Debate on Annual Budget Statement

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

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

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

11.36 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With another $3 billion devoted to the National Productivity Fund, in addition to the $2 billion last year, all things being equal, it is hard to see how Singapore would suddenly turn unattractive, despite the US withdrawal from BEPS 2.0. The fiscal situation appears healthy, notwithstanding the absence of financial medium-term projections, which other jurisdictions publish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

11.59 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.

12.16 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

12.33 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

12.49 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

12.57 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Budget 2025 provides support for families and even more for vulnerable families, and I am very thankful for that. I share the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) and Minister Indranee’s hope that the Large Families Scheme will encourage more Singaporeans to have three or more children and bring our Total Fertility Rate up from 0.97. My three children are way older than six years old now, but even without enjoying the Large Families Scheme benefits, the joy and fulfilment brought by my kids to my life have been immeasurable and irreplaceable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

1.18 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget 2025 debate is taking place amid some truly tumultuous times around the world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

1.26 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

1.40 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.

1.57 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

2.14 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.23 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.39 pm until 3.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm.

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

Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Debate resumed.

3.00 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Neil Parekh.

Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate on Budget 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

3.10 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

3.18 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: So, you want to make accurate your previous speech?

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Yes, just a clarification on the figures.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, proceed, please.

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

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

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: No, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

3.41 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is in line with the WP's advocacy of a $1,300 take-home minimum wage. Since the coverage of low-income earners by either the minimum wage component of the Progressive Wage Model or the LQS is now nine in 10 workers, I believe that the minimum wage should simply be made statutory and universal. After all, the beneficial effect of a higher minimum wage is not limited to low-income earners. Research has consistently identified spillovers of a higher minimum wage for those further up the wage distribution.

Therefore, elevating the minimum wage is not just good for just those on low salaries; they benefit all workers, by shaping everyone’s earnings expectations and improving their bargaining positions in the labour market.

Just as important, businesses have adapted. While it is true that some companies have suggested that they will pass on some of these costs to their customers, many others have been able to adjust with productivity improvements. A small price rise is to be expected and was a possibility I had alluded to. What is more, there have been no clear detrimental unemployment effects. The unemployment rate – including that for youths, the group that is most likely to be negatively affected by a minimum wage – has steadily tapered downward since 2022.

The natural concern with pursuing increases in wages is that it could have negative implications for inflation, employment or productivity.

On inflation, some have cautioned against pushing for wage increases, under the premise that this could revive inflationary pressure and in the extreme, set off a negative feedback loop of higher wages prompting price hikes, and vice versa. But neither theory nor data lend much support that such a “wage-price spiral” will emerge in response to a one-off wage hike.

One may also worry that rising wages could lead to companies shedding workers. But the relationship between wage inflation and unemployment has, in recent decades, been very weak. And as I have shared with this House before, the majority of minimum wage studies point to little or no job loss effects, especially when the increases are modest. With our labour market unprecedentedly tight, it is difficult to envision mass redundancies triggered by a one-off increase.

Finally, some argue that wages should only rise when productivity does. Yet as I have argued earlier, productivity has risen, while wages have not caught up. There are even many reasons why slightly higher wages may improve efficiency, by reducing shirking, improving morale, lowering turnover and making hiring easier.

Mr Deputy Speaker, since the pandemic, wages have fallen behind both increases in inflation as well as productivity. It is high time for our salaries to rise and there is more the Government can do to expedite this adjustment. This includes ensuring that NWC guidelines are more widely adopted, equalising the employer share of CPF and instituting a statutory universal minimum wage. Restoring the real purchasing power of wages is a sure-fire way to help working Singaporeans cope with sky-high costs of living. It is time for wages to rise.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

4.00 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Speaker sir, the Budget is one of the most generous and inclusive, with something for everyone, and has been widely welcomed by our people. I would like to take this opportunity to share my views and opinions, and make some suggestions which I hope will be useful for Singapore’s long-term planning.

Firstly, we must continue to support our lower-income workers in lifelong learning and training programmes to upgrade their skills. With relevant and in-demand skillsets, they will be empowered to get better and higher paying jobs. However, for some of them, due to family and work demands, committing time and energy for training is indeed challenging. Their priority is to earn as much money as possible to meet their families’ immediate needs, so some take on more jobs or shifts to supplement their incomes. Their working hours may be long and if they do manual work, physically tiring. Their children may be young and they may need to look after elderly, sick or disabled family members.

Hence, to help these lower-income workers cope better, we should consider boosting our Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme. I am heartened that since January this year, employees on WIS received higher payments of up to $4,900 per year, with 40% in cash and 60% in CPF. For the self-employed and platform workers, payouts are up to $3,267 per year with 10% in cash and 90% in MediSave.

Can the payouts be increased to take into account the rise in the cost of living and adjusted to provide a higher cash component? For workers living hand to mouth, more cash in hand would alleviate the daily financial stresses they face.

There are some senior citizens who need to work due to challenging circumstances. They may have no one to support them or they need to support children in trouble and even grandchildren, despite their advanced age. For elderly workers in the low-income groups, additional WIS would be helpful.

I would like to appeal for the qualifying wage ceiling for the Senior Employment Credit, Enabling Employment Credit and Uplifting Employment Credit to be increased from $4,000 to $5,000, to bring them closer to $5,500, the nominal median monthly income in Singapore. This would allow a bigger group of workers to qualify for wage offsets for their employers and boost their employability.

Next, I would like to express my appreciation for the new measures to support large families. Many of these large families are also part of the sandwich class, having to provide for more children and to take care of their elderly parents. In our endeavour to push for a higher fertility rate, we must continue to incentivise, reward and support them. For those willing to have more children, let us do more to support and assist them. Let us commit to long-term subsidies, with more for every additional child they have.

In additional to financial support, I urge the Government to consider providing them with reserved allocations, higher priority and even grants for bigger HDB flats, with the quantum correlated to the number of children they have. Can a greater number of Sale of Balance flats be set aside for their selection? I urge MND to commit more resources to the building of BTO flats to reduce the waiting time to 12 to 18 months.

Would the Ministry of Manpower consider exempting large families from maid levies? To the Ministry of Transport, I would like to request that it considers providing large families perhaps with COE rebates for family-friendly cars.

For working mothers, would the Ministry of Finance consider removing or increasing the cap of $80,000 on personal income tax reliefs so that their families get benefit from the Working Mother's Child Relief? Let us give these mothers as much support as we can. After all, the number of working mothers earning higher incomes who also have more children are not many, hence the loss of tax revenue to the IRAS should be insignificant.

As for couples intending to have children or who are already expecting, MOH should work with doctors to conduct more public education outreach to encourage couples to take up the free genetic screening programme, PaREnthood genetic Disease Carrier Test (PREDICT), at the KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital. This will help them make informed decisions about family planning. I also urge MOH to consider allowing couples planning to get married to qualify for this free assessment. Would MOH also consider the building of public subsidised confinement and infant care centres to help mothers recover after delivery?

Next, I have some concerns regarding our ageing population. We need to expedite the building of additional healthcare facilities as soon as possible to meet the increasing demand for nursing homes and day care for senior citizens.

Would HDB also build more smaller single room rental flats for needy singles, so that they can stay by themselves in each unit without having to share these flats with strangers and having disputes often? I personally receive quite a number of such requests at my Meet the Peoples Sessions. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Presently, international trade barriers are rising, which may have an impact on investments and the economic environment. Inflationary pressures may continue. Would we need to reserve more surpluses to help the people cope with the unfavourable economic environment that may appear in the next few years and, at the same time, cope with the challenges of an ageing society and help the people to provide for their old age?

As the average number of family members decreases, young couples may have to support two sets of parents and raise children at the same time. Reducing the burden on young people and couples is also a top priority, requiring us to think out of the box.

Can the Government take advantage of the surplus to increase funding and increase childcare subsidies significantly, so that all infants and young children receive the same subsidies? Make all Government-subsidised childcare services uniformed, which can reduce the family pressure of young couples, thereby encouraging them to have children and consider having more children. This may also reduce psychological pressures and promote fertility. Psychological pressure is one of the factors causing infertility. At the same time, the annual credits of $1,000 per child can be considered extended until the age of 21 or the completion of National Service.

Mr Speaker, since our current economic situation allows us to invest more in childcare, the Government can boldly provide more comprehensive and integrated support and funding to couples who are willing to have children. I hope the Government will carefully consider the above opinions. I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

4.09 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Sir, some parts of the world are home to an unusually high number of centenarians, individuals who live past 100. These communities also often have a high quality of life. Enter the “Blue Zone", a term coined by explorer, author and longevity researcher Dan Buettner in 2004, as part of a study that examined longevity hotspots around the world. Among these pioneering Blue Zones were: Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; Loma Linda, California; Nicoya, Costa Rica and Ikaria, Greece. These regions share common lifestyle habits such as plant-based diets, frequent low-intensity physical activity, strong community ties and a sense of purpose.

Singapore was declared a Blue Zone 2.0 in August 2023. This was an accolade significant for reasons beyond the longevity marker that Blue Zones represents. Unlike first generation Blue Zones like Okinawa, Singapore does not boast of a deep-rooted tradition of healthy living. Our pace of life is fast and often hectic, and not getting enough good quality sleep is something many in Singapore as well as in this Chamber, struggle with.

Yet, Singapore bucks the trend, becoming a Blue Zone mainly because of stable governance, economic security, accessible healthcare and effective public health measures. So, in essence, being a Blue Zone was not something that came along organically for Singapore, but rather, through careful orchestration via policy and programming.

Indeed, we are living longer here in Singapore than many other parts of the world. Singaporeans have an average life expectancy of 84.3 years, with men having an average life span of 84 years, while women living to an average of 88 years.

Does that mean then that all is well? Not quite. The health span of Singaporeans, that is, years lived in good health is at 74.2 years. A significant 10-year gap between health span and lifespan exists. What this means is that Singaporeans spend the last decade of their lives in poor health, struggling with chronic illnesses, disabilities, or other age-related illnesses and issues. While Singapore has a high life expectancy, health difficulties have a substantial impact on quality of life in our later years.

How then, can we address this? The answer does not lie in what we can do when we turn 60. We do need to go way upstream. Let us examine the factors determining good health. According to the World Health Organisation, factors affecting one’s health are an individual’s social and economic environment, physical environment and their characteristics and behaviours.

It is not merely how good or advanced a population’s healthcare system is that singularly determines the people’s healthcare outcomes. In fact, social determinants of health play a much more significant role in ageing well than the state of the healthcare system alone. Therefore, a comprehensive approach to ageing well must consider various non-healthcare and non-medical components such as social connections, physical activity, dietary habits, cognitive engagement and employment.

Social connections – strong community ties significantly support ageing well. Conversely, research suggests that social isolation contributes to cognitive decline and poor health outcomes.

Physical activity – encouraging daily movement, natural movement, such as gardening or walking, rather than structured workouts, helps maintain long-term mobility and independence.

Dietary habits – this is an obvious one, for we are what we eat. Consume in moderation. Less salt, less sugar. We can almost see and hear the Health Promotion Board's various campaigns flashing before our eyes.

Cognitive engagement – learning new skills, playing memory-enhancing games, engaging in purposeful activities reduce dementia risks, and from my own non-clinical experience, senior members of my extended family who played mahjong remained lucid throughout their golden years.

Employment – continuing to work provides mental stimulation, encourages social interaction, adds to financial stability, facilitates a sense of validation, esteem and actualisation, all of which contribute to overall well-being.

Our ambition for Singapore goes beyond what we had already achieved. In the words of our Health Minister, we are setting our sights to becoming a Blue Zone 3.0, moving beyond policy-driven longevity, to embedding healthier habits into everyday living.

By 2030, one in four in Singaporeans will be 65 or older. As Singapore ages, it is essential to reframe the ageing narrative. Negative descriptors that are often used today, like "Silver Tsunami", "has beens", "burden on society" should be immediately abandoned. And we must shift our perception of ageing. No longer should ageing be seen as a period of decline, but rather as a phase of life that represents opportunity, contribution and vitality. By fostering a society that not only values longevity, but also the potential and contributory role that seniors can play, we can create an ecosystem where older adults are empowered to contribute and to thrive.

In Queenstown where I serve, nearly three in 10 residents are 60 and above. I have been concerned about various aspects about our seniors in the community: their physical and mental well-being, their retirement financial adequacy, social isolation and the many associated downsides.

As our population ages, we must rethink senior employment in our society. Should retirement mean stepping aside completely, or can we reimagine a model where their experience and contributions continue to shape our community in a positive manner? How should we think about productivity, employment and social participation in our senior years?

For some insights, let us go back in time. For much of human history, retirement was not a formalised concept. People worked for as long as they were able to, and labour formed an integral part of an individual's identity. In 1889, Germany introduced the world's first pension system: giving Germans who were 70 years and older, especially those who could no longer work, financial security in their old age. Now, the rest, from the late 19th century onwards, was history. An official retirement policy is arguably one of the best policy implementations that bolsters well-being in one's senior years.

Over time, however, attitudes towards retirement evolved. As people generally live longer, there is a growing sense of inertia in extending our working years. Take France, for example. In 2023, France experienced widespread protests raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. Some see the raising of retirement age as an obscene violation of their well-deserved rest after years of toil.

The real question is though: does employment in our senior years have to be cast purely as a binary, black-or-white construct: either you work full-time or you do not work at all? At retirement age – which in Singapore's context will be 64 by 2026 – many seniors whom I meet are still physically active, cognitively sharp and more than able to be involved in a productive activity, one way or another. In fact, I jokingly tell many of my Queenstown seniors that I meet that I would have to "check their IC" to be sure that they are telling me their real age! Many of them look way younger than their actual "NRIC age".

To be sure, many seniors find purpose, mental stimulation and social engagement in continued employment. Work is more than just an income source. It provides structure, a sense of purpose and a continued role in society. Some seniors actively resist retirement because their professions define their identity. The challenge, then, is not merely extending work life but rethinking its structure. How can employment be made more flexible, more meaningful and adapted to the strengths of an ageing workforce?

Also, what is the reality in our employment market today? Do employers perceive the resumes of senior applicants they receive as prospective assets with decades of experience, or do they reflexively dismiss them on the assumption that senior workers would be a drag on efficiency and productivity?

