Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [12 February 2026] [2nd 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 Ng Chee Meng.

11.05 am

Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. We are living in a disrupted age, marked by greater geopolitical and economic fragmentation and uncertainty; technological disruption; and a rapidly ageing population.

As the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), I am keenly aware that for many of our workers and families, these disruptive forces are not distant issues but daily lived experiences. This is reflected in NTUC's Survey on Economic Sentiments, which was conducted in 2025 polling 2,000 workers.

Cost of living remains a key concern – 37%. Job security was the top concern for nearly 20% of them too, due to factors, such as economic uncertainties and technological changes. Close to 20% were anxious about artificial intelligence (AI)-related job displacement or had already experienced some negative impact due to AI. Professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) and younger workers were the most concerned about the impact of technological disruption on their job security.

This Budget is, therefore, critical to lay a strong foundation for this disrupted age. The choices we make today will shape the course of our future and the lives of our workers and families.

I thank fellow Members of Parliament (MPs) from both sides of the Chamber, who have spoken up for our workers. NTUC and the Labour Movement will study your suggestions carefully.

Mr Speaker, the Labour Movement supports this year's Budget, which will help secure the future of our workers and their families in a changing world. Yet, as President Tharman recently reminded us at Davos, in a changing world, we must do more to strengthen trust internally. And that is done by acting pre-emptively to address people's hopes and fears.

This is why the Labour Movement is calling on the Government to re-double efforts on three fronts. First, empower every worker to be AI-ready. Second, strengthen support for workers who are vulnerable to disruption at the individual level. And third, strengthen the Labour Movement's ability to protect and uplift our PMEs.

I will outline these calls in my speech today. My fellow labour MPs will build on them in their speeches across different worker segments.

Mr Speaker, in my Motion of Thanks speech, I spoke about how many workers, especially our young graduates and PMEs, feel uncertain about what they need to do to prepare for AI-driven disruption. They ask good practical questions: what core skills must they build up so that they can keep up with AI? How can they use AI to become more productive in their specific job roles and industries? And how can they keep pace with rapid AI developments to future-proof their careers?

Singapore, indeed, has built a comprehensive skills and training ecosystem. There are more than 1,600 AI courses listed on the SkillsFuture course catalogue. These range from basic to highly specialised courses, costing anywhere from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars after funding.

But for the average worker, it is not easy to know which course or pathway that will genuinely help them to become AI‑ready. At the same time, many businesses recognise the value of AI but struggle to translate that recognition into clear, implementable strategies that will deliver productivity gains and a competitive advantage.

That is why I support the establishment of the National AI Council to be chaired by Prime Minister Wong. I look forward to a comprehensive and cogent national AI strategy, one that will chart clear implementation roadmaps for industries and provide practical guidance so that every Singaporean can benefit in the AI era.

The Labour Movement calls on the Government to ensure that every worker, regardless of their background, experience or current skill level, will know practically how to equip themselves to be AI-ready. Every worker will have the support they need to access AI-related training, including those who have used up their SkillsFuture Credits or wish to take up more specialised courses that cost more.

And, Mr Speaker, the Labour Movement will play our part too. NTUC has launched "AI-Ready SG", a one-stop platform that will help train and upskill workers to be AI-ready; support firms in business transformation and job redesign, towards better jobs with better wages and work prospects; and improve, also, job-matching so workers can access better job opportunities.

Concretely, through AI-Ready SG, union members will get NTUC funding support to offset up to 50% of unfunded subscription costs for eligible AI tools. This will encourage our members to experiment and adopt AI more confidently.

For workers who may not know where to begin, NTUC LearningHub will roll out AI training pathways tailored to different skill levels, job roles and sectors; and also, a career mentorship programme for PMEs to receive guidance from certified and experienced mentors. NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) will strengthen job matching with AI-augmented career coaching and offer personalised guidance and placement support for workers navigating career transitions.

Our NTUC Company Training Committees (CTCs) will assist employers to embark on practical AI transformation by identifying the best business case for AI adoption through the AI Transformation Blueprints and Sectoral AI transformation playbooks developed together with industry partners, connecting them also with relevant training so that their workers can adopt AI more effectively and quicker. And of course, accessing CTC Grant funding to fuel these efforts.

In sum, AI-Ready SG aims to harness AI to fuel business growth in ways that translate into good jobs with better wages and better work prospects for our workers – win-win outcome.

These objectives are aligned with the national-level efforts, such as the National AI Council and the AI Missions in key sectors. We call on the Government and employers to partner the Labour Movement in our efforts through AI-Ready SG, so NTUC can do our part to support our businesses and workers to be AI‑ready.

Mr Speaker, this brings me to my second point. Even as we prepare every worker to be AI-ready, some will still face disruption at the individual level. To be clear, I think we are in a relatively strong position overall today. Our economy performed well last year and overall employment remains healthy.

Around nine in 10 graduates secured employment within six months of graduation. Nonetheless, there emerging headwinds and signs of strain that we should pay attention to and should not ignore. Among the employers polled in a survey by the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF), nearly three in five, or 60%, planned to freeze headcount this year.

NTUC's own survey found that almost 40% of PMEs were anxious about whether they could still keep their jobs beyond the next six months. Around 900 respondents in NTUC's survey were caregivers and close to one in two of them considered leaving their job at least once a month due to the stress from caregiving.

We must therefore strengthen support for our workers so that they navigate transitions confidently and where needed, bounce back stronger.

First, we must continue to support our young graduates to secure good job opportunities. Tripartite partners must be ready to step in building on existing measures, like the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme.

Second, we must do more to support our PMEs who face retrenchment. Today, only workers earning $5,000 or less monthly are eligible for the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS). As of September 2025, exceeding this income cap was one of the reasons for 60% of applications to be rejected.

As more PMEs may experience churn, it is timely for the Government to review this income threshold, so that the JSS can provide baseline assurance to our middle-income PMEs during retrenchment. One possible approach is to peg the income threshold to the professional, manager, executive and technician (PMET) median monthly income, which was around $7,600 in 2025.

And third, we must refresh our Caregiver Support Action Plan to help our caregivers remain at work, return to work when ready and safeguard their financial resilience and retirement adequacy during periods of career disruption.

And this brings me to my final point – strengthening the Labour Movement's ability to protect and uplift our PMEs. Tripartism has been the bedrock of our success. With strong tripartite partnership undergirded by a representative Labour Movement, we have been able to weather many storms, including COVID-19, and emerge even stronger. In this disrupted age, we need to reinforce the ability of our Labour Movement to stand alongside our workers, especially our PMEs as they navigate transitions.

First, let us move towards advance retrenchment notifications. In the last few years, there have been a few high-profile retrenchments which made the news. These cost quite a stir. Many times, these incidents could have been avoided if companies worked with the union involved and if NTUC were informed and notified earlier. Advance retrenchment notifications support our ability to work together with companies to provide timely and tangible support of our affected workers. Before retrenchment, and not five days after retrenchment, when many of the workers may have already left the company and are no longer contactable.

In fact, in many major economies, like the United States (US), the European Union (EU), Switzerland, Australia, Japan and China, these countries already have some form of laws or policies requiring advance retrenchment notifications. The intent of the Labour Movement is not to constrain companies' flexibilities. It is to put out tripartism to work, in upholding responsible retrenchment and delivering more coordinated support for workers, including PMEs amid this disrupted age.

Second, let us strengthen the ability of our unions to represent more PMEs. We all know that our workforce is becoming increasingly PME-centric. Over the years, the Labour Movement has been innovating to improve our relevance to PMEs, including by rolling out programmes that PMEs want, such as mentorship, and we will do more.

I urge the Government, together with tripartite partners, to continue working with the Labour Movement to support and enable our PMEs in the AI-disrupted era for win-win outcomes. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): The world is changing rapidly. Economic outlook is uncertain. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is advancing quickly and the population is ageing.

A top concern among many workers is whether they can keep their jobs. According to NTUC's survey conducted last year, about 40% of white-collar workers were worried that they might lose their jobs beyond the next six months. Many are asking: will AI replace my job?

Many workers are also struggling to manage both work and family responsibilities. We must take their concerns seriously. We can address these challenges in three areas.

First, help every worker turn AI into an advantage. Just as we learned to use computers and smartphones in the past – we need to clearly guide workers on what to learn and how to learn it so that AI becomes a helper, not a competitor.

Second, review the income ceiling of the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme. The current income ceiling is $5,000. As of September last year, about 60% of applicants were rejected, with one reason being that they exceeded the income ceiling. In 2025, the median income for Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) was about $7,600. NTUC proposes linking the income ceiling to the PMET median income so that more jobseekers can receive timely support during their transition.

Third, strengthen support for caregivers. One possible approach is to update the Caregiver Support Action Plan to help them remain in the workforce while caring for their families, maintaining stable incomes and continue building up their retirement savings.

NTUC will continue to work with the Government and employers to ensure that every worker can stand on firm footing during the transitions, with peace of mind at work and at home.

(In English): Mr Speaker, the challenges of this disrupted age require us to do more to strengthen ourselves from within. Let us empower every worker be AI-ready, strengthen support to those vulnerable to disruption and strengthen the Labour Movement's ability to protect and uplift our PMEs in this age where it is no longer just the blue-collar workers that may face technological disruption, but with AI disrupting the white-collar space as well.

The Labour Movement will continue advocating for measures that support workers today and improve their prospects for tomorrow, whether it is helping young graduates into good first jobs, supporting PMEs to navigate career transitions or ensuring caregivers can stay employed while caring for their families.

Notwithstanding the points I have raised on behalf of the Labour Movement, I stand in support of this Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

11.21 am

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Budget 2026.

Over the past week, many have moved between reunion, Ramadan and reflection – with meals shared around the table. Some tables are full, while others have empty seats. Elders with their time-honoured recipes, children pulled up close with baby chairs and extra seats pulled out at the last minute. We make space for each other, instinctively.

Budget 2026 is delivered at this festive and reflective moment, set against a backdrop of profound structural change. The global order is fracturing, job augmentations facilitated by technology are accelerating and economic competition is intensifying. The World Economic Forum's (WEF's) Future of Jobs Report projects that nearly 40% of skills being used in today's workforce will change by 2030. Global trade tensions continue to intensify, with the value of goods hit by new tariffs quadrupling in the past year to the highest level in over 15 years.

But there is another transformation, which is equally consequential that we must confront. As of this year, we are now an officially super-aged society, with more than 21% of our resident population 65 or above. At the same time, our resident total fertility rate (TFR) stands at less than half the replacement rate. The issue is personal, existential and urgent.

An ageing society is not simply about older persons. It reshapes childhood, work, caregiving, retirement and community life for everyone. If we prepare late and view ageing as a burden, we will have to manage decline. But if we prepare early, perhaps we can design longevity with meaning through our years.

Today, I will speak about how we must respond across the life course, so that every Singaporean continues to have a place at our national table.

Sir, in an ageing society, every cohort of children grows smaller. This means fewer classmates, siblings, workers and caregivers. In 2024, 29,237 new Dragon babies were born – one of whom was our son Mizan. Every child is not just precious, but pivotal in securing Singapore's place in the world.

When couples consider parenthood, they are not just calculating financial costs across their children's lifetime; they are assessing confidence – be it in childcare access, sufficient housing, quality of life, our climate, the way the world is going in what the stakes are like to raise a child. Before we were fortunate to have Mizan in our sixth year of marriage, my husband and I would often talk about the kind of parents that we hope to be, the kind of Singapore that he might grow up in.

Budget 2026 includes financial measures, such as Child LifeSG Credits and Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers, and for some parents, this means a few months of milk powder covered, which is much appreciated.

Over the past two years, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong highlighted the Government's support for a Singapore Made For Families. One substantial policy shift has been the expansion of paternity and additional 10 weeks of shared parental leave during that precious first few months. Beyond monetary support, these are the kind of changes that help to make family "feel" possible in Singapore.

We must build on this momentum, through changing mindsets about shared responsibilities and consider adjusting childcare leave proportionately to the number of children a couple has; enhancing flexible working arrangements which are crucial for many modern, dual-income households; normalising career pauses and supporting re-entry for both men and women; improving opportunities for access to housing with more space or that are nearer other family members for support.

This is the invisible infrastructure of fertility – when parents trust the system, there is less anxiety about parenthood and there may be a greater willingness to give it a go. As every child is precious, we must also make sure that every child is safe. Preschool and student care oversight needs to be strengthened, so parents have peace of mind when leaving their children for the day. Our systems must also hold the most vulnerable of children with care and competence.

Whether under child protection, in residential care homes or in the juvenile justice system, we must strengthen safeguarding standards and empower officers working with these children, through adequate resourcing and coordinated support across agencies to intervene and tackle the root of the issue. The system must fight for them, not fail them, as these children are part of our national family too.

Demographic change also reshapes our workforce. The number of citizens aged 80 and older have increased by approximately 60% over the past decade. Budget 2026 strengthens workforce support, such as the expansion of AI training under the TechSkills Accelerator. But disruption is already here – long-term unemployment of those under 30 is higher than pre-pandemic norms and mid-career transitions are lengthening.

For youths, I hope to see more structured, meaningful internships for learning, not as proving ground, to become the norm. Today, some stack internships out of pressure, not purpose. Students from lower-income families sometimes feel torn about pursuing an internship they are passionate about versus the opportunity to work for their households. And when some graduates turn to internships instead of full-time roles, we must ask how else we can support the school-to-work transition.

Organisations like The Astronaut's Collective, Access Singapore and Halogen run programs that help facilitate exposure to career opportunities for, among others, disadvantaged students to broaden their horizons to the possibilities they may not even know of. I hope that such important work can further be scaled.

Work-study pathways should be integrated into curriculum, not peripheral as just stand-alone programmes and industry co-development of curricula should deepen.

For mid-career workers, reinvention must be normalised. In a potential hundred-year life, this may translate to multiple careers across our lifetime. Conversion programmes should be strengthened with concrete employment outcomes, so that these transitions feel like renewal, not regression.

It is clear that our Government takes an active stance on ensuring that: one, there are high quality jobs for Singaporeans; and two, that Singaporeans are well equipped with the skills to take on these jobs. Having said the above, we should also consider the social and emotional dimensions of how an older workforce responds to such rapid change and support them. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Sir, family is the bedrock of our society's strength. However, the reality we must face is that the total fertility rate (TFR) of Malays is now below the population replacement rate, at 1.58 in 2024.

Among young people, marriage plans are increasingly being postponed because they need to prioritise building their careers and financial stability to cope with challenging living costs. For young couples who fall into the “sandwich generation”, pressure and time constraints lead to decisions to have one or two children, something that requires significant consideration. Therefore, we need to rebuild the “kampung” for our families and strengthen support networks. Whether these are families transitioning from rental flats to their own flats, single mothers or fathers raising children or caregivers who sacrifice their careers to care for elderly parents, all Singaporeans need to feel that support is always available, and systems are easily accessible for them to get help.

Some families in our community still depend on a single source of income. This makes them more vulnerable to economic uncertainty. When their source of income is affected, they worry whether their daily needs can be met. Whatever choices families make in childcare arrangements, women who take career breaks should always feel that the door remains open for them to return to work and fulfil their aspirations if they choose to do so.

I applaud initiatives, such as MARA Mentoring by MENDAKI and the SkillsFuture Job Seeker Support Scheme by WSG. However, in an era of rapid change, more support is needed.

I would like to call for opportunities for mid-career workers continue to be strengthened, including mentor programmes and buddy systems for those going through transition phases. I hope that every family in Singapore will continue to have faith – that we will stand together through thick and thin and remain confident that the prosperity we build will be inclusive and benefit every family.

(In English): By 2030, around 100,000 seniors are expected to require assistance with daily living. While many rely on foreign domestic workers or care services for the day to day, caregiving does not end at the door. Sons and daughters from the sandwiched generation continue to carry the quiet responsibilities with love – the emotional vigilance, decision-making, unexpected hospital appointments and the guilt of not being able to be there.

Enhancements to the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) are very welcome. But we should also encourage structured parental care leave frameworks and employers who go the extra mile to support employees. Today, many rely on annual leave and career often competes with caregiving responsibilities until a point where one feels like they have to tap out of the workforce, especially for women who tend to disproportionately carry the caregiving load; having stronger caregiver support frameworks, including hospital post-discharge protocols, as well as helping caregivers begin again after their loved ones are no longer around. I hope we broaden the qualifying criteria of the HCG to include those who are unable to work due to mental health conditions, instead of only assessing by ADLs.

And finally, we must keep an eye out for particularly vulnerable double ageing segments, such as the persons with disabilities and caregiver dyad. An ageing society with changing family structures requires caregiving language and norms to evolve – we cannot keep stressing family systems until they break.

Finally, the generation of seniors today, is more digitally savvy and living longer than before. By 2050, nearly half of Singaporeans are projected to be over 65. That represents valuable wisdom and experience which should be tapped on. Ageing is also about dignity and purpose.

In Ang Mo Kio, 40% of our residents are over 60 years old. Their life stories and gentle resilience, inspire me deeply. While efforts, such as the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) 2.0 and the Silver Upgrading Programme make ageing in place more possible, we must continue to design empowering upgrades and inclusive spaces so they feel confident to participate in community life instead of taking a deficit-based approach to thinking about what they cannot do. And in the midst of all the upgrading and construction to do so, we must also be mindful in the process, how even changes in pedestrian walkways, lack of lifts or escalators at overhead bridges, can result in our seniors being fearful of leaving their house to do their favourite market run and end up staying isolated home alone.

I hope that over time, public spaces and Active Ageing Centres can evolve into intergenerational hubs, where grandparenting sessions are a norm, seniors mentor youths and take on micro-work opportunities, even as some recover in community.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at reunion dinners and at iftar, we instinctively make space for one another. It may be slightly jarring going between lohei and terawih in this period, but this is also, what it is, as the beauty of a multi-religious and multiracial society. This Budget challenges us to do the same at a national level.

It is the first Budget of our super-aged phase. We must think structurally, not incrementally and across life stages from childhood confidence, to workforce resilience, to ageing with purpose as one congruent Singapore story. If we design intentionally and strengthen the compact between generations, then longevity will not feel lonely and will not weaken Singapore.

And whether one comes home to a large reunion, bringing the next generation along, or a small gathering, or a community who becomes family – every generation of Singaporeans should know, that they always have a place at our national table.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

11.35 am

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, as I was preparing my speech for the Budget debates for this year, I cannot help but feel a sense of déjà vu as I revisited the speech I made last year. Our national coffers are fuller than ever, yet the structural burdens on the average Singaporean household remain stubbornly heavy. There are many recurring themes and issues that continue to be not just relevant but also increasingly pressing for Singapore and Singaporeans, and I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance can seriously consider my suggestions for the current term.

Mr Speaker, the recent revelation regarding our fiscal position for FY2025 warrants serious scrutiny. The projected surplus of S$15 billion, more than double the earlier estimate of S$7 billion, is a stark reminder of a recurring pattern. This is not an isolated incident and as I highlighted in my Budget 2025 speech, higher-than-expected surpluses have been a consistent feature of our public finances since at least 2021, often following initial estimates of deficits.

This persistent issue of fiscal marksmanship raises fundamental questions. Is the Government consistently taking more from the economy than it truly needs? And what are the implications of this for our private sector? When a government persistently runs a budget surplus, it is effectively withdrawing liquidity from the economy and reducing the net savings of households and businesses. Persistent government surpluses are, by definition, private sector deficits.

While the Government may argue that these surpluses are necessary for long-term planning and unforeseen contingencies, the sheer magnitude and regularity of these upward revisions suggest a systemic issue. It begs the question of whether the urgency behind tax increases, such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike, was truly justified when the state consistently finds itself with more resources than initially projected. And also, based on my checks, when announced in 2022, the GST hike was projected to bring about $3.5 billion annually when the full hike is in place by 2024. GST revenue was initially estimated at $12.8 billion in Budget 2022. This year, GST revenue is estimated at $22.3 billion. An almost $10 billion increase.

And let us also not forget that Singapore's way of accounting differs from international norms, such as that of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The most notable of which is the exclusion of land sale proceeds, amounting to $21 billion in 2025 and estimated at $21 billion in 2026. Including these receipts would reveal a much larger fiscal surplus, reinforcing the argument that the Government is extracting more resources from the economy than is necessary at the time.

In the face of these record surpluses, the Government's primary response remains a reliance on one-off handouts and ad hoc vouchers. As I have argued previously, we need better structural levers that automatically adjust to reflect the economic realities Singaporeans face, instead of uncertain one-off handouts that may or may not be renewed each year. Let me briefly recap the measures that I have proposed in my Finance Bill speech from November 2025.

The personal income tax brackets in Singapore have not been updated for over 24 years. Since 2001, nominal wages and the cost of living have risen significantly, leading to "bracket creep," where taxpayers are pushed into higher marginal tax brackets, even if their real purchasing power has stagnated. The Earned Income Relief is another example of a structural feature that is long overdue for adjustment. The relief for workers under 55 years old, has remained at S$1,000 for many, many years. And worse still, the personal income tax rebates from the last two years were discontinued in Budget 2026.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong spoke at length about AI in his Budget speech, where AI is recognised as a critical driver of economic transformation. It is incongruous that personal expenditure on AI-related tools and education does not receive the same tax relief consideration as corporate AI investments. If we are serious about fostering a future-ready workforce, we must incentivise individual upskilling and adoption of new technologies through our tax policies. As I shared last year, it would be wise for us to introduce a broad-based "Skills Investment Relief", allowing individuals to claim a capped deduction for out-of-pocket training expenses. This would be an expansion of the existing Course Fees Relief, which only provides relief for specific approved academic, professional or vocational qualification.

Similarly, for businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs), the current system of fluctuating corporate income tax rebates, varying from 20% to 50% over the last decade, lacks the certainty and predictability needed for a long-term planning. To underscore my point, the corporate income tax rebate for Budget 2026 was reduced to 40%, compared to 50% for 2024 and 2025.

Ironically, in the face of Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0, the concessionary corporate income tax rates for approved global trading companies of as low as 5% on income from qualifying transactions in qualifying commodities, was extended from 2016 to 2031. We should embed the same level, if not higher level of stability into our personal and corporate income tax regime, moving away from discretionary rebates towards a more transparent and consistent framework that truly supports our Singaporean base.

Next, let me touch on two issues, which I believe were missing from the strategic focus of Budget 2026. The first of which is the issue of wealth inequality. As I have shared in my Budget speech last year, I believe the deepest divisions in our society today are not based on race, language or religion, but based on socio-economic status which is closely tied to wealth inequality. If we do not take a concerted effort to address this issue head on, as we have done with race and religion, these divisions will only deepen.

I was initially hopeful, when the recently released the Ministry of Finance's (MOF's) Occasional Paper on "Income Growth, Inequality and Social Mobility Trends in Singapore" was published on 9 February, ahead of PM Wong's Budget statement. This paper provided the first-ever public release of Singapore's wealth data, which revealed that Singapore's wealth inequality, with a Gini coefficient of 0.55, exceeds that of income inequality. Unsurprisingly, to the extent that wealth at the top of the distribution is under-reported, measured wealth inequality is likely to be underestimated. While the paper notes broad-based improvements in income mobility, it is also highlighting a "gradual moderation" in social mobility as our economy matures. This data underscores the urgency of implementing robust measures to address wealth disparities.

I reiterate my proposal from my Budget 2023 for a Net Annual Value (NAV) tax on properties to be reinstated, particularly targeting high-end properties such as Good Class Bungalows or those who own secondary residences. Property is already a preferred means by the Government to tax wealth, such as via progressive property taxes and stamp duties. Bringing back the NAV tax would serve as an effective complement to our system of taxing wealth, ensuring that those who benefit most from our economic growth contribute proportionally to our collective well-being.

Furthermore, we must seriously consider bringing back estate duty, which was abolished in 2008. As with the estate duty pre-2008, exemption thresholds can be set such that only those who are truly wealthy will be affected. For example, the exemption threshold for dwelling houses was set at S$9 million from 1996 to 2008 and an updated threshold adjusted for inflation can be determined as with other asset classes.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) 2021 report titled "Inheritance Taxation in OECD Countries", states that, and I quote, "an inheritance tax, particularly one that targets relatively high levels of wealth transfers, can be an important tool to enhance equality of opportunity and reduce wealth concentration. The case for inheritance taxes might be strongest where the effective taxation of personal capital income and wealth tends to be low". As we all know, there is no capital gains nor dividend taxes in Singapore.

The challenge with taxing wealth via property tax, stamp duty and motor vehicle-related taxes is that the middle-income and upper-middle-income groups end up suffering too.

Consider the recent changes to the Preferential Additional Registration Fee (PARF) rebates in Budget 2026, which saw a 45-percentage point cut and a cap reduction. I had welcomed the Government's move in 2023 to further adjust the Additional Registration Fee (ARF) and cap the PARF rebates at $60,000. This time round however, while ostensibly aimed at luxury cars, the impact of the PARF changes is felt across the spectrum.

A BMW 5-series, listed for around $370,000 will see its PARF rebate slashed from around $40,000 to $4,000. But even an entry level Suzuki Swift, which is one of the cheapest cars in Singapore at a so-called mere $152,000, we will see its PARF rebate slash from $6,600 to $660, resulting in an increase to its annual depreciation to about $15,000. This demonstrates how policies intended to target the affluent can also impact the middle-income segment while the truly wealthy, like those who rent high-end properties, remain largely unaffected. We must ensure our tax policies are truly progressive and do not inadvertently burden the middle class.

We should therefore also study wealth tax issues in other nations, such as Norway and Switzerland, where they are present. The Government might point to Norway as a cautionary tale, claiming that the increase in the rate of wealth taxes had resulted in an exodus of wealth. Ironically, many of the wealthy turn to Switzerland, which has a wealth tax, instead of other jurisdictions without the wealth tax. The Swiss model which, with its "forfait fiscal" or lump sum taxation based on lifestyle expenditure or multiple of living expenses, offers an interesting alternative to traditional wealth taxes based solely on asset valuation. This approach could be explored to ensure that those who benefit most from Singapore's security and conducive environment contribute their fair share even if their declared income or assets are difficult to fully ascertain.

Some may argue against wealth taxes, citing fears of capital flights. However, Singapore's unique value proposition, similar to Switzerland, remains a powerful draw for global talent and capital. Many wealthy individuals would still prefer to reside and operate here, especially in the context of what Prime Minister Wong said about the weakening of the multilateral system, where countries everywhere have less confidence that common rules will protect their interests.

Finally, let me touch on the second major issue which I believe is missing from the strategic focus of Budget 2026 – that is our record low TFR. If we can establish an AI council to provide strategic direction and to drive Singapore's AI agenda, where is the equivalent council or dedicated high level focus to act with clarity and resolve on our existential demographic challenge? Our TFR fell below 1.0 in 2023 and remained there in 2024, a trajectory that poses a profound threat to our long-term sustainability.

The truth we must confront is whether the Government is genuinely committed to structural solutions for our fertility crisis, or whether it is increasingly leaning on immigration as an easier way out. At the recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Singapore Perspectives 2026 conference, Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow described our TFR of 0.97 as abysmal, but simultaneously argued that we need to do more integration so that we can do more immigration.

Mr Speaker, there is no denying that the vibrant fabric of Singaporean society is largely woven by immigrants, and this is something we must cherish and continue to uphold. However, I also believe that the Government must do more to nurture fertile environment for parents to grow their families. Instead of taking the path of least resistance, we must be bold and innovative in our approach to raising our TFR. I wish to draw attention to Hungary's aggressive pro-nationalist policies, which offer a case study in comprehensive, albeit sometimes controversial interventions, where its TFR rose meaningfully from around 1.2 in 2011 to 1.6 in 2020. While some may point out that Hungary's TFR declined to 1.39 in 2024, arguably macro economic factors may also have a significant role to play. The point here is this, that Hungary is fully exempting mothers with three children from paying personal income tax regardless of age, and starting this year, even mothers under 30 with at least one child will be fully exempt. Are we willing to be this bold in our approach and exempt mothers from personal income taxes?

For sure, money is not the be all and end all when it comes to having children, but according to a 2024 NTU survey of 230 young Singaporeans, financial considerations were raised by 70% of respondents as a reason why they do not wish to have children. This reason was also mentioned by the majority of married respondents to 2021's Marriage and Parenthood Survey as the biggest hurdle that prevents them from having children. As part of this year's Budget package, the household income ceiling for childcare subsidies was increased from $12,000 to $15,000, while families with children below 12 years old will receive $500 in LifeSG Credits.

However, given that parenthood is a massive undertaking that lasts decades, I believe that more can be done across the spectrum.

As of the 2020 census, 53% of married couples were dual income. While not all dual income couples have children, those who have often need to balance their parenting and work duties. Hence, I have previously suggested that the Government implement the statutory right to request for flexible work arrangements as well as increase statutory childcare leave. Moreover, the caregiving burden is often unequally shared as the odds are usually stacked against the mother's favour. Recent Nobel Prize winning economist Claudia Golden observed that this motherhood penalty usually arises from mothers halting their careers right after childbirth, and as their child gets older, they would turn to jobs that offer greater flexibility, but lesser pay. Hence, our policy should aim to recalibrate this imbalance, such as via tax incentives. Even if the Government does not wish to take the Hungarian approach, the least we can do is not make mothers pay more taxes. And I have shared on many occasions in this House, I hope the Government would revert back to the previous iteration of the Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR), which is applicable only to mothers with children born before 2024.

While there could be a small group of lower-income working mothers who would benefit from this change, the majority of would be working mothers will be worse off with the change in methodology. For lower-income working mothers, a tax rebate can be given, and even if the tax rebates granted exceeds the tax payable, tax credits can be paid out in cash to ensure the reliefs are not lost. Moreover, single mothers are not eligible for the WMCR, and even if we cannot raise their children on their behalf, the least we can do is to ensure that our tax policies do not discriminate against them.

The bottom line is that structural issues to our low TFR such as work life balance, societal expectations and the high cost of raising children must be comprehensively addressed. We must learn from international experiences and our own experiences to further tailor our policies to our unique context, ensuring that we create an environment where Singaporeans truly feel supported and confident in starting and raising families. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, my speech today focuses on four areas requiring urgent attention in the 2026 Budget.

Firstly, the persistent problem of fiscal marksmanship. The Government's continuous over-collection of taxes compels us to question the necessity of raising tax rates and their impact on Singaporeans. The projected surplus for 2025 stands at $15.1 billion, more than double the initial estimate of $6.8 billion. This pattern of "annual over-collection" has become the norm rather than an exception.

Looking back at 2022, the Government predicted that the comprehensive GST increase would generate approximately $3.5 billion in additional revenue annually. The estimated total GST revenue then was $12.8 billion, whilst this year, this figure is projected to soar to $22.3 billion, an increase of nearly $10 billion!

Secondly, we must prioritise structural tax reforms rather than relying year after year on one-off measures. This includes adjusting personal income tax brackets according to inflation and updating various tax reliefs.

Thirdly, addressing wealth inequality has become urgent, as emphasised by the MOF’s recent Occasional Paper on this challenge. We need to adopt bold measures, such as reintroducing Net Annual Value (NAV) tax, reconsidering estate tax and exploring innovative wealth tax models like those in Switzerland. We cannot allow the middle class, who are "rooted here and cannot flee" to bear a disproportionate burden due to fears that "the ultra-wealthy might withdraw their capital and leave", making them casualties of the wealth divide.

Finally, we must address the challenge of extremely low fertility rates with the same urgency as we approach economic challenges like artificial intelligence. Drawing from international experience, we must formulate comprehensive and structural solutions that give Singaporeans the confidence and capability to start families.

The Government may argue that these measures are too risky or that we must maintain a conservative approach. But I ask: what constitutes the greater risk? Is it collecting a few percentage points less in taxes from our record-breaking surplus or allowing the nation's demographic foundation to wither whilst wealth concentrates in the hands of a select few, leaving middle-class Singaporeans to foot the bill?

Let us build a more equitable, resilient and sustainable social contract.

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

11.54 am

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker Sir, I rise in support of Budget 2026. It is a careful Budget. A responsible Budget. But more importantly, it must be a Budget that reassures Singaporeans workers who are anxious about their place in a changing economy.

We are living through an in-between moment. Technology is moving faster than jobs. AI is advancing faster than wages. Foreign investments are creating much fewer jobs than before. Economic growth is not always translating into worker confidence.

Workers tell us this very plainly. They worry about job security. They worry about cost-of-living. They worry about whether the next disruption will be theirs. If we ask workers to work hard, upgrade, adapt, we must also ask the economy to deliver real outcomes for them. “When workers do everything right but still feel left behind, the problem is not their effort, it is the system.”

This is why, in this Budget, I will speak for five groups of workers. I call them the "5 U's" – the unemployed, the underemployed, the under-represented, the untrained and the under-served.

My first "U" worker group is the Unemployed, specifically the involuntarily unemployed. To be candid, last year we saw many retrenchments and many "bad retrenchments" as well. Employers who did not abide by the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment (TAMEM) made headlines. Each time, NTUC and their unions stepped in, fought for members and workers including securing payouts, and escalated the issue to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).

