs in search of skilled workers often seek out interns. Unfortunately, many young would-be graduates remain unmatched to potential SME employers.

This is not for lack of trying. Most tertiary institutions already include a job exposure scheme, but take-up remains low. In 2024, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) supplied 1,300 students while autonomous universities sent 800. This is despite how attachments often translate into jobs. Perhaps more importantly, SME participation remains low. Around 300 firms have joined such programmes, which are less than 1% of registered SMEs.

One factor behind the low take-up rate could be because companies that hope to partner with tertiary institutions must co-design and co-deliver bespoke curricula. This can be insurmountable for smaller companies with limited resources and understanding of how to go about doing so.

It may be better to take a cue from the German approach, where more than one in 10 companies participate in their equivalent programme, by expanding the scope of potential applicants, allowing interns to be hired using SkillsFuture funds and accepting simpler application criteria from SME employers.

Yet even when directed towards hiring talent, there is little structure to ensure the systematic transfer of skills such that the benefits of human capital are spread across the firm. That is especially the case for foreign talent.

There is room to place greater emphasis on local capability development built into schemes, such as the Pioneer Certificate Incentive, and Development and Expansion Incentive to better embed skills transfer to Singaporean employees. Larger grants in particular should be paired with a clear proposal and timetable for ensuring skills transfer, including the possibility of a sunset of foreign Employment Passes after a designated duration if no additional transfer is taking place. When local employees are sent for skills upgrading, employers of micro and small enterprises can be partially reimbursed with make-up pay to cover the costs of temporary hiring or overtime, similar to make-up pay when NSmen fulfil their reservist commitments.

Sir, let me close.

Assoc Prof Lim, you have a minute left.

I hear you.

To be clear, what I am calling for is not a wholesale overhaul of our GLC-heavy, MNC-led and foreign capital-reliant model, which has to date served us well. Sidelining these actors would amount to killing off the golden goose, which have established themselves as cornerstones of our corporate and industrial landscape. Our GLCs have also been increasingly competitive on international shores, projecting the economic influence of Singapore Inc worldwide.

Nor am I proposing that we abandon our foreign investment and shut the door to foreign capital flows. This will hollow out our capital base. No modern economy, much less a globalised one, like ours, operates without due attention to international players. But what I am calling for are policy and institutional shifts that will usher in a changed mindset for how we should view our homegrown companies in an already wealthy, advanced economy. The shift will place small, but especially, medium-sized firms at the beating heart of our nation's economic model, away from the interests of large foreign-based MNCs or even our GLC behemoths.

What we need is creative destruction. By destroying, we will create simultaneously an economy ready for the 21st century.

Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Speaker, the Motion sets out aspirations that few would disagree with – a more inclusive economy, greater space for entrepreneurs to experiment, opportunities for businesses and workers to succeed, and a stronger base of Singapore companies and capital capable of venturing abroad.

These are not Government aspirations or Opposition aspirations. They are Singapore imperatives. The real question is not whether we want them. It is how we achieve them and who must act.

But we should begin with two truths.

First, Singapore's economy grew by 5.7% in the second quarter of this year. Manufacturing expanded by 12.2%, driven largely by AI-related demand for electronics and precision engineering. This growth is real and welcomed.

Second, it is not being felt evenly. On the ground, I have heard that unless your business is AI, then it must be BI, BI means "bei ai" (悲哀), which means "to be sorrowful", in Mandarin.

Many businesses, especially domestic-facing ones, continue to grapple with uncertain demand and persistently high manpower, rental and operating costs. For these businesses and their workers whose livelihoods depend on them, headline GDP does not feel like growth. It feels like daily firefighting. That concern is real.

Our response must therefore work on two horizons – practical, time-bound relief for viable businesses under immediate pressure and longer-term transformation support to help them raise productivity, scale and reach new markets.

But relief without transformation merely postpones the problem. The Government must build the runway for our economy through sound regulation, infrastructure, education, fair regulation and a strong social safety net. But firms, entrepreneurs and workers are the planes that must still take off. From a business perspective, this means three imperatives – enabled enterprises, expand opportunity and embed responsibility.