What changes can be implemented at the workplace to facilitate the reintegration of more seniors as part of our active workforce? Would employers be willing to consider process automation, AI, redesigning full-time roles as micro jobs as ways to not merely hire more seniors, but also, to fulfil our manpower needs in a labour-tight market?

Among senior workers, many are rightly concerned about the perception of age discrimination at the workplace and many would also want to prioritise time for loved ones in their golden years. Concerns over physical and mental well-being also mean many are hesitant to re-enter or stay on in the workforce in their senior years.

Clearly, mindset shifts and tangible action, on both the employer and employee ends of the spectrum, are needed. If we are serious about our Blue Zone 3.0 ambition, then surely, we must lead the charge in reframing retirement and senior employment, among other issues. After all, to discriminate based on age, is merely the act of discriminating against our very selves – the future versions of ourselves.

Sir, Singapore's journey to becoming a Blue Zone is unlike any others. As we strive towards being a Blue Zone 3.0, our goal is not just to live longer but to live well. And to get there, we will be sailing through uncharted waters, where no one before us has gone.

Our true measure of success lies not just in productivity, but in the collective well-being of every passenger on board this ship. Beyond the various measures like the Matched MediSave Scheme, the enhanced Home Caregiving Grants and broadening of HDB's Enhancement for Active Seniors programme under this Budget, there is scope for us to do more, to move the needle on senior employment.

After all, if there is any vessel that we can navigate all on board to the promised land of wholesome, empowered longevity, I have every confidence that that vessel's name must be Singapore. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

4.21 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, like every Budget in recent years, this year's Budget has a long title underlining our country looking to a better future. As the volume over the General Elections builds, many expect that the spending taps will be turned on during this year's Budget, and we have certainly seen generous schemes and various vouchers announced across the board, paid for by higher-than-expected corporate tax revenues.

We see the introduction of, for example, the $100 SG Culture Pass, $100 ActiveSG credits, including private property into the Climate Vouchers scheme, hawker centre stall rental rebates, and even LifeSG credits for children under 18.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

We do not object to these schemes as improving access to arts and cultural activities is something that we have advocated, particularly given rising ticket prices, and also easing the financial impact that raising children has on families in today's ultra-competitive society, but we can and we must improve, by ensuring that we have a Budget that is more targeted towards today's social outcomes, and to have a clearer and more significant investment in the social outcomes of tomorrow.

By social outcomes, I mean the impact of our policies, especially our economic policies, on our societal well-being. Our people are not economic digits. GDP growth should not be the goal. Instead, we have to realign our goals to make sure that our country is a flourishing society on a liveable, healthy planet, and to ensure that we leave behind the foundation for our children and grandchildren to thrive, and also to improve our resilience to take us there, we have to come from a position of strength and abundance, not fear and scarcity.

I first raised the potential of a strength-based approach during last year's Motion on mental health and repeat the call that we can apply this to our society at large. There is abundant research on individual flourishing that shows that we should work on our strengths, rather than just focusing on improving our weaknesses and that this approach predicts higher levels of resilience. It is also positively correlated to well-accepted resilience-related factors, like positive effect, self-efficacy and life satisfaction.

Additionally, Barbara Fredrickson's Broaden-and-Build model shows that a positive emotion in individuals put them in pole position to explore new avenues of growth, building skills and resources, and it increases coping and survival. This theory has been applied to the work context to generate good outcomes and there is no reason to suppose that societies, too, cannot benefit. Contrast this to theories of scarcity, where perceptions of, or coming from a place of scarcity, may end up leading us to react more strongly to situations and events, or increase competition to unhealthy levels.

I, therefore, believe that on a societal level, we should approach our policies from a position of strength, not scarcity. What do I mean by this? Here are some real-life examples. Like all constituencies, WP-held divisions organise events for residents throughout the year, and we have to do so with no access to taxpayer funds through the People's Association, or even venues like community centres. Instead of sitting around bemoaning about how unfair this all is, our teams forge ahead with planning community events to be held in spaces that still welcome us, such as void decks and multipurpose halls.

In Buangkok, our Christmas event takes this a step further. We identified early on in the term that our community possesses an abundance of strengths, such as kindness, love and justice, and thus crafted our event to make full use of these community strengths. Our residents turn up each year en masse to drop off gifts of essentials, such as oil, rice, noodles and cleaning items, which we collect and this benefits residents of Cheshire Home in Serangoon Gardens, and it is so special to see familiar faces every year and to hear the latest updates on their families and loved ones.

Unless we be accused of politicking or electioneering, another example from our Sengkang community would be one of our condominiums, where residents were kind enough to share their experiences with me. The Management Corporation Strata Title operates on a tight budget and fully acknowledges this and works within their limitations. But instead of focusing on what they lacked, they have, over the years, fully harnessed their creativity and zest in ensuring that their compound is well-maintained and beautifully decorated with festive updates.

These efforts range from taking the initiative to source for landscaping pieces from dissolving country clubs and, more recently, commissioning a snake sculpture from a dragon dance manufacturer in China, ensuring a cost-effective, but beautiful way of getting the grounds ready for Chinese New Year.

To bring about a social budget, we should revisit the idea of a developmental budget dashboard that I first brought up during Budget 2022. To reiterate, this dashboard would measure how well we are doing as a society and economy, and give a good account of our human, social and natural assets.

Aside from my calls to use the dashboard to measure how well Singapore is doing in terms of poverty reduction, social mobility and wealth distribution, the dashboard should also be used when developing and announcing the Budget package each year. It would thus be used to spell out not just the economic, but also social elements of spending, with clear descriptions of how specific spending allocations are designed to lead to positive social outcomes. The dashboard and its targets should be developed together with the public, especially as we already have attempts made to get a wider segment of Singaporeans to share their perspectives on development in exercises, like the recent Forward SG.

The next step would be to formalise this, so that we can collect qualitative and quantitative data from Singaporeans on what they would like our social KPIs to be and, crucially, to publish the results of these findings as part of our dashboard. These could include collecting and publishing data, such as time-use studies for informal carers, a call I made in my maiden speech, how fulfilled Singaporeans are with the career path they have chosen, or how easily they feel they are able to achieve their dreams and aspirations.

Taken together, these measures can be compared alongside more traditional economic measures to help the public better understand the trade-offs necessary to maintain a balance between the measures of societal well-being, and economic and business demands. To be clear, it is not always an either-or scenario where economic progress comes at the cost of well-being, but neither is it the case that economic growth is the only way in which a community can flourish.

Development then, would be our measure of how we can achieve our social goals while remaining an attractive place to do business and to also know at what point we start to see negative trends creeping in due to economic and social policy shifts. To develop these social measures for our dashboard, we can make use of a mechanism similar to citizens' assemblies, which I spoke about in last year's Budget. These would comprise groups of citizens randomly selected from, but representative of the population, to learn about, analyse and make recommendations on this topic in the form of a report, which the Government would have to publicly respond to.

They may be supported by advice from experts, but it is up to them to carefully deliberate and propose which measures to include. While the Government will ultimately be the final arbiter in whether or not to adopt the proposed measures for the scorecard, the process has the added benefit of being transparent and democratic and provides a formal avenue by which the wisdom of crowds can be used to inform policymaking.

The Government also would have to defend their position where they disagree with the recommendations made, contrasted to the one-way format of the consultative processes we are more used to.

Mr Speaker, I am not saying that the Government does not pay attention to social outcomes when devising this Budget. SingStat's data does show that the Gini coefficient of employment income per household member in 2024 was at the lowest since records began in 2000. But I believe that if we ask the man in the street if they feel better off, the picture might not be so rosy.

One possible explanation is that the highest and lowest quintile of income earners have seen real wages increase, but the large middle section not so much. This is why many would tell you that they do not feel like they have done well. Another reason is that our measures of wealth inequality are still struggling. The UBS Wealth Report published in July last year, shows that our Gini measure on wealth inequality rose by 22.9% since 2008 and has now overtaken economies, such as Hong Kong, Indonesia and South Korea. Wealth matters because people are now living longer and care costs are expected to increase and this gives rise to a feeling that depending on employment income alone will not suffice, particularly in our golden years. The dashboard we propose should thus have measures of both economic and social inequality, because both are intertwined. Social inequality is clearly linked to both income and wealth inequality and, having consistent measurements, such as those used by sociologists, allows us to get more familiar with how well we are doing in this area.

It is why I spoke about the dangers associated with the perception of elitism and lack of social mobility, in my maiden speech. And I believe the same concerns still apply today. Time and again, whether during our Sengkang conversations, town hall sessions or regular engagement with residents, we are told of parents and grandparents' worry for the next generation of whether their children and grandchildren will be able to keep up with what feels like an increasing rat race and pressure cooker society.

This is especially so if you consider the increasing number of vouchers and assistance schemes that we have today in Singapore. While nobody will fault support being given in challenging times with ever rising costs of living, we have to be careful about the inadvertent impact that these vouchers may have on our social fabric.

Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan commented recently that there is an irony in large amounts being doled out each year, and that it confirms a popular perception that Singapore is too expensive to live in. Academics Linda Low and Pang Eng Fong, in Monday's op-ed in the Straits Times, go even further. They worried about whether such policies will foster an entitlement culture and entrench a rentier society. The idea that a large proportion of our population now relies on vouchers to mitigate everyday spending, significantly undercuts many decades of the Government telling us that Singapore is not a welfare state.

What impact do these schemes have on how we see ourselves as a nation? Does it continue to encourage seeing our country through a lens of scarcity, resulting in Singaporeans being afraid to take risks in their careers to found potentially groundbreaking enterprises, because they do not know whether the vouchers and schemes will continue next year.

Next, I hope that we can apply the dashboard to measure how engaged our residents are in society. Humans are social creatures and it has been demonstrated that participation in society and high-quality connexions are essential ingredients for individuals and societies to thrive. Aside from the findings of the Singapore 2022 Quality of Life survey that citizens that feel they have a duty to vote and have power at the ballot box, have higher levels of well-being. Studies have also found positive correlations between participation in society and improved governance, greater social cohesion and greater capacity building and learning.

On the individual level, it is also well-documented that there are physical and mental health benefits to participating in society. Yet, such participation is usually only possible where individuals feel that they have the room to do so and are not constantly worrying about daily stresses, financial or otherwise. Scores of societal participation over time can thus also give us valuable insights into how well we are doing as a society, socially and somewhat indirectly, economically.

We have to acknowledge that we are currently facing a mental health crisis. Yet, mental health is a direct indicator of social development affecting participation in society and well-being as a whole. Ill mental health also ends up costing economies in the long run, both in terms of the provision of treatment and support, but also lost productivity. Thus, beyond the mental health strategies released in late 2023, we should be developing meaningful targets that are indicators of what we want for mental health.

And as I pointed out previously, mental health is not just the absence of mental ill health, but also the presence of factors and conditions that encourage thriving, and our indicators should also reflect measures of positive mental health. While various organisations and entities, such as Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), conduct occasional surveys on mental health, we can benefit from a more consistent and consolidated data, standardisation of questions and commitment to annual measures, with results to form part of our dashboard.

We can take reference from what is already being done in other countries. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness found that while actual initiatives to combat loneliness are necessary, also important are reporting requirements and a clear programme to develop evidence over what works. This is especially so as different countries have different cultural and historical contexts, which also influence the issue. To make data more comparable, the UK government is working on a loneliness harmonised standard.

In Singapore, we also know that the Ministry of Health, too, has been working to combat social isolation, known to be a risk factor for ill, physical and mental health. Yet, further study is necessary to understand how this problem presents itself. For example, 2021 data from the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, showed that it is actually seniors who live with family members who are the most socially disconnected, contrary to popular belief. This illustrates why regular data collection and publication are needed.

Finally, applying our developmental dashboard to our future. Two key areas that spring to mind would be how we invest in and support our children and how we are doing in our response to the climate crisis and long-term sustainability goals. For children, delivery on different elements of children's development increasingly cuts across various Ministries and agencies. While education is key, it is not the only measurement of how well we are doing with our younger generation.

Apart from doing well in education league tables, how well are we preparing our next generation for their future jobs and careers, which require more creativity and challenging of the status quo? How well are our children eating, sleeping and are they getting the opportunity to enjoy their childhoods, rather than stressed about the next milestone examination in their way? We already track many data points, such as school absenteeism rates with some breakdowns like housing type, but data on a centralised dashboad can help the public note how investments and changes we make to our education, health and social sectors have benefited our children.

Iceland's 2024 youth study offers one approach. The study was a comprehensive and holistic effort to collect and analyse data on the welfare, health and attitudes of children and young people in Iceland. In order to support evidence-based policymaking, topics included mental health and well-being, social connections and activities, digital safety and social media usage, family support, school environment and physical health.

This is off the back of the Prosperity Act enacted in 2022, with coordinators assigned to support families from pregnancy onwards. A key component of this initiative is to develop a dashboard to offer an overview of children's health and well-being, with data publicly available, thus promoting transparency and enabling researchers, policymakers and the general public to engage with that information.

Here in Singapore, there is no reason for us not to do something similar, especially as we start to gain data and insight from the recently launched Grow Well SG programme.

On sustainability, our schemes have to address the huge challenges facing us in the form of the climate crisis, and measures should be assessed on their impact. As I noted in 2022, many climate measures are not reflected in GDP. Planting a tree, for example, does not change anything.

Yet, our climate adaptation and mitigation schemes are key parts of our development journey and should form a key part of our scorecards, and will assist in ensuring our agencies are laser-focused on the intended impacts of various programmes. One example is the expansion of the Climate Voucher Scheme announced last week. While occupants of private residents may rejoice, how much carbon mitigation are we actually achieving through these vouchers? How do we guard against these vouchers inducing demand for household appliances, what items are replaced before they reach the end of life?

Additionally, what is the rationale for allowing two-tick LED lights to be a purchase? Now that we have a decent set of data since the scheme was launched, what does the analysis of this data reveal about the carbon emissions impact of the scheme?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, there is benefit to developing a dashboard with economic and social measures that is published along the Budget each year. It is not the first time that we have heard sentiments that there is more to measuring our progress as a nation than GDP.