Drivers of retrenchments like business restructuring and uncertainties will persist this year. NTUC and unions stand ready to support impacted workers, including PMEs who may not be covered under collective agreements. I ask the Government to give NTUC and the unions more time, strength and information to do so.

First, introducing advanced Mandatory Retrenchment Notifications (MRNs) to unions and the Government can provide more timely and early intervention. Currently, employers with at least 10 employees are required to notify MOM within five working days after notifying employees. The Government can consider all MRNs to be made prior to retrenchments. I say again, prior to retrenchments.

Second, there should be stronger penalties for employers who do not comply with this requirement and not just a slap on the wrist.

Third, the Government can consider sharing information with NTUC and unions on sectors and companies that might be disrupted due to economic restructuring, including expected scale of impact and timeline, past retrenchment incidence, and past retrenchment benefit levels.

I am heartened that after a decade of lobbying, involuntarily unemployed workers facing temporary financial strain can now benefit from transitional support for up to six months while they undergo training or look for better-fitting jobs through the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS).

According to NTUC’s most recent Survey on Economic Sentiments, about 40% of almost 1,000 workers expressed concerns about losing their jobs. In fact, from April to August last year, MOM also shared that 60% of the 7,200 JSS applications received were rejected, of which one of the top three reasons for unsuccessful applications was exceeding the income threshold of $5,000 per month.

I therefore opine that more can be done to support the broad middle of involuntarily unemployed workers. The Government can consider raising the income threshold from $5,000 to $7,600 to better cover PMEs. By easing financial pressures, JSS helps workers avoid rushing into poor job matches that lead to underemployment.

Sir, this brings me to my second "U" worker group, the under-employed, which can be broadly defined as those who are under-utilised in the workforce in terms of availability, qualifications, skills, or experience. Time-related underemployment, such as when an individual who has the capacity to work a full-time position works part-time, is measured by MOM and widely studied. However, non-time-related underemployment, such as when a highly qualified, skilled or experienced expert holds a junior-level position, is more difficult to determine. This is why NTUC has collaborated with the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) to study this issue since 2023.

There is also voluntary and involuntary underemployment. Voluntary underemployment, where workers opt to work fewer hours or in a less demanding role to pursue better work-life balance, personal interests, or a less stressful career, can represent diverse aspirations and values. It is the involuntary underemployed group that warrants our attention. These are workers who stay in contract or gig work because they cannot secure a full-time position. They are also over-qualified workers who seek to move up the career but are stuck in junior level positions and pay.

Over time, underemployed workers can become trapped in a vicious cycle of low-paid and insecure work, limiting opportunities for upward mobility. Women and caregivers, in particular, are at a higher risk of underemployment and consequently, unequal pay, as they take more time out of the workforce and seek flexible work arrangements to balance caregiving commitments.

I therefore submit that the Government broaden its definition of underemployment and collaborate closely with our tripartite partners to monitor this issue and maximise the productivity and earning potential of every worker, especially after NTUC and SUTD's underemployment study findings are released in the coming months.

Fixed Term Contract (FTC) workers are one group acutely vulnerable to job insecurity. The Government can encourage employers to emplace FTC workers into permanent roles after two cycles of contract renewals, and regard successive contracts renewed within two months of the previous contract as continuous service, instead of the current one-month window stipulated in the Tripartite Advisory on the Employment of Term Contract Employees.

Another group vulnerable to involuntary underemployment that has been concerning of late is young workers and fresh graduates. According to the most recent Graduate Employment Surveys from autonomous universities, private education institutions and polytechnics, fewer graduates secured permanent full-time positions within six months of graduation across the board, even as starting salaries continued to rise. While this is in part due to the younger generation's propensity to explore diverse and flexible career paths, many also face external challenges like the shrinking of entry-level roles accelerated by AI and increasing saturation of diploma and degree-holders.

Earlier this month, NTUC hosted a dialogue with students at the Singapore Management University on the subject. I was there as well. Students spoke frankly about sending out dozens, even hundreds, of job applications without even a single reply. Even "internship-stacking" may not be deemed as sufficient as employers increasingly preferred to hire applicants with at least minimum one to two years of full-time work experience. Early career professionals impacted by retrenchments are also met with stiff competition as "job-hugging" or resignation rates hit a historic 20-year low.

Labour market transitions can eliminate existing opportunities but also yield new ones, such as new sectors and more flexible or meaningful forms of work. For example, Singapore is constantly ranked as one of the most AI-exposed countries in the world, but also one of the most AI-ready. Young people will need to know how to reach these new opportunities and our institutions must be equipped to support them.

The Government launched the GRIT Programme last year to absorb recruitment and training risk for employers while helping fresh graduates gain industry experience and relevant skills. This is a good start. To avoid skills-jobs mismatches or youths getting stuck in gig, contract or part-time work after long and unfruitful job searches, a more concerted effort must be made to invest in human capital and skills, broaden the range of good jobs with good prospects and growing local companies and startups, many of which are aligned with recommendations outlined by the Economic Strategic Review.

The Government can consider launching an extended and higher-value iteration of GRIT in high-growth and high-demand sectors with opportunities ranging from one to two years and with monthly traineeship allowances on-par with starting salaries. Host organisations must convert trainees into permanent full-time employees unless a valid reason and supporting evidence are submitted. The Government can also set aside more resources to groom early-career professionals by sending them for overseas work postings. This is opportune as the Market Readiness Assistance grant and a host of other schemes are enhanced to support local companies to internationalise.

The Economic Development Board (EDB) recently announced a 20-year-low number of jobs expected to be created, despite attracting more investments. This is a global problem in the age of automation and AI but in Singapore, we cannot accept an economic model where growth advances while workers are left behind. Structured career pathways and raised wages should continue to be encouraged in traditionally undervalued fields with unmet demand like the skilled trades, education and care services.

My third "U" worker group is the under-represented, referring to local PMEs who make up about almost half of the workforce and disproportionately impacted by economic restructuring and technological disruptions, but who may lack representation and protection benefits. Lower-income PMEs, sometimes disguised, for example, are not covered under Part IV of the Employment Act which provides for rest days, hours of work and overtime pay. I therefore call on the Government to increase the Employment Act Part IV income thresholds, something that I raised in this House before, for non-workmen to at least $3,000, which will better reflect today's workforce demographics and help curb overworking norms.

To ensure protections in the Employment Act keep pace with wage growth and workforce changes, the Government can commit to reviewing the Employment Act every five years or when salaries reach a particular threshold, with a mid-term review of income thresholds to ensure legislation does not lag economic shifts.

The Government can also consider reviewing the Industrial Relations Act, which stipulates that PMEs cannot be represented by unions if they are in senior management and executives with duties involving hiring, firing or confidential information that present a conflict of interest. I suggest there be greater clarity about exclusions, other than what is provided in the Tripartite Guidelines, as there are employers and human resource (HR) professionals who are still riding on this exclusion, to disallow unions to extend their scope of representation, especially for purposes of collective bargaining. Currently rank-and-file unions can represent eligible executives on a limited individual basis for specific industrial matters including retrenchment benefits, dismissal, breach of individual contract, victimisation and re-employment disputes. I ask that the Government broaden this scope to also include grievance handling.

For over a decade, I have advocated for a compendium of measures to level the playing field and strengthen the Singaporean Core for our local PMEs, including legislation against errant employers who discriminate against Singaporeans, a foreign-PME dependency ratio, stricter Employment Pass (EP) application conditions and many others. Yet, local PMEs, especially those who work in multinational corporations (MNCs), tell me that they still sometimes feel under-represented in numbers and rank at their workplaces. We can say time and again that it is not a zero-sum game, but when MNCs retrench equally knowledgeable, skilled and experienced local PMEs to retain cheaper foreign manpower, or when local PMEs are disproportionately underrepresented in senior and leadership positions and paid less, it can feel like this.

To be clear, foreign PMEs remain essential to complement Singapore's workforce. They fill critical skill and labour gaps, bring global expertise and networks and help keep companies growing rather than relocating. Many are friends and neighbours in our communities. The key is to create policy that encourages foreign PMEs to complement rather than displace the local workforce, encourage skill transfer and local-foreign integration and position local PMEs for senior and leadership positions as well as high-paying and high-value jobs.

I therefore welcome the Government's decision to raise the qualifying salaries for and S Pass holders to maintain the quality of Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders as wages rise. But Government also needs to watch for parity of Singaporeans who do the same work and are paid similarly, and work alongside some these of S Pass and EP holders. I will also continue to call on the Government to monitor, previously coined as the "triple weak" companies and sectors and encourage them to improve their workforce profiles by removing preferential tax or not awarding public sector contracts for recalcitrant companies. The Government can also consider awarding bonus points under the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS), based on the proportion of Singaporeans in management positions.

My fourth "U" worker group is the "untrained". Unlike other countries, where unions often must lobby for uneven training and upskilling opportunities, Singapore continuously doles out funding and promotes continuing education and training (CET) as a national priority. Today, we enjoy a wide range of courses and schemes like SkillsFuture Credits to improve accessibility. However, there remains a minority of workers who have not accessed these resources we can work to reach.

During SkillsFuture's 10th anniversary last year, I suggested to consolidate efforts and streamline offerings across different arms of the CET ecosystem including NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), Workforce Singapore (WSG), SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG), training providers and the various Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), to control quality and prevent overlap. I am glad that the Government considered the recommendation and are going to create now a one-stop-shop new agency for skills training, career guidance and job matching services by merging WSG and SSG.

A next step is to enhance Career Conversion Programmes (CCP) to cover even more sectors and increase offerings. As the transition to an AI-driven economy approaches, NTUC has launched its AI-ready Singapore initiative to strengthen workers' long-term employability through learning and applying AI skills to daily work. NTUC will roll out AI training pathways and subsidise up to 50% of subscription costs of eligible AI tools for members, for an initial period of two years.

Notwithstanding, a tripartite standard on ethical and non-discriminatory use of AI in recruitment, performance, promotion and termination can boost the AI-readiness of Singapore's workforce. The Government can also encourage employers to partner unions to start upskilling and/or redeploying impacted staff early on. Together, we will move AI-literacy to AI-fluency for every worker, every department, every company and every industry, so that no worker is left behind.

My fifth and final "U" worker group is the "underserved", referring to persons with disabilities and ex-offenders. The Uplifting Employment Credit (UEC) for ex-offenders and the Enabling Employment Credit (EEC) for persons with disabilities, which provide employers with wage offsets to enhance employment support for disconnected individuals and widen our labour pool, are commendable initiatives. I hope that the Government continues to embed inclusive hiring into mainstream workforce policy to unlock under-utilised potential and ensure all workers can contribute fully and justly, as well as to boost the employment and employability of ex-offenders and persons with disabilities. I note that the UEC scheme ended on December 2025, and I ask that an extension be considered.

I contend that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in workplaces should not be a compliance obligation but treated as workforce infrastructure. This means equipping managers and HR with the skills to productively operate a team with different needs, entrenching flexible work arrangements as a norm and avoiding cliff effects in policy support. As persons with disabilities and ex-offenders are more likely to be concentrated in lower wage and lower-skilled jobs and sectors that have higher rates of unemployment and/or underemployment, a more concerted effort can also be made to prevent reproducing inequalities for these two groups.

Sir, in conclusion, in this era of AI, ageing and global uncertainty, Singaporeans are not asking for guarantees. They are asking for fairness. They are asking for opportunity. They are asking that effort be rewarded. This is why this Budget must work for the "5 U's": the unemployed, the underemployed, the under-represented, the untrained and the underserved. "In a time of transition, we will only succeed if "U" and "Me" move forward in Unity. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, you have a clarification to make.

12.13 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I refer to the point made by the hon Member on advanced retrenchment notifications. The intention to pursue this point was made by NTUC before the Budget debate. Shortly thereafter, the chief executive officer (CEO) of SNEF wrote to The Straits Times to share that, I think the words were: "they have strong reservations about this call." Can I ask the Member, in view of the tripartite framework, has there been agreement with SNEF on this particular point?

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: On the Member's question, there are tripartite negotiations on this point. We have formed a Tripartite Workgroup on the review of the Employment Act which I am a member, we are looking at this carefully to balance the interests of the respective tripartite partners. But what I shared earlier is our NTUC's standpoint, which both Secretary-General and myself have shared earlier.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Perera.

12.15 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, home is where our heart is and therefore, I am starting my speech on the Budget speech talking about our homes. It is so important to come home to a space where one can feel safe and rested. Our Housing and Development Board (HDB) projects are the pride of our nation. But more and more of our HDB blocks are also crossing the 50-year mark.

It is good news indeed that we had managed to achieve a Budget surplus of over $15 billion for 2025. The surplus will be added to our reserves, where we can generate investment income streams that will contribute to our future Budgets. This money gives us the ability to plan for and secure our future with greater certainty.

I will like to start with an appeal to the Government to invest more expeditiously in the rejuvenation of our older HDB estates. We have to ensure that our maintenance and replacement works can continue to uphold the standard and quality of our HDB housing. Buildings do not age uniformly. Some may suffer from more issues than others. When one has to deal with unexpected and recurring problems, such as water ingress, mould and spalling concrete, our homes can become sources of stress and anxiety instead.

Take for example my residents at Henderson Crescent estate. Life at home can be stressful because they constantly have to watch out for leakages and check their ceilings and walls. They worry about the effect the persistent mould have on their health, especially the children and the elderly. The repairs also put a strain on their finances, especially for the elderly and families with lower incomes.

As the HDB Home Improvement Programme (HIP) takes place only twice during the span of the 99 years, residents are left waiting and are appealing for a more lasting and sustained solution to the myriad of problems affecting their blocks. To deal with the systemic deterioration of such HDB blocks, could the HDB review its HIP policy, and consider an additional round of HIP which is more flexible in scope to take into account the specific issues faced by a particular HDB estate?

It is important to rejuvenate problematic HDB blocks so that they remain good homes for our people and remain attractive enough for prospective buyers. If that cannot be done, I would like to call upon the Government, on behalf of my residents, such as our residents from Henderson Crescent, to grant their request for Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). If there are no plans for SERS, can the Ministry review the criteria for Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) on a case-by-case basis, depending on the particular condition of the blocks? This is not a request to help residents enjoy a windfall, but a request for every Singaporean to go home to a pleasant and liveable environment.

Sometimes, homes become a source of distress because of disamenities. Most Singaporeans live in a compact environment, in close proximity with our neighbours. Hence, being part of a “we first” society, it is important to be considerate and be aware of our actions and behaviours on our neighbours and fellow Singaporeans.

This next issue that I would like to raise is almost ad nauseam – the disamenities suffered by my residents of Skyville at Dawson. Unfortunately, some of the problems continue to persist and it is a reality that my residents continue to face, day in and day out. Many years have passed and I hope that time has allowed the Ministry of National Development (MND) to observe thoroughly the problems and possibly have a fresh perspective on possible solutions.

Residents of Skyville at Dawson continue to suffer disturbances and nuisance caused by inconsiderate visitors to the roof and sky gardens at their HDB blocks, especially during the weekends, eve of festive seasons and public holidays. Excessive noise disturbances, smoking and drinking, urinating at staircase landings, litter and rubbish, obscene activities. These problems have not abated, even with the concerted efforts of our grassroots volunteers, the HDB, Town Council, the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the police, disamenities still persist.

Hence, I appeal to MND once again, to reconsider my previous suggestions: install gantries for registration, install more CCTVs to monitor visitors and their activities, limit the number of visitors and require payment of a small fee to support the operations and cleaning of the sky gardens. Again, this is because every resident deserves to go home to a pleasant living environment.

I understand that requests, if taken onboard, do take time. For example, the Government has confirmed that the EASE programme will be offered to seniors living in private estates from this April. I myself first raised this in Parliament back in 2016, nearly 10 years ago, and my fellow PAP MPs had also continued to raise this request over the years. You can imagine our great relief and joy that it has been taken up by the Government and is finally coming to fruition.

Still on the topic of housing, I would like to talk a little about property taxes. In the lead-up to the Budget Statement, some of my residents have shared their concerns that property taxes may rise again, even though they are relieved by the one-off property tax rebate for 2026 for owner-occupied homes.

As Singapore has enjoyed a healthy Budget surplus with property taxes as one of the contributors, perhaps more can be done to calibrate this carefully or to consider longer-term support for owner-occupied properties. This is especially needed by private estate residents who are elderly and no longer working but are living in their own homes. The anxiety is real, especially as they are no longer earning an income and yet face increasingly higher property taxes that they are paying for out of their own savings. I hope that the Government can consider granting a longer-term rebate for such cases. This will also help our seniors age well and age in-place.

Other than homes, Singaporeans are very much concerned about jobs and the impact of AI on them. I am very heartened by the Prime Minister's commitment that no Singaporean would be left behind in our push for AI and in this spirit, I salute our NTUC stepping up to this call in rolling out the AI-Ready SG initiative. There are also sectoral AI playbooks for workers and businesses in the sectors that face the most disruption from AI.

My concern, however, is that the take-up rate for such initiatives will not be as high as desired, given what we have seen with the SkillsFuture credits where many people left it to the final months, and even then, it was not fully taken up. What the NTUC is offering is very much needed, but we need to ensure that it reaches the workers who need it. Are there ways we can ensure that access to these AI resources is as easy and seamless as possible? Our seniors also do not wish to be left behind. Can the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA’s) SG Digital Community Hubs be expanded to help seniors and more Singaporeans gain AI skills and pick up safety tips?

In addition, AI training and tools have already been made widely available, but the real fear of disruption from AI tells us that what our people need most, is the support and career guidance to journey together with them as they navigate these changes. I would like to call upon the Government to consider dedicating even more resources in order to expand the scope of the AI Missions to develop detailed sectoral playbooks for more sectors beyond the four chosen. We should also support the redesign of workflows and job scopes to enable greater productivity, while helping to alleviate the labour shortage in some of these industries. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Singaporeans worry about jobs and AI's impact. I am reassured by the Prime Minister's commitment that no one will be left behind in our push for AI. I commend NTUC's AI-Ready SG Initiative.

However, I am concerned about the potential low take-up as with SkillsFuture. I urge the Government to make AI resources more easily accessible, expand SG Digital Community Hubs to help seniors and providing stronger career guidance.

More resources to extend AI missions to additional sectors and to redesign workflows and job scopes will raise productivity and ease labour shortages.

(In English): Sir, for all our hard work to achieve success, as individuals, as a nation, we need the support and assurance of safe and comfortable homes and estates for our families and secure the future of our economy and jobs in the AI age. I urge the Government to deploy them to ensure a conducive living environment for all Singaporeans and to transform Singapore into the most AI-enabled nation in the world. I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

12.26 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Sir, some say our recent Budget surpluses indicate a failure in fiscal marksmanship. But what truly matters is not our fiscal marksmanship year to year, but rather, our fiscal marksmanship for the long term, our fiscal marksmanship 10 years down the road, in 2030 and beyond.

MOF's Occasional Paper on Medium-Term Fiscal Projections in 2023 sends a very clear signal – our total spending will go up to around 19.5% of GDP by 2030, driven by healthcare for an aging population. This is basically two full percentage points of GDP higher than the spending of around 17.5% of GDP 10 years ago. In FY25, we are spending 17.9% of GDP. For FY26, we are budgeting 18.4%. So, we are spending more structurally. The trend is clear.

And so, our fundamental challenge, the fundamental mission when it comes to fiscal marksmanship is really about raising revenues structurally to around 19.5% of GDP by 2030 to meet our spending needs in the long term. It is fiscal marksmanship not year-to-year, but over many years, on the revenue side, to make sure we cover our needs many years out.

So, where are we at today?

Budget 2026 is a milestone in the sense that it is the first Budget since the Occasional Paper to hit that 19.5% of GDP in total revenues. The key question however is, looking at the revenue mix in Budget 2026, can the mix be sustained? Can it become a reliable blueprint for our fiscal security in subsequent Budgets? That is the key question for our fiscal marksmanship for the long term. And to answer this question, I will focus on GST, corporate income tax and asset-related taxes.

First, GST. With the increase in headline GST rate from 7% to 9%, GST collection has gone up from around 2% of GDP to 2.6% in Budget 2026. And unless consumption contracts suddenly, we can expect GST revenues as a percentage of GDP to continue at this level.

This makes a big difference. In other words, raising GST has been essential in helping us achieve fiscal marksmanship for the long term. The real failure in fiscal marksmanship would have been if we dropped the ball, or lost the gumption to raise GST to secure our long-term fiscal future – because it was too difficult.

Second, on corporate income tax. Budget 2026 estimates corporate income tax revenues to come in at 4.5% of GDP. This is quite remarkable. It has gone up to 4% of GDP in FY2023 and FY2024 and then gone up further to 4.5% in FY2025. Coming out of the COVID-19 years, who could have seen this sharp uptick coming? But the key question going forward is: can we confidently assume that this will continue? How much of it is a secular increase in corporate profitability? How much of it is cyclical?

I think we should be conservative and we should also be sanguine about the revenue upside of BEPS Pillars 1 and 2 combined. Indeed, a real failure of long-term fiscal marksmanship will be if we bet on something as new and uncertain as BEPS for our long-term fiscal future.

So, taken together, we can probably revise our long-term assumption for corporate income tax revenues upwards to 4% of GDP, not 4.5% as in Budget 2026, but 4%. That in turn means a difference of 0.5 percentage point of GDP. And so, where do we raise another 0.5% of GDP, reliably, structurally, from other revenue sources?

Which brings me to the third point, asset-related taxes. To my mind, we need to look at taxing assets more, much more. In effect, increasing wealth taxes significantly. In this regard, I agree very much with hon Member Mr Shawn Loh.

Property taxes are estimated at 0.9% of GDP in Budget 2026. Actually, property tax collections went down to 0.6% in FY2020 and has gradually come back up to 0.9%. But not too long ago, in the early 2000s, property tax collections were as high as 1% to 1.1% of GDP. I think we should aim to raise property tax collections to 1.2% of GDP in the long term and focus on the top tier of residential properties.

Stamp duty collections stand at 0.8% of GDP in Budget 2026 and have largely been so for the past 10 years. I think we should make stamp duty much more progressive in the long term with, for example, a new tier for residential properties above $5 million, at marginal rate of 15%, 2.5 times the current top marginal rate.

In short, for me, the real story coming out of Budget 2026 in terms of long-term fiscal marksmanship is that we can and should raise asset-related taxes quite a bit more, to meet our long-term future spending needs.

Sir, some also say our recent budget surpluses show that the Government is over-collecting now, in advance of spending needs later. Let me make a few points on this.

First, while we can say that the Government may be over-collecting in certain areas, for example, in asset-related revenues which have been revised upwards by $4.5 billion in FY2025, and this is not so much by design, but due to cyclical factors, we absolutely cannot say that the Government has been over-collecting in GST.

In GST, by design, the Government is absolutely not over-collecting. Because by design, the GST increase has effectively not started yet for most families and will effectively start only in 2028, five years after the increase in headline rate. By design, the GST increase for families below median income will effectively start only in 2033, 10 years after the headline increase. And by design, there is effectively zero GST increase, permanently, for families in the bottom 30% by income.

Why? Because alongside GST collection, we have also a system of GST offsets – the GST Voucher Scheme and Assurance Package. GST in itself is regressive, but our GST system of taxation combined with offsets is net-net highly progressive. The only people paying effectively more GST now are the most well-off Singaporeans, expatriates and tourists.

So, we cannot say that because of the recent surpluses, the Government has been over-collecting GST in the past few years and not even for the next few years.

But beyond GST, it is simply not very meaningful to draw conclusions and pass judgement on over-collections based on fiscal surpluses year-to-year. What is meaningful to look at is whether a term of Government balances its collections against spending, over its entire term in office.

A year of surplus can well be followed by crisis, and a budget surplus can swing very quickly into a deficit to overcome crisis, the next year. We have swung from surplus to crisis, many times, in the past decades.

In FYs 2016 to 2019, we had a pretty good run – budget surpluses of 1.4%, 2.3% and 0.7% of GDP, successively. Then what happened? COVID-19 happened. And in FY2020, we swung to the greatest fiscal deficit any PAP Government has seen, ever. A deficit of $51.6 billion, 10.8% of GDP, to fight the crisis of a generation. It feels like a bad dream now, but this was just a few years back. We do not quite talk about that in this debate.

Or look at the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) – the deficit for FY2003 was 1% of GDP.

In other instances, the crisis was not pandemic, but economic. And economic crises have usually been preceded by very good years – an exuberant economy, strong growth, larger-than-expected fiscal surpluses. But precisely because of over-exuberance, markets eventually corrected and we swung from surplus to crisis overnight.

Just look at FY2007. A fiscal surplus of 2.8% of GDP on the back of 7.9% growth in 2006. And then what happened? The Great Financial Crisis. Growth disappeared completely in 2008 and so did our fiscal surplus. Looking at FY2025 and this year with AI investments on an absolute tear and boosting the economy, can we say with certainty that this time will be different? Or might a sharp pullback in AI investments, coupled with a secular slump in external demand due to even sharper tariff uncertainties, not be a real risk?

Precisely when we get a larger-than-expected fiscal surplus because of stronger-than-expected growth, I think we should be quietly worried. Not about short-term fiscal marksmanship but about the risks of economic and fiscal correction that are being signalled.

And when a crisis does hit, we should not expect the Government to turn to the President, turn to our Past Reserves, in the first instance, to fight the crisis. Each term of Government should be looking, in the first instance, at using its own fiscal resources, within its term in Government to fight crises and protect Singapore and Singaporeans.

That is why surpluses in some years within each term of Government is important. Surpluses within a term of Government are a design feature, not a bug, in the PAP system of Government. And these surpluses protect current generations of Singaporeans against shocks. Rather than benefit future generations, they benefit the current generation of Singaporeans.

And sometimes, the actual surpluses do turn out larger than expected. But there will be times when they turn out smaller than expected too. It is normal to get a surprise, either on the upside or on the downside. It is part of the real world. It is par for the course.

In fact, the surpluses for FY2025 and FY2026 are not unusually large at all in GDP terms. Mr Shawn Loh made the same point yesterday.

Going back to FY2007, our fiscal surplus was 2.8% of GDP, I mentioned that. Although it was just $7.7 billion in dollar terms. And further back, in FY2000, we had a surplus of 2.4% of GDP, although it was just $4 billion in dollar terms. And so, in my view, the surplus for FY2025 at 1.9% of GDP is somewhat modest, hardly the greatest fiscal surplus any PAP Government has seen in decades; and the surplus for FY26 at 1% of GDP is decidedly modest. The accumulated surplus over the last term of Government, including the surplus for FY2025, is at around 0.6% of cumulative GDP, again, decidedly modest in my view.

But in dollar terms, the surpluses of $15.1 billion and $8.6 billion can create a sticker shock. Understandably so. But we should be clear that this is not so much an indication of over-collection by the Government as it is simply a reflection of how much our GDP base has grown in nominal dollar terms over the last 26 years.

The final point I will make, over the last 26 years, since FY2000, we have had surpluses in only 11 years. Let me say that again. Over the last 26 years, we have had surpluses in only 11 years, including FY2024 and FY2025. Our Budgets were essentially balanced in another 11 years, and we ran deficits in four.

So, the bottom line really is, budget surpluses are actually not so common in our fiscal history. Large surpluses in GDP terms, even less so. We have been largely balanced over each past term of Government, and it is really not very meaningful to pass judgement on fiscal marksmanship on a year-to-year basis.

When we do have fiscal surpluses, we should count our blessings. Across the OECD countries, the average fiscal position in 2023 is a deficit of 4.6% of GDP. We are in a special position to have surpluses.

So, let us not talk of surpluses as if they are a failure in planning or something to be frowned upon. Let us not give surpluses a bad name. We should make surpluses great again. Make "surpluses again" great again.

But it does beg the question, what should we do with the surpluses? And I will make just one suggestion today. I say, let us plough back part of the surpluses. Plough back part of the surpluses to extend our transitional GST offsets by one more year for the vast majority of Singaporeans. This will cost the Government probably $1.5 billion – well within what our surpluses can afford.

Sir, I am a fan of Malay pantuns. So, I thought to conclude this speech with a pantun. And in the spirit of this Budget, and in line with the zeitgeist, I asked generative AI (GenAI) for help.

I prompted for a pantun about balance amid abundance, using a fruit tree as a metaphor. And in one second, literally, GenAI gave me this, "Rimbun dahan pohon bermutu, buah manis lebat di dahan; harta melimpah syukur bersatu, sudi berkongsi tanda iman." Mr Zhulkarnain is smiling. Translated loosely into, "lush are the branches of a quality tree, sweet fruits hang heavy and thick. When wealth overflows, let it be joined with gratitude; to share willingly is a sign of faith."

And then AI asked me if I would like another version, with a more specific fruit metaphor, like the durian tree. I said, "No, no, no. My idea of balance that I prompted you on was not so much about keeping versus sharing at the individual level, but about spending and saving at the societal level. So, you refine the output?"

So, in another one second, GenAI gave me this, "Pohon rimbun emas citranya, gugur sebiji di celah dahan; ambil sekadar perlu sahaja, selebihnya rezeki alam tuhan." The lush tree has a golden aura; a single fruit falls between the branches. Take only what is needed, leave the rest as sustenance for God's nature.

But I really liked the second line from the first version, so responding to the Minister of State Jasmin Lau's exhortation yesterday, I exercised my human agency and critical thinking, and I combined the two versions. And so, in conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, "Pohon rimbun emas citranya, buah manis lebat di dahan; ambil sekadar perlu sahaja, selebihnya rezeki alam tuhan." (The lush tree has a golden aura; sweet fruits hang heavy and thick. Take only what is needed, leave the rest as sustenance for God's nature.)

Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam, you have a clarification to ask?

12.44 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to seek clarification from Mr Xie. I recall him saying that, effectively, long-term fiscal marksmanship is what matters. Is he saying that the year-to-year fiscal marksmanship does not matter? And does he agree that there is an opportunity cost to inaccurate year-to-year fiscal marksmanship?

Mr Xie Yao Quan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just reiterate two points that I have made in my speech. First, I think it is more meaningful to look at how a term of government balances its collection against spending over its entire term in government. Second, if we look at the statistics, Table 3.1(b) of the statistical annex to the analysis of revenue and expenditure for Budget 2026, the figures are all there. I referred to that; the Member can refer to that.

The surplus that we had for FY2021 was just 0.3% of GDP. In FY2022, it was 0.2%. In FY2023, we had a deficit of 0.4% of GDP – and I took those to be largely balanced.

The point is, large surpluses are not that common in our history at all, over the last 26 years; and to zoom in on those large surpluses in GDP terms and draw conclusions about overcollection, I think, is an overstatement.

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you, Sir. I have another clarification for him.

Mr Xie mentioned that we could plan for corporate income tax contributing up to four percent of GDP and he also proposed more asset related taxes, including higher property taxes and making stamp duty more progressive by introducing a new tier for residential properties above $5 million. Does he agree then, that if all these new taxes and duties are included, there will be less need in the future for increasing regressive taxes like the GST to balance the Budget and meet our future expenditure needs?

Secondly, Mr Xie also said that our system of GST and offsets is "highly progressive". Can I ask him what is the basis for that statement and does he know the percentage of people who do not pay any net GST because of GST vouchers? I am not talking about net GST increases but just the net GST in total.

Mr Xie Yao Quan: Sir, I thank the Member for both clarifications. For the first, I would say, let us go back to the MOF Occasional Paper published in 2023. And it is stated very clearly in that paper that our total spending needs will hit 19% to 20% of GDP by 2030; the midpoint is 19.5%.

So, the real question is, how do we get there, from 17.5% 10 years ago? If the Member had listened to my speech and looked at the data, GST even with the increase from 7% to 9% headline rate, is yielding 0.6% of GDP more revenues. From 2% to 2.6% in this Budget. GST alone hardly covers us up to the 19.5% target.

And so, the point is, we do need a whole mix of revenue strategies to raise revenues structurally to meet our long-term spending needs. And this Government, the PAP Government, has been taking steps well ahead of time and having the courage to do that so that a future government can have the wherewithal to meet our future needs. So, that is the response to the first question.

On the second question, it was about, GST progressivity. On that, I think it has been mentioned many times in this House and outside, I think Prime Minister put up a chart two years ago during the round-up speech, on the net GST rate, net of transfers, that Singaporean households at different income deciles will be paying because of our system of collection and offsets. So, I would encourage the Member to refer to that.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

12.50 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarification questions.

I am wondering if the Member would accept that the constitutional requirement that governments run balanced budgets over their full term necessitates that a balanced budget would occur at the end of this five-year term even when there may be surpluses, simply by transferring any additional surpluses to reserves to ensure that the constraint is respected.

My second question: I ask if the Member will not accept that, even if a surplus need not be detrimental under all conditions, which is unobjectionable on its face, it nevertheless imposes a disproportionate cost on our households when they are already struggling with high prices and cost of living.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie.