To enable enterprise, we must build an inclusive economy, one that gives people and businesses equal dignity, genuine access to opportunity and meaningful support when they face disadvantage or disruption. But fairness is not sameness. A traditional SME trying to digitise has different needs from a technology start-up developing intellectual property. A promising local enterprise preparing to expand overseas needs different support from a company whose business model that may no longer be viable.

Fairness means understanding what each business needs to progress and being clear about the outcomes public support should achieve. If support is spread too thinly, we fail to give enough runway to companies with the potential to break out internationally. At the same time, inclusion cannot mean guaranteeing the survival of every business.

A dynamic economy requires entry, experimentation, occasional failure and renewal. Entrepreneurs should have the room to fail responsibly and try again. But public support cannot remove every commercial risk or socialise every business loss. The Government's role is to create a fair and enabling environment. Businesses' role is to use it to improve, invest and compete.

This is where our business institutions must step up. My practical message to businesses is simple. Whatever stage of development you are at, your first port of call should be SBF or your relevant chamber and trade association.

A company should not need to understand the entire Government organisational chart before it can obtain help. If you need to understand a policy or regulation, start with us. If you need guidance on financing, start with us. If you need to transform your workforce, adopt AI, enter a new market or find the right Government support, start with us. We may not have every answer. But we will own the handover and help every company find the right door.

Take All Hearts, a homegrown training provider. As it grew, manual processes led to mounting errors and delays. Through SBF's Technology Implementation Advisory Service, developed with support from Enterprise Singapore and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), we helped the company adopt a single integrated tech solution. Manual data entry fell by half, reports became almost immediate and the staff gained more time to train and support learners.

For an established SME, the next step may be new financing, stronger management capabilities or entry into an overseas market.

UTRACON, a Singapore engineering firm seeking to grow in the Middle East, had the capability but lacked local partners and market access. Through GlobalConnect@SBF, supported by Enterprise Singapore, SBF connected it to a United Arab Emirates (UAE) partner and opened doors to regional projects. Our role is not to venture for companies but to shorten the distance to their first opportunity abroad. Enabling enterprise also means ensuring our regulations remain fit-for-purpose.

Regulations are necessary to protect workers, consumers, public safety, the environment and the integrity of our economy. But over time, rules can accumulate and create unintended friction. The answer is not deregulation for its sake. It is disciplined experimentation. Test changes carefully, learn from evidence and adjust where rules no longer work.

The Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Competitiveness demonstrates how this can work. It brought businesses, trade associations and chambers and public agencies together through 25 engagement sessions. So far, 24 of 27 recommendations has been adopted in some shape and form. These included changes to foreign manpower sources for select occupations; retention of experienced Work Permit holders; more flexible industrial leases; faster solar-panel deployment approvals; and the creation of the SME Pro-Enterprise Office.

The value of the AfA was not that Government agreed with every business request. It was that businesses explained where rules created problems, and that agencies explained the safeguards and trade-offs they had to manage. Sometimes, businesses changed their views after understanding the policy reasons. In other cases, agencies adjusted the rules after understanding operational realities.

This is what good collaboration looks like. Not Government always saying yes, not business always being right. But policy learning through engagement and improving over time.

Mr Speaker, the Motion also speaks of healthy domestic demand and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. I agree.

For Singapore, domestic demand can only provide a buffer, but it cannot be our principal engine of scale. To grow, Singapore companies must venture abroad, find new customers, build new production capacity, acquire technology and participate in supply chains beyond our shores. So far, SBF has facilitated 108 overseas projects for 79 Singapore companies across 44 markets. That is the ambition we need to enable – Singapore companies venturing out, while keeping their most valuable capabilities anchored here.

Golden Bridge Foods is one example. With SBF's facilitation, this Singapore agri-food company invested more than RM50 million to establish a new manufacturing capacity in Johor, Malaysia, while retaining Singapore as the base for managing its regional business. This is why the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) matters. Its potential can be strengthened by linking it more closely with Batam, Bintan and Karimun (BKK). SBF has initiated a strategic study on how better physical and digital connectivity, smoother customs arrangements and closer regulatory coordination could bring the JS-SEZ and BBK together as a wider regional cooperation.