And I believe that there are many untold strengths and area of abundance that remain yet untapped in us. Having the dashboard would be a channel through which we can promote a paradigm shift to meaningfully move to look at Singapore's assets and situation from a mindset of strength and abundance, not fear and scarcity, and this will stand us in good stead as we look to the next lap.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

4.40 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I declare I am a medical doctor at a public hospital.

Cost of living is a worry for so many families across Singapore. It is the money you spend every day to get by. But there are also other hidden costs of living – the time you spend navigating public services; time that you spend, and not just money that you spend.

The former Head of Civil Service, Mr Lim Siong Guan, once said, "Implementation is Policy", because the impact of policy, however well it is designed on paper, what matters is when you see what happens on the ground. And in today's world, "User Experience is Implementation" – the resident's experience is the implementation of policy. Policy cannot fully help its intended beneficiaries if the resident cannot navigate the policy, or if too many of the processes are online and the residents themselves cannot quite get online to make full use of the policy. So, again, what happens on the ground is the implementation, and implementation is policy.

Let me start by sharing about some of our caregivers' struggles. I met a young Clementi couple earlier these few weeks. Husband and wife, bringing up young children. The wife just got out of hospital. Because she has a lung infection, she needs to go to the polyclinic every day to receive medication, because the nature of the medication is that she has to take it in a supervised way in a medical setting at the polyclinic. She is not well, needs a wheelchair to get around. And so, because her husband has to bring her in a wheelchair to the polyclinic every day, the husband has quit his job. The family breadwinner has quit his job and now there is no breadwinner at home. Home-based medical care, arranging for that treatment to be delivered at home could have saved my resident those trips to the polyclinic every day. It could have saved the husband's job. It could have saved his employability. It might have been counted as healthcare expenditure, additional expense on MOH's bottom line, but by saving the caregiver's job, it would have saved on suffering for the family and saved on hardship and safeguarded the husband's ability to earn as a breadwinner in his existing job.

There are similar challenges throughout Singapore – caregivers under stress when a loved one is sick. In 2022, I asked in Parliament how many Specialist Outpatient Clinic visits a resident might need to go through in a single year. The 2019 figures from before COVID-19, showed that over 7,000 Singaporeans a year have to attend 24 or more Specialist Outpatient appointments in a calendar year. Sir, 7,000 Singaporeans having to go to a clinic two times or more a month. In that same year, there were over 2,000 Singaporeans who have 36 or more appointments at a Specialist Clinic every year. That means 2,000 Singaporeans averaging three or more Specialist Outpatient appointments a month. I have Clementi residents who are caregivers. They share with me how hard it can be to keep a full-time job when the family is small; not many grown up children looking after a senior who has so many medical appointments.

I also have Clementi residents, as well as sisters and brothers from Healthcare Services Employees Union and they share the challenges on the other end of care delivery as well. They share about how much effort it takes to coordinate care to try and simplify the number of clinic visits, whether it is moving multiple Specialist visits to the same day, so the patient makes just one trip rather than four, or doing backend meetings to simplify the number of visits. I have been told by our sisters and brothers in healthcare that often this coordination work takes place outside of working hours. Reaching out to colleagues, messaging, emailing, streamlining, working into the night sometimes behind the scenes – extra work, unrecorded, unmeasured.

So, our agencies need to get better at recognising the amount of work that is needed to coordinate care and then to recognise that care coordination should not be seen as a cost centre and expense in and of itself, but as an enabler and a catalyst to simplify the care journey for a fellow Singaporean in need.

I also call upon the Government, and especially MOF, to take a more holistic view of subsidising and funding care coordination, whether it is funding to hire more patient navigators or care navigators, or recognising additional hours put in outside of official duty hours by frontline staff who are working extra hard to coordinate for the patients and those under their care. Because simplifying the care journey can help patients and caregivers stay employed, and not have to choose between maintaining their employment, and accompanying and supporting their ill relative through the medical journey.

Furthermore, with smaller family sizes in Singapore today, with fewer children, the caregiving responsibility is heavier for each grown up child and it is the most vulnerable workers who are hit hardest, workers who cannot do their work remotely, who cannot log in through Zoom or video conference, workers who have less bargaining power at the workplace, workers who might be daily-rated and for whom every half-day or every day taken out of work to care and support their family member, means a day in lost income, a day of economic impact.

There is a cost to families, Mr Speaker, when a breadwinner can no longer maintain their full-time job. There is a cost to families when a caregiver who used to work part-time, leaves the workforce completely because of these stresses. And when a worker leaves the workforce because they can no longer juggle supporting their sick loved one through the healthcare journey and at the same time, trying to hold down their job or employment, when a worker stops working because of this invidious choice, it is not just a loss of income, it is not just a loss of being a breadwinner. Because every month that a worker stays out of work, every month that a worker has sacrificed their career for, is also a month that their skills fade, become more out-of-date. It is another month when their networks, their professional networks, their workplace networks become more distant, less connected. It becomes harder and harder, even as they make that sacrifice.

So, anything we can do to streamline the care journey for our seniors, if it can help save a caregiver's employment and employability, it is something worth striving for and something that the Government can and should support even more, moving forward.

Let me speak also about digital complexity and digital access to Government services. The importance of simplifying the journey, it applies to Government services as well. In healthcare, the more apps there are, it also means the more logins, the more apps, the more notifications, the more processes. It is not easy for caregivers and seniors.

There are Government agencies which today, as a default, want the resident to login with Singpass, login online, to book an offline appointment. What happens to seniors who cannot easily go online, who have not kept their Singpass working? Has going digital made it harder for seniors to get help? And what message do we send inadvertently when we ask someone who is not digitally-savvy to go online to get the offline appointment? So, even though our agencies speak of "digital first, not digital only", we must ask: what is the outcome on the ground for our seniors?

So, I call upon this Government to study deeply how the implementation of digitalisation has affected the less digitally-savvy seniors. In particular, we must look out for the risks of digital dropout. Digital dropout happens when someone who used to make use of a Government service no longer uses the service anymore because it went digital – not because their problems have gone away, but because they can no longer get to the service or find it so hard that they have given up trying to access the service.

Sir, let me therefore add a call to make Government services simpler for our citizens.

As background, last year, April 2024, the Government set up the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review. Just as the IMC on Pro-Enterprise Rules Review aims to help SMEs better navigate Government rules and regulations, we should also do the same for citizens, especially our seniors who may be less digitally-savvy or who are afraid to go online, amid a world of digital scams. Because efficiency of access to services and the cost of navigating, the cost burden of time spent, it is not just a challenge for businesses. It affects any citizen who is facing difficulty navigating Government services, especially those who do not know how to go online.

If helping our SMEs is important enough to have a Deputy Prime Minister chairing an IMC, then I suggest, Mr Speaker, we should adopt the same approach to helping our fellow Singaporeans, our fellow citizens navigate Government processes too and look at ways to make it as simple as possible.

So, I call upon the Government: if we have an IMC on Pro-Enterprise Rules Review, we can also have an IMC on Pro-Citizen Process Review – or what we can call the Bureau Of Services Simplification; we can call it "BOSS". It can be chaired by a senior Cabinet Minister at the Deputy Prime Minister or Senior Minister level, supported by younger officeholders and an advisory panel of public and private sector experts who understand user experience and user design, seeing through the eyes of our people, not just the eyes of engineers or coders, however they mean well; seeing through the eyes of a senior, who cannot go online to book an offline appointment in the real world with an agency; seeing through the eyes of patients and caregivers, who may be struggling to navigate the complexity of multiple apps, multiple platforms; seeing through the eyes of a young Clementi couple where hubby had to give up his work to bring his wife to the polyclinic every day because the system could not bring subsidised care to the home in the same way.

Looking out for the less digitally-savvy is not just about social equity. It is not just about making sure no Singaporean is left behind. It also speaks to our social compact across the generations. Because these seniors, they spent their whole lives building Singapore up and yet, today, in the Singapore they helped build, the Singapore which is prosperous enough to go digital and have online services, there are seniors who feel left out, left behind.

We must honour our seniors' contributions to Singapore, honour the seniors who made a digital smart nation possible by building Singapore in decades gone by, even as they face challenges, navigating a more digital world today. Because it also sends a message to today's middle-aged workers, today's workers who may be tomorrow's seniors. It sends a message, if we include today's seniors, that tomorrow's seniors will also be included and not left behind when there is new technology, 10 or 20 years from now.

Sir, on technology, let me speak about AI. Sir, I have spoken on AI and technology many times over the years in this House. In 2018, during the Budget debate, I called for greater investment in AI, as well as quantum computing technology. I asked the Government as well, earlier in that year, 2018, to look at Asimov's Laws of Robotics, at that time in science fiction, but applicable in the event you have thinking machines that are able to engage and potentially even advise on human decisions.

Today, from the US, we have ChatGPT, previously the GPT-4 model, now the o3 model AI model. From other companies, like xAI, we have Grok 3, new AI models from the US. From China, we have seen recently seen DeepSeek R1, advanced AI as well from China and many more AI models coming out. Just last week, Microsoft announced a new platform to have quantum computers on a chip. So, the take-home message is: technology is moving quickly, and what we think may be hypothetical questions seven years ago are real questions applicable today.

In 2023 and 2024, I spoke again on AI. Parts of the 2024 speech managed to get shared online. My residents were quite excited by this. They sent me some of the links. One resident pointed out an overseas Instagram took a clip of the speech, eight million views. Another resident mentioned some X accounts, one million views. Another resident who is active on TikTok mentioned that there was an international TikTok sharing some clips, 1.4 million views. So, 10 million views or maybe more.

But this is not about any individual MP's speeches. The message is people are interested in Singapore and what Singapore MPs say, because Singapore is relevant to the world. Because Singapore has done well and it is relevant to the world, that is why people out there are interested in what we are doing, how we deal with today's challenges, how we plan for the future.

People around the world are interested therefore in what our leaders are doing but also what our back benchers are talking about, backbenchers of all persuasions, all perspectives. And people around the world see what Singapore has achieved over the past 60 years. And because we are relevant, inventing the future, adapting to the challenges around us, that is why people around the world follow what our MPs say on the front bench, back bench and from all angles of this House.

Let me make one more point on AI, to add to what I have said over the years. The biggest gains from AI will not be virtual. It will be when AI connects to the real world, when AI connects, empowers people in the real world doing real-world work. We must therefore democratise access to AI. It must be AI for the people, regardless of your social economic background, regardless of what you are doing, regardless of whether you are born to a tech-savvy family with lots of Internet access who can pay for the latest models, or whether you are growing up starting with less.

And therefore, MOE needs to ensure every child gets the chance to learn AI, at a pace they are comfortable with and have access to good quality AI models. Access to the best AI models should not just be for the child who is born to a wealthy tech-savvy family. It must also be AI not just for big businesses with deep pockets, but also small companies or SMEs. And I would say we must also allow AI to be accessible even to our home-based businesses.

In Clementi, we have a young mother who looks after a very young family, while running a home-based business. It is not easy keeping track of accounts, doing supply chain planning, designing collaterals, publicity, doing business analytics. It is a one-person operation.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, you have a minute left.

Dr Tan Wu Meng: But if one of the stronger commercial AI models can someday run on her smartphone, be a virtual manager or chief operating officer, that will empower her, allow her real world skills to have more of an impact. So, can MOF confirm whether the new Enterprise Compute Initiative will cover home-based businesses?

Sir, in conclusion, if "Implementation is Policy", then we must look at the resident's journey as implementation. If by spending a bit more to help caregivers, we save someone's job, we must look at the benefits across Government and society. And lastly, technology must serve the people. It should not be people bending to the technology but technology lifting our people up. And so, with this, I thank my Clementi residents for their encouragement over the years, I stand proudly in support of this Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

5.00 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, this Budget debate marks the final one before the end of this term of Parliament. It also coincides with SG60, the commemoration of 60 years of Singapore’s Independence. Over the decades, we have weathered storms that could have broken lesser countries. From Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 to the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19, key Government systems in our country from healthcare, manpower, industry to education – and our social cohesion – were tested. Yet, time and again, we have emerged stronger. This resilience is a testament to our collective spirit and the leadership of this Government.

Our journey has been marked by bold, creative measures to safeguard businesses, livelihoods and the interests of our next generations. COVID initiatives, probably forgotten by some by now, like the Jobs Support Scheme, Wage Credit Scheme, the SGUnited Traineeship, CDC Vouchers, first started to help the hawkers, to name a few, have provided much-needed relief to Singaporeans. These efforts, together with many post-COVID measures, rolled out consistently, reflect our Government’s commitment to supporting our people.

But as we approach SG60, our work is far from over. Our core existential struggles remain. Persistent challenges – like our declining fertility rate, the rising needs of a rapidly ageing population and the disruptive impact of AI on jobs and the economy – still demand urgent attention.

Singaporeans look to the Government to lead in navigating these challenges. So, this Budget is crucial as it addresses how we allocate our national resources, limited resources for the immediate and for the longer term; it is about resourcing a strategic plan to secure our future and it cannot be seen merely as an annual “goodie bag” giveaway but as a support plan to address our persistent challenges.

To this end, Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose three focus areas where resources can be further directed to ensure Singapore remains resilient and inclusive in an increasingly complex world.

Key focus area one: on jobs and skills in this age of AI. AI is transforming industries at an unprecedented pace. We heard from many speeches before me. While it brings opportunities, it also threatens to displace workers and widen inequality. In Singapore, sectors like finance, healthcare, logistics and customer service are already experiencing AI-driven changes. For instance, the DBS Group recently announced plans to cut 4,000 jobs over the next three years while, of course, adding 1,000 new positions. It is a stark reminder of the urgent need to reskill and repurpose our workforce.

The latest World Economic Forum report cautioned that, and I quote: "Without appropriate decision-making frameworks, economic incentive structures and possibly Government regulations, there remains a risk that technological development will be focused on replacing human work. The trajectory of AI adoption could either help us collaborate with machines for outsized gains – or lead to greater inequality and job displacement, depending on how businesses and policymakers respond."

In Singapore, Budget 2025 is going in the right direction. The SkillsFuture movement was started 10 years ago. I remember when I first brought up at a Budget debate like this that MOE should look into adult training as well. The response in this House was muted. But I am glad that SkillsFuture Singapore has been established, put under the MOE and the Institutes of Higher Learning and other adult training providers are now part of the SkillsFuture adult training ecosystem.