Mr Xie Yao Quan: Sir, I thank the Member for both clarifications. My basic response to both clarifications is yes. I accept that surpluses can be transferred into Past Reserves at the end of a term of government. But surpluses within a term of government serves two purposes: first, it buffers Singapore and Singaporeans against shocks and crises within the term of government, and then at the end of the term of government, if we pass through that term without crisis and we have accumulated surpluses, then that could be transferred out, or that could be transferred into Past Reserves.

That is our system of government, and it is, I think, the envy of many countries around the world. It is something that is precious that we should really cherish. Something that we should really cherish.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

12.52 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, this Budget comes at a time of extraordinary monetary wealth in our country. Singaporeans have seen much progress in the material aspects of their lives, yet some continue to face significant economic changes from blue collar workers, whose wages like PMETs, far more than in comparable countries, to young graduates who struggle to land first jobs due to offshoring and tightened MNC passes, and employees who care for loved ones.

During the opening of Parliament, I spoke about the importance of us together and the role I hope to see us take as we move forward beyond early nationhood. I would like to expand on this today. Health is wealth. We must make Singapore a healthier society to live in, rather than simply a wealthier one. In previous Budgets, I called for moving beyond GDP as our measure of success through dashboards of social development indicators of our social and sustainability goals to ensuring that we also measure our resources beyond economic data, which can take the form of how we quantify our resilience and societal well-being.

Today, I will focus on what I see as three pillars of a healthier Singapore society: first, measuring our demographics; second, ensuring well-being in the time of the smartphone; third, supporting environmental wellbeing. These are issues that underlie our day-to-day feelings of being in crowded trains and roads, as well as the happiness and flourishing of our children in a time of change. They are the lived reality of our fellow residents on this island, for whom the optimisation of their humanity will mean little if it cannot lead to a healthier society. Mr Speaker, in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): To understand Singapore's population limit is quite simple. You just need to take the North East Line during peak hours and experience the feeling of being packed like sardines on the train.

When squeezed between other passengers, it is easy to imagine that our MRT lines and, indeed, our entire public transport system was designed to serve a population far smaller than the living reality we see today. Under such circumstances, it is not difficult to understand why many Singaporeans ask – are we on the verge of crossing our population limit?

A crowded train versus an unbearable train is not just about the number of passengers but whether passengers believe the train has a timetable and operational plan. Since the ruling party uses 6.9 million as a population planning parameter, they should at least give Singaporeans an explanation – what exactly is the limit in the population plan? What are the population plans for various towns nationwide and what are the measures to mitigate the impact of population changes?

Large-scale population changes are not merely abstract data, macroeconomic effects or word games. They also have concrete impacts on ordinary people's lives.

(In English): On any weekday on the North-East Line, the question about Singapore's population limits answers itself. And it is only human for people to ask, are we on the verge of crossing our population and demographic limits? The Government last month said in response to Aljunied MP Fadli Fawzi's question that, while the oft quoted number of 6.9 million is still a relevant planning parameter for the 2030s, our population size, not limits, depend on demographic trends and social and economic needs.

If 6.9 million is just a planning parameter, then the question Singaporeans living in high density communities like Sengkang need to see answered is this: at that parameter, what precisely does our infrastructure plan to provide and at what point does this provision start to cause discomfort?

The Government has said many times that we do not have a population target. Yet when we say that we will "be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030", it fails to assuage concerns that residents have about what they can expect their daily lives would be like in five, 10, or even more years from now.

The instinct to avoid having conversations about our population limits may backfire. It is a visible uncertainty that may cause anxiety and actively dampen positive emotions. It is thus fair for Singaporeans to ask for greater clarity. The difference between a crowded train and an intolerable one is not just the number of passengers in it, but whether the passengers believe that the train they are on has a timetable and a plan.

During January's Singapore Perspectives Conference, there was much talk about how immigration will keep our economy dynamic amid persistently record low TFR. We must learn from the mistakes of our past and be clear eyed about the question of infrastructure sufficiency. To relieve concerns, would the Government consider releasing population projections for each region as part of the Urban Redevelopment Authority's plans? Research on perceived control in high density environments finds that stress responses are less affected by the actual density of the environment, but more on whether people believe that the crowding itself is being managed. By releasing granular projections, the Government has an opportunity to show our efforts to tackle crowding. This matters deeply to how we, as residents of Singapore, experience our daily lives. This will provide a clear picture of whether our region's infrastructure is or will be sufficient for comfort and also help us advocate more meaningfully about urban related wellbeing issues, such as access to nature and blue spaces.

Next, population and demographics are intertwined with our rising dependency ratio, megatrend, and its implications for care work. And what care has always required, whether within families, between bosses and workers, and across communities, is presence, trust and reciprocity. It is not merely a resource to be allocated, but a relationship to be sustained. Yet our response is often to optimise, to identify the gap, design a handy scheme and roll out a niftily named subsidy. Perhaps this works for transactional problems, but care is not transactional. When policy treats it as though it were, we risk ending up with technically correct solutions that quietly missed the point.

We close every quantifiable gap in our care support initiatives but still may widen what I would call a humanity gap, and this gap shows up in the distance between what our schemes try to provide and what the actual hole is that we humans feel. It shows up in the daughter whose disabled parents receive the Home Care Giving grant but still feels completely alone. It shows up in the parent who receives new LifeSG credits but still feels really burnt out, trying to keep up with class WhatsApp chats and Parent Gateway notifications. It shows up in the employer who checks the flexible work arrangements box but judges the employee for using it.

Efficient policies may have unintended consequences on society. For instance, research published in the Journal of Development Economics in 2018 found that the Beijing vehicle licence plate lottery system was associated with a 35% reduction in births in households of lottery participants, and a 6% reduction in births across the entire city.

I cite this to draw attention to how a society can respond to a policy because people are more complex than we can simulate.

None of this takes away from the progress made on our caregiver support. The enhancement of parental leave last year was a meaningful step to recognise that caregiving is shared. But we still have work to do for an economy that supports employees who also do unpaid care work.

The Government must foster workplaces where workers do not feel like taking this leave would limit their careers or made them feel like difficult workers with scheduling problems. We must see workers as whole persons with obligations that extend beyond work.

Given that many Singaporeans turn to hired living help to run our households and families, we must be responsible for their welfare, not just because treating them better will pragmatically improve their ability to perform their jobs, but because it is the right thing to do. In 2021, a rule was introduced, requiring employers to provide domestic workers at least one rest day a month that cannot be compensated away. Has the Government more recently assessed if it is enough? What are the other options available to us, particularly when in the long run, workers from our rapidly development region may not be willing to leave their own loved ones behind to do care work in Singapore?

Secondly, while the Household Services Scheme (HSS) has seen increasing participation, I hope that we make greater progress on having more non-live-in part-time domestic workers under the HSS. With basic childminding services no longer being supported with manpower concessions under the HSS pilot from next month, is the Government working with providers to raise awareness of more general HSS services under the scheme?

By understanding this humanity behind the choices that we make in care work, we can open ourselves up to responding more creatively to the demographic challenges.

I spoke earlier of the Beijing Vehicle Lottery System as an example of how policies that are highly effective on one problem could be inadvertently shaping decisions, like whether one should have children. The lesson from this is that we should be less fixated on pure optimisation and be more willing to accommodate the quarts of society. For example, when Sengkang MP Assoc Prof Jamus Lim called for a more needs space Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system for parents with multiple young children with care needs, and with care needs, it drew criticism for being subjective, divisive and benefiting too few. Surely there is room to take into account lived experiences as those of us with multiple young children and loved ones with care needs will attest to. In fact, it appears that some Government policies already take similar concerns into account, such as HDB's free parking scheme on Sundays and public holidays, which aims to promote social integration and stronger family ties.

Next, societal health in the smartphone era. This Budget takes place in the context of widening scrutiny of social media platforms, online games, digital tools like AI. Many of us have raised concerns on digital safety. However, despite passing legislation that deal with discrete harms, we must also have interventions on the harms caused by the digital environments themselves. While we may not be interested in and can admirably resist all the myriad offerings big tech has for us, this does not mean that big tech ceases to be interested or invested in us. And the dangers of digital harms extend beyond our youth.

A recent article in The Economist warned that older people too are seeing increases in smartphone addiction. Scientific evidence has emerged and tells us that children's brains and, in particular, are not developed enough to handle these digital environments. As social psychologist Jonathan Haid argues, unsupervised in person, that is, offline play, has seen a huge decline, replaced by near limitless virtual social interaction. This is concerning as in-person play develops critical social and coping skills.

There has also been increasing concern about the plateauing of or even reversal of the Flynn effect, which states that younger generations score higher on IQ test compared with the previous ones. And while the jury is out and there is criticism of Haid's argument that digital childhood is the overwhelming cause for the youth mental illness epidemic, other jurisdictions are already proposing social media bands for children. Australia's laws came into effect in December last year, with countries like Spain, India, Denmark, Norway, Malaysia and the UK announcing similar intentions.

It is time for Singapore to take clearer scientifically informed interventions to address these concerns. This should include setting up a Select Committee to study whether a ban is appropriate in par in parallel to the Government's ongoing study and engagement with counterparts. While I will raise this issue in more detail in my Ministry of Digital Development and Information's (MDDI's) COS cut, I believe this development has to be studied with public participation and visibility through Select Committee hearings like we did with fake news.

Next, the impact of GenAI. This Budget has seen the Government announced wide- ranging support. However, while many Singaporean see it as a way to replace mundane tasks, others worry about GenAI that risks taking away our culture and yes, work and what it means to be human, and not because AI is seen to be better than a human hand, coming up with pantuns in a second, but because it is cheaper, faster and often ruled by models and scripts that we have no access to and thus, have no say in.

Many also worry about the impact of AI on our society's valuation of human creativity and consciousness. Forty-three percent of respondents to a Millennials Insights Survey from last year were concerned that the extensive use of AI in their daily lives might result in a loss of human touch. The Government has a clear responsibility in technology regulation, financial backing and its own adoption of such tools. And I raise two suggestions of how to mediate the societal impact of AI.

First, at the top level, the new National AI Council must include representatives from the societal sectors that are at high risk for adverse effects from AI, rather than only boosting adoption via industrial AI Missions. What seems to be absent are the input of social scientists and psychologists; also, representatives from Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), given AI shaping of the arts and influence on culture, as well as Ministry of Education (MOE), as AI rapidly changes the way that students learn and develop or not.

Even as we harness AI for industrial transformation and economic progress, we should take a leave from the UK's AI Council, which sat from 2019 to 2023. That Council included members from industry, public sector and academia and focused on diverse areas from developing public confidence in AI to developing frameworks to deploy safe, fair, legal and ethical data sharing. For our own AI Council, ensuring formalised input from Ministries dealing with diverse groups also means that the conversation will also include the important factors of what our shared humanity means in the true spirit of us together.

Second, our education system must be constantly incorporate the latest findings on the impact that AI has on learning. While various MOE frameworks are in place, a study last year by MIT Media Lab found that over reliance on AI may reduce functional brain connectivity and memory recall. This will be even more marked in the developing child's brain, characterised by higher neuroplasticity and its still undeveloped prefrontal cortex. The skills degradation argument was also cited in the safe and responsible use of AI in classrooms manual recently introduced in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which includes provisions for GenAI use only in settings where direct teacher oversight is available.

Sir, my final area today is the need for us to be committed to environmental well-being. It is commendable that we have set an ambitious goal of ensuring that all households are within a 10-minute walk from a park by 2030. But as a small city-state with an ever-growing population and few places to go, we should also be extending this goal to ensure greater access to blue spaces, such as seas and lakes. Aside from widely accepted benefits of being in contact with nature in the form of greenery, numerous studies have also found that living near blue spaces positively influence mental restoration among adults and is something which we should work on.

We must increase the quality of engagement with nature conservation groups. While such groups are now sometimes consulted ahead of development work, feedback is that this engagement can sometimes feel like a one-way information process, rather than a deep consultation or even a negotiation where concessions are made. As called for in a 2024 Singapore Terrestrial Conservation Plan, the Government should establish clear legal boundaries for protected nature areas and protect the few remaining habitats that we have, which are absolutely key for both planetary and societal health.

To conclude, as we move on in our society's continued evolution, we have to be more willing to relook our previous reflexes, which cite costs or economic reasons as trade-offs that we cannot accept, when the alternative is a deterioration in the health of our society. And we must confront not just fiscal costs, but also human costs. They are the costs borne by the caregiver with no one to relieve her, the costs for the child plagued by intrusive thoughts and heart palpitations, because the digital world does not switch off, the costs borne by the resident who helplessly watches as the last wild space in their neighbourhood disappears. These are real costs, but they simply do not appear on any balance sheet nor measure of GDP.

Mr Speaker, I thus hope that as we chart our path as we are together, we continue to work to make Singapore a healthier society, a healthier home and not simply a wealthier one. Wealth without health is a house that is not a home. The choices that we make are ultimately a clear indication of what we as a society value – and I believe that we are ready to make them. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

1.11 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Mr Speaker, $155 billion is a big sum of money and this is a generous Budget. But numbers can get lost without benchmarks. Is $155 billion a lot to spend for a country of our size?

In Southeast Asia, on a per capita basis, we are number two in 2024, at about US$22,000 per capita, behind Brunei. We are ahead of Malaysia which is about US$10,000; Thailand, about US$5,500, and the Southeast Asia average about US$3,500; and we are close to the OECD average, about US$23,000.

Compared to OECD countries, Singapore sits around the mid-pack, 24th out of 41 entries. The highest per capita spenders are Luxembourg, about US$69,000; Norway, about US$65,000; and Denmark, about US$40,000. The global top rankings are mainly small countries and very well-resourced ones, with relatively high tax rates. Within the OECD, Singapore is just behind the spending of US, which is about US$26,000; and UK, which is about US$24,000; and ahead of Korea and Japan, both at about US$19,000. So, when I say this is a generous Budget, I say it with the confidence of these benchmarks.

At the same time, there is some disconnect with the feelings on the ground. The ordinary man in the street will see the big numbers, including those set aside for AI and technology, but feel that very little of the money is actually trickling down to them.

It is like a rich towkay who spends a lot of money to buy the best equipment and house them in gleaming big factories, but his employees do not feel that their bonuses are getting bigger or that their training is helping them. Instead, they feel like life is squeezing them dry, their commute getting longer, their food prices increasing and their lives a little more precarious.

Mr Speaker, I will focus my speech squarely on those nearing retirement, the young seniors, because I feel the coming changes that the Prime Minister has predicted in his Budget will hit this group the most. Here, there are two groups of Singaporeans in the young seniors demographics, the well-prepared and well-resourced, mainly the upper and upper middle-income group, and those who are struggling and worrying about making ends meet. To be honest, this second group appears to be increasing in numbers, whether warranted or not, many of us are worried.

My concern is that these mega shifts have caused or will cause more to slip into the lower middle-income group. Once there, they may be unable to rise above this employment black hole on their own. Hence, deep Government intervention may be needed.

I argue that we need to fundamentally review our strategy to keep our workforce relevant. Otherwise, we may end up with deeper structural unemployment. There is a growing number of a generation of displaced and frustrated young seniors. They become unemployable in their 50s and 60s, giving rise to deep discontent.

In the marketplace, companies are unable to grow or even to stay above water, due to unfilled job roles. Also, longer life expectancy means that we have to make our retirement funds last longer. So, it will be a two-step reinforcing cycle.

First, shorter economic cycles especially with AI, means higher chance of displacement. Second, higher property prices. With more Ordinary Account locked up in property, our Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Account is no longer sufficient for retirement. So, it is understandable that sometimes, even with $155 billion spent, there could still be pockets of discontent and despair among those who feel the money is not reaching them.

How can we break this cycle of discontent and bring in hope and optimism? There are three things we can work on: skills, health and money.

In Singapore, people are our only asset and every worker matters. The Government must keep our people fit to work, acquire relevant skills and grow their retirement nest egg. So, we need to do three things: one, compulsory retraining and skill upgrade every 10 years; two, staying physically and mentally fit to work; and three, increase forced savings rate or CPF contribution rates.

Businesses and employees must be responsive to changes in market trends and new job demands. IHLs and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) must also be more aware of job market requirements and are nimble to offer short courses and skills certification.

Mr Speaker, in my mind, SkillsFuture will be the key policy instrument which will help us ensure that we remain relevant and skilled. But we cannot just fund courses willy-nilly. No number of Japanese pastry lessons or scented candle classes will get us where we need to be to compete against a world which is AI-enabled and technology-powered.

We need discipline and expertise, not just “busy work” in retraining. We need to offer the courses back in IHLs and ITEs with market-recognised certification. MOM, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and MOE must collaborate more closely to close the gap between industry needs in high-growth sectors, jobs projections and retraining or re-education courses, for example in sustainability, healthcare and information technology (IT).

I ask for the Government to consider funding workers for retraining or reskilling for every worker reaching 40, 50 and 60 for six months. The Progressive Wage Model can be more aggressive with higher salaries for frontline or high-touch jobs so that Singaporeans will be keen to join them.

To do this and still keep ourselves cost-competitive, we need to look at productivity. In this we can look at the use of AI and robotics especially for the “dull, dangerous and dirty” jobs and upskill our young seniors to operate and supervise the robots. For example, we have seen how senior cashiers in supermarkets, are now helping with self-checkouts. The self-checkout kiosks are reducing the need for manpower and offering each person a platform to increase their productivity.

Government, businesses and people must work closely together to help this group of young seniors stay employable and prepare them well for retirement. In fact, the "back to school every 10 years" should start from 30 years old and be a Government co-funded programme as an investment in our people. From where we stand, going back to school at 30 years old when we have left school barely six or seven years ago seems extravagant. But this is the pace of new knowledge creation nowadays. We no longer can count on our initial degrees bearing us through our careers without supplements. Continuous education is a way of life, no matter our professions.

This leads me to my second point about mental and physical health.

Why do we work? This sounds like a philosophical question so let me ask it in a more practical way. Is the Singaporean Dream about building a million-dollar nest egg and retire early? Do we start our working life with the aim that it will be a short one, and our life thereafter be a life of ease, comfort and plenty?

The chance of a life of ease without labour may be true for the very few lucky enough to be born into wealth or marry into one, or with a magic touch at the races. But for the majority of us, life is a journey of work, meaning and growth, with most of our average 85 years of life spent accumulating judgement, skill and knowledge.

But work, like life, is a long marathon and not a sprint to get rich quickly. Many who think about retiring young and may sacrifice their health with long and intense work hours in their 20s, 30s and 40s, only to find they end up with poor health in their 50s and 60s and are unable to live, let alone retire well. One often does not factor in the economic and psychological cost of poor health and often poor health is less a matter of genetic endowment or bad luck, than it is an accumulation of bad decisions relating to diet, lifestyle and sleep. Health is wealth may sound empty until one ends up on the wrong end of the hospital bed.

So, in relation to work, I would suggest for us to think of healthy work as the key policy goal. I suggest three points.

First, we ought to press on with Healthy SG for those aged 40 and above. The rules for healthy working life are quite simple – have enough sleep, make friends and observe some simple health guidelines relating to diet and exercise.

Second, consider going back to school every 10 years which is also a sabbatical from work.

Last and most importantly, view working as a way of staying relevant, engage with community rather than retiring early. And to me, this is truly a life well-lived.

Quite aside from dry policy issues of planning, providing and financing, there are personal decisions and convictions about meaning and connections. There is dignity and value in work. It is part of health and a good life. As a national conversation, we should include these important considerations in our planning and policies about working life.

Many low- and lower-middle income groups cannot even meet the minimum retirement sum and yet we know that it has to keep increasing so as to keep pace with inflation and longer life spans. Many in these groups also do not have savings and may have to downgrade their flats or opt for Lease Buybacks.

Over the years, I have assisted numerous residents in their 50s and 60s who struggled to repay their monthly housing instalments due to ill health or job losses or both in some cases. Eventually, many of them had to reluctantly downgrade into smaller two-room Flexi flats. One example is Mr N, who suffered from a chronic heart condition which rendered him unemployable. He and his wife do not have sufficient CPF funds to pay off their two-room Flexi Build-To-Order (BTO). After many rounds of appeals, they finally received special approval to use their limited funds in the Retirement Account for their BTO. But they had to pledge their flat to CPF Board because the funds in their Retirement Account were below the Basic Retirement Sum. While they now have a roof over their heads, they still worry constantly about their ability to cope with rising living and medical expenses for their retirement.

This is a fact, a pressure point, for young seniors who are beginning to see the importance of their CPF in their retirement journey. How do we fix this shortfall?

First, with more use of the funds in the Ordinary Account for property purchases, we may need to consider higher CPF contribution rate from employer and employees. Second, can the CPF board consider increasing the interest rate of 2.8% for the Ordinary Account and 4% for the Special Account? This may be considered for such a long-term investment horizon and the large funds quantum. Giving better returns will help reduce the calls for increased employer contributions to CPF, which risks making our workforce less competitive. Mr Speaker, I would like to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, my speech underlines the difficulties faced by two groups within the young senior citizen demographic. First, those who are ready and financially capable, compared to the increasing number of those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I am also concerned that more and more people are falling into the lower-middle income bracket and facing structural unemployment. A fundamental review of workforce strategy is urgently needed. This includes implementing mandatory retraining every 10 years, aligning the education system with job market requirements as well as co-financing of retraining programmes by the Government to maintain workforce employability amid rapid technological change, particularly in the era of AI.

(In English): Mr Speaker, there are two sides to this issue, and changes need to be made both on an individual level and the Government level. The first is I think, the more radical. We need for Singaporeans to think of a meaningful working life as a fit companion for their adult life and not just a stage before the bliss of retirement. We need for all of us to consider work differently, to see it as a long running endeavour and one that is important and meaningful in itself, rather than something we have to do in order to make enough money for retirement.

With this mindset change, we have two important implications. First, we need to continually get better at work, and to become not just relevant but skilled and accomplished at our jobs. We should be confident in our abilities that we are better than and are more than machines, that we can stay ahead and abreast of new technologies, and we can continually master new skills.

Secondly, even as we work, we must not lose sight of the need to continually invest in our mental and physical health. We must think of health as a key asset in our lives, not just our properties and other economic assets. If there is one thing that money cannot buy, it is good health. It is a better asset not just of national healthcare financing, but of personal quality of life. Mr Speaker, I would like to speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in the face of rapid technological transformation, particularly in the age of AI, we need to conduct a fundamental review of our overall workforce strategy.

Every employee is an important link in the chain. We should seriously consider institutionalising retraining arrangement, for example, allowing an employee to undergo training every 10 years, promoting closer alignment between the education system and market demands with appropriate Government subsidies to establish a more comprehensive retraining system, thereby maintaining employees' employability.

I also encourage Singaporeans to view work as a lifelong meaningful endeavour rather than merely as a means to retire early. I also advocate for continuous skills upgrading and regarding health as a key asset, so as to ensure our employability and competitiveness in the long term.

(In English): Mr Speaker, there is great urgency and courage required of us to carry out this revamp. Urgency because otherwise, the young seniors will become a "lost generation", which the Singapore Government will need to support for the long term. Courage because this will require hard mettle and tough choices. No amount of CDC vouchers and subsidies would help us tackle this problem.

The tide of discontent is borne out of uncertainty and fear about the changes that await us. Against this, we have a strong track record of collective action, strong policy making and a united, cohesive framework between the private and public sector. Our country is small enough and nimble enough to find a living even in a turbulent world economy. We already have the financial foundation. Let us find within us the political will, the courage and the great urgency to transform discontent into hope and ability to remake our country and our people to meet the challenges ahead. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my comments, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari.

1.29 pm

Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I speak on behalf of the various segments of the Singaporean workforce – the low-income, PMEs, mature workers and many others across the Labour Movement, including public officers.

In a Budget, workers look forward to two things most: assurance today and confidence for tomorrow, especially in an age shaped by rapid technological shifts, demographic change and workplace transformation. Their aspiration is simple and shared: stable jobs, sustainable wage growth and dignified progression over longer working lives. And they want to know that even as industries transform, they will not be left behind.

I am heartened by the many of the hon Members' speeches who shared similar concerns that our workers must be at the heart of this transformation. I thank them for the care.

Budget 2026 gives assurance to households while laying long-term foundations for a more resilient workforce and brighter economy.

Mr Speaker, the pressure to keep up and the risks of falling behind is real. On the ground, workers, especially PMEs, tell us candidly that they want to keep up. Workflows are being digitalised, re-designed and more AI-enabled. Tasks evolve faster; skills expire sooner. So, many workers do the responsible thing, they try to upgrade, learn new tools, adapt to new work.

However, challenges remain – fear of failure, insufficient time to upskill/reskill and not knowing what to upskill or reskill for sometimes, and at times, there is no change after all that upskilling and reskilling.

Here, I urge the Government to encourage companies, small and big, to partner the NTUC and the unions to leverage on the CTCs to prepare for the future of work and to grow both the organisation and its workers as part of the transformation journey. The earlier we prepare, the better the chances of workers being upskilled and to be more efficiently deployed.

Budget 2026 also takes a decisive structural step. SSG and WSG will merge into a single agency, jointly overseen by MOM and MOE. This will tighten the link between training and jobs, offering more seamless career guidance, upskilling, job matching and transitions for workers and integrated support for employers. This move recognises the faster cadence of technology and job transitions, and the need for a single "Jobs-Skills" backbone.

The merger builds on a decade of SkillsFuture. In 2025 alone, 606,000 individuals participated in SSG-supported training, and 123,000 enrolled in courses with direct employability outcomes. This signals a workforce investing in its relevance and wanting to stay relevant for the future.

We therefore should make the merger count for outcomes: track and publish conversion metrics, such as time to placement; wage growth post training; and employer adoption; co-design more CTC-like Jobs-Skills pathways, so training is planned with job redesign and hiring from the start; extend mid-career training support in ways that do not penalise caregivers or SMEs with lean staffing.

Mr Speaker, when disruption happens, the consequences for workers are painful. For some, the fear is not abstract. They have seen colleagues retrenched after restructuring, roles outsourced, functions automated. Retrenchments rose to 14,400 in 2025, on the back of a choppy global outlook. We are looking forward for AI transformation. The fear continues to be real.

In these moments, unions step in to ensure fair process, negotiate fair benefits and facilitate placement support through the e2i. Early notification to unions is not a procedural nicety; it is the difference between proactive help and reactive damage control. Many unionised companies recognise this. They give unions advanced notice of upcoming retrenchment exercises, sometimes even months ahead. We should institutionalise advance retrenchment notifications across all firms, including for PMEs, so that affected workers can be rendered meaningful assistance early and with dignity.

Another structural concern is the year-to-year contracts where is there ongoing work, but a whole lot of ongoing uncertainty and insecurity. The continued prevalence of fixed term contracts, especially annual renewals, put pressure on workers. While the share declined slightly in 2025, with over 90% of resident employees now in permanent jobs, around 7% remain on fixed-term contracts and older workers are disproportionately represented among one-year contracts.

For them, renewal uncertainty makes long-term planning and upskilling harder, which puts them at risk of falling behind. This issue is felt acutely by mature workers who already face longer job searches. Their reality should push us beyond administratively convenient renewals, towards clearer pathways to permanency where work is ongoing.

The Public Service is one of our largest employers. It can lead by example. Public sector data show nearly 24% of officers are 50 and above. We should be more transparent about contract tenure patterns, renewal outcomes and pathways to permanency where roles persist, so officers can contribute with confidence and plan for retirement with clarity.

I urge for regular employer reviews of fixed-term contracting, particularly for workers and for the Public Service to publish more granular indicators on a contract-to-permanent pathways, where functions continue beyond a cycle.

Mr Speaker, longer working lives need sustainable work intensity, not just more training. PMEs today operate at sustained high intensity, long hours for some, but more often, it is the constant connectivity, with limited mental space to recover. Officially, average weekly hours for employed residents have moderated to about 41 to 43 hours, and MOM has encouraged flexibility through the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, but the intensity outside formal hours matter too. Surveys show over 90% of employees have worked beyond official hours, with 71% fearing negative repercussions if they do not respond after hours.

Rest is not about doing less, it is about sustaining efforts and well-being. Without sustainable norms, even the best upskilling will under deliver. Burn-out erodes adaptability and retention. Here, I would like to encourage employers to set organisational norms around after-hours responsiveness, escalation rules and protected focus time. I also call on the Government to monitor hours and intensity indicators and spotlight firms that redesign work to raise productivity and protect recovery.

Budget 2026 strengthens retirement adequacy and security. I thank the Government for a one-time CPF top-up of up to $1,500 in December 2026, targeted at seniors with lower retirement savings based on their CPF balances and property Annual Value.

The next step of planned CPF contribution increases for senior workers will proceed from January 2027, with a transition offset to help employers.

CPF will also pilot a new simplified, low cost, life-cycle investment scheme by 2028 to give members more diversified options above the base interest rates. This broadens pathways for workers who can take modest market risk across a long horizon.

These measures matter, because not all workers reach retirement with the same trajectory. Some face mid-career retrenchment, illnesses or years on rolling contracts that depress CPF accumulation. We should continue targeted CPF support for workers with disrupted careers, tracking cohorts with extended unemployment or caregiving breaks and calibrating top-ups to close adequacy gaps over time.

Mr Speaker, mature workers want to contribute – matching experience with opportunity is important. NTUC's own survey showed strong willingness among older workers to remain economically active beyond the current retirement and even reemployment ages. They are motivated by purpose, health and some as much as by income. But access to career guidance training remains uneven. Many who tap on these opportunities find them helpful, yet others have shared that they feel disadvantaged or overlooked in being considered for them. We must close this access gap.

We already see credible models in healthcare, age inclusive job redesign and assistive tech to help older staff to keep contributing productively, with unions partnering management and tapping on the CTC support to scale solutions. This is precisely the kind of redesign we need to mainstream.

We should embed career guidance as a default in mid-career pathways under the new jobs-skills agency and to scale union employer pilots that pair job redesign with structured upskilling for older teams, across sectors. SMEs often tell us their challenge is not only funding, but time and manpower to release staff for training. Where unions are present, we have negotiated training leave into collective agreements; this must be spread by example into non-union and SME settings, with redesigned shifts, modular stackable courses and just-in-time learning aligned to job redesign.

The Public Service can catalyse norms through transparent dashboards on contract renewal patterns and clearer pathways from fixed term contracts to permanent posts when work is ongoing. That signal will ripple to the wider labour market.

What Budget 2026 means for families today and for our future workforce is that there were expectations on the ground for more support, given the surplus and there are many uncertainties still looming.

Families will still feel Budget 2026's tangible support: cash Cost-of-Living Special Payments, enhanced U-Save rebates and CDC vouchers for all households in January 2027. These measures cushion near-term pressures while structural changes mature but, ultimately, confidence comes when a worker sees three things clearly: "If I learn, there is a job at the end"; "If my role changes, there is fair process and early help"; and "If I work longer, the work is sustainable and my retirement is secure".

Our task is to translate policy into predictable pathways at the firm and at the worker level through initiatives like the CTCs, the new jobs-skills agency and tripartite norms that protect both adaptability and well-being.

Mr Speaker, behind every statistic is a worker who wants to provide for family, stay self-reliant and contribute with dignity. Workers are not stopgaps; they are partners in transformation and productivity. When we invest in their skills, support them responsibly through change and give them time and space to adapt, workers repay that trust with commitment and employers benefit from a qualified workforce that will boost productivity and bring about growth.

The Budget sets direction. But direction must become delivery, and delivery depends on all of us. Let us Government, employers, unions and every worker, move decisively together, build new jobs and skills backbone so every Singaporean can see a pathway forward.

Let us redesign work so that transformation uplifts and not exhausts. Let us strengthen fairness and security, from early retrenchment notifications to clearer contract to permanency pathways. And let us ensure retirement adequacy, especially for those whose careers have been disrupted.

Mr Speaker, the future of work must not be something that workers endure, it must be something they can look forward to, having that assurance that their future will be better. Notwithstanding my thoughts, with that, I support the Budget 2026. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim.

1.42 pm

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Mr Speaker, if this [hon Member made a hand gesture] is the sign that a Member of this House use instead of this to signal "Call me", chances are, you will remember the "original gangster" (OG) Singapore Dream, the "5Cs": Cash, Car, Credit Card, Condominium and Country Club.

But, of course, I had to ask AI, what are the new "5Cs". According to Gemini, it is Choice, Convenience, Contentment, CPF, as well as Care or Community.

From the OG 5Cs in 1990s to the post-pandemic 2020s, tangible goals have seemingly morphed and evolved into intangible ideals. So, how do we keep the Singapore Dream, as the hon Member had earlier mentioned, alive and kicking?

The strong closing to the financial year should motivate the Government to invest more where it matters most – our people, our businesses and our economy. The question we must keep in mind: how can and what should Budget 2026 do to trampoline Singaporeans towards this Dream?

Today, I will contribute "3Cs" to our 2026 Budget Debate – Cost of living; Caring for families; and Core of our Workforce.