But expanding our hinterland is no free lunch. Better connectivity also gives consumers more choices and exposes businesses here to greater competition.

SBF's Johor Bahru–Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link study, done together the Restaurant Association of Singapore and the Singapore Retailers Association illustrates this trade-off. After the RTS Link opens, Singapore consumers could spend an additional $1.05 billion annually in Johor Bahru, while Johor visitors could spend an additional $756 million in Singapore.

Our response cannot be to stop people from crossing the border. Neither can Singapore businesses compete on price alone. We must compete on quality, trust, productivity, innovation, distinctive products and better experiences.

As we expand markets to create new opportunities, competition will come. The answer is not protection. It is to help Singapore companies build the capabilities to venture abroad, anchor value here and become strong enough to compete.

This brings me to my third point on embedding responsibility. Companies that benefit from access to global talent must also help develop Singaporeans by mentoring them, build local successors and give Singapore employees regional and global exposure. We should not frame this as a choice between developing Singaporeans and remaining open to foreign or global talent.

Foreign professionals bring networks, technical knowledge and experience in overseas markets. But openness will remain socially sustainable only if it comes with real integration, knowledge transfer and investment in local leadership. The Alliance for Action on the Integration of Foreign Professionals, convened by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and SBF, shows how this can be done. It produced practical recommendations to strengthen workplace integration while keeping Singapore open to global talent.

SBF, with support from MCCY, now has an Integration of Foreign Professionals Programme Office. It works with trade associations and chambers to run orientation for new Employment Pass holders, provides workplace-integration resources and conducts cultural-sensitivity workshops.

Finally, Mr Speaker, economic success must strengthen our wider society. Businesses benefit from Singapore's stability, infrastructure, educated workforce, rule of law and social cohesion. Giving back to society is not charity, but reinvestment in the foundations that enterprise depends on. That is why the work of the SBF Foundation and our social impact programmes matters.

Through VolunteerInc., we help companies, including SMEs, mobilise their employees to contribute skills and time in the community. Through EmployWell and MigrantWell, we create employment pathways for vulnerable groups and support migrant workers' well-being.

More than 5,200 companies have taken part in these programmes. But the human outcomes matter more. Through EmployWell alone, over 2,100 individuals facing barriers to work received employability support, and more than 1,000 re-entered the workforce. This is how businesses strengthen the social compact.

Mr Speaker, what do these examples show? They show what becomes possible when businesses and Government work together. Business leaders serve in SBF and our trade associations and chambers not because they have time to spare. Far from it. But because they know that no company can build a competitive ecosystem alone. Government cannot know every operational difficulty that businesses face. Businesses may not fully appreciate every national trade-off that Government must manage. Unions must understand that better jobs depend on viable companies, while employers must recognise that transformation cannot succeed without workers.

That is why our tripartite and public-private partnerships remain important. The parties do not need to agree on everything. But there must be enough trust to discuss difficult trade-offs honestly and enough commitment to act after the discussion.

If each of us plays our part, Singapore will not merely respond to the future. We will shape it together. That is the economy of the future I believe Singapore must build. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the current global economic outlook is uncertain. Fluctuating oil prices and frequent tariff changes have seriously affected economies and business worldwide. Singapore, as a small open nation with no natural resources, is likewise under considerable pressure.

Fortunately, we have a robust financial system. Businesses have been actively diversifying their investment and managing risks and the Government has recently introduced a range of support measures that can in the short term ease the pressure faced by SMEs and the people from external pressures.

Looking ahead, we still face several structural challenges. While AI is driving technological transformation, it is also pushing up energy demand and we need to develop renewable energy. The ageing population is also a serious concern – an inefficient youth population will lead to a dual shortage of both the workforce and consumer base.

These challenges are real and cannot be ignored. We must adapt in a timely manner. We all share the same goals. Our differences lie only in the path forward. As the saying goes, if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together. If everyone acts independently and looks only after their own interests, some short-term progress may be made, but it will not last. Only by supporting one another and working together can we move forward steadily and sustainably.