Budget 2025 initiatives like enhancing the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for mid-career Singaporeans, adding part-time courses and enhancing employer incentives are commendable. Few other countries have come close to the kind of systematic intervention for citizens that we see in Singapore.

However, we must go further. Here are three suggestions.

First, accelerate Industry Transformation Map (ITM) 2025. ITM 2025 is our Government’s initiative to refresh and strengthen the Industry Transformation Road Maps over the next five years, focusing on seizing post-COVID opportunities and new strategies for jobs, skills, research and innovation. Five years is way too long. The short shelf life of technology and we can see AI’s impact on jobs and skills is tremendous. The recent DBS announcements of job cut this week due to AI applications and the decision therefore to send 13,000 staff to be upskilled or reskilled in AI and data, is another clarion call for us for urgent action.

So, I urge the Government to accelerate the review of the ITM 2025 and to treat the ITMs as living documents to be updated regularly, certainly not once in five years.

Let us also go beyond the usual methods of Job Fairs and invest in channels to clearly communicate the required competencies to both current and potential industry entrants and stressing skills development over academic qualifications. Let us prioritise working on the jobs that might be most at risk of obsolescence and develop action steps for these job families before they are axed. One job retrenched is one too many. District offices like the Community Development Councils are ground partners who can support these efforts, since the Community Development Councils are already running hundreds of SkillsFuture Advice Workshops supporting MOE, SSG every year.

Second, let us define literacy for all age groups. For such a time as this, the current definitions and the skills inventory of English, numeracy or Math and Digital Literacy should be updated and widely shared. Everyone, regardless of age, should understand the specific skills they need to acquire beyond our traditional focus on English, Math and Digital Literacy. One of my young volunteers, sitting over there in the Gallery now, even suggested adding empathy and community spirit literacy in our fast-paced, polarised world. So, is it possible for us to create a Literacy #101 Skills Inventory List, complete with suggested key learning solutions for all Singaporeans of all ages?

Next, to be more aggressive in driving upskilling campaigns. Let us allocate resources and develop campaigns to compel Singaporeans to take lifelong learning seriously and to proactively self-drive our own developments. The acquisition of new skills and literacies is no longer optional. And, in fact, it is not just a pathway to promotions or career advancement. In this era of AI and job displacement, upskilling has become a critical necessity – essential not only for retaining our jobs but also for navigating our social environments, daily lives and the rapidly evolving world around us.

Next, key focus area two: on vulnerable groups and businesses. The rapid use of technology presents significant challenges for vulnerable groups, especially the elderly, PwDs and low-skilled and lowly-educated workers. These groups, already at risk of marginalisation, face further exclusion due to the growing digital divide. For instance, some residents that I see in their 60s and 70s, they still want to work, they do not want to be at karaoke or bingo sessions whole day long. They struggle and they want to work, they struggle to secure employment in the new economy, whether they want to work out of necessity or out of choice.

For instance, I filed several PQs and Meet-the-People-Session appeals to different agencies before for seniors who are not proficient in English or matters that are digital and who struggle in accessing essential Government services. Some cannot even read the English language responses that are mailed to them in response to my appeals for them. Some of them actually spend hundreds of dollars or share their Singpass information with parties or sometimes like agents outside the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority office, people whom they think can help them gain digital access to the services they need. These are folks who genuinely need support.

SMEs as well – traditional brick-and-mortar stores and low-margin industries are particularly vulnerable. While many of these businesses should be more proactive in taking up the Government grants and schemes to automate, there is a segment of businesses that may not be easily automated or have a reason for sticking to its current business model. One example, for example, is Wardah Books, a beloved traditional bookshop in Kampong Glam, which sells Muslim and Malay books. It faces challenges in its current business model. It grapples with the high cost of operating a heritage business in a popular historical district.

But I am encouraged that Minister Desmond Lee of MND has established a new inter-Ministry task force to support the growth and sustainability of heritage businesses like Wardah Books in Singapore’s historic precincts. This initiative was announced recently during the official opening of the Kampong Glam Ramadan Bazaar, which was organised by the local business community.

So, we should establish task forces, focus groups, focused task forces for deeper dive, to assist these identified vulnerable groups and businesses. While the Government has implemented measures to assist these groups and individuals, the outcomes still remain to be seen. To address these challenges effectively, we should really establish focused task forces to conduct deep-dive exercises to investigate the root causes of their challenges, their profiles and develop creative and practical solutions and seek Government policy exceptions if needed. Do this starting with the elderly, the disabled and businesses not so suitable for automation.

Key focus area three: on community solutions. I agree with the principle that not all solutions are best originated or implemented by Government. However, the Government can play a crucial role in facilitating worthy community-driven initiatives or, at the very least, avoid creating adding obstacles to their initiatives.

We need to better encourage and support organic, ground-up initiatives. I can think of several out of many needs I see on the ground that could do with better coordination and support. For example, school bus logistics and cost were mentioned throughout last year. Could carpooling or escort services at the community level help families, for instance, affected by the manpower and cost constraints faced by school bus industry?

Elderly with dementia: for elderly residents with dementia who do not require nursing home care yet, but they lack caregivers who might be working, like people to escort them, to accompany them to day activity centres, could community-level solutions be better encouraged and developed and even scaled?

Families with special needs children: for caregivers of children with special needs who are emotionally drained and especially those with middle or lower income, could community-based support systems be established instead of just relying on ad hoc, acts of kindness? In my constituency, Purple Hearts, and I know in Ang Wei Neng's constituency as well, a grassroots initiative has been formed, this is in Kampong Glam, to support families of children with special needs – children who maybe young or may already be adults in their 50s. For three years, this group of volunteers have provided home visits, organised activities, invited them to grassroots activities, community activities, organised legal talks to help them, pushed out legal services to support them and fostered a sense of community, reminding these families that they are not alone. However, this initiative was only possible due to a team of passionate grassroots volunteers and a generous sponsor that I found who co-funded the central coordination person, headcount. And this is also done, I think, by Ang Wei Neng. Could these be scaled and looked at even more? Could Government play a part in facilitating these community-driven solutions?

In his SG60 messages, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has called upon Singaporeans to actively become a part of community solutioning – to care and share, to look beyond themselves.

Sir, to better organise and scale community efforts so that more lives can be impacted, positively impacted, I think Government could lend support to establishing a more systematic approach to identify ground concerns and opportunities to serve, to allocate some resources and providing inputs, therefore providing inputs also to policymakers and potential funders.

By empowering community-driven solutions and providing some essential support, we can address pressing issues more effectively and inclusively – and not have everything done by Government which sometimes may be good or not so good.

In summary, Sir, I have brought up three areas for Government to further deep dive into: one, accelerating upskilling and job transformation in the age of AI; two, better safeguard the vulnerable groups and businesses; and three, empowering and facilitating more community-driven solutions for skill and for more lives to be impacted.

Let us draw inspiration from the proverbial giraffe. The giraffe, with its long neck, stands tall, not just to see farther but to reach higher, to nourish its herd and protect those around it. The giraffe reminds us that progress is not just about individual success but also about lifting others as we climb. We, in Singapore, are only as strong as our weakest member. So, let us be giraffes of our time – stick our necks for the common good. I support, Speaker, Sir, Budget 2025.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Hua Han.

5.16 pm

Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): I thank the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Mr Lawrence Wong and his team for putting together a Budget that is both balanced and sustainable. In his opening remarks, the Prime Minister reminded all of us that, "Singapore today is far stronger than we were 60 years ago." For us to enjoy an expected Budget surplus of $6.8 billion, or 0.9% of GDP in 2025, and a similar figure in 2024, especially when we are a country without natural resources is not something to take for granted. We only need to look around us, to know that what we have got is highly uncommon and worth safeguarding. While it is reasonable to question the accuracy of the Government's financial projections or debate how to best use the surplus, we, nonetheless, find ourselves in a position of strength.

In his speech, the Prime Minister also framed the Budget statement in the context of the global realities at play. We live in a time of persistent geopolitical uncertainty, where war rages on and global trade rules are being re-written. Long-held principles are now being questioned or even renounced. As citizens of the world, we are left to ask ourselves: what do we hold onto?

Yet, even in these times, it is reassuring to see Singapore remain steadfast in our values. There is an inherent tension between securing our social ideals and maintaining financial discipline.

Mr Speaker, even as worldviews shift, Budget 2025 has carved out an important space to stay true to our ideals while upholding fiscal prudence. The Budget has never been just about government spending or financial reserves. It is equally about our social capital. That is why I am happy to see "Nurturing A Caring and Inclusive Society" as a core tenet of this Budget, with meaningful initiatives for families, seniors and persons with disabilities.

At its core, inclusion is not just about supporting specific groups in isolation. It is about integrating them to strengthen our social fabric and unite us as one nation. When everyone, including the most vulnerable, has real opportunities to contribute and thrive, to participate in shared spaces and to engage meaningfully with the wider community, we build a stronger Singaporean identity. In this spirit, I fully welcome the dedicated focus on "Empowering Persons with Disabilities" this year. I am also very heartened to hear the Prime Minister specifically recognising the concerns in the post-18 space and I look forward to hearing more about the initiatives that will be shared by MOE and MSF during the COS debates.

Sir, last year, I spoke extensively on what inclusion or social participation means for persons with disabilities. In this debate, I hope to build on this and explore how we weave this naturally into the fabric of our society through two familiar avenues: the arts and sports.

From a young age, we were taught to embrace people of different races and religions. We have internalised racial and religious harmony as a core Singaporean value, not only because we learn this in our textbooks, but because we have grown up, learnt together and played alongside friends, regardless of race or faith. We bond as Singaporeans over shared experiences, whether it is our love of food, cheering for our national team, catching up on gossip or breaking down the latest Netflix drama.

Mr Speaker, where similarities meet, differences fade away. Yet today, many still feel awkward interacting with persons with disabilities. We are still some distance away from more natural and meaningful interactions. The arts create spaces where this change can take place, where people from all walks of life come together through a shared love for music, performance and culture.

Our SG Arts Plan 2023-2027 is a roadmap that guides Singapore's arts policies over a five-year period. While the plan recognises the importance of inclusivity in the arts, there is room to further refine what this means in a holistic way for persons with disabilities. We can do more to harness the arts as a force for greater inclusion in our society. To achieve this, I propose a two-pronged approach: increasing participation and enhancing representation.

First, to boost participation, we need to make concerts, theatre performances and live music events more accessible. Last year, we were treated to a lineup of exciting, high-profile concerts, including Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars and Ed Sheeran. But how many of those with mobility challenges or sensory disabilities actually get to attend? Too often, the experience of booking tickets for major events can be stressful and anxiety-inducing for those with unique accommodation needs. The race of "fastest fingers first" leaves many excluded before the event begins.

Accessibility means more than simply providing wheelchair spaces or one-size-fits-all solutions. It means recognising the diverse needs of individuals and adopting an end-to-end, user-centric approach. While some productions do provide accommodations, it is not yet standard across the board.

For instance, local theatre companies like Wild Rice and the Singapore Repertory Theatre have taken commendable steps in providing access performances at select showings. These performances are accompanied by sign language interpretation, captions, audio descriptions and touch tours, to offer a fully inclusive experience.

Another heartwarming example was the Coldplay concert in January last year that had a special zone for fans who are deaf or hard of hearing. Sign language interpreters translated the lyrics in real time, while fans used interactive vests called SubPacs, to feel the music through vibrations. These accommodations went beyond providing literal translations of the lyrics. They were about giving fans full access to the concert experience, immersing them in the rhythm, energy and soul of the music. Mr Speaker, this is the kind of inclusive action we need to see more of.

There are actionable steps that we can take to understand and address the unique needs of individuals with disabilities. To this end, I have two suggestions.

First, could the Government consider commissioning a comprehensive survey to understand the participation of persons with disabilities in the arts and the challenges they face? During the Budget speech, Prime Minister Wong introduced the SG Culture Pass, granting every Singaporean aged 18 and above, $100 credits to attend arts and heritage events. We need to make sure that when initiatives like this are rolled out to all Singaporeans, we do not inadvertently exclude others disproportionately. Having such a survey will allow the Government to pinpoint specific barriers encountered by persons with disabilities and it could highlight areas that are under-addressed and ensure equitable participation even in the arts scene.

Second, we should already recognise that persons with disabilities often have diverse needs, which require more flexibility and thoughtful planning. Not everyone with mobility challenges uses a wheelchair. Some can walk short distances, others may be able to manage a few steps. Yet, these nuances are often lost in the standard web-based ticketing experience.

A potential solution could be to establish a dedicated access and ticketing hotline for persons with disabilities to make enquiries and explore specific accommodations for arts events in advance. This way, more people can be assured of a comfortable experience. The Government can take the lead by introducing such a hotline at venues it owns and operates, like the Singapore Indoor Stadium or Singapore Conference Hall. This can serve as a model for private ticketing offices, allowing them to adopt similar practices, if proven effective.

Sir, an inclusive event starts before the doors even open. When persons with disabilities can secure tickets as easily as everyone else and are then welcomed by trained staff on event day, this creates a smooth experience and facilitates participation in the arts scene without hesitation.

Let me move on to my second point on enhancing representation in the arts scene. Mr Speaker, we should do more to support and nurture artists with disabilities at all levels of the arts landscape. This is not just about putting more persons with disabilities on stage. It is about ensuring that the voices and perspectives of persons with disabilities are embedded into our cultural identity.

We already have dedicated groups to champion arts and cultural performances by persons with disabilities. One great example is the Purple Symphony, an inclusive orchestra comprising talented musicians with and without disabilities. Another organisation, ART:DIS, is a non-profit organisation that supports persons with disabilities in the arts by organising art programmes, exhibitions and performances. Such groups offer training and resources to elevate the artistic standards of artists with disabilities by offering an alternative, accessible platform to hone their craft.

I believe that the next stage for truly inclusive practices is when performances by artists with disabilities are no longer showcased in isolation but ingrained in our arts culture. This means creating clear pathways for artists with disabilities to enter the mainstream.

At present, persons with disabilities are a part of significant national performances, such as the National Day Parade and Singapore Youth Festival Arts Presentation. Their artworks are showcased alongside those of artists without disabilities and they perform as part of a larger collective.