On the cost of living, I appreciate that this year's Budget is for the long game, long term, long run – intentional commitments to levelling up how we harness AI as a strategic advantage, supporting our local companies to manage business costs and build a regional and global footprint, as well as strengthening our enterprise ecosystem to support public listings and to develop the equity market.

But short- and mid-term anxieties remain. My Fengshan families, both living in landed homes and HDB rental flats, have different lifestyles but share the same concerns on rising costs. Some sought clarification – why a healthy surplus to the tune of 1.9% of the GDP has not already translated to more support measures.

Yesterday, my neighbour in this House, the hon Member Shawn Loh, of Jalan Besar Group Representation Constituency (GRC), proposed surplus sharing if Budget surplus exceed 2% of the GDP. I hear of similar aspirations from the ground even as many appreciated Singapore's fiscal prudence. My question is, would the Government consider re-timing or reviewing planned revenue generating measures or taxes in the next few years, especially ones which may directly lead to alleviating cost-of-living pressures?

A decline in inflation from 5% to 2% does not reverse cumulative increases over the past few years. It means prices are rising slowly from an already increased base. Households experience this most acutely in everyday expenses – groceries, meals and utilities.

In response to a Parliamentary question I filed earlier this month on the impact of the Assurance Package, the hon Member Finance Senior Minister of State Jeffrey Siow said combining structural measures and additional one-off support allows to provide for more responsive and targeted support, while remaining fiscally prudent. And that in the longer term, the most sustainable way to help Singaporeans cope with cost pressures is through broad-based wage growth that outpaces inflation.

This reminds me of the Chinese saying, "授人以鱼, 不如授人以渔", similar to the English saying, which is, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

While I am aligned with the wisdom behind the design and appreciate the new Cost-of-Living Special Payment, perhaps future iterations can have a tiered structure for a range of income with larger payouts concentrated at the lower spectrum of the income range. For example, the bottom 10% of the range could potentially receive a higher payout than the next 20% income group. Such a structure would redistribute more direct fiscal support to Singaporeans that experience intense cost pressures the most.

Mr Speaker, is it really a Budget debate if the CDC voucher does not get a mention? The additional $500 in CDC vouchers remain on course to fulfil its mission of supporting Singaporean households with daily expenses, as well as support heartland merchants and hawkers. Since January 2023, 50% of any tranche of vouchers could be used at participating supermarkets, a welcomed move by Singaporeans.

That said, there are opportunities to refine the scheme to enhance its impact. Greater flexibility on how and where they can be used may increase its value to households and support more local businesses. For example, in private residential estates or new neighbourhoods where a market or food centre are a few precincts or zones away, allowing the CDC vouchers to be used at locally owned enterprises in privately-owned buildings or malls, will expand help for families.

Alternatively, aligned with my earlier suggestion for Cost-of-Living Special Payment, the CDC vouchers could take on a similar tiered approach. Plus, distributing CDC vouchers on a per person versus a household basis, may more accurately tackle the cost-of-living pressures in multi-generational, multi-family households.

My next "C" is Caring for Families. Mr Speaker, I declare interest, as the head of a homegrown community fund with an Institution of a Public Character (IPC) status, whose mission is to nurture youths and children.

Sir, children are our future. The future is young and everything begins at home. A strong family foundation changes lives. I welcome the move to support families, especially in the early years of a child's development. Upstream efforts to keep preschool and student care affordable are the right steps towards a thriving Singapore society.

The upwards review of monthly household income threshold to $15,000 for preschool subsidies means help reaches more lower- and middle-income households. Similarly, the household income revision for Student Care Fee Assistance to $6,500 enhances access to after-school care, where students get the guidance they need and working parents get the support they deserve.

While making preschool and student care more affordable is the right move, we must also guard against unintended consequences, such as driving up costs in the long term or placing undue strain on teachers and resources. Maintaining the quality of education and care while expanding access is key to sustaining these initiatives over time.

Alongside the timely assistance, how will the Government ensure that increased subsidies not lead to upward pressure on preschool and aftercare fees over time? Would the Government also be studying to what extent childcare affordability remains a barrier to workforce participation among mothers, particularly in lower- to middle-income households?

Speaker, Sir, I welcome Prime Minister Wong's announcement that strengthening support for persons with disabilities is a key priority of the Government and I look forward to the recommendations from the task force that will be reviewing how Singapore can provide more meaningful support at different life stages for persons with disabilities and their families.

A critical consideration on these efforts include developing the expertise and professionals who form our care economy. I call on the Government to be intentional in expanding the capacity of the sector – partnering social service agencies and community-based partnerships is key.

I carry the hopes of Singaporeans who have personally shared with me the lived realities of caring for a special child. A dedicated Fengshan father once shared, how a simple bus or mass rapid transit (MRT) ride can be a complex mission. He is a uniformed officer, protecting our shores.

I urge the taskforce to expand the support and relief for families and caregivers to alleviate the added pressures across several domains, including transport, therapy and medical assistive devices, among others. I stand guided by the Prime Minister that it is a shared responsibility for all of us.

Speaker, Sir, each family is different with unique circumstances. We cannot choose the family we are born in to, but the system should equip families to shape the future they aspire to have. The recent Occasional Paper on Income Growth, Inequality and Mobility Trends in Singapore revealed that while Singapore has done relatively well in sustaining social mobility compared to other advanced economies, our social mobility has shown signs of gradual moderation as Singapore's economy continue to mature and develop.

One of Singapore's efforts to tackle social mobility is the ComLink+ programme, which will see an additional $500 payout for families working towards their milestone goals in this year's Budget. As the scheme was first launched in 2023 it is timely for the Government to share meaningful interim findings on how ComLink+ is beginning to translate into better educational and social outcomes for the children. It is in all our interest to ensure that as many Singaporean children have a fair go.

Speaker, Sir, I spoke on cost of living and caring for families before my final "C", that is, Core, I will speak in Malay, please, Sir.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Budget 2026, like previous Budgets, underlines the importance of preparing for a rainy day. The additional investments and funds channeled are meant to build and strengthen, so that future generations can create opportunities – for progress, income and success.

Although Budget 2026 focuses on the long term to ensure a strong future, many residents of Fengshan and, indeed, East Coast as well as throughout Singapore whom I have met, shared their concerns about the challenges they face in dealing with rising costs of living.

Regardless of whether they live in HDB flats or terrace houses, among other things, the price of daily meals, the expenses incurred when raising their children and caring for ageing parents often linger in their minds. The assistance measures announced in the Budget will enable our people to continue being self-reliant and progress.

However, the Budget must also help strengthen the resilience and competitiveness of the community now, as I mentioned earlier in English.

Additionally, Singapore also needs to enhance support that is localised and centred on the community as well as the organisations that offer it. For example, the MMO and IMO organisations that offer services to seniors, support families in need, obtain jobs as well as skills upgrading. Essentially, Singapore must facilitate and diversify support networks comprehensively in the neighbourhoods. I will elaborate further, Mr Speaker, during the COS debate on the Malay and Muslim community affairs later.

Mr Speaker, well-being is not only measured through economic growth figures but also through the quality of life experienced by every family in Singapore, although a family's financial stability is certainly linked to social mobility.

As someone who cares deeply about our community's well-being, progress and sustainability, I also wish to underline the importance of opening up more opportunities for our youth to compete and fly the Singapore flag high.

The Singapore we build must be secure, where every individual feels that they have opportunities to succeed and contribute to the nation. It is our shared responsibility. We need to collectively improve the quality of life for our people across all areas – strengthening financial assistance, generating opportunities, offering support and building hope for the future.

Mr Speaker, by supporting this Budget, I hope Singapore will continue to strengthen policies which will give confidence to our people that Singapore's future will remain bright for all.

(In English): And now, Speaker, Sir, my final "C", core of a resilient workforce. I will summarise this section by going back to basics, the "ABCs".

"A" for AI access, ethics and governance. Much has been said about AI – from AI fatigue to how it must a friend and never made a foe. AI is also fast becoming a core tool of our workforce. To level the playing field and access, AI intervention has to come upstream. By starting in schools, we can mitigate widening the AI divide, where only some will thrive in an AI-driven future.

Enhancing AI literacy across all Institutions of Higher Learning is a good start, but earlier is better. Emphasising strong foundations will help students to learn how to use AI in a responsible manner and not as a shortcut.

The Budget also highlights initiatives to help workers leverage AI to automate routine tasks. I welcome the move and ask how the Government plans to assess how AI complements human intelligence, HI, and not replace critical thought at work and in life. What safeguards are in place to ensure AI does not inadvertently replace individuals or widen skill and income gaps in the workforce?

Perhaps the Government could consider collaborating with various key industries to create sector-specific AI toolkits, so talents can effectively conquer AI in their domains. Additionally, the Government should prioritise ethics and governance in the AI agenda, because only then we can build a strong and resilient workforce that is skilled in using AI competitively and responsibly.

Next is "B" for builders. Mr Speaker, in my maiden speech I dedicated time to our seniors and pioneers who built Singapore and how Singapore should now ensure the third age is with dignity and security. But we must note, the needs of a senior at 55, 65, 75, 85 and 95 is vastly different.

For the young seniors, the planned increase in CPF contribution rates for senior workers in 2027 is helpful for retirement savings. Providing more investment options for CPF members also offers seniors the opportunity to grow assets, enabling them to age without worry. But this must come with guardrails and capital preservation at the front and center. However, for older seniors who may face re-employment difficulties or are medically unfit, how will the Government support meaning contributions to their CPF accounts, so that the policy achieves its intended effect? It is crucial to ensure initiatives aimed at enabling our seniors to age well are practical in improving seniors' financial security and quality of life.

Finally, "C" for companies. Mr Speaker, ⁠Singapore should level-up efforts to diversify partnerships with middle powers and emerging markets to develop pathways for young Singaporeans to have regional and global experience, so they can come back as leaders in the Singapore workforce. Singapore's young have a strong sense of purpose and social justice and aspires for their employer to be on the right side, play a part in building a community of good and drive social impact. This is an aspiration many young talents carry.

By better understanding our young talents, their world view on meaningful work and their desire to be multifaceted, I am hopeful of a generation of Singaporeans who is committed to building a better future for the next one in time to come. I intend to touch more on supporting our youths during the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) COS debate.

Mr Speaker, today, we recap the "OG" 5Cs, thought about the new 5Cs and focused on three Cs – cost of living, caring for families and core of our workforce. Budget 2026 demonstrates a thoughtful and prudent approach to building a forward-looking Singapore with a keen eye on current affairs. While Singapore is less than 750 square kilometres, the region and the world is a shared space and we must protect ours. I plan to elaborate more during the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defence's COS debates.

Sir, Singaporeans are hopeful that the Budget reforms the economy now for the future. Singaporeans across generations and backgrounds must have the feels for the Budget, so every Singaporean can feel secure and optimistic about what lies ahead. All being said, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

2.00 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Speaker, this Budget debate carries special significance for me. It is my first Budget debate in this new term of Government and my first Budget debate in my second term in Parliament. In writing this speech, I spent time reflecting on the work we had done in our previous term and the legislative moves we had made which will have long-term impact to our Singaporean workforce.

In the last term, we strengthened protections for platform workers, advanced progressive wages and made Flexible Work Arrangements a legitimate workplace conversation. These were not abstract policies. They changed daily lives, both at work and at home. With a healthy fiscal position, we now have the opportunity not only to cushion immediate pressures, but to build thoughtfully and boldly for the decade ahead.

Today, I will speak on three areas: inclusive workplaces for women in every season of their lives; a kinder workplace for persons with disabilities; responsible preparation for AI transformation.

Mr Speaker, if we want to talk about inclusive workplaces, we must talk honestly about women. Because women do not experience work in a linear fashion. We experience work in seasons: the season for early ambition, the season for caregiving, the season of returning, the season of mid-life change. And sometimes, these seasons overlap.

When we speak of inclusive workplaces for women, it cannot mean just guidelines. It cannot mean just legislation. It must mean cultural adjustment. Policies create permission. Culture creates safety. And policies must move so that new safe progressive cultures can take root.

We see this clearly in flexible work arrangements (FWAs). The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests have been in place for more than a year. Awareness is high. Yet in our NTUC Women and Families surveys, more than half of workers have never made a request. Not because they do not need flexibility. But because they fear being seen as less committed. They fear slower progression. They fear subtle discrimination. Indeed, we have created permission. But we have not fully created safety. And this gap is especially felt in the season of caregiving.

Women returning to work tell us that flexibility is top-most in their consideration to stay or return to the workplace. But what worries them more is whether in asking for FWAs, they would be “marked” by their organisations, and even if they managed to get their FWAs approved, whether their bosses and teammates will genuinely support them. Because the lived reality is that even with FWAs, caregiving does not go away. Children fall sick. Parents require ongoing care. Caregiving is not a short interruption. It is part of life.

Ms N, a resident I met, knew about the guidelines. She wanted to ask for flexibility because her childcare does not operate on weekends and closes at 7.00 pm sharp daily. But she did not dare to ask. In her small company, she feared being labelled as the one who inconvenienced everyone and she feared being replaced in her job, by a boss who does not understand her needs.

This not a policy gap. It is a workplace culture gap.

We must recognise that workplace flexibility alone cannot solve caregiving strain. Childcare operating hours, especially in estates with shift workers, must better reflect workforce realities. I therefore call for support to expand flexible and extended childcare options, including weekend and after-hours pilots in selected communities.

We must also speak about women in mid-life. As Singapore ages, women experience ageing differently. Perimenopause brings fatigue and physical changes that are rarely discussed at work. Some might even consider these topics taboo. Yet progressive employers are showing that this conversation can be normalised. I was encouraged to learn from our Education Services Union Leader, Sister Brenda, that her organisation openly engages employees on how to better support women through menopause. Managers have respectful conversations. Adjustments are made without embarrassment. These may seem like small changes, but they signal respect. Indeed, small tweaks like more comfortable uniforms can make all the difference as women go through the different seasons in their lives. That is what cultural maturity looks like in the workplace.

Similarly, breastfeeding mothers tell us that workplace lactation rooms may exist, but culture matters more. If lactation rooms become storerooms or moms feel rushed, the message is clear: support is conditional. The NTUC Women and Family unit will continue to promote lactational spaces in workplaces and we will continue to expand our NTUC Better Workplaces programme this year to support more companies with their lactation room set-ups.

Mr Speaker, if inclusion is to be real for women in every season, policy must be matched by practical action. I call on the Government to: scale job redesign funding and build expertise, especially in non-office based, frontline and shift-based sectors; recognise and benchmark progressive workplaces so inclusivity becomes part of Singapore’s competitive edge; publish sectoral benchmarks on FWA utilisation and career progression outcomes; expand flexible and extended childcare options; provide clearer tripartite guidance on supporting women through perimenopause and menopause as legitimate workplace health matters.

Mr Speaker, we must continue to move policy intentionally to shape culture – so that inclusive workplace norms do not remain aspirational but become standard practice.

Inclusion must extend beyond gender. A kinder workplace for persons with disabilities and their caregivers means removing barriers, not lowering standards. Like all Singaporeans, our persons with disabilities and their caregivers have career aspirations and dreams. But limited caregiving resources and rigid employment structures – fixed hours, inflexible expectations, lack of assistive tools – unintentionally exclude them.

My Punggol resident, B, who has hearing impairment, struggled to secure a host company for his ITE Work-Study Diploma and he and his family suspect that it was due to his impairment. As with many of our youths, B is a bright-eyed, curious and hardworking young man. His family is supportive, and understandably worried about his future. With a secured place in the ITE Work-Study Diploma, they will be more assured of his future independence. I have since reached out to several employer contacts as well as SG Enable for assistance but stories like this remind us that talents do exist, but access is uneven. We must strengthen upstream support in placement and upskilling even in our schools.

I support initiatives such as the SG Enable Enabling Mark, which recognises disability-inclusive employers. But the Enabling Mark must go beyond just being an award. It must not remain something that companies aspire to do just once a year. It must be normalised as a workplace standard with adequate funding and resourcing, embedded into hiring practices, job design, leadership key performance indicators (KPIs) and organisational culture. Inclusion cannot be ceremonial. It must be operational.

We must also strengthen the Singapore Opportunity Index as a national signal that inclusive hiring is part of business growth strategy and not charity. Employers who invest in inclusive employment should see it reflected in how we assess opportunities and competitiveness. And importantly, we should build a national database of inclusive employers, a live resource base for job seekers with disabilities and their families. This will not only improve job matching but also make inclusion visible and measurable.

NTUC will continue to do our part. Apart from FWAs, NTUC has secured stronger protections against workplace discrimination and I am glad that this helps to level the playing field for our working persons with disabilities. We are also working with tripartite partners on a Tripartite Advisory on Reasonable Accommodations to provide guidance on good practices that employers can adopt to make their workplaces more inclusive for persons with disabilities. I call for clear guidance and appropriate funding under the upcoming tripartite advisory, so that our employers can implement inclusive practices confidently. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): AI will affect our nation's future development, but this transformation must be responsible. New technology should make people's lives and livelihoods better and brighter, not bring anxiety.

The impact of autonomous driving technology on the bus industry is a concrete example. To this end, the National Transport Workers Union (NTWU) has already begun training on electric buses and autonomous driving with public bus operators. The Tripartite partners have also started discussions to understand the impact of autonomous driving on bus captains and maintenance personnel as well as future career development and renumeration arrangements.

But when engaging with bus captains, I saw one thing more clearly. One captain told me that driving only accounts for 20% of her work. The remaining 80% involves serving passengers, assisting elderly and mobility-impaired individuals and handling emergency situations. This reminds us that when discussing this transformation, we cannot only look at the surface aspect of driving; you must truly understand what that job entails in real life.

There are now also proposals for new positions, such as remote drivers. Upon further study, we discovered that these positions require skills like data analysis, which current captains may not immediately be able to handle.

If we do not understand the true content of job roles, we may make the wrong judgment. Therefore, I call upon the Government to invest more resources in analysing job structures of various industries, clearly identify which functions can be assisted by AI and which must be completed by humans. Then, based on real circumstances, design training and transformation pathways. Technology can advance but transformation must be planned and have safeguards.

(In English): Mr Speaker, today I have spoken about three priorities: inclusive workplaces for women in every season, a kinder workplace and responsible transformation. Inclusive workplaces for women mean moving policies for workplace culture shifts to take root. A kinder workplace means barriers must be redesigned away. Responsible transformation means understanding before replacing.

These are not incremental tweaks. These are big hairy audacious goals. They require courage to change policies, faith to shift cultures, commitment to redesign systems, and discipline to transform responsibly.

If we are serious about building a Singapore that is not only competitive, but fair, kind and humane, then these must be the collective Singaporean ambitions that we have. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Choo.

2.13 pm

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr Desmond Choo): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin by thanking the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for setting up a clear plan for Singapore in an uncertain world. The Budget speaks not only to today's pressures, the costs of living, which is the immediate anxieties of our constituents, but also to tomorrow's transitions.

Over the years, I have had the privilege of working closely for youths and young workers in my various roles. Their hopes, their aspirations and their quiet concerns have always stayed through to my heart. Today, our young Singaporeans are entering the workforce at the moment of profound historical inflection. It is a time of rapid change. AI is shaping the very definition of a job or a good job. Economic restructuring is creating pockets of uncertainty, and the traditional pathway from school to work, once a relatively straight, well-lit expressway, might no longer be so straightforward.

If we look at the macro data, the picture is indeed reassuring.

In Singapore, education, employment outcomes for youths remain strong. Our students continue to excel consistently in international assessments, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Youth unemployment has remained stable in recent years.

But, Sir, numbers alone might not always tell the full story. We hear on the ground worries for the pathways into the workforce. We hear of concerns over entry level opportunities and career progression. Their reservations about whether hard work would still translate into advancement in a fast moving economy shaped by technological changes, cost pressures and global volatility.

As a case in point, this year's Lunar New Year conversations took on a different texture. We saw the modern touches, of course. There were the Nanobanana-generated Lunar New Year family portraits and video greetings. We joked about how AI could never replace the traditional lohei, the human spirit of tossing to prosperity.

But there were also conversations that were far more serious. We talked about the impact of AI on work, especially on entry level jobs. I heard concerned parents speak about how much harder it was for the children to get jobs after school. I heard of some young Singaporeans admit quietly, often with a sense of frustration about sending out hundreds of job applications before they got an interview and I heard the other side too. I heard bosses steering about how they could deploy AI faster in their companies to overcome the manpower crunch. I heard supervisors wondering how to get how they could get their juniors to compliment and supervise AI in the daily work. Everyone is trying to grapple with how AI should work for them.

Our fresh graduates are capable. They are hungry, but yet, many are not fully confident they are equipped for this new job market. This is not just anecdotal. Last year, a quarter of our youths from our IHLs, polled in NTUC's Youth Employment Outlook, expressed worries about finding a job within six months of graduation. They asked: would there be enough entry level jobs for me?

When these youths enter the workforce, they do face competition and a narrowing of good entry level jobs. They asked: will the skills that I have acquired be relevant, especially in this age of AI? Their concern is also sharpened by technological change. From the NTUC Survey on Economic Sentiments in 2025, the perception that technology or AI will be the greatest risk to their jobs in the next year was highest among younger workers – 19% compared to the average of 16%. And 53% of younger workers, more than any other age group, recognise the need to upskill to stay relevant even if they could keep their job.

For them, AI is not just a tool, it is an immediate disruptor that is already reshaping some entry level jobs.

What they are worried about is the focus of my speech today. It is a critical structural challenge facing our workforce. It is a challenge that might threaten to change the social compact for an entire generation of Singaporeans in the years to come. I call it the broken rung.

In the past, a fresh graduate enter the workforce and learn by doing. The junior accountant drafted working papers. The junior lawyer review documents. The junior coder does code maintenance, fixes some minor bugs. These were not glamorous tasks. They were routine. We have all done it before in our careers. They were formative. They were the training ground.

Today, GenAI performs or could perform many of these routine cognitive task in seconds. What once took a week now takes an hour. What once required many juniors to do, require a somewhat a more senior person armed with some AI tools.

But let us be clear, AI does not spell the end of work as we know them today. Many jobs would not be adversely impacted. In fact, many might still be boosted by AI. Research from a 2023/2024 National Bureau of Economic Research, studying 5,000 customer support agents found that AI assistance significantly boosted productivity, especially for less experienced workers. In some cases, a two-month old employee perform like someone with six months of experience.

This means the learning curve has been shortened. The barrier to competence has been lowered. The AI did not replace the entry level worker, buy it empowered them. It allowed them to punch above their weight almost immediately. This is not replacement. This is augmentation. It may be, what economists called, a rebound effect too. If AI allows us to build software faster, we may build more software; if it lowers the cost of service delivery, demand may expand. This expands the economic pie.

But here is also the uncomfortable truth. Even if AI raises overall productivity, it can still shrink traditional entry level roles. Why? Because of incentives. Entry level workers have historically been hired not because they were immediately productive, but because firms invested in their future productivity. Companies paid a premium today to build capability tomorrow.

If AI can perform the training task, the learning task faster and cheaper, the short-term economic incentive to hire juniors weakens. This can be a market failure. Left entirely to market forces, firms may rationally choose fewer juniors and more AIs in the short term that boost margins. In the long term, it can hollow out the pipeline of middle-level Singaporean talent.

Compounding this, our higher cost structure and manpower tightness in Singapore have prompted some companies to site teams of knowledge, entry level workers in the region; while retaining the quality control and supervisory roles here. This is understandable as companies seek to control cost while retaining quality.

In isolation, this is not a bad situation for Singapore as we retain higher value work. However, this also means that entry level jobs might not be available in the same number over time and this might worsen the hollowing out of the Singaporean middle management. We risk, what I call a missing middle. Powerful algorithms, a thin layer of senior experts and too few local managers and specialists in between. This will not just be an economic problem. This would be a social one too. Our youths are looking at this landscape and asking, if the AI can do the junior entry level work. How can it ever progress further? The crux is not whether the job exist, but whether the human can adopt and adapt to AI in his or her work.

As Secretary General Ng Chee Meng had shared earlier and Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan in his early public speeches. The nature of work is changing, but the need for the human work remains and can be enhanced by AI. Our economy continues to attract new investments. However, each dollar of new investment now generates fewer jobs than before. This is different from earlier decades when industrial growth naturally produced many manufacturing jobs and clear entry points.

But this is natural and to be expected as the global economic structure changes. According to economist Dani Rodrik, the future of jobs will rely largely in services. Last year, job creation in Singapore was driven mainly by investment in services, particularly in financial, health and social services. However, as globalisation has made outsourcing of services increasingly pervasive, this is also the sector where it is increasingly difficult to keep entry level roles in the same numbers and scope.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, the question is not how do we stop the AI disruption? The questions are: how do we keep the entry pathways open while we transform; how do we prepare for this possible new future of entry level work? We cannot save the old rung. It is probably gone in some industries or going through overtime in others. We should not try to preserve the routine work in the age of AI. Instead, the solution to the broken rung is not to repair the old one, it is to create a new one.

We need a new industrial policy for entry level jobs. We must fundamentally redefine what it means to be entry level in the Singaporean economy of the future. In the past, workers value was production – write this memo, draft this code, compile this report. In the future, entry level workers value must be increasingly supervision, integration and judgement: audit the AI's output for truth and bias, integrate system securely, and provide context, empathy and machines that machines cannot replicate.

This is a higher value role, but it is also a harder role because it assumes a level of maturity and skill early in one's career. And here is why we need a new industrial policy for entry level jobs to prepare for the new frontier. Singapore has never been passive in the face of structural change. When we industrialised, we did not wait for jobs to appear. We built the ecosystem. When computerisation emerge, we trained workers. When low wage stagnation threatens dignity, we implemented the Progressive Wage Model to redesign jobs. We have similar conviction for the AI era as expounded by many of our Members today. We can put in place a policy framework ahead of the potential change.

Allow me now to outline a possible three-pronged approach. We often admire the apprenticeship systems of Germany and Switzerland. Apprenticeships there are not confined to trades. They expand into banking, insurance and advance services. The state and industry partner are to standardise training, so that apprentices contribute proactively from the start. Why should we not adopt this approach to our economy on a larger scale? We can incentivise some to convert traditional execution roles into structured apprenticeships with core elements of AI oversight or AI integration.

For example, if a law firm hires a graduate to audit AI-generated contracts or just draft from scratch, that firm may face an initial efficiency gap. The AI is just faster. Government can co-fund part of that gap for a defined period, de-risking the hiring decision while building national capability. Over time, we can also formalise AI's oversight as a recognised skill within industry frameworks, portable, certified and valued across employers. It is an investment in the next generation of Singaporean middle managers.

We will also need to identify queen bees industry leaders to lead such transformation in the workforce. Denmark offers a promising initiative to its National AI Skills Pact. It is committed to strengthen AI capabilities among one million citizens by 2028, positioning itself as a leading human-centred AI nation. The approach is deliberate – joint flagship projects, employer led commitment and coordinated capability building across sectors. The state sets direction. Industry and unions lead execution. We can think about this as an investment for future generation of middle managers.

Second, equip our students for semi senior entry responsibilities from day one of their working lives. We must accept that routine tasks might no longer be guaranteed training grounds. AI literacy cannot be optional. It must be foundational. Every graduate should be proficient, not only in theory, but in practical AI usage. Prompt Engineering could be a thing of the past now, but output verification, ethical evaluation and knowing when human judgement must override machine recommendations.

But technical skill is not enough. As machines take on routine tasks, uniquely human capabilities become more valuable – communication, partnership, leadership and ethical reasoning.

Initiatives, such as NTUC's Youth Excel programme, one of the few programmes out there and youth-led policy platforms are important, because they do more than train for employment. They cultivate agency. They signal to young Singaporeans that they are not passive recipients of change, but participants in shaping it. Allow me to share an example. I look at our latest cohort of NTUC Starter Awards participants. The winning team presented on the idea of cross sector internships. One of the core team members and a student at Temasek Polytechnic, Valerie, shared that the experience showed her how youth-led insights can meaningfully contribute to broader policy discussions and hopefully, industry changes. Our young people have the ideas; we need to give them the platform.

Third, accelerate reskilling timelines. Under current arrangements, SkillsFuture credits are accessible later in a worker's career, but AI compresses learning and skill cycles. A diploma holder entering the workforce at, say, 21 years old, may find within a few years that additional credentials are necessary. In fact, many of our current graduates might already need to complement their academic training while in school to be ready for the new workforce demands.

We should examine whether early access to training support might be needed in this new environment. At the same time, we must expand Place and Train opportunities and career bridges models. Reskilling is hardest when there are bills to pay. Structured pathways that combine employment and training reduce risk and increase participation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some may ask, can Singapore manage the sweeping changes AI will bring? Our history says yes. Each time our economy evolved, we did not retreat. We responded with policy creativity and tripartite partnership. The question before us is not whether AI will transform work. It will. The question is whether transformation strengthens or weakens the Singaporean promise. The broken rung is a structural shift, but it need not be a structural failure.

If we do not innovate ahead of time, we risk a missing middle crisis, a hollowed out workforce. We risk discouraging our youths and weakening our social compact. But if we act now to recreate the entry level job, we can turn this disruption into opportunity. We can build a workforce where every entry level worker is an architect of their own future, supported by technology, rather than by being replaced by it. We ensure that the Singaporean promise remains unbroken for the next generation – that if you work hard and master your craft, there is a ladder for you to climb. And NTUC will do its utmost to support our workers. Let us build this new ladder together. Mr Speaker, 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 2.50 pm. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.29 pm until 2.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 2.50 PM

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]

DEBATE ON ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik.

2.50 pm

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore's families have heard the announcements. They know what has been promised. What they are watching this debate for is something different, whether the design behind those promises is sound enough to actually deliver, whether the support will reach the families who needed it and whether it will do so in time and with the certainty required to make the most consequential decisions of their lives. That is the lens through which I wish to examine the family support measures before this Chamber today.

Stepping in the right direction, enclosing the distance are two different things. The question is whether the way these schemes are built, who gets what, when they get it, how much and whether families can count on it, is working as well as it should. For a family trying to meet ends meet every month, these details are not small things. It is the difference between support that reaches them and support that is promised but falls short in practice.

I will raise three specific points on that gap.

First, on equity across childhood, the missing equivalent for older children. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister stated at the start of this year that the Government's goal is to give every child a good start in life and to support families at every stage of their journey. I want to test that aspiration against a structural feature of Budget 2026 that I do not think has received sufficient attention.

Budget 2026 provides $500 in Childhood LifeSG Credits (CLC) for every Singaporean child aged 12 and below. These Credits are flexible, usable at a wider range of physical and online merchants for groceries, pharmacy items, transport and daily household expenses. They are meaningful and a welcomed form of support. But Budget 2026 contains no equivalent measures for families with children who have moved beyond primary school. There is no corresponding credit, no top-up and no new flexible support for household costs that continue to accumulate as children grow older. The $500 in flexible relief is available for the 12-year-old. For the same child, one year later, there is nothing new in the Budget.

I want to be careful about what I am and am not saying. I am not suggesting that older children receive no support from the Government at all. Edusave contributions continue annually and families with children in secondary school can draw on those funds for approved educational expenses. But Edusave funds are ringfenced for educational uses – school fees, enrichment programmes and approved school-related expenses. They cannot be used for transport, groceries, utilities or the broader household cost of living pressures that do not disappear once a child moves beyond primary school. The CLC address precisely those costs. Their absence in Budget 2026 for families with older children is a gap worth examining.

I anticipate the Government may say that the CLC is designed for the early childhood stage, where developmental evidence supports concentrated investment and that the Edusave system addresses older children's education needs adequately. I accept that developmental argument, but the question I am raising is not about developmental priority. It is about household affordability.

A family with a secondary school-going child faces transport costs, utility bills and grocery expenses that are undiminished by the age of their child. Budget 2026 provides flexible relief for one cohort of families. It does not for another. I invite the Ministry to clarify whether it was a conscious decision to limit flexible support to children aged 12 and below, leaving families with older children without an equivalent, or whether this gap has simply not been revisited as family expenses have evolved.

If it is the former, I will appreciate clarity on the rationale. If the latter, I urge the Ministry to review whether some form of flexible household support for older children should be introduced in future budgets. In this regard, I echo hon Member Shawn Loh's suggestion that LifeSG Credits be extended systematically to all parents with children up to 16 years old.

Second, on scale, ComLink+ coverage ceiling must be named and addressed. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry has reported that ComLink+ is now supporting around 10,000 families in public rental housing. ComLink+ represent a serious and thoughtful attempt to tackle intergenerational disadvantage in a more structured way. The family coach model of proactive outreach, co-created action plans and multi-agency coordination represents a meaningful shift from passive assistance to an active empowerment.

I have no concern with the model but with the scale. I am not comparing ComLink+ 10,000 families to the total public rental housing population. I am asking about families in public rental housing with children who meet the programme's own eligibility criteria, specifically households with at least one child under the age of 21 and assessed as requiring sustained support. That population is smaller than the total rental housing stock, but it is significantly larger than 10,000. I would ask the Minister to share what is the Ministry's estimates as the total number of families eligible for ComLink+ under its current criteria.