Therefore, businesses should actively seize opportunities while giving back to society. Workers should continue learning and upgrading skills and the Government should continue building a fair, open and transparent business environment.

I firmly believe that as long as the tripartite partners work together, we will be able to weather the difficulties and achieve long-term development.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the wording of the Motion suggest that these aspirations somehow stand apart from the ESR. I am not entirely persuaded by that framing. As such, I cannot support the Motion in its current form.

Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I declare that I own and operate a biotech startup that provides circular food solutions to local companies and global enterprises. I rise to speak on the Motion on an Economy of the Future that Works for All. I agree with the broad aspirations behind the Motion.

We all want a more inclusive economy – stronger local companies, good jobs for Singaporeans and growth that gives our people confidence in the future. But I believe the Motion can be strengthened by making clear that these aspirations are aligned with the ESR, and by better reflecting the realities of Singapore's small and open economy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your consent to move amendments to the Motion.

May I have a copy of your proposed amendments?

Yes, Sir.

You can hand it to my Clerk. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]

Okay, I see you have four proposed amendments. They are in order. Are copies available for Members?

Yes, Sir.

We will get this distributed to all Members. [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.]

Alright, looks like every Member here has been given a copy. Mr Chia, you may move your amendments.

Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, I move that:

"In line 1, to delete 'notwithstanding', and insert 'in line with'."

"In line 5, to delete 'economic engine driven', and insert 'economy powered'."

"In line 5, after the words 'local companies', to insert 'global enterprises'."

"In line 5, after the words 'healthy domestic', to insert 'and external'."

The proposed amended Motion will therefore read, "That this House, in line with the suggestions in the economic strategy review on the future Singapore economy, believes: (a) in a more equal and inclusive economy with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive, and ideas and innovations to flourish; and (b), in an economy powered by dynamic local companies, global enterprises, healthy domestic and external demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments strengthen the Motion in three ways.

First, it makes clear that the aspirations of inclusion, entrepreneurship, innovation and good jobs are aligned with the ESR, not pursued in spite of it. Second, it recognises that the Singapore's future economy needs both dynamic local companies and global enterprises. Third, it recognises that healthy domestic demand must be supported by strong external demand, especially for a small and open economy, like Singapore.

I will therefore speak to the proposed amended Motion by making three points.

First, is that the ESR provides a strategic foundation for an inclusive and innovative economy. The ESR recognises that the world has changed fundamentally. In a more fractious environment, Singapore cannot simply preserve what worked in the past. We must renew our strategy. Its three imperatives are clear: sharpen Singapore's value proposition; enhance agility and adaptability; and build resilience alongside efficiency.

These recommendations did not emerge in isolation. The ESR was shaped through extensive engagements with businesses, unions, workers and industry stakeholders. It should therefore be seen not merely as a Government report, but as a national strategy, co-created, shaped with the people and enterprises that helped carry it out.

So, the next challenge is execution. And we start from a strong base. Investments in R&D have anchored research talent in Singapore and also catalysed business expenditure in R&D. Business expenditure in R&D has reached about $9 billion in 2023.

So, what we need to do next is to strengthen research translation. Singapore not only must produce more research, but translate more ideas into products; more intellectual property to businesses; more innovation into globally competitive Singapore enterprises.

This requires strong partnerships between our universities, research institutions, investors and enterprise. We need clearer pathways for promising technology to commercialise more industry-led research collaborations and better access for startups and SMEs to capital, customers and global markets.

Second, we must help workers move up, move across and move forward. Even as technology disrupts jobs, the answer is not to slow down technology adoption. That will make our firms less competitive and ultimately, weaken opportunities for Singaporeans. The answer is to give workers access to relevant training, better career guidance, industry-recognised skills and real pathways into growth sectors. An economy that works for all must create a broad range of good jobs for technicians, operational specialist, tradespeople, associates, and professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), service workers, mid-career workers and mature workers.

My second point is that Singapore's economic engine must be powered by both dynamic local companies and global enterprises.