But the question remains: how do we make this more of a norm? I recognise that this shift is not easy. There are barriers to overcome still, both in infrastructure and in mindset. Perhaps we can take inspiration from the successful strategies we have used in organising our ethnic and cultural festivals.

We have long celebrated our multi-cultural identity, hosting arts festivals that are rich in diversity, featuring both local and international cultural performances. It has become second nature. We do not even think twice about the cultural richness that these events hold.

The same can be done for performances involving persons with disabilities. Can we explore partnerships with international disability arts groups, to allow our artists to interact with peers from around the world? By doing so, we can proudly showcase the diversity of disability performances and provide greater exposure for local artists with disabilities.

Sir, I have spoken up on a few occasions about the power of sports and why it is so important. Last year, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) announced the refreshed Disability Sports Master Plan (DSMP). DSMP 2024 identified three strategic themes: one, increasing accessibility to disability sports activities and programmes; two, enhancing awareness of disability sports and inclusive sports activities; and three, fulfilling high performance aspirations of persons with disabilities. While I fully support these pillars and their initiatives, I have three complementary suggestions that I hope will further amplify their impact.

First, we need to get more of the population to buy into the DSMP. If you read the master plan closely, you will find that achieving social inclusion through sports is actually a recurring objective. It is not about promoting disability sports exclusively for persons with disabilities or simply raising awareness among the general public, but it hopes to use sports to integrate society and normalise inclusive activities.

While the current name "Disability Sports Master Plan" is well-intended to put the spotlight on promoting disability sports at a recreational and high performance level, it risks creating the perception that this plan is only for persons with disabilities. When someone without a disability comes across the DSMP, perhaps in the news, they may not instinctively see its relevance to them. But this is not what the plan seeks to accomplish at all.

If social inclusion through sports is a collective effort, then why not call future iterations the Inclusive Sports Masterplan? Rebranding the DSMP in this way sends a clear yet subtle message: that sports should be for everyone. It draws the attention of the general public and prompts them to consider the important role they play in fostering a truly inclusive society.

Second, beyond awareness, we should take more active steps towards greater community integration, especially at a recreational level. The first two strategic themes of the DSMP are to increase accessibility and enhance awareness of disability sports and inclusive sports activities. These are great, targeted steps and I commend MCCY for actively listening to feedback and responding to engagement findings.

In particular, I found Strategic Move 4 very encouraging, as we aim to have all mainstream schools offer opportunities for students to experience disability sports by 2028. While it does not directly address integrating students with disabilities in mainstream schools via sports, it really does help to tackle the issue of awareness, which is the first step in overcoming preconceived notions about persons with disabilities.

Another positive initiative comes under Strategic Move 5, which is to increase the outreach of Play Inclusive, a unified sports competition where students from SPED and mainstream schools train and compete together. Though the overarching objective is awareness, I recognise it is also about integration as it enables PwDs to play sports together with the wider community. In order to qualify, unified teams have to train together in the respective sports for a minimum of eight weeks.

While I personally find the competitive element fun and engaging, I do wonder if it may discourage those who prefer a more recreational approach to sports or exercise. Perhaps in the next DSMP refresh, MCCY could consider engaging deeper into this area, to find more ways to integrate PwDs in mainstream schools and to introduce more pathways for recreational sports participation.

Third, the end-to-end experience for PwDs to participate in sports needs to be seamless. It is encouraging to see that the DSMP is already working towards accessible facilities under Strategic Move 3. Still, we must continue paying attention to the finer details to ensure an inclusive and uniform experience.

I have always appreciated that the OCBC Aquatic Centre at the Singapore Sports Hub has concession rates for PwDs. This is a clear signal that PwDs are welcome and supported there. However, there are still areas for improvement. For instance, while the Aquatic Centre does have a wheelchair accessible counter for ticket purchase, it is unfortunately always closed in my personal experience. Additionally, while other gantries allow independent access, the wider, accessible gate for wheelchair users still has to be manually operated by a staff member, creating an unnecessary barrier. These may seem like minor details, but addressing them is essential so that inclusive access does not feel like an after-thought but part of a proactive design.

I fully believe that we all recognise the importance of enabling PwDs to live independently. As we continue making strides in enhancing our ActiveSG sports facilities, let us not overlook the small but important details to ensure complete accessibility.

I will now conclude. Mr Speaker, we often speak about inclusion, but the real goal is making it second nature, where it no longer needs to be said, because it is simply part of who we are. Arts and sports hold a unique power to achieve this, by bringing people together in ways policies alone cannot. They create spaces where we see talent before limitation, ability before disability. As the Prime Minister said in his Budget Statement, no one should be left behind. I stand by this message wholeheartedly.

But we must make this a lived reality, where dreams and aspirations are within reach for all, not just some. Imagine a world where an artist is seen for their craft, a sportsperson for their skill – and not for their disability. A world where access and opportunity are more than just ideals. That is the future we should strive for. A Singapore we can all be proud to call home. Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

5.33 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Budget 2025 is indeed a Budget for all Singaporeans that provides generous support for individuals, families as well as businesses to address current cost pressures. I am glad to see further steps announced by Prime Minister Wong on nurturing a caring and inclusive society. I will touch on a few points on this, later in my speech. I will first focus on the longer-term investments in the Budget that look to strengthening Singapore's growth, giving Singaporeans quality jobs and helping Singaporeans be ready for the future of work. This gives hope for the future and will make Singapore a place where our people are proud to call home and want to nurture their families here. In order to have opportunities, it is vital that Singapore continues to grow sustainably and is ready to handle future challenges.

It is worth noting that Budget 2025 is allocating funds to signal the continued investments in technology and innovation engines as well as to address Singapore's resource constraints. These are critical for Singapore to continue to grow. While Singapore has strong fundamentals, being an open economy, global political tensions and escalating trade conflicts, and disruptions to supply chains pose challenges. Singapore must adapt to evolving conditions and uncertainties.

It is therefore important that we continue to create and sustain value for companies both local and foreign to want to anchor the businesses in Singapore.

Prime Minister Wong announced the substantial top-up of $3 billion to the National Productivity Fund. The fund will support businesses as they drive initiatives and commit resources to adopt new technologies, modernise and upskill their workforce.

The $1 billion in R&D infrastructure will support the development of advanced facilities and equipment to attract top researchers and foster collaboration between academia and industry in the biotech and semi-conductor sectors.

The additional $5 billion into the Future Energy Fund is significant. It reflects the commitment to driving Singapore's energy transition and securing cleaner power sources such as hydrogen, electricity imports and the feasibility of nuclear.

The Government has committed to sustained investment in R&D to about 1% of GDP. RIE2025 announced in 2020, with the $3 billion top-up in last year's Budget, totals to $28 billion. With the additional $1 billion R&D infrastructure in this year's Budget, it will amount to $29 billion.

It is now almost five years since the launch of RIE2025 and given the importance of the investments in R&D for growth and in innovations, it would be opportune to have an update on the progress and achievements of RIE2025 and an understanding of the framing of the next phase of investments.

Budget 2025 includes several measures to support businesses cope with rising costs. These include the enhancements to the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme, corporate income tax rebates and cash grant, and enhancements to the Enterprise Financing Scheme, the redesign of the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit Scheme from a reimbursement to a digital wallet with the additional 10,000 credits for companies that hire at least three resident workers, will definitely help companies offset out of pocket expenses for workforce transformation initiatives.

The $150 million Enterprise Compute Initiative to support companies adopt AI solutions introduced in this Budget is timely. It will enable businesses to access AI tools, computing resources, as well as specialised expertise from global cloud services providers, which would otherwise not have been available or be too costly, especially for our smaller businesses.

But to truly reap the benefits of AI, businesses will have to do their part. What will be key for them is not just the adoption of AI, but the transformation of their business processes and integration – and I think we need to recognise this is not easy.

The schemes to support businesses announced in this year's Budget together with existing schemes are significant in helping them adapt and grow. Although I must say that in our meeting with business leaders, many did say not enough, but I think more importantly they did acknowledge after a little bit of reminder that there are loads of scheme. The feedback from business leaders is that while support is available, it can be quite complex to navigate, to apply and utilise. There are resources and support available to help businesses utilise these schemes, but the ease of utilisation does vary based on the specific schemes, as well as the businesses' familiarity with the process. Business leaders are asking for streamlining of the support schemes and it would be of great help to companies if they could engage a single point of contact for more integrated and coordinated support as they apply and utilise the schemes.

Let me now touch on jobs. Why do we need sustained growth and successful businesses? It is really for quality jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. But the labour market is changing rapidly. The changes are impacting both companies and workers. The demand for specialised skills, technology and innovation, such as AI, data, analytics, cyber security, digital marketing will continue to grow. Companies are facing challenges in finding and retaining talent with the relevant expertise, especially in new and emerging technologies. Despite Singapore's high employment rate, the pace of change and technological changes has led to job insecurity and anxiety. A recent Insight article in The Straits Times cited Institute of Policy Studies' 2023 report and a 2025 survey on economic sentiments by the NTUC, highlighting respondents' concerns of jobs not existing in the future or losing their jobs as companies transform and restructure. And most recently, we have also heard of companies talking about reapplying for even the jobs that you are in.

The measures to strengthen SkillsFuture and encourage lifelong learning in Budget 2025, together with the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme and the new SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant, will support and encourage workers and employers to upskill and to build new capabilities for the longer-term as businesses transform.

But I do, however, worry about workers who lose their jobs due to disruptions, especially matured workers and their finding appropriate employment. In my engagements with residents during house visits and most recently last weekend during a dialogue on the Budget, concerns were raised about getting a job when their jobs are disrupted, especially among our matured workers. Many shared that they made multiple job applications and either did not get a response or an opportunity to interview.

With the rapid changes and tech transformation that companies need to make. Jobs will be disrupted, so while workers must continue to upskill and employers will train their workforce and build new capabilities, there still needs to be more direct job matching and more targeted industry specific reskilling to help workers transition when they are in their jobs, to new and growth sectors, and to address the challenges faced by both workers and businesses.

So, this is not going to be easy, but it is something that we all have to do because the disruptions will happen on both sides.

I do welcome the setting up of the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment to conduct a comprehensive and longer-term review of senior employment policies to improve the employability of seniors and availability of jobs that better suit their needs.

I do hope that the work will also consider senior employability in the context of an inter-generational workforce and how to tap the potential of matured workers in a diverse workforce, because they do not work in a vacuum. It is not just about finding suitable jobs for seniors, but how our economy can tap this resource of talent.

For employers, hiring of seniors will require a mindset change. While employers may not necessarily or consciously discriminate for age, there may be concerns or unconscious bias in the consideration of hiring of matured workers. I have received feedback from residents who have been retrenched that they face situations where potential employers inform them that although they are suitable for the jobs, they are reluctant to hire them, even when they are prepared to take a lower pay than their previous salary, because the concern is that the worker may not stay because they are so used to a certain level of jobs.

This really requires both sides: one to say, "I'm prepared to do it", but the other has to be able to give the opportunity. And so it really is also not just about policies, not just about processes, not just about support, but mindsets.

Let me now move on to nurturing a caring and inclusive society. I am heartened by the measures announced by Prime Minister Wong to nurture a caring and inclusive society to make Singapore a place where people aspire to call home and have families. Many of the measures in the Budget will help the sandwich class as they care for both their children and parents. There are too many measures for me to discuss in my speech and I am quite sure Speaker will be happy that I am not going to touch on all of them because that will take too long, so I will focus on the enabling of our seniors to age well and long-term care services.

With a rapidly ageing population. The enhancements to the grants, that is, the Home Caregiving Grant and the Senior Mobility Enabling Fund and the Assistive Technology Fund, and increases in the subsidies for residential home and community long-term care services, as well as the raising of the maximum qualifying per capita household income to $4800, will indeed help many families as they care for their seniors. Last year and the year before, I made the appeal in the Budget debate for the review and refinement of the means test criteria for senior long-term residential and non-residential care. I am now sounding like a broken record, but as Annual Value (AV) continues to be a means test criterion to determine eligibility for those with no per capita household income, I am asking for a refinement of how AV is used as the primary criterion to determine eligibility in this instance.

I am not asking for no means testing. Based on how the current eligibility criteria are applied, those with no income and are living in a property with AV greater than $21,000 will not be eligible for any subsidy or grant. With the increase in property value, most of the residents living in even small condo units and landed terraces in my constituency in Changi-Simei will not be eligible. Many are retirees who bought their homes long ago and are asset rich but may be cash poor. The cost of eldercare services is not insignificant. Depending on the level of care needed, without subsidies, daycare services can cost from $945 to $1,430 per month. Nursing home from $2,200 to $4,200 per month, without subsidies.

So, indeed instead of 0% or no support for those with no per capita household income and they live in properties with AV greater than $21,000, could consideration be given, or at least a tiered support? Over the weekend, I met one of my residents who is in her 70s, taking care of her mother who is in her 90s and she shared that it would really be helpful. She is retired, she is living in a small terrace and she said it would really be helpful if she got some help for nursing home care, because it is getting so costly and it is an ongoing cost.

But I must thank Prime Minister Wong for not forgetting this group of residents and extending the Climate Vouchers to all Singapore Citizens households living in private property as well as the Enhancement of Active Seniors programme. Residents in private properties have not been eligible for many support schemes as has been discussed many times, but many of our senior residents living in private properties are sometimes asset rich and may be cash poor. So, extending these benefits do provide support for sustainable living and essential home improvements as our seniors age. So, I thank the Prime Minister for including that, because they were very happy. In fact, many of my residents were very, very happy.

Mr Speaker, Budget 2025 is a Budget that has listened. Taking feedback from the Forward SG conversations as well as the many feedback from all channels. It is inclusive, with more given to those with less. It is a Budget for all Singaporeans and I am confident it will help us move onward together for a better tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I support this Budget.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

5.48 pm

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, on 18 February 2025, Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong delivered Singapore's Budget Statement. I thank the Prime Minister for his Statement and I stand to support the Budget and make some brief comments about the implications of the Budget on children, the education sector and women and their families. In doing so, I note that I am a social worker and educator currently working with the Singapore University of Social Sciences and the President of the Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura (PPIS), an organisation supporting women and families.