The reason that number matters is this. Budget 2026 enhances the progress packages for families already in this programme – high quarterly payouts, better milestone incentives and more flexible disbursements. These are meaningful improvements, but only for families who already have a family coach. They do not reach families who are eligible but not yet served. They deepen the well without widening it. I recognise that scaling and intensive coaching relationship cannot be done overnight.

Training effective family coaches takes time and the Ministry is right not to compromise quality over speed. But that argument, while valid, does not explain the absence of any stated coverage target in Budget 2026. I am therefore asking the Minister three things.

First, to state the current number of eligible families not yet served by ComLink+. Second, to state the Government's coverage target, expressed as a proportion of eligible families and the year by which it intends to achieve it. And third, to confirm what investment in coach recruitment and training is included in this Budget to move toward that target. These are not an unreasonable ask for our flagship empowerment programme entering its third year. The stakes of this coverage gap extend beyond the families themselves.

ComLink+ design is premised on early intervention, reaching families before their difficulties compound, before school attendance deteriorates and before debt accumulates beyond manageability. Every year, a family is eligible, but unserved, is a year in which the programme's own preventative logic is not applied. Enhancing payouts for those already inside the programme is valuable but it does not recover the ground lost while eligible families wait. A coverage target will allow the Government to hold itself accountable to the programme's objectives.

Third, on implementation, closing the gap between announcement and delivery. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister announced two expansions taking effect from January 2027. The monthly household income ceiling for preschool subsidies will rise from $12,000 to $15,000, benefiting more than 60,000 additional families and the student care fee assistance ceiling will rise from $4,500 to $6,500.

I support both measures fully. I also note that the reduction in fee caps for both anchor operator and partner operator preschools, which took effect in January 2026, already provides some interim relief to middle-income families. But even accounting for that, a family earning $13,500 a month above today's subsidy ceiling and below the incoming one is still paying more than they should be for another nine months.

The principle of their entitlement to support has been conceded by this Budget. A household with two young children that spends $1,200 to $1,800 monthly on childcare fees would have to continue paying this amount for nine more months. That expense is significant. I will ask the Minister whether a transitional budget measure, targeted specifically at families between the old and new thresholds could be introduced for the interim period.

The January 2027 date is also worth pressing on. Singapore's financial year begins on 1 April 2026, and many budget measures take effect on that date, and this is not a new subsidy category being built from scratch. The Ministry of Education and the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) already have the means-testing infrastructure, the disbursement systems and operator reimbursement processes in place.

So, what specifically requires this expansion to wait until January 2027 rather than taking effect at the start of the financial year in April 2026? If this is a deliberate policy decision rather than one driven by operational constraints, we must recognise that the families who were promised this relief will continue to bear a significant financial burden for an additional nine months. A bridging measure will also be welcome; it is not unusual.

When GST went up, the Government did not simply announce the increase and leave the lower-income households to absorb the gap until the next Budget. Offset packages were timed deliberately to cushion the transition. CDC vouchers have been deployed at short notices because cost of living pressures do not wait for administrative calendars. That same instinct, targeted, time-limited, with a clear end-date once the new thresholds kick in is exactly what I am asking for here. The instrument already exists, it has been used before and it can be applied here again. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): I would like to summarise the three main points that I raised today.

First, the gap in Budget 2026 for families with children above 12 years old. Budget 2026 allocates $500 in the form of Child LifeSG Credits to every Singaporean child aged 12 years and below. These credits are flexible and can be used for various household needs, such as groceries, transport, and medical expenses. However, there is no equivalent flexible support allocated in Budget 2026 for families with children beyond the level of primary school. The cost of living for a household does not decrease as children grow older. Therefore, I hope the Government can look into this matter in future Budgets.

Second, the scope of the ComLink+ programme. This programme is a serious effort that has looked at methods to address intergenerational inequality issues in a more organised and systematic manner. One method is by using a proactive family coach to help low-income families living in public rental flats.

However, so far, this programme only involves approximately 10,000 families, whereas the number of eligible families is far greater. Budget 2026 increases the support package for families that are already in this programme but does not state any targets or plans to increase the number and the training of coaches. I would like to ask the relevant Ministry, what is the estimated number of families that are eligible but not yet included in this programme, as well as the targets for recruiting new coaches in this Budget.

Third, the time gap between announcement and implementation of preschool subsidies. Raising the income ceiling for preschool subsidies from $12,000 to $15,000 and the student care fee assistance ceiling from $4,500 to $6,500 are appropriate steps and I fully support them. However, both these changes only take effect in January 2027. I would like to ask why these measures cannot take effect earlier, for instance, in April 2026, given that the necessary infrastructure already exists. A family earning $13,500 per month, which is above the current subsidy ceiling but below the new ceiling, still has to bear higher costs for another nine months. I ask that the relevant Ministry to consider whether interim transitional measures, such as those previously implemented through GST offset packages and CDC vouchers, can be introduced for families in this group.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to close not with demography but with equity, because that is ultimately what each of these three points is about. Every family the Government has acknowledged as deserving support through fee cap reduction, through expanded subsidy thresholds and through ComLink+ design, should receive that support well with predictability, without arbitrary age cutoffs, without a nine-month gap between announcement and delivery and not only if they happen to be among the 10,000 families with a coach already assigned to them,

The three asks I have made today are specific and proportionate, a published review of whether the structure of support for families with post-primary school age children is well matched to the cost they actually bear; a stated coverage target and coach investment plan for ComLink+; and for the last point, an explanation on why April 2026 is not feasible as a start date, and if the gap cannot be closed, a transitional bridging measure from families who are caught waiting using instruments that the Government has deployed before. Sir, these are not only questions about families already in the system.

The same conditions, cost uncertainty and the gap between announcement and delivery are shaping whether the next generation of families forms at all. Just this week, The Straits Times reported that 2025 recorded the lowest number of marriages in Singapore since 2020, a third consecutive year of decline. Researchers point to longer-term shifts in how Singaporeans perceive marriage, but also to concerns that policy can more directly speak to – uncertain economic future, a higher cost of living and the need to be financially stable before starting a family.

They are signals that the conditions for forming a family do not yet feel sufficiently stable or attainable to many. If Budget 2026 is serious about strengthening families, the support it offers must speak not only to households already formed but also to those still deciding whether they can afford to form one. Flexible support that falls off at age cutoffs, programmes whose reach falls short of eligible need and subsidy expansions that arrive later than necessary may each appear defensible in isolation, but taken together, they risk reinforcing the very hesitation that policy design should be working to reduce, not entrench. Nonetheless, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Azhar Othman.

3.07 pm

Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to wish Members of the House, "新年快乐", Happy Lunar New Year; and our fellow Muslim colleagues, "Selamat menyambut ibadah puasa", Welcome to the holy month of Ramadan. Mr Deputy Speaker, my speech will be touching on three aspects that I hope will set the tone forward.

The Singapore company, which covers business, local and international, employment and employability, Singapore family and the Singapore dream. Singapore has achieved significant success through strong and clean leadership. Pragmatic long-term economic policies, a pro-business environment and substantial investment in human capital. However, we now face unprecedented challenges.

Internally, we are dealing with an ageing society, low birth rates and high cost of living. Externally, geopolitical tensions, a multipolar world and a shift from rule-based to a power-based order that are influencing our landscape.

The Singapore company reflects the good work of the Government of Singapore, managing Singapore like a well-run engine. The recent Budget announced by our Prime Minister is a positive step in supporting businesses and fellow Singaporeans. Yet in this transformed environment, we must act differently and decisively.

Trade remains the life blood of Singapore's economy, making it essential for the Government to support companies in maintaining strength and pursuing global growth. It is crucial for the Government to provide support to businesses at all levels, whether they are startups, SMEs or MNCs based in Singapore. We ought to build resilience, be adaptable and constantly innovate to stay competitive and be relevant.

The Budget 2026 shows that the Government does listen to the ground. The Budget includes a tax rebate of 40% and the benefit of $1,500 for active companies with at least one local employee. This initiative serves as an immediate short-term support to alleviate operational costs. In addition to these, there are various forms of support by the Government, such as increased funding for grants, loans and international growth, which are highly crucial.

Nevertheless, I would like to propose that the Government extends support to micro and home-based businesses. During the pandemic, the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry engaged with 1,800 home-based businesses which embody the spirit of entrepreneurship and have shown resilience in managing their operations. Some of these businesses have successfully transitioned to formal companies.

Dr Malik Hassan, whose parents started their business selling Nasi Lemak, I think some of you may know, from a stall at Adam Food Centre. Dr Malik, who is also the president of the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce, has expanded to now having 40 branches across Singapore and has evolved to provide a variety of food and beverages.

On a personal experience, Deputy Speaker, my mother ran a home-based business selling rojak initially at our kampong house and then moved to our three-room HDB flat. Sometimes I helped make the rojak to be sold to our neighbours. Today, our engineering company has offices in seven countries – Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Uzbekistan, with our headquarters in Singapore. My mother's entrepreneurship spirit has rubbed onto her son that has allowed his company to grow regionally.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is essential to embed the DNA of entrepreneurship in as many Singaporeans as possible. This can also be achieved by having entrepreneurship as non-examination subjects introduced at the primary, secondary and high institutions. Such subjects will enhance their creative and innovative minds. We should be a country of creators and innovators that develop new businesses, thereby increasing the economic status of Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, SME Centres@SMCCI's business advisors have provided business advisory to 3,000 businesses annually. Other forms of programmes, like Partner for Business Growth, were performed. When guided effectively, economic growth driven by these companies benefits not only the business owners, but also the employees they hire.

Mr Deputy Speaker, strengthening support for Enterprise Singapore, SME centres and trade associations and chambers (TACs) will enhance the ecosystem and network of assistance available to local companies. As a small nation, our greatest asset lies in our ability to forge a powerful coalition of companies, Government bodies and TACs working collaboratively to support one another.

Next, I would like to touch on support for international growth. The enhanced Grant and Market Readiness Assistance are welcome initiatives that can significantly benefit our companies. It is crucial for our business to expand beyond our shores and establish presence in various regions, including the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), Africa, Middle East, Latin America and many others. Financial support plays a vital role in this expansion.

I propose that enhanced grant be provided to TACs and SMEs to facilitate regular business missions. This initiative enables companies to explore the best opportunities in their target countries. Ministry for Foreign Affairs to look at having our passport be visa free in as many countries as possible. We are already in good position, but there are still countries we need to apply visa and these are countries we need to ensure visa free to ease travelling and business operation.

Establishing more free trade agreements (FTAs) and strengthening our partnership with ASEAN partners, such as the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (SEZ), and various other countries will ensure our local companies are welcome in the region and do extremely well via partnership or even merger and acquisition. In addition to the grant, it is essential that TACs and the Enterprise Singapore, which has an international network, aid our local companies.

I am pleased to note that the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) has established an office in Dubai, and I had the privilege of speaking with Miss Anita, the lead manager of SBF in Dubai, and discuss ways to grow business effectively and understand the landscape and culture of the local country. I have also participated and at times led numerous business missions organised by SMCCI, SBF, Enterprise Singapore and the UAE Singapore Business Council.

These missions are crucial for companies to receive support, minimise errors in establishing their business in foreign markets and gain access to the robust network developed by Enterprise Singapore and TACs. The ecosystem will empower Singapore companies to set up their operation overseas in the most effective manner possible and be very successful.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will next touch on employment and employability, which is crucial in today's evolving landscape. The support provided by the Government through initiatives like SkillsFuture has been very encouraging. New industries such as space technology, advanced manufacturing, utilisation, data centres and renewable energy are emerging, offering a wide range of employment opportunities. As with every sector, AI will play a significant role in enhancing productivity within these fields.

Singaporeans are navigating the transition from sunset industries to these new sectors and the ability to learn quickly is essential, especially as AI becomes integrated into these industries. Therefore, the support from both the Government and employers is invaluable.

Training and transition to these new industries to be made easily accessible. A strong foundation for any worker lies in the attitude and many Singaporeans exemplify qualities such as intelligence, hard work and honesty. By enhancing their skills with AI competency, they can become valuable assets to companies.

Sir, turning to the Singapore family. I often think of the Government as the greatest family of all. Just as a parent ensures each child gets the specific support they need, our Budget must reflect that same targeted compassion.

The CDC vouchers are a welcoming support. If I can propose that, as other Members have done so, that this support be paired with the performance of the Singapore economy. Singaporeans can enjoy when the country does well – similar to companies who issue bonuses to their staff when their companies do well too. We can even call these the "Singapore Bonus".

On providing support for Singapore families, we must also move towards a more sophisticated, data-driven model of support. We know that a family in a 3-room flat caring for a special needs child or an ailing octogenarian faces vastly different pressures than a young couple in the same block. I am confident with the data that we have, the support should be calibrated based on household dependency ratios to ensure that those who need the most help receive it regularly until they can truly fend for themselves.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must protect the Singapore Dream. This dream is a promise that every citizen, whether their passion lies in the arts, sports, business owner or the boardroom, can become the best version of themselves.

But the dream is about more than just economics. It is about the spirit. We must ask ourselves: are Singaporeans proud of the country they were born in? Are they happy? Will they sacrifice for their children's children's future so that they may live with dignity? The answer will be yes, if we continue to provide that this Government is a caring, responsible partner in their success.

By strengthening our economy, companies, global outreach, respected career for our workforce and refining our family support, we ensure that the Singapore Dream remains a living reality for all. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

3.18 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. It positions Singapore to seize opportunities in the age of AI, strengthen our engines of growth, and build a resilient and skilled workforce. In the lead-up to this Budget, MOF released an Occasional Paper on Income Growth, Inequality and Social Mobility. The findings are significant.

Over the past decade, income growth has been broad-based. Lower-income workers experienced stronger gains. Real household income per member grew by 3.1% for the bottom 20th percentile, compared with 2.9% for the median. These are not abstract statistics. They reflect deliberate policy choices.

The Labour Movement is heartened because these outcomes affirm the impact of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM). Unlike a blunt, across-the-board wage floor, PWM is sector-specific, covers over 40 job roles and links wages to skills and productivity. It recognises operational realities while creating structured progression pathways for our workers. Had we not adopted PWM, we may well have followed the global pattern, where median wage growth consistently outpaces that of the lowest-paid workers. I therefore thank the Government and employers for working with the Labour Movement to make PWM work.

But Mr Deputy Speaker, we must not be complacent. Recent MOM data shows that median wages are beginning to outpace those at the 20th percentile. Between 2024 and 2025, real income grew by 3.6% at the 20th percentile, but 4.1% at the median. If this trend persists, the gap will widen again. Singapore also remains some distance from the OECD benchmark, where wages at the 20th percentile are around two-thirds of the median.

As our economy matures and pivots towards AI-driven growth, tripartite partners must exercise leadership. Growth must not pull away from those at the bottom. To uphold a “we first” society, we must ensure that every Singaporean progresses, regardless of where they start.

The Labour Movement reaffirms our commitment to work closely with the Government and the employers to ensure that the fruits of growth are shared fairly. We must maintain momentum in PWM through our tripartite institutions, especially the National Wages Council’s Progressive Wage Guidelines.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the last major tripartite review on lower-wage support was in 2021. One key recommendation was that firms employing foreign workers pay at least the Local Qualifying Salary to all their local workers. Last September, I called for the Local Qualifying Salary to be raised in this term of Government. I therefore thank the Government for responding in Budget 2026 by increasing the Local Qualifying Salary from $1,600 to $1,800.

But we must examine this in context. A Local Qualifying Salary of $1,800 corresponds roughly to the 10th percentile wage in nominal terms in 2023 – some three years ago. If the Local Qualifying Salary lags too far behind actual wage distributions, adjustments will become reactive and steep.

I therefore urge the Government to consider three actions.

First, publish the latest nominal gross monthly wage, excluding employer CPF, of the bottom 10th percentile of resident full-time workers, so that the Local Qualifying Salary adjustments are benchmarked transparently.

Second, clarify what proportion of workers at or below the 10th percentile will be covered when the Local Qualifying Salary rises to $1,800. We must ensure that the policy meaningfully reaches those it is intended to protect.

Third, move towards a more regular review mechanism or an advance schedule of increases. A predictable glide path will give businesses certainty while preventing the Local Qualifying Salary from falling behind wage realities. If we believe in sustained wage uplift, we must institutionalise it.

Sir, I welcome also the extension of the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS). It helps businesses adapt to higher wages as they transform and improve productivity. However, for PWM sectors where baseline wages have already crossed $3,000, and/or wage increases are below $200, support may taper off too quickly.

I therefore urge the Government to review the PWCS parameters to include all sectors and occupations under PWM and the Occupational Progressive Wages. Where industries are undergoing longer-term transformation, co-funding support should be calibrated to match their transformation timelines. If we expect employers to sustain higher wages, we must align our fiscal support with operational realities.

Beyond the Local Qualifying Salary and PWCS, we must strengthen PWM itself. First, I call on the Government to extend the PWM Bonus to all PWM sectors. The PWM Bonus functions very much like an Annual Wage Supplement. It provides workers with an additional payment to cope with cost-of-living pressures. Today, it applies only to cleaning, lift and escalator, waste management, and landscaping sectors. There is no principled reason to confine it to just these sectors.

Second, we must address leave entitlements in outsourced service sectors. Many workers in these sectors see their leave reset when service contracts change hands. As a result, their leave stagnates at the statutory minimum of seven days, despite years of service in the same job scope. I therefore call on the Government to raise the baseline leave entitlement for PWM workers in outsourced sectors from seven days to 10 days.

This is a calibrated enhancement focused only on sectors where the contracts' churn structurally limits leave progression. By setting a higher baseline within PWM, we strengthen retention, recognise accumulated service and improve workforce stability while allowing service providers and service buyers to price this transparently into contracts in a sustainable manner.

Third, we should expand PWM to more sectors. Where sectors are ready, we should move decisively. For example, in the pest management sector, NTUC has engaged the Singapore Pest Management Association and industry stakeholders. We hope to implement PWM in this sector to professionalise the industry, improve retention and build local talent pipelines. As with other PWM sectors, we will make sure to bring onboard a good representation of industry players, including service buyers, to make sure ground realities are adequately addressed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, for Singapore to capitalise on AI as a strategic advantage, our workforce must be AI-ready. The Prime Minister spoke about strengthening lifelong learning through SkillsFuture. I fully agree. SkillsFuture has embedded a culture of continuous learning. But in its next phase, we must address a structural weakness.

Today, there are around 500 training providers offering 9,500 courses. The rush to utilise expiring credits revealed a real challenge: choice paralysis – too many options, too little guidance.

We already see how AI works in everyday life. When we shop on e-commerce platforms, products are not shown to us randomly. Algorithms study our past searches, purchases, and preferences, and recommend items we are most likely to need. If AI can do this for shopping, surely, we can harness it for something far more important – our workers’ careers.

SkillsFuture must therefore shift from being course-centric to worker-centric. Each worker should receive tailored training recommendations aligned to their experience, their career trajectory, aspirations, and life stage. SkillsFuture can be integrated with NTUC’s AI-powered Career Coach to deliver personalised training pathways at scale – identifying skills gaps, recommending relevant courses and mapping out progression pathways. If we are serious about AI, let us use AI to empower every worker, not just those who are already digitally fluent.

I will next move on to address cost of living pressures. Budget 2026 provides important cost of living support measures. I commend the Government for these efforts. The Labour Movement will also continue to do our part.

Our NTUC Survey on Economic Sentiments shows that wages keeping up with cost of living remains the top concern across all age groups and income brackets. A Consumers Association of Singapore poll of over 360 Price Kaki users found that nearly 60% of respondents felt that grocery expenses increased the most in the past year, and 82% said the Cost-of-Living Special Payment and the CDC vouchers would help their households the most.

Through FairPrice Group, we benchmark more than 500 key value items and offer over 3,500 house brand products to stretch household budgets without compromising quality.

Since 2015, targeted discount schemes, such as those for Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) Blue and Orange cardholders, have delivered over $90 million in value to consumers who shop at Fairprice.

Beyond daily essentials, we stepped in when families face deeper difficulties. In 2025 alone, the NTUC Care Fund supported over 47,000 lower-income union members and their families through various Care Assistance Programmes, with close to $5.5 million disbursed. These programmes support school-going children, assist families facing sudden income loss and provide relief during periods of hardship.

This year, NTUC has cast a wider net by increasing the income eligibility of our Care Assistance Programmes to $4,300, aligned to the 20th percentile of gross household income in 2024. We will also strengthen support for single caregivers as well as families with younger children with special needs.

The FairPrice Foundation further complements these efforts. In 2025, its community programmes delivered close to $12 million in support to over 1.2 million beneficiaries, including more than $1.6 million in fresh groceries and hot meals delivered through "A Full Plate", Singapore's largest food donation drive.

But beyond support measures, the most sustainable answer to cost of living pressures remains wage growth. And that brings us back to PWM, the Local Qualifying Salary and tripartite resolve.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude with the story of Mr Hussin. Mr Hussin is a cleaner and the sole breadwinner for his family. He has three children, aged 23, 20 and 11. Every day, Mr Hussin wakes before dawn to head to work. His job is physically demanding and often unseen, but he carries it out with quiet dignity.

For nearly 20 years as a union member, he has done his part – working hard, providing for his family and believing that if he persevered, things would improve. Through NTUC's Care Assistance Programmes, he received support for his children's school expenses and essential daily needs.

For Mr Hussin, structured wage progression under PWM is not just a statistic. It means opportunity. It means stability. It means dignity.

His story is not unique and that is precisely the point. When tripartism works, we translate policy into possibility for families like his. So, let us ensure that as Singapore rises in the age of AI, we rise together, leaving no worker behind and carrying every family forward. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

3.34 pm

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. We are operating in a world that is more fragmented, less predictable, in a world where small missteps now carry larger consequences. If we misallocate capital, recovery is slower. If we delay reform, the competitive gap widens. If we neglect skills, the deficit compounds and if fractures emerge within society, they may take years, even generations, to repair.

For small states, there is less room for error. Survival depends on foresight, adaptability and unity of purpose. Allow me to frame my remarks to Budget 2026 around two themes: capability and cohesion.

First, on capability. Budget 2026 rightly accelerates Singapore's push in AI and other strategic capabilities. The support for business transformation through enhanced enterprise schemes and AI adoption incentives is timely and necessary. But transformation is not merely about investing in new technology. It is also about redesigning processes: how work is done, who does it, with what tools and to what effect.

Redesigning processes ultimately involves people. It is people who interpret signals, exercise judgement and bear responsibility. While technology may drive new processes, it is people in the organisation determine the pace of change. If work flows evolve but mindsets do not, progress stalls and competitors move ahead.

Adaptation is ultimately a human challenge. So, just as we supercharge our AI strategy to enable firms to adapt, we must ensure that we are preparing people to adapt at the same pace. If we want transformation to be fast, we must also prepare people to be adaptable.

And that is why support for SkillsFuture and adult learning is critical. The merger of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore is significant because it brings training and job placement under one roof so that upgrading skills connects more directly to employment. Otherwise, firms will still adapt but they will do so by sourcing talent elsewhere and Singaporeans will risk being left behind.

So, just as we reskill adult workers in the short term, we must also invest in the longer-term development of our youths. And that brings me to education.

AI will not simply change jobs. It will change how we value skills. When information is instantly accessible and machines can generate high-quality work at scale, speed and recall no longer set individuals apart. Prepari ng our young for this future requires more than updating content. It requires rethinking how we teach, how we assess and even how we structure time and space for learning. We must be prepared for fundamental reforms in education.

If technology can elevate baseline cognitive performance, then assessing students solely on the outputs they produce becomes less meaningful. The emphasis must shift. And in a world where information is abundant, the current focus on high-pressure exams built around memorisation risk misallocating our efforts.

The competencies that will be valuable lies elsewhere – in discernment, collaboration, ethical judgement and the ability to navigate complexity.

What, then, are the implications? Twenty-first century competencies must sit at the heart of our educational goals. We should bring the same intensity and focus to nurturing these capabilities as we have historically devoted to excelling in examinations. But I am not advocating that we all run out to purchase 10-year series for creativity or adaptability; please do not do that. But in doing so and placing the 21st century competencies at the heart of our national educational priorities, this will require significant change and teachers must be at the centre of this transformation.

That is why I am encouraged that this Budget recognises the central role of education in securing our future, with MOE's total expenditure projected to increase by 8.8% year-on-year and operating expenditure rising by 6%, largely to recruit more educators. For a country whose only natural resource is human capital, this is not academic. It is consequential.

Let me turn briefly to higher education. Universities exist to serve a societal purpose. And in an age of AI, serving that purpose requires more than incremental adjustments. It requires structural redesign. Not only in what universities teach, but how they teach. Not only in how they conduct research, but how that research connects to evolving societal and industry needs.

It raises deeper questions. Who do universities serve? Primarily the young at the start of their careers or also adults returning mid-career to reskill and adapt? Must programmes remain anchored to a traditional four-year model following junior college or polytechnic pathways, or can the duration, pacing and credentialing become more modular and flexible? How should funding models evolve when knowledge cycles shorten and industries transform more rapidly?

If universities are to remain relevant in an AI-led world, they must be prepared to rethink purpose, restructure and rethink how they deliver content not just in terms of their pedagogy. But transformation does not occur in a vacuum. Incentives shape behaviour. For universities, those incentives are heavily influenced by global rankings, many of which are operated by privately owned, commercial organisations. These metrics shape how institutions allocate resources and define success.

As the Singapore Management University (SMU) President Professor Lily Kong observed in her recent IPS lecture, rankings can become powerful drivers of institutional behaviour. Universities must guard against allowing external metrics to redefine their mission. If reforms that strengthen teaching quality or societal alignment risk affecting ranking position, institutions may hesitate.

To be fair, existing rankings attempt to incorporate elements of impact and engagement. But they remain heavily weighted toward research output, citation counts and reputation surveys. If we are serious about transforming higher education for an AI-led world, then we must also align the metrics that institutions pay attention to.

Singapore is well placed to catalyse the development of a complementary international framework for universities governed multilaterally by academics, policy-makers, industry and civil society. Such a framework would not replace existing rankings, but rebalance incentives toward learning outcomes, meaningful societal impact and long-term capability building.

If metrics shape incentives, then shaping metrics is part of our national strategy. And doing so would empower our universities to pursue necessary reforms without being constrained by narrow indicators.

My second point, Deputy Speaker, is on cohesion. If capability enables adaptation, cohesion enables resilience. As work and learning become more personalised and technologically augmented, shared spaces of belonging become more important. But cohesion cannot be left to chance. We must be intentional about cultivating it. And the sport and the arts play a central role here. They are where resilience is demonstrated, imagination expressed and identity projected. They generate both social capital and economic spillovers through events and the broader creative economy.

So, it is encouraging that the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's (MCCY's) budget has increased by 13.8% in Budget 2026, with much of this increase directed toward infrastructure development.

Infrastructure matters. But it is only half of the equation. If we invest in facilities without strengthening the practitioners who animate them, we dilute the return on national investment. Ensuring that support for practitioners grows in step with capital investment is not imprudent. It is disciplined stewardship.

Beyond public spending, we should also consider how to mobilise more private capital into this ecosystem. Budget 2026 grants up to 400% tax deductions on qualified AI spend for businesses to catalyse innovation.

Sir, I think it is reasonable to ask whether our tax framework can offer similarly attractive incentives to more strongly encourage sustained giving to the arts and the sports.

In 2024, arts organisations raised about $45 million in cash and in-kind donations, roughly 3.3% of total giving; while sports organisations raised about $16.7 million, or 1.2% of total giving.

Sir, judging by the inspired speeches from Members of the House commending our athletes in our first Sitting for 2026, I think these are modest sums relative to the role these sectors play in shaping national identity and cohesion.

Strengthening incentives for sustained giving to qualified Institutions of a Public Character in the arts and sports would deepen participation and reinforce the practitioner base without significantly increasing public expenditure. In uncertain times, cohesion becomes even more critical. Encouraging sustained giving is not charity. It is an investment in the vibrance and resilience of Singapore.

Sir, in closing, Budget 2026 stands out for its emphasis on capability and cohesion. In my remarks, I have outlined how we can build capability – by reforming education for an AI-led world and aligning university incentives with societal needs. I have spoken about strengthening cohesion by investing in the people who front our sporting and cultural life.

If we act decisively in both, we can ride the next wave rather than be overwhelmed by it. Yes, some may claim that AI is overhyped and we are in an AI-bubble. They may be right. I cannot predict the future. But the cost of being caught off-guard far exceeds the cost of being over-prepared.

This Budget gives us that foundation. It now requires equal resolve, in both capability and cohesion. If we do so, this period of uncertainty can become one of renewal – not because the world has become easier to navigate, but because we have become stronger as one united people. Sir, I support this Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

3.46 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is my first Budget as an MP from the Labour Movement. And in previous debates, I have spoken up on mental health, education and lifelong learning and in support of educators and our healthcare workers, causes that remain close to my heart. Stepping into this new role has made something clearer to me, it all converges. At the heart of all these issues lies work – the dignity of work, the stability that employment provides and the confidence to navigate change, whether as an educator or a healthcare worker adapting to new technologies, or a mid-career worker confronting AI-driven transformation; transitions affect everyone.

And so today, I wish to focus on how we can better support workers through transitions in the age of AI.

Over the past months, through my engagements at NTUC, I have observed that transitions are not a "one-size-fits-all". Different workers experience transitions differently. So let me briefly outline four groups.

First, our youths. For young people entering the workforce, the transition is from education to employment. Many wonder whether the skills that they are learning today will still be relevant to them in the future. They are thinking about more than just their first job. They are thinking about independence, stability and of course, building a future. They need clearer exposure to industry realities, earlier signals of growth sectors, stronger alignment between education and employment, and of course, meaningful mentorship.

Second are mid-career workers. This group has financial commitments: housing loans, caregiving responsibilities and children in school. So, when industries transform, they not only ask: "What should I learn?", but also "Do I have time to go and learn?", "Can I afford to make this move?"

I therefore thank the Government for announcing increased support for aged care, preschool childcare and student care, and committing holistically to review the student care sector to better meet the caregiving needs of families with primary school-aged children. This would ease some of the burdens on our mid-career workers and help them juggle work, upskilling and caregiving more effectively.

The third group, our senior workers. Many have spent a large part of their lives working and take a great pride in their jobs, careers and the knowledge they have built. They are living longer and healthier lives, and would like more options to continue contributing, such as flexible work arrangements and part-time and even community-based work. For them, it is not just about the job redesign, but also ageism and social stigma, and presumptions that they are less productive and slower to adapt.

Our seniors want to feel accepted and valued in the workplace after a lifetime of contributing to Singapore's economic development. They have undergone many rounds of technological change and they believe they can adapt and acquire AI skills.

The fourth group are displaced workers. When retrenchment occurs, anxiety is immediate. It can paralyse decision-making and in such moments, clarity and coordinated support matter greatly. These groups face different friction points, but whether young or senior, mid-career or displaced, their concerns converge around three pillars: clarity, early and trusted engagement, and confidence.

Sir, let me begin with the first pillar. Transitions require clarity. At last year's debate, I spoke about workers' uncertainty regarding the returns from upskilling. Many were willing to learn, but unsure whether courses would translate into real employment outcomes. Sir, I am very encouraged that this year's Budget strengthens the system-level alignment by merging SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore. This structural reform improves coordination between training, career guidance and most importantly, job matching. It begins to address the fragmentation that I raised previously.

I met a mid-career worker who completed multiple courses over three years. She showed me her certificates proudly. Yet, she asked whether she had upgraded in the right direction. Her wages had not shifted significantly. Her pathway remained unclear. So, effort without direction creates frustration. Effort with direction builds confidence.

Clarity must mean that workers understand what skills are in demand, which sectors are growing, what roles can they realistically move into and what progression looks like over time. This is particularly important in the age of AI, where change is faster and signals be very much blurred.

For our young people, clarity must begin even before they graduate. And this is why early career exposure and structured mentorship matters. Through platforms such as NTUC Youth, young members receive career guidance and industry exposure to help them navigate this first transition with greater confidence.

Clarity must also translate into action at the company level. Transformation is ultimately about process redesign, tool redesign and of course, job redesign. I therefore call on more businesses to take a worker-centred perspective when implementing transformation. NTUC's CTC Grant supports companies in doing precisely this – by funding structured transformation initiatives that directly translate into better worker outcomes.

When workers see how their roles are redesigned, rather than removed, clarity becomes tangible. Clarity turns the transition from something feared into something navigable.

Sir, second, transitions require early and trusted engagement. No worker should have to navigate transitions alone. Recently, I was involved in a retrenchment exercise. It gave me a deeper appreciation of how important early engagement is. Not just a concept, but as a lived, practical mechanism of support. When union leaders were engaged early, even before formal announcements, preparations could begin quietly.

Career advisory support was coordinated. Alternative employment options could be identified in advance to minimise the period of uncertainty for the worker. In contrast, when information flows to the union too late, workers feel blindsided. And of course, anxiety multiplies. Support becomes reactive instead of proactive. The difference between being informed before and after an announcement can be profound.