Dynamic local companies matter, but we should not frame local companies and global enterprises as competing choices. Singapore's success has never been built on such false choice. Instead, our focus should be on helping MNCs, large local companies, SMEs and startups build up one another. Global enterprises bring investments, technology and international networks while local enterprises contribute agility, innovation and specialised capabilities. Together, they create an ecosystem that builds capabilities, accelerates innovations and creates better job opportunities for Singaporeans.

We have already seen how this works in practice. AEM, a homegrown Singapore company, designs an advance system that test semiconductors before they reach the market, including the thermal control technology needed to screen today's power-hungry AI chips. Through a partnership with a global semiconductor MNC in the 2010s, AEM evolved from a contract manufacturer into a trusted innovative engineering partner to the semiconductor industry, delivering tests, thermal automation solutions to AI, high-performance computing and memory devices.

From a Singapore base, it has grown into a global test leader, with operations across Asia, Europe and the US, and it is now extending its expertise to the world's most advanced AI processors. This shows how partnership with a global enterprise can help a Singapore company build proprietary capabilities, move up the value chain and compete and win on the world stage. And I just last checked, AEM's market capitalisation is around $2.8 billion.

So, the challenge before us is to deepen these partnerships so that more Singapore enterprises can innovate, scale and internationalise. These connections strengthen research translations by bringing researchers, startups, SMEs, investors and industry together to move innovation more quickly from the laboratory to the marketplace. We must help our SMEs and startups scale while ensuring that global enterprises continue to find Singapore a trusted and valuable base. If we become less open, less connected and less attractive to global capital and talent, it is actually our local companies that will lose access to markets, partners, technology and opportunity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point is that Singapore's future must be open and outward-looking while ensuring that growth strengthens our social compact and benefits Singaporeans. This is why we need both healthy domestic and external demand. Domestic demand matters. It sustains many local enterprises, supports jobs and reflects confidence among households and businesses. Yet our whole market alone cannot provide the scale needed for every sector. We therefore need both a vibrant domestic market where locally focused enterprises can thrive and strong global connections that help other firms reach larger markets.

In 2025, Singapore's exports for goods and services amounted to approximately 178% of our GDP. This reflects how deeply our economy is connected to regional and global markets. We must continue to serve the world from Singapore as a trusted hub for finance, trade, technology, logistics, aviation, maritime, data, arbitration, greenfields, professional services and innovation. At the same time, the benefits of this external orientation must flow back to Singaporeans through good jobs, wages, skills and enterprise opportunities. This reinforces confidence and demand at home.

This is why the ESR emphasis on Singapore as a connected and trusted hub is so important. In a more fragmented world, connectivity alone is not enough. We must become a place where flows are orchestrated, finance governed, translated into economic value. This is how we remain relevant. This is how we create high-value jobs. This is how we secure our future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amended Motion also refers to Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. This is important, but this must be done from a strong and open Singapore base from which capital, talent and enterprise can scale into the region. We want Singaporeans to lead, manage, invest, build and operate across borders. We also want global partners to use Singapore as a launchpad and to create opportunities for Singaporeans from Singapore.

This is especially important in Southeast Asia. Our region is growing, but it is also diverse, complex and uneven. Singapore companies need support to understand local regulations, build partnerships, manage risk, access financing and scale operations. The Government can do this to help local enterprises internationalise through market access platforms, financing support, overseas networks, talent development and stronger partnerships with regional governments and businesses. But this must sit within an open and outward-looking strategy. We become stronger by helping the world solve problems from Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this brings me to the broader question of inclusion. Sometimes, economic debates frame equality and competitiveness as opposing objectives. I do not agree. For Singapore, competitiveness is what gives us the resources to be inclusive. Without growth, there will be fewer jobs. Without investments, there will be fewer opportunities. Without productive companies, wages cannot rise sustainably. Without fiscal resource, we cannot fund education, housing, healthcare, social support and skills upgrading.

So, the question is not whether we choose growth or inclusion. The question is what kind of growth we pursue and how we ensure that Singaporeans will benefit from it. We want growth that will create good jobs; growth that allows workers to move into better roles; growth that strengthens local enterprises; and growth that supports families, seniors, lower-wage workers and mid-career workers.