Mr Speaker, my first comments relate to early childhood education. Mr Speaker, I welcome the initiatives aimed at reducing the cost of early childhood education, notably the decision to lower the monthly fee caps for full-day childcare at our Government-supported preschools to $610 for anchor operators and $650 for partner operators.

Access to affordable early childhood education is corelated with several positive outcomes for children, including improved cognitive and language development, social and emotional skills, and academic and life outcomes. There is also increasing evidence that access to early childhood education is particularly beneficial for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Mr Speaker, to fully reap the benefits of our early childhood education sector, we need to look beyond simply cost. We also need to consider the curriculum, the educator's qualifications and access and equity.

Mr Speaker, early childhood education is not simply babysitting, nor should it be seen as the first step of a hyper-competitive, assessment-driven education system. Effective early childhood education curricula should be child-centred and developmentally appropriate, give priority to play-based and hands-on learning and focus on social-emotional, not just academic, development.

Early childhood educators also need to be suitably qualified, supervised and supported so that the sector attracts the right people and keeps the right people. Educators also need to be adequately compensated. Working with very young children is difficult work and important work, and the contribution of early childhood educators to the safety, health and well-being of children needs to be better recognised and rewarded.

Mr Speaker, as well as making early childhood education affordable to more families, we also need to do more to encourage families to access early childhood education. There remain, in Singapore, strong personal and cultural perspectives that early childhood education is an unnecessary expense or a luxury, particularly when young children have historically been looked after by an elderly relative or helper. We need to educate families about the benefits of early childhood education and ensure that services are geographically convenient, easy to access, affordable and culturally appropriate.

Mr Speaker, my next comments relate to the importance of experiential learning and access to creative pursuits. Mr Speaker, I noted above the importance of play-based and hands-on learning, and I would like to expand on this comment. Engaging children, including very young children, in activities that stimulate wonder and curiosity teaches them how to think creatively, critically and independently, how to problem solve and how to cooperate, share and resolve conflict. It also improves physical development, including motor skills, balance, coordination and fine motor play. We need to move away from seeing education as simply giving children facts and then assessing how well they remember those facts on any given day.

As noted by the philosopher Socrates, "Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel."

Mr Speaker, part of the solution lies with parents encouraging their children to be children and to explore areas of wonders and curiosity at school. However, schools also need to play their part and implement individualised, experiential learning techniques in both teaching and assessment.

Mr Speaker, related to the issue of experiential learning is that of access to creative arts. Mr Speaker, access to the creative arts, including drama, painting and drawing, music and creative writing have been known to improve abstract thinking, language development, empathy, communication skills, confidence and memory. Despite this, many families and schools give preference to traditional academic subjects, with the creative arts seen as something that children might do as a part-time hobby or as a non-essential skill.

We need to provide children access to a wide of range of creative arts options at school and we need to nurture creativity in children just as much as we nurture literacy and numeracy. I dream of a Singapore where a young child who announces to their parents or school that they want to become an actor or painter or musician, is seen as no different to a child who says that they would like to become a lawyer, doctor or engineer.

Mr Speaker, Sir Ken Robinson, the renowned English educationalist, once noted that it is common for parents to attach drawings by their children on their home fridge, yet rare for them to attach the results of their child's maths test. His point is that we inherently value creativity in our children, yet sometimes forget to protect and nurture this creativity in our schools and society.

Mr Speaker, the next education-related issue that I wish to briefly discuss is inclusive education for children with special needs. While Singapore has made significant progress in special education, there is still more to do. For example, children with special needs still face barriers to entering mainstream schools, mainstream teachers sometimes lack specialised training to effectively support students with special needs, essential supports or therapies for children with special needs are sometimes expensive and children with special needs can struggle to keep up with the rigid expectations of academically-driven school systems.

Respectful and effective inclusive education for children with special needs promotes social integration and equal opportunities, and assists to break down barriers of stigma and discrimination. It also provides children with special needs better access to academic resources, peer support and tailored learning strategies, thereby helping them reach their full potential.

Mr Speaker, my final education-related issue is that of lifelong learning and workforce adaption. Mr Speaker, in Singapore, the pursuit of continuous education is crucial for staying competitive in an ever-evolving global landscape and I welcome the support for lifelong learning and the expansion of opportunities for part-time students contained in Budget 2025.

Despite this increased attention to lifelong learning, we do, however, need to do more to ensure equitable access to lifelong learning opportunities, align educational offerings with industry needs and embrace experiential learning methods. It is also important that employers and the broader community understand the importance of supporting students in their educational journeys. Encouragement and understanding from both home and the workplace enables students to thrive and fully benefit from their educational endeavours. It would be a shame if Singapore's admirable commitment to lifelong learning becomes competitive and outcomes focussed and a source of personal stress and distress.

Mr Speaker, my final comments related to women and families. Mr Speaker, Budget 2025 contains a range of provisions to support families who choose to have more than two children. It is no secret that women and men in Singapore are delaying getting married and having children, and choosing not to get married and have children at all.

Providing financial incentives may encourage some existing families to have more children. However, unless we address the underlying reasons why young Singaporeans are choosing not to marry or have children in the first place, our decreasing birth rate is unlikely to reverse.

Mr Speaker, the reasons why young women are choosing to delay or avoid marriage and children are complex. Yet, in many circumstances compelling. Simply speaking, life as a single woman can sometimes be safer, more fulfilling and more economically secure than being married or being a mother. We need to continue our conversations with young women to understand their perspectives and work together as a community to develop viable alternatives that allow women to be working professionals, wives and mothers, and for women and men to be equal partners in their relationships and households. This might include fully-subsidised long-term maternity leave, part-time return to work arrangements, supportive workplace culture and, of course, shared household and caring responsibilities.

Mr Speaker, at PPIS, our inaugural Aspirations of Muslim Women research identified the four female archetypes: the Traditional Conformist, the Balance Striver, the Driven Achiever and the Purpose Seeker. Studies, such as these, are invaluable, and can assist to inform targeted, evidence-based policy and procedure, which, Mr Speaker, leads me to my concluding comments about gender equality.

Mr Speaker, despite progress, issues of gender equality continue to impact Singaporean women of all ages. For example, women continue to earn less than men, are under-represented in senior leadership roles, are less financially secure both while working and in retirement, are expected to take disproportionate caring and household responsibilities and experience higher levels of gender-based violence, abuse and harassment. To address these issues, we must implement targeted and ongoing policies that address the underlying social, economic, political and cultural factors that assist to create and perpetuate gender inequality. In doing so, we have to have genuine conversations with women of all ages and backgrounds and, of course, with men.

Mr Speaker, older women face unique hurdles, including ageism, which undermine their full participation in society. Addressing stereotypes and biasness against older women is essential to ensure their continued well-being and contribution. Additionally, we must recognise the financial needs of older women, particularly as they navigate challenges related to menopause. Providing resources and support systems to address these issues is vital for their empowerment and participation.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, Budget 2025 is steering Singapore in the right direction, yet we need to do more to ensure that the underlying objectives of the Budget – a Singapore where no one is left behind – are achieved. We need to continue our discussions with Singaporeans, including those who may not normally have a voice or who are sometimes invisible, listen to their stories and ideas, and work together to co-create an affordable, equitable and long-term solution.

As noted by the Prime Minister: "Let us rally as one united people and move onward together for a better tomorrow."

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

6.01 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past four years, I have stood in this House to speak on the challenges our seniors face. I have filed question after question, made speech after speech, because the realities of an ageing society are not a distant problem. They are here. Now.

Singapore is rapidly becoming a super-aged society. Our fertility rate remains low. Fewer workers will support more retirees. We talk about sustainability all the time, but if we do not act boldly now, the burden on future generations will be unsustainable. This Budget takes steps in the right direction – the Home Caregiving Grant increase and the extension of the Senior Employment Credit are welcome. But there are still some blind spots.

Today, I will focus on three urgent areas: keeping seniors meaningfully employed; expanding housing options so they can age in place; and strengthening support for caregivers.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, employment is not just about making ends meet. It gives seniors purpose, dignity and connection. Many want to work – not because they have to, but because they feel healthy enough to contribute.

Yet, despite all our rhetoric about senior employment, ageism is still deeply embedded in our hiring culture. The unspoken belief that older workers are "less productive" persists. And while policies, like the Senior Employment Credit help, they do not address the fundamental issue: workplaces are still not designed for an ageing workforce.

So, what must change? First, we need businesses to take the lead in creating age-inclusive workplaces. Existing schemes, like the Productivity Solutions Grant, can be expanded to reward firms that redesign roles for senior workers – whether through flexible work, job-sharing or phased retirement. Let us introduce a "Gold Standard Certification" for age-friendly employers, with tax incentives or public recognition. Let us reward companies that walk the talk.

Second, training must be relevant. The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme is a start, but let us get real – how many seniors will sit through generic digital courses? We need targeted modules in areas like caregiving and gig economy skills. For instance, seniors can be trained as digital assistants to help SMEs onboard e-commerce. Training should be bite-sized, accessible in community centres, not buried under layers of red tape.

Finally, we must deal with hiring bias. The upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation should explicitly penalise age discrimination in recruitment. And we need a mindset shift. Let us run a national campaign showcasing seniors excelling in different sectors, not as an afterthought, but as an expectation.

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, housing. Ageing-in-place is not just about preference. It is about dignity. But our current housing policies may nort be keeping pace. Take direct lift access. During Question Time last week, multiple Members raised this issue, and for good reason. In Yio Chu Kang, Blocks 642 and 648 at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 still have no direct lift access for some units. The so-called "half-landing solution" from 2008 is no longer adequate. Seniors with mobility issues struggle daily.

I have raised this issue before. While I acknowledge the Minister's concerns about cost-effectiveness and technical constraints, I have to ask: are these considerations more important than the daily hardship of our seniors? Residents feel frustrated, even betrayed. Some say they feel "cheated" – paying for upgrades, only to find themselves still trapped in their own homes. The Lift Access Housing Grant sounds good on paper, but in reality? Moving is expensive. It is disruptive. And for many, it means leaving behind a home filled with decades of memories.

So, let us fix this. I propose a Special Lift Retrofit Fund to explore compact lift solutions for blocks without direct lift access. No senior should be forced to relocate just to move freely in their own community. But we need to move further. Projects like Kampung Admiralty and Bukit Batok's community care apartments are good, but they are just a drop in the ocean. Where is the urgency? We need a faster rollout. We should repurpose unused public buildings, such as the former Henderson Primary School, to create new senior-friendly housing.

And let us think bigger. Why not build inter-generational living spaces where seniors and young residents co-exist meaningfully? University students could get subsidised rent in exchange for community engagement. Older adults could mentor, share skills and build relationships with younger generations. Everyone benefits. The ideas exist. What we need is action.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to talk about caregivers, the invisible backbone of our ageing society. Many juggle work and caregiving, sacrificing their own well-being to care for ageing loved ones. We appreciate the enhancements to the Home Caregiving Grant, but let us be honest – it is a small step. We need more structural support. I propose three solutions.

First, Caregiver Co-working Hubs. Imagine a place where caregivers can work remotely or upskill while their loved ones receive care. Co-located eldercare and co-working spaces can make this possible. Let us pilot it.

Second, an Enhanced Caregiver Training Allowance. More funding to help caregivers gain professional certification in dementia care, physiotherapy and mental health support, so that they can provide better care, and even transition into new career paths.

And third, a One-Stop Digital Support Platform. A streamlined online hub where caregivers can access respite care, financial aid and training resources, all in one place. Caregivers do the heavy lifting, yet their sacrifices often go unnoticed. Let us change that.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, our seniors have given their best years to Singapore. They built our homes, our industries, our institutions. They worked tirelessly, often without complaint, to give their children – us – a better life. Their sacrifices shaped the Singapore we enjoy today. Now, as they enter their golden years, the question before us is simple: will we repay their dedication with policies that enable them to live with dignity, security and purpose? Or will they be left behind, expected to navigate old age alone?

This is not just about economic sustainability. It is about the kind of society we choose to be. If we want to build a Singapore that truly respects and uplifts our seniors, we must act decisively. Empower our seniors to work as long as they choose, by tackling ageism in hiring, expanding wage support and redesigning workplaces to be inclusive of older workers.

Ensure seniors can age in place with dignity by prioritising direct lift access in ageing estates, expanding senior-friendly housing options and reimagining inter-generational living spaces where seniors and young people can thrive together. And strengthen support for caregivers, by introducing caregiver co-working hubs, enhancing training allowances and developing a one-stop digital support platform to ease their caregiving burden.

Each of these proposals is not just a policy tweak. They are essential steps toward an age-inclusive Singapore. And just as this Budget takes bold steps exploring nuclear energy for resilience, strengthening our economic foundations, we, too, must be bold in rethinking how we care for our seniors. Because the question before us is not whether we can do better, but whether we will.

We cannot afford to wait. The super-aged society is not a distant future – it is already here. We must build now, not later. We must invest now, not regret later. Let us not wait until we ourselves are old before we realise what we should have done today. Let us choose wisely and let us act boldly. Let us build a Singapore where every senior is valued – not as a burden, but as a pillar of our society.

This is the Singapore they built. This is the Singapore we must now build for them. I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

6.10 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Sir, today, I will speak on three topics close to my heart: mental health, lifelong learning and support for families. Mental health, although not explicitly mentioned in Budget 2025, is directly impacted. By alleviating the financial burden on families and individuals, we reduce stress and anxiety, which are major contributors to mental health issues.

By investing in lifelong learning, we empower individuals to develop skills and resilience they need to navigate life's challenges. By supporting large families, we create a strong fabric that provides individuals a sense of belonging and support. And this paves the way for a healthier, more resilient, caring society.

Sir, during the Motion on mental health last year, Prime Minister Wong affirmed that mental health is a national priority. The Government has continually demonstrated unwavering commitment to supporting the mental health and wellness of every Singaporean. We have made significant strides in improving awareness, education and public discourse on mental health.

The latest study by the Institute of Mental Health shows that 58.9% of Singaporeans can recognise common mental health conditions, as compared to 42.3% previously. However, the study also reveals that many who are aware do not actively seek out for help when they need it. This gap between understanding and action remains a key challenge. But the question is: why?