This experience reinforced something I have spoken about in previous debates. Strong industrial relations are built over time. They are built on trust, regular dialogue and mutual respect, long before disruption occurs.

As transitions accelerate in the age of AI, restructuring may become more frequent across many sectors. The strength of our system will depend not only on economic agility, but on relational trust.

The Prime Minister reaffirmed in his Budget Speech that the Government will continue working closely with NTUC and unions to support workers through change. To strengthen this commitment, we should review and reinforce norms around early engagement and consultation where feasible. This does not mean adversarial industrial relations. It means building clearer expectations. It means earlier dialogue, greater transparency, shared responsibility in transition planning.

Other jurisdictions have formalised advance notice mechanisms. Our approach need not replicate theirs, but we can continue strengthening norms that encourage responsible employer conduct and early partnership. Because trust cannot be built at the point of retrenchment. It must be built before disruption happens. This is the second pillar. Transitions require early and trusted engagement.

Sir, third, transitions require confidence. This confidence comes from two sources: external assurance of clear pathways from education and training from work, and internal resilience. Sir, I thank the Prime Minister for acknowledging that anxieties surrounding AI are real. What I have observed is that this anxiety often stems not from the resistance to change, but from uncertainty about identity and value.

Workers ask themselves, "Am I still relevant? Do my skills matter? Is there still space for me in this economy?" And these are deeply human questions.

In one conversation, a senior professional shared that his greatest fear was not unemployment, but irrelevance. He had spent decades building expertise. As digital systems were introduced, he worried whether the expertise would still be recognised. In another case, a displaced worker delayed updating his resume for weeks, not because he lacked ability, but because he felt uncertain about how to position himself in a vastly changed market.

Transitions, therefore, are not merely about skills transfer. They are about identity transition. They are about dignity.

As we strengthen workforce systems, we should also be intentionally ensuring that our students and workers have the confidence to navigate. And this means that as we design transition support frameworks, whether for youthd entering the workforce, mid-career switchers or displaced workers, structured activation and confidence-building components should sit alongside upgrading and job matching.

Career guidance should not only provide listings of available roles, it should help workers reframe their value. Transition programmes should not only provide technical certification. They should help individuals rebuild momentum and self-belief. We have seen through structured activation and resilience interventions that when workers regain clarity and confidence, follow-through and interview rates, and transition outcomes improve.

Confidence, therefore, is not abstract. It is measurable and actionable. I therefore suggest that confidence-building and structured activation support be intentionally embedded within our transition frameworks, alongside skills upgrading and job matching.

This could help integrate structured coaching and activation components into career conversion programmes and transition support services, so that workers receive not only technical training but guided momentum towards reemployment. If we deliberately embed confidence-building into transition support, we strengthen not only our individual workers but also the resilience of our workforce as a whole.

Resilience determines whether change feels like an opportunity or a threat that gives individuals the confidence to take decisive steps to embrace the future of work. And this is the third pillar. Transitions require confidence. Sir, I will now speak in Malay.

(In Malay): Sir, in my speech earlier, I touched on job transitions and the impact of AI on our workforce. Allow me now to focus on the role of Focus Area 4 (FA4) under M³ covering Employment and Employability.

FA4 will ensure that the Malay/Muslim community is prepared and competitive in a changing economy. In this month of Ramadan and with Hari Raya approaching, I know many residents in my constituency are running home-based businesses selling cookies, clothing and various products online. AI can also be utilised by them. They can use AI tools to design more attractive posters and product images, write more effective marketing captions, automatically reply to customer queries and even manage bookings and financial records more systematically. This technology is not just for large companies. It is also for small businesses who want to grow.

AI is also not merely relevant in business. As a father, I myself have seen how this technology can be used responsibly in learning. My child, who has dyslexia like me, sat for PSLE last year. We all know PSLE questions can sometimes be quite "interesting". Difficult, certainly, but “interesting’. By using AI tools in the appropriate learning mode, called “study and learn”, it does not provide answers directly. Instead, it provides step-by-step guidance, helping to understand ways of thinking and approaches to solving questions. This makes it a support tool, not a substitute for effort. I was able to sit with him and go through those questions with more confidence, seemingly turning into a "pro dad" for a moment.

That experience showed me that if used correctly, AI can build confidence and strengthen learning. If we can utilise AI wisely in education and small businesses, then we should also be bold enough to do the same in employment and skills upgrading.

In the areas of employment and employability, FA4 can continue to strengthen relations with employers and industry partners, so that more training opportunities, internships and job placements are created in the growth sectors. On NTUC's part, through initiatives, like AI Ready SG, we will continue to support workers and entrepreneurs in facing this change. I will provide further details in the upcoming Committee of Supply debate.

Finally, AI is not just about technology. It is about how we choose to use it. If we use it wisely, this change is not a threat. It is an opportunity for our community to continue progressing confidently.

(In English): Sir, in closing, as transitions become more frequent in the age of AI, our responsibility is clear. We must strengthen clarity, so workers see the real pathways forward. We must deepen early, trusted engagement, so no one feels blindsided by change. And we must intentionally build confidence so that workers are equipped not only with skills but also with the self-assurance and resilience to move forward.

If we get these three foundations right, transition will not weaken our workforce. It will only strengthen it and Singapore will continue to move ahead with our workers, not ahead of them. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

4.03 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Mr Deputy Speaker, our system of public education is undeniably among the best in the world. Even if we quibble about details, the statistics speak for themselves. Our most recent ranking in the OECD PISA has us ranked first worldwide and the World Bank's Human Capital Index likewise has put us up top. Yet, this success while not undeserved, belay an important reality. We have done exceedingly well until now. But it is highly uncertain if we will continue to do so, especially in an AI age where traditional educational advantages are being rapidly upended by the advance of this technology.

As Prime Minister Wong stated in his Budget address, our response to AI cannot be one of fear. This year's Budget exhibits an explicit tilt toward helping our nation confront the challenges of AI. And having spoken on the importance of AI in my Budget response two years back, I agree wholeheartedly with this stance. Hence, I support this year's Budget.

But it would be foolish to be blind to the immense transformative potential of AI to not just disrupt, but also completely overturn the competitive advantages of the Singapore model.

We cannot proceed with business as usual. We need change, not because our educational system is failing to deliver today, but because it is not adapted to deliver tomorrow. This is the hardest type of change, requiring foresight, wisdom and courage. After all, "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

Let us first acknowledge how far our system has come. Public mass education began in earnest a decade before Independence, following the establishment of our MOE. MOE's goal at the time was to reconcile the diverse approaches to education, given our multiracial population and to orient schooling toward the goals of nation building and workforce preparedness.

This effort was immensely successful. The overall number of years of schooling in the population went from less than four years in 1960 to more than 12 by 2015, with an emphasis on science and technical education, coupled with a rigorous system of sorting and tracking, public education became the backbone of our nation's remarkable economic progress. Indeed, if you ask economists what they think was the most important factor underlying our nation's move from third world to first, many will likely point to our educational system.

We must not take this success for granted, however, because the global educational landscape is rapidly changing. The advent of AI will mean an erosion of the edge in knowledge and ability that our schooling system had previously been able to confer. Emerging research already points to how AI compresses the skills gap by raising the productivity of inexperienced and lesser trained workers. This is the case even for college-educated professionals engaged in cognitive tasks. While this may fail to translate at the aggregate level, AI is nevertheless rapidly fulfilling its promise to vastly improve the efficiency of individuals.

This was the thrust of my speech to the Budget Statement two years ago. In the interim, AI has advanced at a breathtaking pace. Tasks that may have eluded AI, save for some determined and curated prompting, are now routinely answered with speed and accuracy. In the courses I teach at university, I struggle with how to best obtain separation between students based on submitted assignments alone.

The undeniable conclusion is that our traditional model of climbing the ladder of human capital development to become competent, reliable and trustworthy executers and operators is no longer likely to be the distinguishing factor for our workforce. The AI revolution will upend the way we approach education at all levels.

In primary schools, we still have classrooms that have as many as 40 students. This was never tenable in so far as large classrooms affect not just the ability of our kids to receive sufficient teacher attention and absorb lessons, but also the ability of our teachers to adequately manage their pupils without excess stress. It has become even less acceptable today in an AI age. While some champions of technology have lauded the promise of AI to produce education customised to each learner, research in the cognitive sciences is unambiguous in concluding that children simply respond best to instruction delivered by another human rather than a device.

Furthermore, while educational technology may confer some benefits, notably in language acquisition and problem solving, these are frequently offset by drawbacks, such as reduced attention spans, diminished memory and weakened critical thinking. The saving grace for such applications is that if they are applied in a thoughtful and deliberate manner, which occurs when edtech is treated as a compliment rather than a substitute for the teacher. This, in turn, calls for a better ratio of teachers to students in the classroom.

I am also keenly aware that at the early ages, it is absolutely crucial that kids build a solid foundation for all that is to follow. This will set them up, not just to succeed in their subsequent academic endeavours but also in all sorts of life outcomes. It is, therefore, crucial that we do not allow our youngest learners to be left behind in their formal educational journey, reliant on supplementary tuition and parents turn teachers to make up for shortfalls in understanding that they would ideally have received directly from teachers in the classroom.

Much of what primary school students learn may seem like a boring reprise of known concepts. But these ideas are new, at least to the kids that are being exposed to them for the first time. And if these kids do not grasp the basic premises that they are being taught, do not get excited about acquiring new knowledge and resort to memorising and in lieu of true understanding, we set them up to be incurious individuals, ill-prepared in an AI-centric world, where the ability to absorb and regurgitate information will no longer be sufficient to set a student apart.

Rather, children need to be excited about their educational journey and approach school in a holistic way, as a place not just to be fed dry academic mater material, but a safe space to ask all sorts of questions, to challenge prevailing wisdom and assumptions and to have fun, picking up pursuits that are as varied as art and music and sport and of course, if they are so inclined, languages, along with Math and Science.

Major high stakes examinations long, a mainstay of gauging student understanding and evaluating student performance, will be less relevant in an AI age. This requires us pardon, pardon the pun, to re-evaluate how we evaluate our kids, especially in secondary school. We need a mindset shift away from testing as a signal of competence and a means of streaming students to a way to check progress and identify if any particular student may have inadvertently fallen behind. This need to change mindset is not lost on our educators or learners themselves. MOE officials at the highest levels have acknowledged that examinations are the be all and end all, and students that embrace freedom from an examination-oriented curriculum often come to see that studying can be even a joyful and meaningful affair.

Continual assessment has been a long-standing component of our educational system. It certainly was since I was in school, which was a long time ago. But our weightings reveal lip service paid to the notion of continual. Until recently, mid-year and final examinations could comprise as much as four-fifths of the total grade, which places an inordinate emphasis on these markers. So, even though the Ministry formally abolished mid-year examinations three years ago without an accompanying rebalancing of the weight placed on examinations and tests versus other forms of assessment, the effort will always remain half-hearted.

Indeed, the continued presence of a relatively high stakes year-end examinations can leave students and parents feeling unprepared that they do not have a mid-term gauge. Anecdotal evidence even suggests that students and parents are making up for this change by simply having tuition centres administer mock mid-terms in lieu.

Furthermore, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) and "O" level examination remain major consequential tools for tracking students. I, along with others on both sides of the aisle of this House, have repeatedly called for a reconsideration of these examination milestones, to grant more students the chance to pursue through-train education if they so choose. In an AI age, opportunities for late bloomers to catch up will be more abundant, which also means that such flexibility becomes even more important.

The fact is, until the incentives for performing well in exams are truly changed, it is hard to expect anyone to relinquish the single-minded focus on exams.

Yet, here is the nub. There is substantial evidence that genuine continual assessment is even far better in bringing about learning and understanding. Frequent but low-stake quizzes, as much as once a day, can improve conceptual retention and understanding. Nor should we fear that this approach, which admittedly is commonplace across East Asia, need undermine ultimate student performance. Systems like those in Estonia and Finland, as well as the US states of New Hampshire and Vermont have relied on formative assessment and continuous feedback for years and have produced a steady stream of excellent students.

Similarly, the evidence on tracking too early, by early, the literature suggests between the ages of 10 and 12, which incidentally, is precisely when we start subject-based banding and institute the PSLE, actually increases educational inequality without any clear achievement gains. While Ministry officials had assured that subject-based banding, retain mixed form classes and which is consistent with research that supports how within school tracking can help students with heterogeneous ability actually cope better and promote positive peer influence, there nevertheless remains significant sorting between schools, which can undermine the benefits of tracking in the first place, while continuing to place undue importance of exams as a sorting tool.

To be clear, this call to shift attention away from exams and toward continual assessment decidedly does not mean a relaxation of standards. Rather, it calls for the sort of steady engagement that can keep standards consistently high. This change emphasis is also better aligned with fixing one of the principal challenges that educators face in the modern AI-enabled classroom – students who simply cannot sustain enough attention and interest to complete basic tasks expected of educated individuals, like reading an entire book cover to cover, to grasp what they have read accurately, to write with accuracy and originality, and to internalise mathematical skills.

Sir, AI will probably have the greatest impact on the way we go about tertiary education. And I will pause here to declare that I am, indeed, a college professor.

Until now, university education has had a two-fold aim: to impart the workforce with modern, value-added skills via high quality teaching; and to infuse our economy with the latest cutting edge innovation and technology through research. Both will now be upended by AI. What does it mean to transmit knowledge to undergraduates when such knowledge can be easily accessed and repurposed at the touch of a button, is rapidly devalued within years of graduation and can usually obtained at a fudge of the cost. What does it mean when answers to assignments usually arrive after extensive reflection, discussion and struggle, may be obtained within minutes with a simple prompt?

There are already inklings of the tsunami of change that is about to come. GenAI can easily synthesise and deliver information that all but the very best undergraduates struggle to absorb, relieving the need for entry level positions. Agent AI can already accurately execute a wide range of tasks that new graduates used to fill, which means that firms will have a far weaker incentive for hiring them.

Indeed, I believe that it will not be foundational models, which has captured so much of the public imagination and excitement with their clever answers to questions and seemingly human interactions, but rather agent-based ones that will be at the forefront of this disruption. Cognitive jobs are all the more vulnerable to replacement by such tools, which produce faster, are often more accurate and increasingly are higher quality output than humans. The best models are even able to do so with minimal guidance and instruction.

The superior capabilities of AI are not limited to intellectually intensive activities either, like research or analysis. AI can perform better in just about any profession where intellect, brains and ingenuity is deployed – from vacation planning to financial planning, from video game design to building design, from data analysis to legal analysis, and from diagnosing bugs in software to diagnosing cancers in humans. The aspirational careers of Asian societies – doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers – are now all potentially replaceable by AI.

Moreover, we must not be lulled into a false sense of security by our nation's current unemployment rate, which has yet to capture the potential displacements of jobs that could result when AI and robotics become more entrenched in the economy. The future is much better inferred from the unemployment rate of new workers. Notably, while our youth unemployment rate remains considerably below those of other advanced economies, this has steadily trended up since the middle of 2024. Reports of fresh graduates struggling to secure employment are also piling up.

What this means is then that the skills we teach in lecture halls and labs need to evolve away from rote learning and solving known problems to leveraging what makes humans unique. Soft skills like empathy, networking, judgement, creativity and vision.

I already see this in my courses. The way to separate weaker students from stronger ones is frequently no longer what they submit in written assignments – something Singaporean undergraduates often excel at – but by their inquisitiveness, their willingness to question prevailing wisdom, their ability to think outside the proverbial box and their strength at bringing others together on a common task. Students must want to understand what they are being taught, not just cram yet more information without care for the fundamentals.

It also means that our outdated approach to university entry, which is conditional on relative performance in an academically oriented high stakes exam has to be revisited. In last year's COS, I suggested that we move forward with granting entry based on satisfying absolute entry criteria. This is now even more urgent given how relative academic performance will be ever less relevant to university success.

Reform must also percolate up to more advanced levels of tertiary education. It is natural to ask, what is left of research when even at the PhD level, only a tiny, talented minority may still credibly lay claim to intellectual superiority and methodological sophistication? Prime Minister Wong's $37 billion funding for the Research, Innovation and Enterprise plan is undeniably a welcome step, and if resource constraints were the only limitation to research success, we would be well positioned, even though, as I previously mentioned, our national R&D spending still lacks those of comparable technologically forward economies.

But the reality is that scholarship is not borne out of funding alone, as important as it is, and especially in an AI age where differences in the capacity to produce research are likely to collapse. Instead, what is relevant is the sophistication of the questions that we ask and the way that we approach problem solving. For this, we must still appeal to what is inescapably human. Our most groundbreaking innovations have always relied on humans affording their imaginations the absolute freedom to follow wherever the ideas lead. This occurs best in open, liberal, democratic societies, which offer the best conditions for the accumulation of productive human capital and the generation of world class scientific output. These conditions then contribute to productivity and in the long run, economic performance.

Our autonomous universities must stop chasing global rankings for their own sake, but instead focus on the genuine nature of academic enterprise, a point that Member Kenneth Goh, a fellow academic, has just made. In doing so, I am certain, nevertheless, that recognition and reward will find their way to them.

Sir, no matter how much we revamp our educational system, even if we were to adopt the seemingly radical steps proposed here, the reality of real world distributions of human ability is that there will always be a group that falls in the left tail and risk being left behind.

Yet, this AI moment also offers tantalising opportunities. Teachers can tap on AI generated resources to offer education that is more interesting and more customised, a luxury that would have taken previously hours of work. Weaker students now have a more realistic chance than ever before to shine in the classroom. Not only will AI compress the talent gap, it will devalue the traditional degree, which opens the door for those who, endowed with hitherto undervalued skills, to finally stake their place in the modern economy. This includes those who may not be as book smart, but who are gifted in myriad other ways. Those who are blessed with superior hand-eye coordination, or are more innately social, or exude practical intelligence, or possess a tinker's mentality.

Singapore has, since his birth, been an ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse nation. Let us also embrace neurological and intellectual diversity, starting from the ground up with our educational system. And let us —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof Lim, you have a minute left.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I shall end with my final sentence. Let us allow diversity to be the core strength of our educational system in this AI age.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan.

4.22 pm

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this year's Budget. I think it is one that provides critical stability in the midst of uncertainty and chaos. And with this stability, it helps us to propel forward to pursue progress for Singapore and Singaporeans.

Last September, I spoke about the two forces shaping Singapore's future. I named it the two AIs. AI No 1 is "artificial intelligence", which generates information at lightning speed, changing the way we work and we live. AI No 2 is ageing individuals, experienced workers who bring their wisdom, their judgement and their perspective to the workplace.

Today, I would like to build on these two AIs and on this idea. My argument is a simple one – that AI helps us find answers much faster, but it is experience in AI No 2 that helps Singapore ask better questions. Singapore's success will depend not only on how quickly we find answers, but whether we ask the right questions about our future economy, our workforce and our jobs. As Singapore becomes a super aged society, our goal is to support our seniors to age with dignity, with security and with a peace of mind.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Labour Movement and our tripartite partners have been working on this and preparing for this transition for many years. We supported raising the retirement and re-employment ages, which are on track to reach 65 and 70 by the year 2030. We support strengthening CPF contributions for senior workers and to progressively raise the ceiling to protect retirement adequacy. We backed the Workplace Fairness Act to reinforce protection against workplace discrimination, and we have consistently pushed for job redesign, lifelong learning and stronger mid-career transition support.

These efforts have indeed made a difference. More seniors today are financially prepared for retirement and more are choosing to remain economically active.

But as our workforce transforms, challenges remain. First, as our population ages, overall resident labour force participation, unfortunately, is gradually declining from 70.5% to 67.9% in the last five years. This is a structural challenge that will affect our economic resilience in the long term.

Second, many seniors still face barriers in staying meaningfully employed, such as hiring filters or reduced benefits at re-employment. NTUC survey show that they take longer to find jobs, average of 6.2 months versus 4.9 months on average, for other workers, and 37.5% report narrowing job prospects due to age. I am sure Members here would have also heard of anecdotal experiences among our residents who face challenges in the job search.

Third, many seniors worry about keeping up with technological advances and its impact on job security specifically. While many are willing to learn, they face constraints of lower familiarity with new technologies and also heavier caregiving responsibilities. Employers have also cited difficulties such as mismatched salary expectations, skills gaps and concerns about higher wages. While these are not straightforward, and also difficult issues to deal with, but I remain optimistic that Singapore can navigate these challenges through our deep tripartite cooperation, and also, especially in this time of AI.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me articulate three priorities as we navigate this change, especially for our senior workers. The first priority is to enable seniors to remain employable with choice, flexibility and inclusion.

Many seniors want to continue working beyond their retirement age. NTUC’s Senior Employment Survey shows that more than 70% of senior workers are open to employment beyond the retirement age. But this is not about expecting seniors to simply stay in the workforce longer. It is about giving seniors the choice and flexibility to continue contributing meaningfully, building on their strengths, their experience and their skills. Employers should continue developing flexible career options. The Tripartite Workgroup (TWG) for senior employment, which I also co-chair, is exploring ways to expand and broaden these options.

Through the Alliance for Action on Empowering Multi-Stage Careers for Mature Workers (AfA-EMW), companies have piloted promising models. One example is Mandai Rainforest Resort’s hobby- or interest-based job roles, and also recruitment prototypes, where seniors are hired based on their hobbies and interests, with roles redesigned to build on these strengths and these passions. Through this approach, Mandai gave Mr Richard, a 60-year-old nature enthusiast, the opportunity to serve as a Welcome Ambassador in a role aligned with his love for nature. With support from his colleagues and employer, Richard now takes pride in bringing his guests around the resort to experience the natural surroundings he cares deeply about.

Some employers have also created structured pathways that allow seniors to transition gradually into retirement while continuing to contribute meaningfully. At Schneider Electric, for example, the Senior Talent Programme offers different “personas”, one of which is the “Pivot” persona, which enables senior workers to take on roles such as coaches and mentors while remaining engaged in the organisation.

These initiatives show that when employers redesign jobs thoughtfully and provide structured pathways, they can unlock the full potential of our senior workers. Senior workers must also be able to contribute with dignity and without fear of discrimination.

The Tripartite Workgroup is studying whether additional support can be extended to long-term unemployed seniors seeking to re-enter the workforce. This need was actually reflected in the experience of Mr Sunil, a senior jobseeker who shared in a forum letter last week about how NTUC’s Career Festival gave him more than job advice – it restored confidence and reassurance at a critical stage of his job search when he walked into the Career Festival. His experience reminds us that beyond advice, senior jobseekers benefit from personalised guidance and support as they navigate career transitions.

We should therefore continue to encourage our employers to support and to invest more in training and job redesign for mature workers and also to facilitate multi-generational workplaces.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the second priority is to ensure that AI strengthens rather than replaces our workers. As mentioned earlier, NTUC has launched the AI-Ready SG initiative, which is a one-stop platform to train and upskill workers, support firms in transformation and improve matching for workers to access better jobs.

Apart from the support given to workers in areas such as training and matching, NTUC has actually launched for quite some time an AI Readiness Index (AIRI), which I think Member Denise Phua will be happy to know, an AI Transformation Blueprint and more recently, sectoral AI Playbooks that provide companies with practical guidance on business transformation and resources to support their workers' upskilling. I am pleased to share that the first three playbooks have been launched and I encourage employers to work closely with us to tap on these resources in their transformation journey.

Our CTCs, including our growing network of queen bees also play a critical role in business and workforce transformation. They bring employers and workers together to co-create upskilling and job redesign plans that directly benefit their business and also upskill our workers.

Let me share one example. At Tan Tock Seng Hospital, the introduction of an AI-enabled predictive patient monitoring system has helped our nurses manage fall-risk patients more effectively.

I met senior enrolled nurse, Lilian Teng, who is 69 years young. She shared how the system eliminated frequent manual labour, reduced physical strain and allowed her to focus on higher-value clinical work. Importantly, her younger colleagues helped her adapt and gain confidence to handle the new technology, while Lilian contributed and shared her clinical experience with the younger colleagues.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

What encouraged me was not just how AI supported a senior worker in this instance, but how different generations supported each other in the work place. This example shows that the future of work is not just about choosing between technology and experience, or between younger and older workers. It is about maximising their relative strengths and making them stronger by working together.

Mr Speaker, the third priority is to build a multi-stage, cross generational workforce. The future workforce will not follow a linear, simple path of education, work and retirement. Instead, I believe it will be a journey of continuous learning, continuous upskilling and reskilling, and contributions. Senior workers will increasingly play roles as mentors and coaches while the younger ones will bring digital capabilities and new technological knowhows. AI can help bridge these generations by amplifying the strengths of both.

I believe that Singapore's competitive advantage in the future can lie in combining technological answers with experience-driven questions. Mr Speaker, I will now speak in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, last year, during the Parliamentary debate in September, I talked about two AIs: "artificial intelligence" and the "ageing individual" whom we are concerned about. What I want to further emphasise is that these two AIs can complement each other – artificial intelligence can help improve the speed of work, whilst the wisdom of senior workers can help improve the accuracy of work. Intelligence and wisdom, speed and accuracy. Both are indispensable.

AI can quickly provide answers but the wisdom, judgement, values and sense of responsibility of senior workers, as well as their years of accumulated experience, cannot be replaced by technology.

Our philosophy is very clear – AI cannot replace human wisdom, but we certainly have the wisdom to master AI.

As technology evolves at an accelerating pace and AI becomes more widespread, some senior workers worry that they cannot keep up with the changes and will find it difficult to master new skills. We understand and take everyone's concerns very seriously.

Therefore, NTUC has launched the AI-Ready SG initiative to encourage workers to learn and use AI tools and also support enterprises in using technology to redesign work, helping to make the transformation process smoother.

Entering the Year of the Horse, the global situation remains uncertain, and enterprises still face numerous challenges. Workers must also do their part, prepare for rainy days and actively plan for the future.

If each of our workers can make good use of AI and the wisdom accumulated over many years – AI plus wisdom, technology plus experience, having both speed and accuracy – then Singapore will certainly be able to achieve stability and progress amid chaos.

(In English): Mr Speaker, looking ahead, our workforce must be defined not by age, but by capability. We must move from lifetime employment to lifelong employability. From qualifications alone to demonstrated skills and adaptability. From protecting jobs to strengthening job security.

Ageing, like AI, is upon us. Standing still is not an option. I therefore call on our tripartite partners to step up support for all our senior workers to prevent premature exit from the workforce, to help them bounce back when needed and to sustain meaningful employment for as long as practicable.

This Budget lays strong foundations for the transformation towards an AI-enabled economy. As a small nation whose strength lies in our people, we must press ahead with AI in ways that strengthen and not replaces our workers.

We welcome the Government’s assurance that technological progress will not come at the expense of our workers. Together, we must act decisively to put in place the support needed for workers to adapt, progress and continue contributing with confidence. The Labour Movement stands ready to work closely with our tripartite partners to ensure that every worker, including our senior workers, will not just adapt to change, but will thrive in an AI-enabled economy. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash.

4.37 pm

The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth, and Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Budget 2026. This Budget strikes a balanced approach to meet the pressing needs of today, while preparing us for the challenges of tomorrow.

This is also timely as we enter a new phase of Singapore’s economic journey where the global economy is increasingly fractured and uncertain. Where technologies, are advancing at unprecedented speeds, reshaping how companies operate, and how we live and work. And where we would have to do more with a slower growth in our workforce, given our ageing population and falling TFR.

This is why the Government launched the Economic Strategy Review in August 2025, and I have had the privilege to lead the Committee on Entrepreneurship together with my co-chair, Minister of State Alvin Tan.

Sir, entrepreneurship is in our DNA. Many of our forefathers built successful businesses and contributed to nation building, including pioneers such as Lim Nee Soon, Seah Eu Chin, P Govindasamy Pillai, Syed Omar Aljunied and Edwin Tessensohn.

Perhaps one of the most iconic pioneer entrepreneurs was Tan Tock Seng. His story started when he arrived in Singapore in 1819 as a vegetable seller to a successful shop owner in Boat Quay in 1827 and to a thriving businessman. Through his many businesses that spanned real estate, agriculture and of course healthcare, he provided thousands of jobs to Singaporeans, then and even now.

Like our Pioneers, our generation has also our avant-garde entrepreneurs who have succeeded and have been able to entrench themselves here and beyond Singapore’s shores.

Take Carousell for example. This company was founded by three National University of Singapore (NUS) graduates, who were inspired by their exposure to Silicon Valley through the NUS Overseas Colleges programme. Carousell began with a simple idea: to make the selling of pre-owned items as easy as taking a photograph. What started as a mobile-first classified ads app had since grown into a leading online marketplace and omnichannel re-commerce business operating across Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and serving tens of millions of users across the region.

I am very glad that Mr Marcus Tan, one of the founders of Carousell, and others like him are part of the Entrepreneurship Committee. They, together with venture capitalists and business leaders have added tremendous value to the committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's entrepreneurship ecosystem is in a good place. Just like our early days, today's entrepreneurs have spurred innovation, created jobs and established themselves internationally. In fact, the Global Startup Ecosystem Index 2025 by StartupBlink ranks Singapore’s ecosystem as number four in the world.

Our start-up ecosystem benefits from a pro-business environment which includes our established companies, our talent pool, dedicated startup spaces such as the LaunchPad at one-north and supportive Government policies. These make Singapore a unique, competitive and trusted hub for innovation.

We are also a key hub in Asia for innovative companies and investors, with over 4,500 tech startups, 220 incubators and accelerators and over 500 venture capital firms that have anchored themselves in Singapore. Many founders of startups have proudly shared with me on how the Singapore brand had helped them forge partnerships and to break into new markets.

However, we cannot stand still and rest on our laurels. We need to continue to strengthen our startup ecosystem, to maintain our attractiveness to startups, talent and capital. This is because of intensifying competition from startup hubs in Asia, the Middle East, and even further afield. Venture capital remains tight, particularly outside of the US.

Over the last few months, Minister of State Alvin and I have spoken to more than 300 stakeholders including startup founders, business leaders, venture capitalists and our youths. This was to understand their concerns and to propose strategies to help them and future generations of entrepreneurs. We would like to thank each and every one of you for your feedback and for your support. This was only possible with the strong support of our committee members and ecosystem partners such as the Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE), the Singapore Business Federation, Singapore Fintech Association and the National Youth Council.

To support our startups, we will adopt a three-pronged strategy to strengthen our entrepreneurial ecosystem. First, we will strengthen our entrepreneurial culture. Second, we will help promising growth-stage startups scale and expand beyond Singapore’s shores. And third, we will facilitate investors to exit and recycle their capital and expertise into new ventures.

Let me start with our entrepreneurial culture.

Several years back when my son was then five years old, he told me of a "paper clip" challenge, which apparently, he chanced upon on YouTube. Starting from a paperclip, he was required to barter trade upwards until he reached a valuable item. After a couple of weeks, he presented a beautiful pen to me and tried to sell it to me for $20. What started off as a humble paper clip, after multiple trades, had been traded upwards towards a pen.

I am sure my story is not unique and there are many budding young entrepreneurs with very interesting ideas. However, when I ask successful founders whether they would support their children in pursuing entrepreneurship, some of them were reluctant. They know well the risks of failure and how difficult the journey was. It is therefore important to double our efforts to sustain and grow our entrepreneurship spirit in Singapore. And we should start from a younger age.

Initiatives such as the Applied Learning Programmes in schools and the Direct School Admission for Entrepreneurship are a good start. These programmes allow students to gain practical skills such as critical thinking and the resilience needed to succeed in today’s fast-paced business world. And on that note, I fully agree with Mr Azhar Othman who had indicated earlier the need to start entrepreneurship in schools at an earlier age.

We should also encourage Industry-led programmes, like the "My First $1,000" programme spearheaded by one of our committee members Mr Willson Cuaca from East Ventures.

In this programme, students who are between the ages of 14 and 18, will be given $250 for their business idea. After eight weeks, they would have to return the initial capital with cost and will receive a dollar for dollar matching for their profits, capped at $1,000. This allows our youths to road-test their ideas and experience the ups and downs of entrepreneurship. Some may fail, but the lessons learnt would surely stay with them for life. I am happy to report that those who are keen can continue to sign up. Registrations are still open, but they will be closing quite soon.

Ultimately, we must view setbacks as a stepping stone towards eventual success. Every successful entrepreneur will tell you that their path was filled with obstacles. They will also mention that they would not have succeeded, if it was not for the lessons learnt from overcoming these challenges. The key is to learn quickly from setbacks and bounce back stronger.

We can also support our entrepreneurs in more tangible ways and encourage entrepreneurship across all ages. Entrepreneurship communities and startup spaces, like LaunchPad, allow people to collaborate, learn from each other and develop their ideas in a supportive environment. This can be open to interested persons of all ages, including our mid-careerists and our seniors. These communities, alongside mentorship from experienced entrepreneurs, create a strong ecosystem of support that gives budding entrepreneurs the confidence to take that first step.