This is the exactly the kind of growth the Government has emphasised in its broader economic strategy. Progressive wages help lower-wage workers. Workfare supports workers who need additional help. SkillsFuture helps Singaporeans upgrade and reskill. The Forward Singapore agenda strengthens social support across different life stages. The ESR builds on this by focusing on good jobs, lifelong learning, enterprise transformation and resilience.

There is also another dimension to enterprise that we should not overlook. We should view enterprises not only as economic units but also as social actors. Companies create jobs, pay wages and generate growth, but at their best they can also strengthen communities, support vulnerable groups, care for the environment and contribute to a stronger society. The National Volunteer And Philanthropy Centre's (NVPC's) Company of Good Movement is one example. It has just marked its 10th anniversary and recognises businesses that embed corporate purpose and create positive impact beyond traditional economic indicators. The movement encourages companies to act across five areas: people, society, governance, environment and economic.

This is not just philanthropy. It is about how companies execute purpose through their core business and operations. Some companies do this through inclusive hiring and people-first workplace cultures. Others do this through employee volunteering, mentoring SMEs, supporting community partners, reducing waste, improving sustainability practices or using their products, services and supply chains to create wider social impact. Examples include Sheng Siong's people-first culture, HPE's waste recycling, HP's Planet Partners programme and Fraser's Property's efforts to shape environments and communities through its role as a real estate developer. In just three years, the movement has conferred 1,046 companies, more than 70% of them local companies. This is encouraging progress with room to grow further.

This matters because an inclusive economy cannot be built by the Government alone. Startups, SMEs, large local enterprises and MNCs can be a force for good when they embed purpose into how they hire, buy, build, serve and grow. A future economy that works for all must be one where businesses do well and also do good.

Sir, inclusion cannot mean insulating everyone from change. The role of the Government is not to freeze the economy in place. Instead, the role of the Government is to help workers and businesses adapt before disruption hits and to provide support when transitions are difficult. This requires honesty. The reality is that not every existing job will remain unchanged. Not every firm will survive in its current form and Singapore cannot avoid global competition.

But we can commit. We can commit to helping Singaporeans build new skills, access new opportunities and navigate change with confidence. We can commit to helping businesses transform, adopt new technologies, access new markets and build the capabilities needed to compete in a changing world. This is a more honest and sustainable form of inclusion.

This is why the proposed amended Motion matters. It reflects the balance Singapore must strike. It is aligned with the ESR. It supports dynamic local companies and global enterprises as part of one ecosystem that creates opportunities for Singaporean entrepreneurs and workers. It values healthy domestic demand while recognising the necessity of strong external demand. It encourages Singaporeans and Singaporean capital to venture abroad while remaining anchored in a trusted, open and resilient Singapore.

Our future economy must be open, competitive and inclusive at the same time. We must attract the best from the world while developing the best in Singaporeans. We must support local enterprises while staying plugged into a global network. We must embrace AI and technology, not to replace human capability, but to expand it – using AI to strengthen workers' judgement, free up time for meaningful interactions and support roles where trust remains central. We must grow externally while ensuring that Singaporeans benefit domestically. We must build resilience without becoming closed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the ESR provides serious and forward-looking roadmap for the next phase. It recognises the real anxieties that workers and businesses face, but it also recognises that Singapore cannot respond to uncertainty by becoming smaller in our ambition. We must be bolder. We must take calculated risk. We must back our enterprises. We must invest in our people. We must strengthen our role as a global trusted hub and we must ensure that every Singaporean has a fair chance to contribute and benefit from the future economy.

An economy of the future that works for all is not built by choosing between openness and inclusion. It is built by making growth translate into good jobs. It is built by making innovation accessible to enterprises and workers. It is built by making change less frightening, because Singaporeans know that we will face it together. This is the economy we must build.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek Members' support for the amended Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Tiong, hang on, let me go through the process. There are four amendments proposed by Mr Edward Chia to the Motion:

Amendment No 1: "In line 1, to delete 'notwithstanding' and insert 'in line with'.".