Unfortunately, the number one problem is stigma. Stigma still exists. Although societal attitudes are improving, many still hesitate to reach out due to fear of judgement, particularly in professional or family settings. And that is why we, as a society, must do more to equip ourselves with the mental health literacy. The Government has introduced many online and offline resources, but we can do more to ensure that these resources are well utilised, easily accessible and effective.

Perhaps it is time we make Mental Health Literacy mandatory, from schools to workplaces. At the very least, it acts as a simple introduction that could help more people understand this pertinent issue and take that first step towards seeking or providing help. Ultimately, it is up to us to take this step, to practice what we have learned and build a more supportive, understanding community.

Sir, in the mental health Motion, I spoke about the role of spirituality. Our religious organisations have a unique ability to shape perspectives, offer guidance and provide safe spaces for open conversations. This can help bridge the stigma around mental health, ensuring that those who are struggling do not suffer in silence, but instead, find comfort and support within their communities. I am glad to share that many religious organisations have taken this step. They have taken up courses, equipping their staff with mental health knowledge, working closely with mental health organisations, like Club HEAL, Silver Ribbon and Social, Emotional and Mental Health. I hope we can do more by creating a structure for them to get easy training and support.

Sir, the second challenge that we face on where to seek help. Some are unsure about what support is available, how to access affordable services or whether their concerns are "serious enough" to warrant an intervention. And that is why the PAP Mental Health Group is currently recruiting and training our Mental Health Ambassadors who will be deployed to connect residents who need help to partners within the community.

The final challenge, Sir, is regards to financial and logistical barriers. We have heard this many times, there are long waiting times for consultations, we have affordability concerns and difficulties in balancing mental health care with work or caregiving responsibilities that deter individuals from taking the first step.

Therefore, we must ensure that mental health services remain accessible and affordable for all. What this means is that we need to strengthen our community mental health services, integrate mental healthcare into primary care settings, like Healthier SG, and leverage technology to provide timely and practical support. I will expand on these points in the MOH COS debate.

Sir, another growing concern that I read in the papers today was it was reported that unqualified individuals or offering mental health services on online marketplaces like Carousell. These people, with no formal training, provide therapy sessions for a fee. This is deeply troubling. Mental health is not a causal service. It cannot be left unregulated. Vulnerable individuals seeking help must receive qualified ethical and professional support. But we must be precise about the problem.

Today, psychiatrists are regulated but psychologists and counsellors are not. While professional bodies exist, registration remains voluntary. However, psychologists and private counsellors play very different roles and our approach to regulation must reflect that. For psychologists, registration is crucial to uphold the professional and ethical standards. Many of them were in clinical settings, diagnosing and treating mental health conditions. Regulation is about protecting patients from harm and ensuring they receive the care from trained professionals.

For private counsellors, consumer protection is key. Many operate wellness-focused services outside the medical system. Regulation should ensure transparency and ethical practices and prevent misleading claims so that those seeking help are not exploited.

Could we ask that we accelerate discussions on formal registration for psychologists and introduce stronger consumer protection measures for private counselling services because awareness alone is not enough. If we encourage people to seek help, we must also ensure they get the right help. I will expand this further in my COS speech, discussing what we can do to enhance regulation and public safeguards in the mental health space.

Beyond healthcare, mental health must be embedded in multiple domains. This is why my colleagues from the PAP Mental Health Group will be raising this issue across Ministries during the Committee of Supply debate. For example, under the Ministry of Defence, we will discuss how we can support our national servicemen (NSFs) and NSmen to receive stronger psychological resilience training and better mental health support.

Under MOH and MCCY, we will look at how community health initiatives like HealthierSG and those under M³ Focus Area 5, can deepen engagement in mental health and wellness. Under MSF, MOE and Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), we will explore how to equip parents to better support their children's and youth's emotional and digital well-being. Also, for interest, is how can we protect teacher well-being.

Sir, Budget 2025 is a strategic blueprint that balances relief with long-term economic resilience. Beyond providing short-term relief, this Budget also sends a clear message. To truly thrive in a changing and dynamic world, lifelong learning must be the foundation of our economic future.

Yet, while the Budget enhances SkillsFuture funding and support, barriers remain. Many Singaporeans struggle to upskill, not because of a lack of interest, but because of practical realities.

Firstly, balancing commitments. Many Singaporeans struggle to pursue further education while juggling family responsibilities and full-time work. The mental and logistical effort required to commit to long-term learning can feel overwhelming, even with financial support. Could we explore more "Earn and Learn" models where training is embedded within current employment, allowing workers to upskill without taking extended breaks from work? Companies could integrate structured training hours into their work schedules, supported by incentives for employers who participate.

Second, there is uncertainty of returns. A common concern among mid-career workers is that whether upskilling will lead to better job opportunities or even higher wages. Many hesitate to seek help or take this leap because they fear that leaving a stable job to retrain, only to find that opportunities remain limited or their salaries do not increase. And I have heard those in the new job face a much lower wage because they are starting afresh. We could strengthen career mentorship and placement guarantees, where workers undergoing SkillsFuture-funded retraining receive structured job-matching support. Employers could also be encouraged to guarantee wage progression for workers who complete industry-recognised training.

The third is structural barriers. While the Budget provides strong immediate support, long-term success requires more than just training credits. To help Singaporeans transition smoothly into new or higher-paying roles, a comprehensive framework, including better career guidance, structured job placement support and policies to reduce the risks of retraining, is necessary. Could we introduce, what I call a "Lifelong Learning Hack"? It would be a one-stop advisory service to help Singaporeans to map out realistic training-to-employment pathways, ensure that they select the right courses, knowing that they will receive long-term career guidance and assurances. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Budget presents various opportunities for all of us, especially in lifelong learning. However, many workers are still hesitant to continue their education. This is not due to a lack of interest, but because of family responsibilities, work commitments, and financial concerns.

I myself have faced this dilemma. I left a stable job to continue my studies full-time for two years. After returning to work a few years later, I decided to pursue further studies, also full-time, for five years. It was not an easy journey. Thus, I understand the concerns of those who want to learn but are afraid of any uncertainty that may arise.

I understand the challenges. The questions often asked is, is it worth it? Does it really open up better opportunities? But I also know the immense value of lifelong learning, not just in building a career, but also in strengthening personal resilience.

The Government has taken positive steps to alleviate these concerns. In this year's Budget, the SkillsFuture Part-Time Training Allowance will be extended to those aged 30 and above, with financial support of $300 per month to cover training costs.

Sir, knowledge is the key to progress. If we want to compete and thrive in an increasingly challenging economy, lifelong learning is no longer an option, but a necessity.

I urge our community to view these opportunities as an investment for their future. This is because, by having knowledge and skills that are constantly enhanced, we will not just be able to face challenges, we will be able to master them.

(In English): Sir, my final point is on large families. Raising a family is one of my life's greatest joys, but for many parents, it also comes with many financial and logistical challenges. As a father of four, I understand first-hand the rewards and realities of managing household expenses, education and childcare.

This Budget recognises and strengthens support for all families, whether they have one child, two children, or more. The increases in CDC Vouchers, rebates and subsidies will benefit families and ease daily expenses.

At the same time, I welcome the targeted enhancements that provide additional support for larger families. The introduction of higher Child Development Account top-ups and an enhanced Baby Bonus for the third child and beyond acknowledges the increased financial demands of raising more children. Expanding preschool subsidies for the third child onwards will further help parents manage the cost of early childhood education, ensuring that affordability does not become a barrier to providing a strong start in life.

These policies do not take away from families with one or two children. Instead, they reflect the reality that household expenses grow exponentially with each additional child. By ensuring that no family feels financially overstretched, we create a more supportive environment for all parents to raise and nurture their children with confidence.

Nonetheless, I do have just one area to bring up and this is with regard to childcare leave. Could we consider enhancing childcare leave provisions for parents? I acknowledge the positive step taken last year with the increment in Shared Parental Leave. However, childcare leave and parental leave serve different purposes, addressing different needs at different stages of a child's development. Many parents highlight practical difficulties, especially when children take turns falling ill. Enhancing childcare leave specifically would significantly help parents manage these unpredictable and often stressful situations. I certainly have had my share.

Sir, in conclusion, this Budget gives us the tools. Still, it is up to each of us, as leaders, communities and individuals, to make the most of them and contribute positively towards a compassionate, inclusive and resilient Singapore. When we uplift our people, strengthen our families and prioritise well-being, we are shaping a Singapore that does not just move forward but thrive together. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

6.25 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, my speech today will be responsive to certain areas of Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's Budget speech specifically, although I sincerely register my appreciation for the SG60 Budget for all Singaporeans and the additional support schemes that have been announced to support families, taking into consideration what me and many of us had shared in this House last month in the Motion which I had moved, pertaining to for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a Singapore made for families.

Firstly, on the topic of childcare and preschool accessibility. Building a Singapore made for families goes hand-in-hand with nurturing a caring and inclusive society. On this note, I welcome the announcement for further reduction of monthly full-day childcare fees caps in Government-supported preschools. This will go a long way to further ease the financial burden on families, many of whom have been concerned with rising cost of living. However, I anticipate a challenge that may persist, that is, a long waiting time for enrolment and admission at Anchor Operator centres and Partner Operator centres located near homes.

In my speech delivered during the Motion which I moved last month, I shared with this House that many of my Woodgrove residents in Champions Court and Champions Green have been facing difficulties in securing a spot in a preschool for their toddlers. This is pressing and distressing for families, especially those moving into new flats, which could be located in an unfamiliar area with no extended family support.

I believe that one of the solutions is in increasing the number of Partner Operators. This would increase the supply of preschool spots and options for parents. I therefore urge the Government to consider my earlier suggestion that HDB and the Early Childhood Development Agency collaborate even more closely. They should review and improve the current system to select Anchor and Partner Operators for new estates as early as possible, ensuring these centres are ready to operate by the time residents begin collecting their keys. This will make childcare more accessible from day one.

Next, I move on to other support measures for families. During fourth session of the focus group discussion organised jointly by the PAP Women's Wing with Friendzone, which I had attended recently, where I joined close to 60 participants, aged 25 to 40 years, to have a heart-to-heart conversation, pertaining to the topic of parenthood.

I have gathered that, while some participants may find the cost of pregnancy in Singapore, which is estimated to be in the region of $10,000, covering items from prenatal gynaecologist visits, hospital birth and confinement, nanny supports, and so on, to be a reasonable amount in comparison to the cost of planning for their wedding. However, many of the participants are still of the view that the cost of childbirth and raising a child in Singapore remain high and had deterred them, especially if the couples actually have the desire to have more than one child but worry on their affordability. I therefore welcome the Large Family Scheme which offers additional financial support to married couples who have or aspire to have three or more children.

Yet, larger financial assistance rendered to just this group is not enough.

Based on the other feedback and suggestions which PAP Women's Wing have gathered through our surveys, consultations with partners as well as focus group discussions, to encourage young couples to start and grow their families, I believe we must address a broader range of needs in which I have summarised into five key areas: one, fertility support to help couples start and pursue their parenthood journey; two, supporting first parenthood by equipping them with the necessary know-hows; three, readily available caregiving support networks to ease their load; four, more understanding workplaces with flexible work arrangements; and five, support for mothers to stay confident in the workforce with support systems such as enhanced tax incentives for working mothers.

Pertaining to the point on fertility support, PAP Women's Wing Policy Group has received valuable insight from Fertility Support SG (FSS), a non-profit self-help group started by a group of ladies facing infertility and saw the need to create a community where couples facing infertility could get a right information as well as come together to share experiences and gain support through their difficult challenging times.

One of the founders of FSS, Ms Lin Shu Min had shared with me that the key areas where our Government can work on with partners to provide more support to are as follows.

One, upstream fertility education to help people plan their fertility journeys early. FSS can help to contribute by housing relevant resources and information on their website, making it easier for couples to access the knowledge they need.

Two, grants for pre-in-vitro fertilization (IVF) or general fertility testing to help identify issues early, improving the chances of success.

Three, public sector grants should be expanded to cover more IVF cycles, as families may want more than one child or face complex cases that require additional rounds of treatment.

And four, private sector grants should also be considered, allowing grants to apply to treatments in private clinics, giving couples more options.

I wish to take this opportunity to share a personal appeal, which my residents, Tina and Brandon, had confided in me just a few days ago at my Meet-the-People Sessions. The couple, both 32 years old, has been trying to conceive for the past four years. From initially being given a clean bill of health at their fertility check-up to eventually being diagnosed with a blocked fallopian tube that resulted in them undergoing five IVF cycles since last year, which have yet to yield any success.

Despite emotional toll and financial strain, they remain hopeful to be under National University Hospital's (NUH's) care, whose advice to them is to not give up and to keep trying as each cycle brings the medical fertility team one step closer to finding the right combination of medication and timing to retrieve the best quality eggs and hope for eventual success. However, the cost of medications, procedures and consultations are overwhelming and have pushed them to their limits. Having exhausted the subsidised cycles, they are humbly requesting additional government support for one more fresh IVF cycle and two frozen cycles.

The couple understands that public resources are limited and they do not expect full coverage. However, they believe that with the additional support that the Government can provide and consider to expend, it will go a long way towards easing the burdens of couples like them and sustain their dreams of becoming parents one day.

On the next point of creating a smooth experience for first-time parents, we should consider to provide a new parenthood E-guide or a mommy's milestone booklet. This can be personalised to each family's needs and with relevant information conveyed to parents to be by professionals at each milestone basis. At the risk of belabouring the point, having already asked for this in Parliament on numerous occasions over the years, most recently, actually, in my speech for my motion last month, I do hope that this booklet will help to track the expecting mother's physical and emotional development. It contains helpful information regarding necessary preparation for each stage of their pregnancy. What are the parenting best practices? What are the list of support systems available to all parents, at least for the first year of their journey into parenthood? What are the overview of vaccinations required for these expecting mothers, and what are the recommended estimated time, time and dates to sign up for prenatal classes, providing them with a checklist of items to prepare for the arrival of their baby, sharing tips with them on how to spot signs of labour and how to spot signs of postnatal depression?