While new technology, products and services are disrupting traditional industries, it is also not uncommon to see startups with the right product or idea to achieve phenomenal success. It is therefore exciting to work in a startup and perhaps, even more exciting to start one. And so, I would like to call on our aspiring entrepreneurs to believe in yourselves and to boldly take that first step.

Second, let me touch on those who have taken the leap of faith, achieved some success and are ready to scale globally. To do so, they may need specialised talent, a range of financing options and access to new markets. They may need to raise funds for research and development, infrastructure, hiring and sales. But many start-ups speak of difficulties to access fundraising options at the growth and pre-Initial Public Offering stages.

Particularly for deep tech startups, they need experienced and credible financing partners with the right expertise and capital structures that are suitable for long-cycle, capital-intensive innovation. Hence, the $1 billion top-up to the Startup SG Equity schme, as announced by our Prime Minister, is a welcome reprieve. Further, the expansion in scope to cover early growth-stage companies, will help our startups raise the funding they would need to then scale.

In addition, the new Growth Capital Workgroup, led by Minister Chee Hong Tat, will look into measures to support the financing needs of companies across various growth stages. We will share the feedback obtained through our engagements with the Workgroup and to support in their efforts as well. The increase in the maximum loan quantum under the Enterprise Financing Scheme will also be useful. This is because the overall loan quanta had been increased from $30 to $50 million and would be beneficial for our SMEs who may be considering scaling up their businesses.

As Singapore is a small market, our startups must think global from day one to succeed. But we know this could be challenging for some, especially if they do not have a strong track record or if they are unfamiliar with the new markets. The Budget measures to support Singapore companies as they venture abroad, such as the enhanced Global Innovation Alliance and the Market Readiness Assistance grants, will therefore be very useful. By strengthening the ecosystem's access to financing options and support for entering new markets, we hope to create an environment where good ideas can flourish and companies, including our SMEs, can grow and compete.

Thirdly, let me speak about facilitating exits to support capital recycling. Many successful founders want the opportunity to exit and to reinvest their time, talent and capital into new ventures. Thus, if we want a sustainable and dynamic ecosystem, we must ensure that capital is available for promising companies to exit at fair valuations and for the early investors to recycle their capital.

A well-functioning and vibrant capital market in Singapore is crucial for this. I am therefore heartened that our committee's recommendation for a second $1.5 billion tranche of the Anchor Fund, which will help ensure continued support for high-quality listings in Singapore, was supported. This will be especially important as more startups mature and want to seek capital for their growth plans through public markets.

The committee also welcomes the $1.5 billion top-up to the Financial Sector Development Fund, to expand the Monetary Authority of Singapore's Equity Market Development Programme, which aims to develop our fund management industry and increase investor participation in Singapore equities. I look forward to seeing the positive impact of these efforts in boosting listings on the Singapore Exchange.

Let me conclude, by going back to my son. Unsurprisingly, he was able to convince me to buy the $20 pen and he cashed out the venture, therefore, with tremendous bragging rights. He then recycled this princely sum into his next venture, of buying several other nicknacks and started the process all over again. If I recall correctly, most of it went to chocolates, which were quite quickly gobbled up by him.

Sir, Singapore's next phase of entrepreneurs will face far more complexities than the paper clip challenge. There would be setbacks and they would have to navigate along uncharted waters. Those who are able to adapt early, move decisively and invest ahead of the curve, will succeed.

The work of the Economic Strategies Review Committee on Entrepreneurship will continue and we will support our startups in this venture. We will strengthen our entrepreneurial culture, help promising growth-stage startups scale and we will facilitate investors to exit and recycle their capital into new ventures. We hope that these efforts will allow Singapore to nurture the next generation of budding entrepreneurs, such as Mr Marcus Tan and Tan Tock Seng.

I am confident that Budget 2026 will provide a shot in the arm for current and future employers, as well as entrepreneurs. Thank you and I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.

4.53 pm

Miss Rachel Ong (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I thank Prime Minister Lawrence Wong for his Budget Statement and for the continued emphasis on honouring our people and results.

Today, I speak in defence of our seniors. Many carry with them daily realities and pressures very quietly. I will highlight four areas that require our attention: nutrition vulnerability; rising cost pressures; digital anxiety; and the fast evolving threat of scams.

First, nutrition vulnerability. In a food-secure city like ours, it is worrying that we are seeing signs of rising malnutrition among seniors. A National Healthcare Group Health Study found that the proportion of hospital patients aged 65 and above, are at risk of malnutrition rose from three in 10 in 2022 to four in 10 by 2025, with two-thirds still at risk, at discharge. This shows the issue is not marginal but persistent. Doctors at the National University Hospital also highlight that malnutrition is closely linked to falls and poorer recovery.

Many do not see food as part of healthcare. When eating becomes painful, tiring and lonely, nutrition suffers, not from ignorance, but from circumstance. Some stop walking to hawker centres and rely instead on biscuits and instant noodles. Others shift to softer but less nutritious foods because of untreated oral health issues or chewing difficulties. Over time, protein intake drops, strength declines and frailty rises. If we are serious about healthy ageing, nutrition policy must address access and the daily realities of how our seniors eat.

My first proposal is a national movement, which I will refer to, for now, as Strong Seniors SG, with a simple goal: helping seniors stay strong through better nutrition, especially adequate protein intake. Protein should not feel like a luxury. Affordable foods, such as eggs, tofu, beans and simple fish dishes are already part of everyday meals. Yet nutrition gaps among seniors often arise not from the lack of food, but from practical barriers; difficulty chewing, fatigue from cooking, eating alone, or uncertainty about what foods truly support strength.

Strong Seniors SG would therefore focus on making protein intake easier, more familiar and part of the daily routines. This can be advanced through three practical pathways: where seniors eat; how seniors eat; and what seniors eat.

First, where seniors eat. We can partner hawkers, food courts and Active Ageing Centres (AACs) to make protein-rich meals more visible and accessible. Stalls to highlight affordable protein options or label balanced set meals, including softer choices for those with chewing difficulties. When the healthier option is easier to spot, it becomes easier to choose.

Second, how seniors eat. Eating is social. Seniors eat more and eat better when they eat together. Some AACs already run communal meals and we can build on this. In the UK, general practitioners (GPs) go beyond medication by recommending communal dining and social activities as preventive care. We can adopt the same approach in Singapore, with GPs and polyclinics referring seniors to community meal initiatives that provide both nutrition and social connection.

Third, what seniors eat. Countries like Japan and South Korea are investing in senior-friendly food innovation, including texture-adapted, high-protein meals. South Korea goes further by setting a national senior-friendly food standard, with clear nutrition and texture benchmarks. Certified foods are labelled by texture levels allowing seniors to buy ready-to-eat meals from supermarkets.

In Singapore, Health Promotion Board's Nutri-Grade has shown how clear labels can guide healthier choices. Could we build on this success with a similar approach for senior-friendly foods, signalling both nutritional value and eating comfort? Our food innovation ecosystem can support this through grants, pilots and partnerships with industry and community providers. Because when seniors maintain their health, they maintain their independence, confidence and dignity.

The second area that requires attention is rising cost pressures. Cost pressures for seniors are often less visible. One overlooked area is oral health, which directly affects nutrition and overall health. Many seniors assume tooth loss is simply part of ageing. Some quietly share, "I don't go to the dentist because I cannot afford it". With subsidies, full dentures can cost between $500 and $800 and require multiple visits. For seniors with limited finances and mobility challenges, this is a deterrent.

I therefore ask the Government to review dental subsidies, particularly denture-related costs and to consider introducing one fully subsidised annual dental check-up for seniors aged 65 and above, on Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) Blue or Orange. Such a measure would strengthen preventive care, while giving us a clearer national picture of our seniors' oral health needs.

Transport is another burden. While Agency for Integrated Care's Medical Escort and Transport (MET) subsidies help some, many mildly frail seniors fall outside eligibility. They may be able to walk, but could be unsafe in crowded transport. Taxi fares of $20 to $40 per trip quickly adds up. About one-third of seniors live alone or with another senior; which means managing healthcare, from appointments to follow-ups, can be stressful, costly and physically demanding. To ease this burden, I propose two practical steps. Expand the role of neighbourhood GPs under Healthier SG to handle hospital-directed routine tests and follow-ups closer to home.

Second, provide broader transport subsidies for seniors with frequent medical visits.

Next, digital anxiety. Singapore's Smart Nation push has brought many benefits. But for some seniors, it has also brought digital anxiety. Among seniors-only households, smartphone ownership is near 90%, but access does not equate confidence. A simple SMS that says: "Reply 1", "Click this link" can be confusing. A hospital appointment message can trigger days of worry, especially when it is to reschedule. Seniors often leave the hospital with a printed appointment slip they rely on. When an SMS later arrives with a new date, certainty disappears. For those who depend on escorts or family to arrange transport, this anxiety is compounded.

Then, there is what I call the "two-minute OTP race". For a senior, it means searching for their glasses, unlocking their phone, switching screens and trying to read an English message within a time limit. For the institution, it is one notification. For our seniors, it can feel like emotional roller-coaster. Digitalisation must therefore include human fallbacks and senior-friendly design.

I suggest to: include a direct phone line to a real person in automated messages; keep government apps simple, with clear mother-tongue options; offer guided "safe update" sessions so seniors can navigate their devices confidently. And for seniors with mobility challenges, I urge MOH and our healthcare institutions to proactively assess transport needs when appointments are rescheduled.

When seniors feel unsure on the digital front, some withdraw, others avoid transactions and many feel embarrassed to ask for help. As one resident shared, "英语不会, 电脑不懂"; or "I do not know English, nor am I IT-savvy."

When seniors feel unsafe in the digital space, these consequences are not only stressful; they can be dangerous.

And this brings me to my fourth point: scams. From financial loss to trauma, scams affect people of all ages. But for our seniors, the consequences can be life-altering. Singapore recorded 51,501 scam cases in 2024 with $1.1 billion lost. Seniors may be fewer in number, but they often suffer the highest losses and the deepest emotional turmoil.

For someone in their 70s and 80s, money represents years of effort and strength they can no longer earn back. The loss therefore cuts far deeper than the dollar value. Many do not tell their children. There is shame and fear of being scolded. Some suffer sleeplessness, anxiety and a loss of confidence in their own judgement.

One senior in his 80s shared with me that after recognising the scam tactics and refusing a second request for money, he feared retaliation and stopped going out alone. Repeat victimisation is also not uncommon.

In a Home Team survey shared in 2021, 45% of scam victims were targeted again. And I know this to be true. Some scam tactics are advancing quickly, with AI-enabled deepfakes far harder to detect. I suggest three areas where our response to victim support can be strengthened.

First, faster and more coordinated support. Automatic referral pathways to ensure victims are quickly linked to counselling, guidance and family support. Second, more humane system responses. Banks and agencies can adopt protocols, including private consultations, multilingual guidance and staff trained to respond with empathy. Third, a mandatory scam resilience workshop for victims, to equip seniors and families with practical tools, confidence and safeguards before they are approached again. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few heartfelt words to our senior residents.

Many Singaporeans have encountered scams before. If you have been deceived, please do not blame yourself too much. This is really not your fault. Scam tactics are becoming increasingly sophisticated nowadays and anyone could have a momentary lapse. What is important is not to put yourself down because of one experience. Be more self-forgiving and carry on living courageously.

According to the Singapore Police Force’s (SPF’s) data, scam cases in 2024 reached a new high. Among these, senior citizens suffered the most losses. What is even more heartbreaking is that many seniors dare not speak up after being scammed because they feel ashamed and are afraid of being blamed.

As a result, they experience long-term anxiety, difficulty sleeping and even begin to doubt their own judgement. Facing such situations, I would like to offer some advice to all our seniors.

First, do not be afraid but remain vigilant. You can agree on a simple "code word" with your family beforehand. This way, when you receive calls or video calls, you can confirm whether the other party is indeed your family member. Current scam tactics are very sophisticated. They can even imitate the look and voice.

One lady received a video call from her "husband". The caller said his phone was lost and needed her to transfer money immediately. The person on screen looked like her husband, and the voice was identical too. But in fact, her real husband was at home at the time.

Hence, all seniors must remember – for any call asking for money, you must pause and confirm the caller’s identity first. Use the code word to verify. Only then can you truly protect yourself. If the caller claims to be a Singapore Government official or Police officer, you can dial 1799 ScamShield anti-scam hotline to verify.

Second, if you suspect or have already encountered a scam, please immediately notify your family or bank. The earlier you seek help, the greater the chance of reducing losses.

Third, actively participate in anti-scam courses. According to a 2021 Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) survey, 45% of victims have been scammed again. Therefore, learning is the most important line of defense.

Currently, many communities organise anti-scam talks. For example, Telok Blangah Community Centre will hold another anti-scam education activity on 7 March. Because scam tactics constantly evolve, only by learning together and reminding each other can we better protect ourselves.

Finally, I would also like to say a few words to the children of our seniors. Even smart, well-educated people can be deceived. Scammers do not choose their targets. When parents encounter scams, they often blame themselves and are more frightened than we imagine. Please give them more understanding, comfort and support and help them emerge from the shadow.

(In English): Mr Speaker, across many cultures, how a society treats its seniors reflects its moral strength. Singapore has made meaningful progress, building firm foundations through Healthier SG, Age Well SG and the tireless work of everyone on the ground. I thank our Government and public officers, and recognise that every policy decision must be balanced against fiscal realities. May our Smart Nation be strong and kind for every generation. With this, I support Budget 2026. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Dr Haresh Singaraju.

5.08 pm

Dr Haresh Singaraju (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Mdm Tan is 78. She has six chronic conditions, the kind of complexity that team-based care was built for. Every quarter, despite a worsening gait, she makes her way to my polyclinic with a plastic bag of medications. Down the corridor, a nurse with years of clinical experience and an advanced practice qualification waits for Mdm Tan as scheduled. The clinic briefed her on what this nurse could do, but a couple of conversations in one clinic cannot undo a lifetime of expectation.

Mdm Tan has seen a doctor every quarter for years. That is not a habit. It is a relationship. We do not yet have a national framework that helps patients understand what team-based care looks like and their benefits, especially for complex chronic care. So, Mdm Tan expresses politely that she would like to only see the doctor instead. The doctor's queue grows and the nurse waits for her next patient.

I am not questioning patient choice. I am questioning whether the system gave patients enough reason to choose differently. And no key performance indicator (KPI) captured it. Across our public healthcare, we do not yet systematically track utilisation of advanced practice nurses or care managers and even pharmacist-led clinics.

The result is predictable. Trained professionals underutilised while doctors run behind, and patients like Mdm Tan wait longer as their healthcare and social needs compound. What I saw in that corridor is not a clinical gap. It is a measurement gap. And it is not unique to healthcare. It runs quietly through the domains this Budget touches.

Mr Speaker, this is a substantial Budget, substantial enough to change that. This Budget rightly bets on AI as an engine of growth. But the longer serving engine is our people. The test is whether they are better off. We measure what the system produces – wait times, enrolment rates, disbursements with extraordinary precision – but we do not yet assess whether the system changed the outcome for the person it was built to serve.

The Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review spans four themes and dozens of indicators across domains, across every domain of national life. It tracks outputs and throughput. It does not capture whether a person's health, housing, employment and social connection are collectively improving.

That is the gap, not an effort in integration. Each ministry sees its slice. No one sees the whole person, the very thing a family physician is trained to do. Every week, I see it. If there is a place where the whole person view should begin, it is Healthier SG. As of August 2025, it enrolled over 1.3 million residents into a care relationship. The most significant shift from episodic treatment to sustained health management in primary care this country has undertaken. That relationship is the foundation.

My question is, what else it can carry? Beyond active ageing centres and sports programmes, social prescribing pathways remain narrow. The culinary class at my community club, five minutes from my clinic, is not linked; neither is the e-sports interest group for seniors near my home. Not because it does not work. Because no one has built the bridge and that bridge is key for heartfelt social connection.

In May 2025, the World Health Assembly adopted its first resolution recognising social connection as a public health priority. Singapore is a member. If we already have the infrastructure and we do, the question is not whether social prescribing works, is why the connections remain incomplete.

The gap between what we measure and what matters does not stop at the clinic door. It follows families home. A couple sits at their dining table after their toddler has gone to bed. The laptop is open, the childcare fees, mortgage, career plans, caregiving help. They are doing the sums on a second child. I have met such couples a few times along their healthcare journey at their six weeks postnatal checks through their children's milestones and their own health reasons and concerns.

The mothers tell me they are coping. Their affect says otherwise. On separate occasions, the fathers come in for something routine and ask, almost as an afterthought, whether it is normal to feel this overwhelmed. I empathise. These are the conversations that never reach a policy paper, and they are the conversations that shape whether a family grows.

Thirty weeks of parental leave, once fully in effect this April, is among the most generous in the region. LifeSG credits, Large Families Scheme – the financial incentives are healthy, but the United Nations Population Fund's 2025 report spanning 14 countries and over a third of the global population found that financial incentives alone are largely ineffective when structural barriers remain.

This couple's question is not just about money. It is whether their workplaces will make room for the life they want to build, whether a supervisor will raise an eyebrow, whether a promotion will be quietly deferred, whether flexibility is a policy on paper or a practice in the room. They close the laptop. They do not decide against the second child. They decide not yet. And that decision acquired, private and unmeasured one, is exactly what across domain well-being framework would catch.

The gap between a parental leave policy that looks generous on paper and a workplace culture that quietly penalises those who use it. This is not a gap any single policy can close. No single Ministry sees both sides of that equation, which is precisely why no single Ministry has closed it. Each of them – Mdm Tan, the nurse, the couple – was counted. None was heard.

A well-being framework would have seen Mdm Tan not as six diagnoses, but as a person whose trust the system had not yet earned. It would have given the nurse something the current system does not, proof that her care made a difference. And it would have seen the couple not as two incomes, but as a family doing calculations on hope. Not because it adds new programmes, because it asks a question the current architecture does not: across domains, is this person's life improving?

The Prime Minister puts it well. What matters is not just the policies we announce, but the outcomes they deliver in people's lives. That standard is the right one, and I am asking this House how we intend to measure ourselves against it. I believe we can, because no country has yet done what Singapore is positioned to do – link individual level administrative data across domains, organise it through a well-being framework and run it as routine Government infrastructure.

The Nordics built rich individual level datasets but channelled them primarily through academic research. The OECD adopted well-being frameworks at the supra-national level but could not bridge sovereign data silos. Wales passed the Well-being of Future Generations Act but lacked the digital infrastructure to wire it to individual lives.

Each solved the piece. None solved the system. Singapore can.

We have the data infrastructure, the governance density and, with the Public Sector Governance Act strengthened last month, the legal authority for cross agency data sharing with appropriate safeguards. To be clear, I am not proposing open access to individual records. I am proposing linked analysis governed by the same rigour of the Public Sector Governance Act and the protections of the Personal Data Protection Act, so that outcomes across domains can be assessed without compromising the privacy this House rightly guards.

Build this framework and everything else follows. Social prescribing gets data to prove what works. Team-based care gets validated by outcomes, not throughput, whether the workplaces truly support the families they depend on becomes a question we can finally answer.

Let me put this in Budget terms, because this is a fiscal argument as much as a social one. If linked data show that a housing intervention reduced downstream healthcare costs for the same cohort, that is not a well-being insight. That is a budget insight. It is the difference between allocating by tradition and allocating by proof. This House asks every Ministry to justify its spending. The question is whether we have yet given them the tools to do so across the domains, and that tool must carry weight. If the data show that a cohort's well-being is declining across domains, this House should expect that finding to inform the next budget cycle, not the next study. Measurement earns its place only when it is tied to decisions.

Genuine cross-domain work is already underway. ComLink+ mentioned in this Budget, too, deserves particular recognition. It now pairs lower-income families with dedicated family coaches, tracks progress across preschool, employment, debt clearance and housing, and has begun integrating health action plans in partnerships with our healthcare clusters. That is real progress and it is the closest model we have to what I am describing.

But ComLink+ is programme-specific and population limited – lower-income families with children living primarily in public rental housing. It currently serves over 10,000 families. The elderly enrolled in Healthier SG with complex chronic care demands is not covered. The middle-income couple weighing a second child is not covered. The question is not whether we can do this for some families in need. We can and we are.

The question is whether we are ready to build this as routine Government infrastructure across populations, across the life course.

Cross-domain measurement cannot live within a single Ministry, not because any Ministry has fallen short, but because the architecture was never designed for it. That is precisely why this must sit in the Prime Minister's office, in the strategy group, the only body with convening authority across domains.

I ask the Government: direct the strategy group in the Prime Minister's office in coordination with MOH, MOM and MSF to publish, within 18 months, a single integrated well-being report for two defined cohorts as a start. First, Healthier SG enrollees aged 65 and above; second, middle-income families with children under six.

Begin with the baseline – who these people are – across every domain that touches their lives as of this Budget, organise that through a well-being framework. Then 18 months from now, measure again and tell this House whether anything changed. Not a new dashboard, not another satisfaction survey. A single report that tells us whether our elderly are living better and whether our young families are getting the support they need. One cohort at each end of the life course, one proof of concept.

If the linked analysis through the well-being framework works for these two, there is no reason it cannot extend to the sandwiched generation caught between them and, in time, across life's course. If the infrastructure to do this already exists and I believe it does, then what remains is a decision on timeline. I would welcome the Minister's indication on when this might begin.

The timeline itself signals how seriously we take the integration this Budget promises. If there are barriers I have not accounted for, I would welcome that candour too, because understanding what stands in the way is in itself progress. I am aware that what I am proposing is not as modest as it may sound. Cross-domain measurement means the Ministry's outcomes become partly shaped by another Ministry's performance. That is a significant shift in how we govern.

I am not asking it for it to be easy. I am asking for it to begin.

Mr Speaker, this is not a call to spend more. It is not a call to change direction. It is a call to see clearly whether our economic progress is reaching our people. The Prime Minister asked us to strengthen our social bonds and build a Singapore that belongs to all of us. I am asking how we will know if we have. Mdm Tan is still in the queue. The nurse still has an empty slot. The couple is still pondering at the dining table.

But if this well-being framework exists a year from now, Mdm Tan walks into that clinic and an important arm of a complex chronic care is addressed by the nurse who already knows her by name and social background. The couple reopens the laptop and, this time, the data tells us what their silence never could – not just whether the money was enough, but whether the workplace made room. This is what it means to see people clearly.

The question is whether a year from now we will know if anything changed for them.

Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.

5.22 pm

Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I have recently been wondering, how do I raise my child in the kind of world we are living in today? The Prime Minister began his Budget speech by describing the profoundly volatile, fragmented and contested world we live in.

The moment I wake up, my phone pings with negative news. In various parts of our world, we have armed conflict and wars. On top of that, we have trade wars and, increasingly, we are fighting tech wars, over AI, chips, data and digital dominance. AI and digital activities have also displaced healthy social connection and mental well-being. Our young people are experiencing what The Straits Times is calling a "contagion of despair". Many are also anxious about AI displacing their jobs. And as technology and the rest of the world advance at breakneck speed, some are left behind.

We used to feel much more secure in our economic connections with other nations and our social connections with other people, but that has changed now. Therefore, apart from the threat of global instability, isolation is an equally pressing threat for Singapore. Despite the challenges that we face, I am glad to hear in the Prime Minister's speech a glimmer of hope. The various strategies and support systems highlighted will take Singapore forward as one people.

Not an isolated Singapore from the rest of the world. Not isolated people within a land. But a connected Singapore, a shared Singapore, a Singapore that is for all of us.

To do that, we need to turn from isolation to connection. There is great temptation to give in to the dog-eat-dog mentality, in a world where it seems like we are playing a zero-sum game. If you have more, it means I have less; and we start to compete against one another. This is the economic isolation I fear.

But imagine if we and our neighbours could work together and uplift one another, sharing our resources, each of us contributing our strengths to create shared prosperity and more economic opportunities within the ASEAN region. What a world that would be!

To achieve this, we need to first empower Singapore workers by helping them to be economically connected to the region. Global trade is fragmenting, with tariffs and the "weaponisation" of trade impacting ASEAN supply chains and raising uncertainty. Yet in this climate, around 82% of Singapore SMEs plan to expand overseas this year, primarily targeting ASEAN markets to drive growth, diversify revenue and build stronger regional brand presence. Tangible Government support is critical for Singapore companies seeking to venture abroad and helps Singapore stay economically relevant to the region.

There are encouraging success stories, such as that of Happy Fish, an indoor swimming school which now has 10 branches in Singapore and 11 in Malaysia, with its first Jakarta branch opening this quarter. They plan to open more branches in Malaysia and Jakarta and expand into Vietnam, Thailand and Japan, with support from Enterprise SG.

Such stories inspire confidence in the Singapore brand. We are competent and dependable. But such a brand alone is insufficient.

Singapore enterprises or global companies which have headquarters in Singapore often require Singaporean workers who are prepared to venture abroad to take up regional or global leadership roles. Yet many Singaporean workers are reluctant to venture overseas. An MOM report in November showed that only 3.1% of Singaporean and Permanent Resident workers have had overseas work stints of at least six months. But companies are looking for workers with global or regional experience to take on leadership roles or who are prepared to venture into the region to support growth initiatives. With the stiff competition from the global pool of talent, how can we provide this international exposure for Singaporean workers so our workers are ready and willing to take up opportunities? I will propose specific measures during the COS, including grants for companies deploying Singaporeans to regional roles and work exposure programmes for young graduates in ASEAN markets.

Second, I wish to speak on the economic isolation of a group of people who have sacrificially taken time out for a noble cause. They are among the most capable people I have met. During their time out, these people have honed a range of valuable skills. They have experience in strategic planning, financial oversight, conflict resolution, multiple stakeholder management, event planning and execution and healthcare coordination. They have to manage competing priorities, optimise limited resources and lead with resilience under pressure.

These super power workers I am referring to are stay-at-home parents. They have given up some of the very best years of their careers. I call on the Government to implement a scheme to support their return to the workforce. This is a crucial piece in the overall national effort to support Singaporeans to feel confident in starting families. It supports the long-term objective of arresting Singapore's local population decline and creates a pathway back for parents to be productive members of our economy.

Third, as we strategise for Singapore to surge ahead and ride the AI wave to advance our economy, let us not forget that there are groups of people who may be left behind.

Mr Daniel Yeow, who runs The Social Space, a social enterprise in the food and beverage (F&B) sector, shared with me that it is becoming much harder to sustain their mission of providing dignified employment to vulnerable groups, such as single parents with caregiving burdens, at-risk youths and people with mental health conditions. These individuals are often unable to maintain long-term employment and not many employers are willing to give them even a chance. While this social enterprise is determined to help such workers, they are struggling to do more because of rising cost pressures and increasing local qualifying salary (LQS) thresholds. Yet it is challenging for such enterprises to fully benefit from the various AI and productivity related schemes in order to provide employment to such groups of people.

I would like the Government to consider a "Take A Chance" grant for employers who hire such vulnerable persons. There are already the Senior Employment Credit for hiring seniors, Enabling Employment Credit for hiring persons with disabilities and the Uplifting Employment Credit for hiring ex-offenders. We can introduce another similar credit scheme for employers who take a chance on persons from other vulnerable and marginalised groups and offer them meaningful long-term employment. In the push towards productivity, it is important that the most vulnerable are not inadvertently made worse off or further excluded from employment opportunities.

Beyond economic isolation, we must also address social isolation. Last year, I had the privilege of addressing a group of young people in the Rotaract Club of Raffles City at their 25th installation ceremony. I shared about how we were seeing quiet quitters. There are young people in China lying flat, or "躺平"; in Japan, we see hikikomori, directly translated, it means "pulling inward and being confined". In Singapore, about one-third of youths aged 15 to 35 reported severe or extremely severe symptoms of depression, anxiety or stress. Students dealing with these conditions miss about 190 hours – or 24 days – of school annually and mental health struggles cut down school performance by 63%. Research by IPS has found a direct statistical link between high screen time and greater loneliness.

Yet, the young people of the Rotaract Club defied these trends. They painted rental flats, ran community projects with homes for the disabled, homes for the children, and even launched cross-border collaborations across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), including launching the inaugural Rotaract ASEAN Young Leaders' Exchange to foster cultural understanding and youth dialogue across Southeast Asia. They are amazing! I saw how confident and how purposeful they are.

I left that event shivering with excitement. But I also asked myself: how might we empower more young people to be changemakers? How might we connect with young people who feel so disconnected from real life that they have retreated into their digital worlds? With an increasing reliance on AI, how might we help people build strong social skills, strong communication skills and competencies to navigate cross-cultural environments with sensitivity, respect and moral courage, qualities that AI will never be able to replicate? In an AI-saturated world, with everyone upping the game on AI to improve productivity, for Singaporeans to remain competitive, we need to have more than just AI and that must mean more social-emotional and cultural intelligence.

For youths who want to do more and who are not content to be mere spectators, but want to build our nation together, I see immense potential in the Budget announcement of a $50 million SG Partnerships Fund, so we can support more ground-up community initiatives.

But turning to those who are struggling, I wonder if we can recruit and train befrienders and mentors trained in psychological first aid so we can form a first line of defence for our young people. I would like to propose tapping on the schools' peer support leaders for this role, with the long-term hope that building such capacity also builds capacity for such individuals to eventually serve as community volunteers.

In my community, I have seen mothers and volunteers form support networks on their own, from playground groups to a group of young widows who call themselves Hope Herd and who ensure no one journeys alone. They are resilient. But what about our youths who may be struggling on their own?

While we have CHAT, which provides mental health assessments at *SCAPE and CREST-Youth to do outreach, we lack intermediate spaces in the heartlands. Traditional spaces like our void decks have "No Football" signs put up and malls require spending. Without free, unstructured spaces to congregate, our youths have nowhere to go. Is it any wonder they are retreating into their digital worlds?

Overseas, youth-friendly spaces that combine drop-in socialising with mental health support have shown real results. I would like to propose third spaces co-located with ActiveSG gyms or libraries, where young people can socialise and access early mental health support before conditions escalate.

There is also compelling evidence for the arts as a driver of health and wellbeing. I would therefore like to explore the power of the arts in promoting mental well-being and social connection among our young. I would like to call on the Government to commission a nation-wide study on how the arts strengthen the mental and social well-being of our students. There is an opportunity to scale up the work that arts practitioners are already doing. Some are using theatre to address bullying and build empathy in schools. I propose that MOE increase partnerships with them to build socio-emotional competencies, complementing what teachers and counsellors already do.

Further, participating in arts programmes also reaps significant socio-emotional benefits. A study by the Singapore Symphony Orchestra shows that just bringing students to attend a concert together resulted in significant improvement in their well-being and sense of social connection.

Therefore, I propose that we expand the Culture Pass to cover every child, rather than only applying it to citizens aged 18 and above. This provides access to the arts to every child, strengthens family ties and involves parents in the artistic development of their children. Most of all, doing so also benefits their overall health and well-being.

We also have to combat the isolation of those with special needs. One particularly heartbreaking instance of social isolation that I came across was during the Walk of a Lifetime, organised by Saint Andrew's Autism Centre. During the briefing, I learnt about how some parents keep their autistic children at home for fear of the social rejection they would encounter should their children go through a meltdown in public. I am working on an initiative in Bishan Community Club to make it a comfortable and conducive space for those with special needs, so they know they are welcome at our events. We are doing this by setting aside calm corners, training volunteers to know how to engage such families and designing wayfinding features.

I also started an initiative to promote bonding between parents, grandparents and children. It is called Play Date. It is an indoor space with loose parts free play, which is going to expand to serve children with special needs.

Our efforts are modest. Punggol Regional Library and the National Gallery have far more beautiful and well-equipped rooms for those with special needs. But wherever we can, let us provide more of such spaces across our country. I would like to issue a call to every operator of a public space, to be like the National Gallery and the National Library Board and to consider making accommodations to make their spaces more welcoming to persons with autism and special needs. Let us break down the barriers that have kept those with special needs apart from us.

Mr Speaker, I started this speech with a question: how do I raise my child in this complex world we are living in?

I found an answer in a volunteer in my community. Her name is Ain. She is a young mother of an eight-year-old boy with hearing disabilities, and she lives with her family in a rental flat. After work, Ain finds time to serve her neighbours. She attends wakes, visits those who have been hospitalised and organises activities with fellow volunteers and even accompanies single mothers to my Meet-the-People Sessions to advocate for them.

This is a Singaporean who refuses to let others fall into isolation. She demonstrates empathy, shows kindness and pulls her community together. Ain is an ordinary woman doing something truly extraordinary. And I think the way Ain lives, the way she is a role model for her child as she presses on with hope and love, is a wonderful, powerful way to take Singapore forward. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

5.36 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, I will speak on internationalisation and Budget surplus.

With a small and mature domestic market, Singapore companies seeking sustained growth must look beyond our shores. External markets are essential, not only for revenue expansions but also for diversification and resilience. Encouraging and supporting enterprises to internationalise has long been a cornerstone of Singapore's economic strategic. Successive economic reviews and budgets have consistently emphasised overseas expansions as one of the key growth drivers.