Mr Speaker, while the increased Baby Bonus Cash Gift and higher Government contributions to the Child Development Account, along with the various support measures that were introduced in this year's Budget, has provided some relief for child raising costs, many aspiring mothers have nonetheless shared a common concern with me. Many of them who are professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETS), see the present Working Mother's Child Relief scheme as a reduction of their tax relief entitlement, which used to be 15% of the mother's income for children of Singapore citizenship born or adopted before 1 of January 2024.

To address this, I propose a small tweak to the policy. One is to retain the higher of the percentage base or fixed quantum relief. This adjustment would ensure lower income working mothers to remain motivated to remain in the workforce and receive adequate tax deductions, while encouraging the higher earning ones to continue to pursue their career aspirations, while not forgetting the need to continue to expand and raise their families.

This year, it has been announced that the SG Baby Gift will be given to all Singaporean citizens born in 2025. It is a meaningful gesture to celebrate our nation's milestone. I recall my time as a grassroots volunteer 10 years ago, delivering the SG50 Baby Jubilee gift packs. Those packs included a suitcase with items like a special medallion, a multifunctional shawl, a baby sling, a set of baby clothes, a diaper bag, a scrapbook, a family photo frame and a set of baby books – thoughtful keepsakes and practical tools for new parents.

However, babies grow and develop rapidly in their first year, with their needs shifting every three months or so. Since some SG60 babies were born as early as January this year, many will likely be past the three to six months stage by the time they receive the gift. Moreover, many parents may have already bought the essentials like diaper bags before their baby's arrival, so to make this gift truly useful, I hope the items can vary to better suit the diverse needs of parents and their babies at different stages of their first year.

Moving on to the SG Culture Pass, which will provide all Singaporeans aged 18 and above with $100 worth of credits for activities like arts and cultural performances, museum exhibitions and heritage experiences. I support this initiative as it encourages us to engage with our rich cultural landscape. However, since the goal is to inspire participation in arts and heritage, why not extend this opportunity to younger Singaporeans?

I suggest lowering the age eligibility to include children from preschool onwards. This will mirror the approach of active SG credits, which promote family participations in sports and activities. A similar family focus design for the SG Culture Pass could help instil a love for culture from an early age while enhancing family bonding.

Lastly, I am grateful for the Government's allocation of $800 in CDC Vouchers to every Singaporean household to help manage expenses. On top of that, the SG60 vouchers available to every Singaporean and usable at all businesses accepting CDC Vouchers, add another layer of support. This initiative showed a commitment to easing the cost of living.

However, during my recent house visits and routine walkabouts at our Fuchun Neighbourhood Centre and Triple 8 Plaza in Woodgrove, several residents and merchants have shared their feedback about the current E-voucher format. They suggest switching to an E-wallet format like those used in the Life SG or GrabPay, which are already popular for purchasers and neighbourhood merchants. This change could help make the vouchers more convenient and user friendly for everyone. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In last week's 2025 Budget Statement, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced a series of assistance measures to help families and individuals cope with rising cost of living. In addition to the 800 CDC vouchers available to each citizen household, all Singaporeans aged 21 and above this year will receive either $600 or $800 of SG60 Vouchers under the SG60 package.

Recently, many Woodgrove residents I met at the neighbourhood centres or during house visits have expressed their support for this year's Budget, appreciating the Government's understanding of people's concerns and active efforts in helping Singaporean with cost of living. These measures have also benefited many neighbourhood hawkers and merchants.

At the same time, some neighbourhood merchants and residents gave me feedback that the current E-voucher format can be improved. They suggest updating the existing e-wallet mode and adopting a payment mode similar to those commonly used in many stores, such as Life SG and GrabPay. This would make payment more efficient and convenient for both merchants and customers.

(In English): To conclude, I would like to share a few lines of assurance and encouragement that my husband recently said to me, a working mother who constantly questions if I have done enough for my six-year-old daughter and 15-month-old son amid my other commitments. These words, though from an anonymous author, resonated deeply with the challenges and triumph of parenthood. They remind us of the strength and resilience of mothers who are not only raising their children but also growing alongside them: "To the mum who has been through a lot lately, give yourself more credit. You are raising children at the same time as you are raising yourself. You are breaking cycles and doing it differently, even though you are exhausted. You are trying to figure out who you are while helping little people do the same. You are pouring all your love into your children while learning to love yourself at the same time. you are stronger than you can ever imagine. You are doing your best. Let that be enough."

These words capture the heart of what it means to build a Singapore made for families, a place where parents, especially mothers, feel supported, valued and empowered, and at a greater level, serve the team of SG60 Budget for all Singaporeans. Let us continue to work hard and together to welcome SG60 and even better years to follow.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my request for clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

6.42 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I have spoken up for civil servants, students, teachers, social workers, nurses and migrant workers in my Budget speeches in this House in the past decade. This year’s Budget is a Budget for all Singaporeans whereas Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said, "No one is left behind".

In 2018, I said in this House that then Minister Lawrence Wong which is my favourite Minister – I hope he remembers that I am the first to say that. I am glad he became Prime Minister and like my favourite Minister’s 2025 Budget is for all Singaporeans, my speech today is also for all Singaporeans.

I am speaking up for everyone and asking for more time for everyone. I am asking that we review our minimum entitlement of only seven days of paid annual leave. I am asking that we review a policy that we have not reviewed for 57 years. That is a long time to not improve a policy.

Whether you are a consultant for an MNC, a cashier at a convenience store, a cleaner at a coffee shop, we all have the same 24 hours in a day. We all need time from work to rest for our mental health and for our loved ones.

My father was a model employee who worked extremely hard for the company he worked for, for 42 years. He worked hard not just for his company but also for his colleagues and his family. He looked forward to his retirement, when he could spend more time with his family and his grandchildren. My father never got to enjoy the fruits of his labour. He was diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer when he was close to retirement. Our very first family holiday on a cruise was when my father was already dying. On the day I decided that I would take leave to spend more time with my father when he was in the hospital, he passed away, at the age of 67. He lost consciousness before I made it to the hospital and so I never got a chance to say a proper goodbye.

I made a mistake and took too many things for granted. I wish I could turn back time and have more time with Daddy, but I know this is impossible. Ten years on, I still live with regret. Regret truly is an incurable ache.

There are many Singaporeans just like my father. They work hard their whole lives looking forward to more relaxing days with their loved ones, but they never make it there. We go through life preparing for another life that we will eventually get to enjoy. We forget that there only is one life, and every day working is every day not being with the people we love most.

This Budget, it is the vouchers, grants and financial goodies that will make the headlines. But I hope this Budget, we can give something even more precious: time. The time that annual leave gives us is important for all and even more important for lower-income workers.

In this speech, I will talk about how annual leave will help build a Singapore made for families and for our mental health, how annual leave is particularly important for the lower income and how it is not a zero-sum trade-off against business costs, productivity and competitiveness.

First, let me talk about how annual leave can help build a Singapore made for families and for mental health. The minimum entitlement of seven days of paid annual leave was introduced in 1968, before I was born, before Prime Minister Lawrence Wong was born too. It has been almost 60 years. Since then, our national priorities have shifted. We now focus more sharply than ever on families and on mental health.

Last year, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong made clear that mental health and well-being is a key priority. He said, "So let there be no doubt: the Government is making mental health and well-being a key priority in our national agenda."

Indeed, it is a key priority and we have been talking about reducing burn out, supporting couples on their fertility journeys, encouraging parent-child bonding, building family-friendly workplaces, encouraging a better work-life balance, supporting working caregivers and increasing family support for the elderly. We can walk the talk on all these things we say are important by increasing the minimum annual leave entitlement.

Annual leave is important and is needed for so many reasons. Couples undergoing fertility treatments often tap on their annual leave for their treatments. Parents who use up their six days of paid childcare leave have to use their annual leave when their child falls ill or during school closures. Many also take their annual leave to accompany elderly parents for their medical appointments. And let us not forget that annual leave is needed for rest and to spend time with your loved ones. It is for our well-being, the same well-being that Prime Minister Wong said is a key priority.

Singaporeans are stressed, tired and burnt out. The Cigna Healthcare Vitality Study 2023 found that stress levels in Singapore have increased steadily since 2021, with close to nine in 10 people reporting that they felt stressed that year, higher than the global average. And just last year, the 2024 Gallup State of the Global Workplace survey ranked Singapore third in Southeast Asia for daily workplace stresses.

I could go on with many more studies but I do not think we need any more data to prove how exhausted Singaporeans are. Take care of our parents, be there for our children, make more babies, work hard. But also, take a break. Where can our people find the time? For so many of us struggling to stay on top of a never-ending to-do list, it would sure help to have more annual leave.

This brings me to my next point. For lower-income workers, annual leave is not a luxury and may not even be about rest. For them, it is the only time they have to spend with their loved ones.

In Nee Soon East, we have our Helping Hands programme to uplift lower-income families. A strong component of the programme is ensuring that they have family time and I have seen first-hand how parents struggle to find time. When I try to bring children from lower-income families out for outings with their parents, their parents simply cannot take leave. They do not have enough annual leave.

One mother, who is a cashier, had only seven days of annual leave and has to work weekends every week with only one day-off a week, on a weekday. Another father, who is a cleaner, also had seven days of annual leave and just does not have time to spend with his children. Both of them are single parents and their children need the precious time with their parents.

The problem is not just anecdotal. The data tells us that lower-income workers tend to have fewer days of paid annual leave. In 2023, the average number of paid annual leave for full-time employees earning below $2,000 was 12 days, compared to 17 days for those earning between $2,000 and $4,999 and 21 days for those earning $5,000 and above.

12 days seems low, but even that would be a blessing for 8% of full-time resident employees who receive the very minimum of seven days. Eight percent is 18,800 employees. None of us sitting here would want to be part of that number.

Perhaps we are thinking, maybe this 8% of workers get to work from home or benefit from some other flexible work arrangements (FWAs). After all, with regard to annual leave, the Government has stressed that we are "looking at this from a more holistic way, by ensuring that there are avenues for other forms of work arrangements, including flexible work arrangements".

Unfortunately, this is not the reality on the ground. Workers with the least amount of leave are also the ones least likely to benefit from FWAs. These workers are typically in frontline or labour-intensive jobs, such as cleaners, cashiers, security guards and service staff. FWAs are not a realistic alternative to having more annual leave for these workers.

Our policies are supposed to ensure sufficient rest. Seven days. A week of rest from a year of backbreaking work. Is that a humane way to treat people? Our law seems to think so. It is our lower-income workers who are suffering the most from our annual leave policy. I hope, we do not have to wait another 57 years to review this policy.

My final point is that we do not need to lose productivity and competitiveness when we increase annual leave. Let me remind the House again that the minimum annual leave entitlement has not changed for almost 60 years. Our economic conditions and workforce have changed drastically in that period. It is high time for a review.

Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon replied to me in 2021 that there were no plans to review the annual leave entitlement. After a very good three years of break and no nagging Senior Minister of State Koh, I asked again in 2024 and Senior Minister of State Koh replied to me again that there were still no plans to review the minimum annual leave entitlements. Business cost was a concern stated by Senior Minister of State Koh and FWAs were again offered as an alternative to increasing annual leave.

I agree with Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon that work-life balance and productivity can be addressed from multiple angles. I am glad we have made progress on other areas, such as FWAs, which I have fought hard for too. But for those who cannot access FWAs, increasing annual leave entitlement is one angle that we should not rule out. By keeping minimum annual leave entitlement at seven days for 57 years because we fear business costs and maybe losing productivity, we risk reinforcing the impression that well-being and productivity are trade-offs.

This does not have to be the case. We do not lose out when we prioritise people. Instead, I hope we can send the clear message that only by prioritising people, can we grow sustainably and healthily as a nation. We are not less productive when we get more rest. Instead, I sincerely believe that a more well-rested workforce will be a more productive workforce.

We are also not any less competitive than our neighbours by increasing the minimum annual leave entitlement. More than 160 countries already provide a higher minimum annual leave entitlement. I am tempted to read out all 160 countries but I know Speaker will kill me, so let us just focus on the Asia Pacific region to give you a sense on how far behind we are. These countries all have a higher minimum annual leave entitlement: Afghanistan, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, East Timor, Fiji, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tonga, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen. That was nice. All have a higher annual leave entitlement as compared to Singapore. Many of these countries also have a higher number of paid public holidays.

We pride ourselves on having a highly-skilled and professional workforce. Our competitive advantage is our expertise and skills. Surely we are not competitive only because our workers are willing to slog for more days and for longer hours than other countries.

I know we are also concerned about business costs. I am too and we should be. But when we consider that 90% of our workforce already have more than seven days of annual leave, increasing this minimum entitlement will not significantly cost businesses much more. But for the individual worker, it is hugely significant as additional time for rest and for spending time with their loved ones.

We took a supported, phased and gradual approach when we doubled and mandated paternity leave entitlements. We believed it was the right thing to do for parents and we worked with businesses to ensure a smooth rollout. For annual leave, we can do the same and work closely with businesses every step of the way too. We should consult them, understand their concerns and challenges and provide the support needed to successfully implement the increase. The business cost truly incurred is outweighed by the very clear message that well-being, mental health, family and rest are equally important for all workers and not just some workers.

In conclusion, Sir, our people will always want to do their best. They can only do their best when they are well-rested and have enough time for their loved ones. Importantly, the ability to rest and take care of our loved ones should not be a luxury. Our lower-income workers deserve more days of annual leave.

2025 is MOM's 70th anniversary. It bears remembering that in 1955, MOM started as the Ministry of Labour and Welfare. Labour and welfare must go hand-in-hand. Our workers have worked incredibly hard. In this milestone year for MOM, I hope we can give equal weight to the goal of safeguarding workers' welfare by increasing our minimum annual leave entitlement.

With my father, I lost time which I will never be able to get back and recover. I do not want others to have the same regrets that I have. As the iconic Dolly Parton said, "Never get so busy making a living that you forget to make a life."

Many of us live as though we are rehearsing for a future life where we get to spend quality time with our loved ones. There is no real life other than the one we are living now. Along with the handouts that we will give out to help Singaporeans with the cost of living, I sincerely hope that we will finally increase our minimum annual leave entitlement after 57 years, to help Singaporeans have the time for living. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: On that note, I think we should all go back and rest. Minister, would you like to adjourn the debate?