Over the years, many Singapore companies have ventured abroad, both regionally and globally. And one market where our companies have internationalised particularly successively is China. Despite our small domestic economy, Singapore has, for several years, been China's largest foreign investors.

Today, iconic brands, such as Raffles City, Breadtalk, Charles and Keith, Jumbo Seafood, TWG Tea and others, operate extensively in China. In Shanghai alone. They are approximately 4,000 Singapore companies there, and China is also one of Singapore's top markets, particularly for electronics, machinery and related equipment.

Why has Singapore companies been successful in China? There are several factors that explain this.

Firstly, credit to the Government, it is the strong government-to-government relationships. Over decades, bilateral ties between Singapore and China have deepened and expanded significantly. We have a comprehensive China-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (CSFTA) which allows the majority of our export to China to enter tariff-free. Importantly, the CSFTA is not static. It has been reviewed and upgraded periodically to remain relevant.

There are also the key flagship government-to-government projects that further anchors relationship, including the Singapore-Suzhou Industrial Park, Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City, China-Singapore (Chongqing) initiatives. And there are also regular high-level engagements, such as the annual Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) meetings and the various Provincial Ministerial platforms that continually review and expand areas of cooperations. Indeed, many meaningful commercial opportunities have emerged from these engagements. In the most recent JCBC meeting, Singapore's role as the major offshore renminbi clearing centre is further enhanced.

The bilateral relationship between Singapore and China was often described in official communication as "all round, high-quality, future-oriented partnership". "全方位、高质量、 前瞻性、 伙伴关系". It sounds a mouthful, but it reflects the shared commitment and willingness to continually explore new areas of cooperation. And this special relationship has provided is supportive environment for Singapore companies operating in China.

Secondly, I suppose is our bilingual and bicultural advantage. Singapore's bilingual and bicultural strengths provide a natural edge, the ability to communicate effectively and understand cultural nuances, build trust and facilitates businesses. At the same time, Singapore is regarded in China as a trusted and well-governed business partner known for strong institutions and strong governance standards.

Thirdly, it is the timing. Our companies internationalised into China during a period of market liberalisation and rapid economic reform. China then was both growth hungry and capital hungry and Singapore businesses were well-positioned to ride on that wave for expansion. So, in Chinese, this alignment may be described as "天时地利人和"; that is, favourable timing, geographical proximity and strong relationship.

The question is: can this success be replicated elsewhere? Well, we must strive to replicate this success in other markets. It is neither prudent nor sustainable to rely excessively on a single external market for growth. And there have been pockets of success in other markets like India, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia, although these have not reached the scale achieved in China.

The Government can help identify and signal markets with strong long-term potential, particularly those where Singapore enjoys strong bilateral ties. And beyond China, the Government has encouraged expansion into India, Vietnam, Indonesia and more recently, emerging markets in Latin America and Africa. The establishment of new embassies support this diversification strategy.

The Government is also pushing for businesses to consider stepping up at the Singapore-Johore Special Economic Zone, which is a natural and logical move, given our proximity, our familiarity, as well as our complementarity.

Singapore now has 28 implemental FTAs, including multilateral agreements, such as the ASEAN FTA, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). We have also signed digital economy agreements, green economy agreements, as well as the investments agreements.

I suggest that government-to-government engagement be extended further to regulator-to-regulator platforms. Such dialogues could help align regulatory frameworks to reduce market entry barriers and facilitate licensing approvals in regulated industries. And this will be helpful to significantly ease market assessors for our companies.

Next, trade associations and chambers, such as the Singapore Business Federation, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, play a critical role in supporting SMEs overseas. It makes sense for Singapore companies to internationalise collectively where feasible. Sharing market intelligence, pooling resources, learning from each other can shorten the learning curves and reduce costly missteps.

Larger Singapore firms with established overseas network can act as queen bees, anchoring smaller companies with their ecosystem. We have seen that in retail malls, industrial parks and integrated developments, but led by major Singapore players. Banks, healthcare groups, investment holding companies could seemingly play a catalytic role.

In this regard, the Market Readiness Assistance scheme could be further enhanced to provide higher support for consortium-based applications and recognition could be given to firms that play anchor roles overseas.

Finally, internationalisation must be built on a strong home base. As in previous Budgets, Budget 2026 continued to provide a whole set of support measures, including supporting building leadership in key clusters, strengthening our enterprise ecosystem productivity enhancements.

Companies also require sound financials, strong balance sheets and access to growth capital when they internationalise. Overseas expansions carry significant risks and often demand patient capital. So, I welcome the $1.5 billion Anchor Fund and $1.5 billion Financial Sector Development Fund announced in Budget 2026. These initiatives will strengthen enterprise financing and support risk-sharing investments.

Sir, in an increasingly fragmented global economy where trade relationships now come under scrutiny, persistent trade surpluses may invite pressures. Increasingly, countries expect quick brokerage on trade and investments, and a balanced trade relationship. Supporting companies to invest abroad while maintaining a strong core in Singapore, helps to mitigate such risk and enhances our overall economic resilience.

Sir, turning to the second topic, budget surplus. As the Budget debate is about financial policy of the Government, the elephant in the room question is of course how is it that despite rising expenditures over the years, Singapore recorded significant surplus of $15.1 billion in FY2025, with a projected $8.5 billion surplus in FY2026? What contributed to the $15.1 billion dollar surpluses for FY2025?

Essentially, three major components, in my view. Similar to last Budget, there is a $5 billion capitalisation of the nationally significant infrastructure, which in essence is a non-cash item and will need to be depreciated over the lifespan of the infrastructure. Not to mention, there is also the interest cost because this involved borrowing which needs to be serviced.

The second component comes from the significant increase in the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) – a hefty $3.4 billion from FY2024. Being investment returns, it can of course be subjected to the vagaries of the markets.

And the third component, the remaining $6.7 billion of the $15.1 billion surplus, comes from the increase in tax revenue, primarily the corporate income tax. Of course, there is also the personal income tax, GST and vehicle premiums.

Corporate income tax rose from $30.1 billion from FY2024 to $35.2 billion in FY2025 – the revised figures. And it is projected to rise to $37.8 billion in FY2026, an increase of roughly one-third over three years, driven by stronger-than-expected growth and the implementation of the BEPS Pillar 2 top-up taxes. And of course, the other taxes like personal income tax, GST and vehicle-related revenue also increased.

According to MOF's 2023 Occasional Paper, Government expenditure is projected to reach 19% to 20% of GDP between FY2026 and FY2030, and may exceed 20% by 2030. Meanwhile, the total revenue including NIRC is approaching 20% of GDP in FY2025.

Given that corporate income tax revenue is expected to remain elevated, I would like to seek clarification from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance whether we are likely to see continued high surpluses for the remainder of this five-year term or should we expect greater volatility going forward?

Sir, while fiscal prudence is essential, sustained surpluses provide room to ease cost pressure where necessary. And here I want to propose three areas for consideration.

Firstly, my favourite topic, the public transport subsidies. I will hope that the Government can consider additional median-term top-ups to public transport subsidies, beyond the baseline annual $2 billion to moderate fare increases. In the two previous Budgets, the Government provided additional subsidies of $250 million and $200 million respectively. This continued calibrated support would help households manage cost of living pressures.

Secondly, I hope that the Government can also increase medium-term co-funding support under the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) to help businesses manage raising rising wage costs associated with the uplifting of the low-wage workers. We are already observing higher tender prices on the ground from, for example, cleaning contractors, because they have to price in the higher wages for their low-wage workers, and that is putting pressure on the Service and Conservancy Charges as well. So, greater transitional support would ease these adjustments for businesses to pay low-wage workers better salaries.

Thirdly, I will hope that the Government can also provide enhanced grants for the upkeep of ageing estates, including problems that we face frequently for older towns – repairs for water seepages and structural deteriorations.

I also hope that the Government can provide higher subsidies for flats that are still without lift access. There is something like 100 blocks of flats that are still without lift access and I hope the Ministry of National Development can look at that as well. And thirdly, to have expanded grants for barrier-free accessibility improvements – something that is much needed in older estates.

Sir, as our housing stocks mature, proactive maintenance support would increasingly be needed to upkeep the estate and to sustain quality liveability.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened to a couple of speeches from the Members of the Workers' Party and the point about linking GST to Budget surpluses were raised again. That is not a fully accurate picture. As I have outlined earlier, while the increase in GST has added to our revenue, the bulk of the surplus comes from increase in corporate income tax, as well as the capitalisation item and the increase in NIRC.

So, it is worth reminding Members again that in our unique construct, a substantial portion of our GST revenue, approximately 60% is borne by higher-income earners or foreigners, foreign visitors who are here, whether to attend a convention or to attend Formula One. These are the ones who pay the main bulk, the 60%. And the remaining 40%, which is contributed by the broader base of the lower- to middle-income households, is mitigated through the permanent GST Voucher Scheme and related offsets.

Taken together, the lower- and the middle-income families effectively pays a GST rate that is 7% or below.

So, I ask myself why would we not want to tax more from the rich or the foreigners who are here to spend more, and then use the financial resources to distribute it to the lower- and the middle-income households.

Sir, in closing, I am encouraged that in recent Budgets, the Prime Minister has directed significant measures towards strengthening our social compact and in addressing inequality alongside efforts to reinforce our economic resilience and national security. It is precisely because we remained in the position of physical strength that we are able to allocate meaningful resources across these three pillars: social development, economic growth and security in support of our long-term nation building.

Prudent stewardship over the years has provided the Government with the capacity not only to respond to immediate challenges but also to invest strategically in our collective future. While we operate in an increasingly complex and uncertain global environment, I am confident that the renewed leadership team possesses both the resolve and capability to navigate what lies ahead. Our strong fiscal position put us in good stead to confront emerging risks, seize new opportunities, safeguard Singapore's continued progress for generations to come. Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexaing.

5.52 pm

Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. However, I would like to speak on how we can do better to support Singaporeans and families with children.

Sir, our TFR has remained below one for a couple of years now. This is well below the replacement rate of 2.1. What does this mean for Singapore? On the one hand, it means we must do much more to support parenthood. But to me, a low TFR means that each child born to or adopted by a Singaporean, is precious. Not just to their parents but to all of us as a society. And our policies and structures must reflect the full weight of society's support, regardless of the circumstances of their parents.

While the Government has done much to support each child, I would like to highlight four groups of children that we can do much more for today.

First, children of unmarried parents. Our policies across the Government systematically disadvantage this group of children today right from birth, as it penalises their unmarried parents who look after them.

One, their unmarried parent does not receive the Baby Bonus Cash Gift of $11,000.

Two, they are not recognised as part of a "family nucleus" for HDB schemes, they receive lower subsidies than the family grants. They are not eligible for schemes like the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme.

Three, their unmarried parent is excluded from the most substantive tax benefits we provide for families. They cannot claim the Parenthood Tax Rebate of up to $20,000. They are not eligible for Working Mother’s Child Relief, even if the unmarried mother has to work doubly hard to bring up her child. Neither are they eligible for the Qualifying Child Relief.

Sir, I believe strongly in the family nucleus, where the parents are able to bring up children in a loving and nurturing home. But I do not believe that any Singaporean that will wake up one day and decide to have a child without getting married, just because we change our policy stance and allow them to be benefit from all the above benefits as provided to married parents. Even married parents are not incentivised to do so, as evidenced by the low TFR.

Mr Speaker, nobody makes the decision to have a child without getting married on a whim. If given a choice, I believe that not a single one of us in this House or in this country will want to be an unmarried parent. Behind every child born to an unmarried parent is a story of tears, agony, confusion, uncertainty, but overcome by only a burning desire to bring up the child.

I have met a couple of residents who are single and unmarried. They have burnt the candle at both ends because they tell me they want their child to grow up feeling like they are the same, like any other child in school. Many succeed but many others do not. Have our policies inadvertently tipped the balance against them? This is not how a society where each child is precious should be or can be. We must do better.

It is time to stop the policy differentiation between married and unmarried parents who take care of their children. This is not an abandonment or de-prioritisation of the family nucleus. This is not an encouragement of people to have children out of wedlock. And this is not going to lead to a sudden spike in the number of children born out of wedlock. All it is is a reflection of a society that cares for each child and that does its best to alleviate the challenging circumstances they face at birth and give them a better chance in life.

Mr Speaker, the second group are children of non-working mothers. Currently, non-working mothers do not qualify for the additional subsidies for childcare as well as after-school care. So, they will have to pay several hundred dollars more each month if they would like to place their children on these programmes.

Here again, there is clear policy logic. We want to incentivise dual-income households. Moreover, there will be some of us that think, since the mother is not working, well, she can care for the child, no need to place in childcare or student care.

Sir, in 2018, about eight years ago, there was a young Deputy Director in MOE. He came across many students from complex, disadvantaged family backgrounds who would have benefitted from the structured environment after school, but who were deprived from doing so because their families decided they could not afford it.

In some cases, the parents had many children. In other cases, they had a child with special needs amid siblings. So, the mother had to stay at home to take care of the children, but as you can understand, she could not take care of each of them adequately well. There were also other mothers he encountered who were absent. They are not working but nor are they taking care of the child.

The Deputy Director and his team were determined not to let the working mother criterion hold back these children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds from accessing structured after school care. From the ground up, they worked hard with school educators and the Ministry of Social and Family Development, and devised a protocol where the school educators would identify the children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, facilitate their registration in the school-based Student Care Centre, highly subsidised. This meant much more work for the school educators, but they all supported the initiative, and dedicated their time and energy to identifying and engaging these students because they knew that having a structured after school environment could be so helpful for these children.

Today, the Deputy Director has grown a little older, has some white hair, stands here in Parliament. But he still has the same dream and the same fire burning in him. We should support all our children to have affordable childcare and after school care, regardless of whether their mother is employed. There are many more children beyond those currently identified in the schools that will benefit from this. And our school educators and teachers will also save time from having to make the case for each of these children.

So, Mr Speaker, my plea to the Government is – come on, let us get this done. Let us grant the additional subsidies for childcare and afterschool care to all students and drop the working mother criteria. Again, I do not believe that this will overnight make all of our working mothers wake up and decide to stop work, or this encourage those who are looking for work to not continue to do so.

Mr Speaker, the third group are our children with special needs. I would like to call for the removal of means-testing for subsidies associated with children with special needs. And this will include additional subsidy for EIPIC, subsidies for Special Student Care Centres, subsidies for children who need assistive technology and devices, like hearing aids. We should also extend free frequency modulation systems for all children in preschools, just as we do today for those in primary schools.

Sir, the emotional, health and financial impact of raising a child with special needs, after school and through life, is much more than the cost associated with bringing them up in their early developmental years. It is not something that every parent or any parent or child would wish upon themselves. And, therefore, as a society, we should give them our fullest support in their developmental years, because each child is special and precious.

Mr Speaker, my fourth and final group are our adopted children. Sir, for most couples, adopting a child is not the first resort. Many have invested significant amounts of time and energy, including going for IVF to have children of their own. Adopting a child is not a decision that any couple takes lightly. They know it is for life. They are fully committed. There is no backing out, just like the rest of us who have children of our own. I spoke to a resident recently, who also happens to be a childhood friend of mine. She and her husband came to my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) and shared with me their adoption journey.

First, they had to attend a pre-adoption briefing and a disclosure briefing and then obtain a favourable adoption suitability assessment (ASA). The ASA took several months, whereby they had to undergo, and they had to complete copious documentation, identify several referees and go through multiple intrusive interviews. But they, however, understood the need for this, because we do want to ensure that parents who adopt are ready and equipped to do so.

After they cleared the ASA, they signed up to be on the waiting list of an accredited agency, so that they could identify a child for adoption and this was a very long waiting list, so there are many among us who would like to adopt a child as well. After matching with the identified child, they had to apply for a Dependent's Pass for the child to be able to come to Singapore, because they need the child to be in Singapore for them to apply to the Court for the adoption order.

But the Court process takes several more months as well, because as part of the review, the Judge requires a report from the Guardian-in-Adoption (GIA), which is an officer appointed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), and she interviewed them again, made home visits, similar questions as the ASA, and it was only after she had completed her report, then could the couple request for a final hearing for the Judge to issue the adoption order.

After receiving the adoption order, they then need to apply to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), finally, to get citizenship for their son. At the point where they came to me, they had spent more than one and a half years since they started the ASA process. Their son had been in Singapore for close to a year and, at that point, were they able to apply for citizenship.

During the entire period, when their child, their son, was in Singapore, they had to pay foreigner fees for all the medicals associated with him, because he was not a Singapore Citizen, at least not yet. They shared with me that they felt like second-class parents. But to top it all off, they wanted to adopt a second child so that their first child has a sibling. Well, just like all of us.

However, MSF has informed them that they are strongly encouraged to start the process at least nine months from the date of their first child's adoption order, so that they can bond adequately with the first child. And, thereafter, they need to go through the entire process again – registering for a new ASA, going for all the interviews and putting up all the documentation.

So, Sir, I can understand the Government's desire to ensure that each adoption goes well. We all do. But this is surely too much. Their first child has already been with them for close to a year. Why the need to wait another nine more months to start the process, and why then the need to reassess them for adoption suitability, when things are going well with the first child?

And to compound the situation, compared to maternity leave of 16 weeks, adoption leave for parents is only 12 weeks. So, on the one hand, we want them to bond longer with the child, but on the other hand, the leave period is shorter.

Sir, if our fellow Singaporeans are made to feel like second-class parents during the process, something is not right. These are Singaporeans who have put in great resolve to care for the child just as their own. They are no second-class parents. They are special-class parents. So, I urge all the relevant Government agencies and there are many involved in the process as I have described, to come together, work towards streamlining the process for parents significantly. And may I suggest that during the period where the child is in Singapore on a Dependent's Pass, let us extend the Singapore citizenship subsidies for infant care, for childcare, for medicals to the child, because it is a matter of time that they will become a citizen, and these are critical developmental years. Let us not lose time and also let us align the adoption leave with maternity leave at 16 weeks.

Sir, the changes I have suggested above may be seen as an attempt to slay several sacred cows, but to me, it really is not. To me, a strong family nucleus means testing, these remain critical, but equally important is that we take care of each and every child, regardless of their parents' circumstances. Let us not let the heartbreak or the regrets of one generation affect the chances of success of the next.

Mr Speaker, I will now change gears and turn to the final segment of my speech, our national exams. I was very heartened when Minister Desmond Lee announced that the Government MOE is reviewing high stakes exams, especially the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). Let me share my views on why I think this is timely and much needed.

At the last Parliament Sitting, I asked MOE for a detailed breakdown by grade across several national exams – so what proportions scored what grade – for the PSLE and the "O" level. MOE replied that for PSLE, at least nine in 10 students achieved AL6 or better in English, mother tongue, math and science; and for the "O" levels, about nine in 10 obtain a C6 or better in English, Mother Tongue and mathematics.

Now, that is obviously not what I asked for, because I asked for a detailed breakdown of each grade. But let me explain why I asked for this. In the latest PISA 2022 assessment of 15-year-olds, 41% of our students were classified as top performers for mathematics, 24% for science, and 23% for reading. In comparison, for the OECD, it was 9% classified top performers for math, 7% each for science and reading.

But if we ask any general 15-year-old in Singapore, I believe a very small percentage will tell us that they are top performers in any of these subjects. Why? Because their lived experience going through the exam system in Singapore has told them that they are not top performers.

Again, MOE did not release the data, but I believe that way less than 40% of each cohort, PSLE or "O" levels, will have received the top or top two grades for mathematics, for example. And this is because, while our grades for both the exams are no longer assigned on a bell curve base, they are now based on the objective scores of the students – the philosophy behind how the exams are set has not changed. It is set to be able to segregate the children by ability very finely.

So, you have X percent of very challenging questions, Y percent of challenging questions, so in and of itself the exam will be able to differentiate the students and, by that, affect their grades, thereby school selection, which is the key cause of the education arms race. But I do not think that this needs to be or should be the case. If 40% of our cohort are considered top performers in mathematics globally, then the performance on the national exams should reflect as such – 40% of the cohort should get the top or top two grades in mathematics.

Sir, I should be clear. I am not against challenging our students or against facilitating the best or most inclined of them to achieve greater skill and accomplishment. It is just that I disagree that our national exams should serve this purpose. We should not confuse excellence and competency. It is the role of national competitions – Math Olympiads, Science Olympiads, English Olympiads – to reward and recognise excellence. The role of national exams should be to assess for competency. And once students clear the threshold of competency, they should get the top grade without any further finer segregation.

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo, I am enjoying your speech, but you have a minute left.

Mr Foo Cexiang: Thank you, Sir. I believe this will be especially critical for generations to come with the advent of AI, because my concern is that the acquisition of foundational knowledge and fundamental cognitive skills will be impacted by growing up with AI. Now I need to be like a robot. Already, there have been studies that suggest that Gen Z may be the first generation that shows lower average intelligence quotient (IQ) and cognitive scores than previous generations for attention, memory and literacy.

This is linked to screen time, digital devices and social media, and I have no doubt that AI will compound these challenges. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. In this context, it becomes even more critical that our students achieve fundamental competencies, and the most important factor for this is motivation. If our students are able to put in effort and they can achieve top grades with decent effort, I believe it will build up their confidence. It will build up their interest and motivation of the subject, and they will acquire good competency, which forms the solid foundation and springboard for them to leverage the potential of AI. Without this foundation, AI may only serve to retard the cognitive development instead.

Mr Speaker, the vision and priorities outlined by the Prime Minister in the Budget speech are long sighted and far reaching. I believe that the suggestions I have made in my speech will further strengthen us as a society and give all of our children a better chance to succeed in life. I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

6.12 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Speaker, many Singaporeans and businesses I meet share a common concern. The ground feels less certain. The global order is fragmenting. Supply chains are shifting. Technology is advancing at a pace few governments and even fewer companies can confidently predict.

Recent developments reinforce this. The US has announced potential tariff increases. As Deputy Prime Minister Gan noted earlier this week, if exemptions are not secured, Singapore's exports, such as pharmaceuticals to semiconductors to advanced manufacturing, could face higher duties. For companies, this means tighter margins. For workers, wage pressures. For investors, greater caution.

We cannot control geopolitics. But we can strengthen our resilience. Budget 2026 is delivered in a changed world. Prime Minister Wong has described it as the first step towards securing Singapore's future in this new environment. A changed world it is.

Our MDDI GPC, across this term and the last, has consistently championed six themes. Firstly, strengthening Singapore's AI value proposition; second, building deep and broad digital capabilities; third, ensuring ethical governance; fourth, uplifting vulnerable groups through technology; fifth, investing in infrastructure and cybersecurity; and sixth, building a high-trust digital society.

Together with fellow PAP MPs, including Ms Tin Pei Ling, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Alex Yam and Ms Hany Soh, we filed a Motion with 13 Calls to Action in the last term. I am encouraged that many of these themes that we have championed for are reflected in this Budget. But alignment must translate into decisive execution and measurable outcomes. Our response must rest on three pillars: competitiveness, inclusive growth and digital for good.

If we get this right, we will not only remain competitive and relevant in a global market, we will also remain united as a society.

On competitiveness. When I speak to workers, business owners, young graduates and mid-career professionals, I hear both excitement and anxiety. Excitement because AI holds immense promises. Anxiety because many are unsure where they stand in this race. That anxiety is real.

In just the past six months, we see how the global AI race has accelerated at pace. At the Global AI Summit, it was evident that we are entering the era of frontier and foundation models powered by massive compute scaling and multimodal capabilities. Generative AI is no longer experimental. It is embedded in enterprises, in public services and national infrastructure. The shift towards Agentic AI and AI-native enterprises signals structural transformation.

This is happening at three levels. First, population scale. In China, AI is embedded across platforms serving hundreds of millions. In the US, AI copilots are integrated into productivity tools used globally. In India, AI is woven into telecom and digital services at the national scale. AI is now part of daily workflows.

Second, compute scale. The race is about compute dominance. Next-generation chips are being ordered in unprecedented volumes. Hyperscalers are investing billions in AI data centres. India has announced ambitions to attract up to US$200 billion in AI and data centre investments. Sovereign funds in the Middle East are investing heavily. The European Union is securing its own compute capacity. Chips, data centres and energy are now strategic infrastructure.

Third, on scale. AI is embedded in manufacturing lines, in logistics networks, in defence systems and in energy grids. This is no longer about chatbots. It is about industrial competitiveness and national capability. As capability accelerates, responsibility must keep pace. AI safety, alignment, model evaluation and red teaming are central to credible deployment. Trust will determine who can scale. Advantage will not come from models alone, but from diffusion. The winners will be able to align compute, capability, governance, talent and industry integration into one coherent strategy.

Singapore cannot compete on population scale. We cannot outspend superpowers on compute scale. But we can compete on precision, on trust, on regulatory credibility and deep sectoral integration.

And this is not just about technology. It is about jobs. If we anchor AI in sectors where we are strong, such as mentioned, as advanced manufacturing, aerospace, logistics, financial services and healthcare, and scale to more sectors with measurable outcomes, we create higher value roles, more resilient careers and stronger wage growth. But if we move too slowly, routine work will be automated elsewhere, and higher value functions may migrate, and our workers will be left behind. The world is moving at scale and our responses must be fast, deliberate, workforce-centred and outcome-driven.

To achieve this, we must address key questions.

How do we build both deep AI specialists and broad AI literacy? How do we redesign jobs so AI augments rather than replaces? How do we drive real end-to-end business value with AI? What is our strategy on compute capacity, compute sovereignty and resilience? How do we power AI growth with sustainable energy? How will the National AI Council evolve NAIS 2.0 and orchestrate our ecosystem across Ministries, AI missions, Centres of Excellence, talent development, investment, deployment, removing friction across Ministries and deployment across Government and industry?

My fellow PAP MPs and I in the MDDI GPC will elaborate further at the COS. National ambition must translate into scalable enterprise capability and better jobs on the ground.

Let me now turn to SMEs. Something which fellow GPC MP Ms Jessica Tan and others have also touched on.

We already have digital grants, pre-approved AI tools and Chief Technology Officer (CTO)-as-a-Service. These are important foundations. But SME owners tell me candidly, "I know AI is important, but I am managing cashflow. I cannot afford a data scientist. I am not sure my data is ready. I cannot experiment without clear returns."

Behind each SME owner is a workforce wondering how AI will affect their roles. Most SMEs face three constraints: the cost of talent, the lack of validated use cases and integration challenges. If AI adoption is concentrated among large enterprises, the productivity and wage gap will widen. We must move from advisory support to shared capability infrastructure. I welcome Minister of State Jasmin Lau's emphasis on lower-risk, structured experimentation and shifting funding towards implementation and workflow redesign.

I would like to propose three further refinements. First, evolve CTO-as-a-service towards AI-Capability-as-a-Service with pooled AI engineers deployed across SME clusters for hands-on implementation.

Second, organise pooled resources by industry to co-develop plug-and-play AI modules with industry leaders for generic processes, such as quality control, logistics optimisation and predictive maintenance. These validated solutions reduce blind experimentation and lower development costs. By crowd-sharing capabilities and lowering adoption costs, we can create a faster "IKEA moment", a term Minister Josephine Teo used to describe the point when enterprises move beyond experimentation to fully integrating technology into their operations.

Third, introduce outcome-linked co-funding tied to measurable productivity, cost savings, export growth or energy efficiency, something that was shared by many Members of Parliament yesterday. If we treat AI infrastructure like physical infrastructure, shared and accessible, SMEs can compete by agility, not size. Our workers can compete by working smarter. AI must be a multiplier for the many, not a privilege for the few. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on our community specifically and the need for us to view the issue of skills upgrading and reskilling in this era of artificial intelligence (AI) more seriously.

Industries are changing rapidly. AI is not a specialised skill that is only relevant to engineers or programmers. AI cuts across all sectors; from manufacturing, logistics, finance and education to small and medium enterprises. The question is not whether we work in the technology sector or not. The question is how AI will change the way we work. If we are not prepared, we will be left behind. But if we are prepared, AI can become a tool that empowers us.

We need to encourage more of our workers, whether young or mid-career, to upgrade their digital skills and understand the basics of AI usage. Not everyone needs to become an AI expert. But everyone needs to know how to use AI to increase their productivity and job value. This is the key to building strong and sustainable wage growth.

The same applies to businesses within our community. We should not just become passive consumers of technology. We must see how AI can help businesses grow. For example, using chatbots for customer service, data analytics to understand sales patterns, automation for inventory management and more targeted digital marketing.

Last week in Pasir Ris, for the first time we held a large Ramadan Bazaar. I noticed several stalls were already using signboards generated by AI. This shows that our small businesses have already begun taking the first steps. We should encourage the use of AI like this, not just for design but also for stock management, online promotion and business expansion, and many other areas.

We must view AI not as a threat, but as an opportunity. If we are bold enough to change and are prepared to upskill, our community will not only remain relevant but can play a leading role in the new economy.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in English and to my second point on inclusive growth. A recent MOF report on income growth, inequality and social mobility shows meaningful progress. Our post-tax-and-transfer Gini coefficient has fallen from about 0.47 in the mid-2000s to around 0.37 today. Real incomes at the 20th percentile have grown faster than the median, supported by Workfare and the Progressive Wage Model and OECD studies indicate relatively strong intergenerational mobility.

These are significant achievements. But as disruption accelerates, the risk is not just income inequality. It is opportunity inequality. Let me highlight two groups of workers who are facing greater risk.

For senior workers, the re-employment age will rise to 70 by 2030. The Senior Employment Credit and CPF Transition Offset support retention. The Job Redesign Grant helps firms redesign roles.

But for our seniors looking for jobs, the lived realities remain challenging for them to seek employment aligned to their experience. We must accelerate structured job redesign using AI and automation to reduce physical strain and enhance productivity. But more importantly, we must expand structured pathways for seniors into roles, such as trainers, mentors, safety supervisors and quality leads, where experience is a strategic advantage. This will widen meaningful employment opportunities for senior PMETs who, today, still struggle to find roles aligned with their expertise.

In an ageing society, enabling seniors to remain productive, respected and fairly paid is not just manpower policy. It is central to inclusive growth. I look forward to hearing more on how we can further strengthen senior employment at the COS debates.

Second, on fresh graduates. While headline statistics remain stable, many graduates share a different lived experience. Entry-level tasks, such as market research, coding and reporting, are increasingly automated. Fellow PAP Members of Parliament Mr Henry Kwek and Denise Chua shared this as the "broken ladder" scenario. At a recent Chinese New Year conversation in Pasir Ris, some of the residents were managers, told me that they can now complete such tasks with AI tools themselves, reducing the need to hire and train fresh graduates.

The GRIT programme supports about 800 participants. What are the outcomes and how can we scale it up faster? We must also strengthen our internships to be more structured and industry-embedded so that students graduate business-ready, not just AI-literate. This is something that I have spoken on in my earlier speeches. I look forward to hearing more on encouraging seniors and fresh graduate employment in the COS debates. If we get this right, we strengthen mobility across generations.

Now, on my last point, digital for good. As we advance technologically, we must invest in technology for social good with equal urgency. Technology must not only increase productivity. It must improve lives.

First, we must ensure children from lower-income families are not left behind. Access to devices alone is not enough. We must expand AI literacy, exposure to automation and robotics, and industry mentorship. In Pasir Ris-Changi, our M³ organisation runs RoboWars and hackathons to expose students, including those from lower-income families, to digital skills. We should scale such efforts nationally so that every child has a fair start in this digital economy.

Second, on seniors and caregivers. AI-enabled fall detection, smart home sensors, remote health monitoring and telemedicine can allow seniors to age safely at home. Predictive analytics can identify health risks earlier. When designed well, these tools ease the burden on sandwiched-generation families juggling work and caregiving.

Third, on people with disabilities and caregivers. Remote work tools, assistive AIs and job sharing can expand meaningful employment.

Fourth, on people with special needs. Recently, I trialed a project with visually impaired residents to test a wayfinding solution using indoor positioning and AI image recognition to navigate complex indoor spaces. The innovation exists. But how do we connect such projects to agencies, funding and testbeds and scale them with less friction? We may need a clearer pathway linking community innovators, GovTech, IMDA, healthcare institutions and social service agencies.

Finally, trust. As digital adoption deepens, cybersecurity and scam prevention must keep pace. A high-trust digital society requires strong safeguards and responsible governance.

Mr Speaker, the challenges before us are complex. We face geopolitical uncertainty, technological disruption and social change all at once. Singapore has never thrived by standing still. Budget 2026 sets direction. Our task is disciplined execution.

We must sharpen competitiveness, ensure growth remains inclusive and harness technology for good. AI must strengthen industries, uplift SMEs, empower seniors, open doors for graduates and protect the vulnerable, among many others.

Above all, our strategy must translate into better lives and good jobs that are higher value, skills-based, fairly paid and future resilient.

If we align ambition with action and innovation with trust, we will not merely respond to disruption. We will shape it and secure a resilient, united and forward-looking Singapore for generations to come. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

6.32 pm

Mr Speaker: Second Minister for Finance.