President's Speech

Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [22 September 2025].

"That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:

'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Sharael Taha]

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

1.02 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Mr Speaker, today is possibly the best of times for young Singaporeans. They have more computing power in their handphones than many of us have had in our personal computers. Growing up, they are well-educated, well-travelled, healthy and likely to live till their mid to late 80s. Meantime, the country is stable and prosperous.

Our reserves and income generated from our investments mean that the majority of Singaporeans do not pay income tax. Income inequality has fallen. We are investing heavily in infrastructure, including in homes and hospitals. At the same time, the world is being remade, today is possibly the most uncertain and fragile of times. Unforeseen, perhaps in nature and direction of change but certainly in speed and in belligerence.

Today can also seem like the worst of times, with rising costs, lower job security and continuing uncertainty. We are not going back to the golden age of globalisation but Singapore and young Singaporeans can continue to flourish and prosper if we take the right steps now – and we have to do it now.

Today, I would like to speak up for my young residents as well as young jobseekers nationwide. They are coming of age in a weak market. They face great difficulties in securing jobs. Like all of us, they suffer from the economic uncertainties following the American tariff announcements.

If the economy goes into recession for a protracted period, it could result in a generation stuck in a cycle of unemployment, career frustration and lost opportunities, or we can turn this crisis into an opportunity for young people by creating new roles in the economy.

Mr Speaker, Singapore is not alone in experiencing economic shocks. In the United States (US), the unemployment rate for recent university graduates reached what 5.8% in March 2025, up from 4.6% the same time a year ago according to an April report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Job postings are down 15% or the number of applications has risen by 30%. In the United Kingdom (UK), graduate job postings are down 33% year on year, the lowest in seven years. Closer to home in South Korea, graduates now take an average of 14 months to secure their first job, the longest on record, about 30% remain unemployed a year after graduation.

In Singapore, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) released unemployment data. Most recently, on 27 June 2025, the resident unemployment rate increased from 1.9% at the end of 2024 to 2.0% at the end of first quarter 2025, according to the 2024 graduate employment survey, full-time employment rate fell to 79.5% from 84.1% in 2023. Entry level job postings on one listing platform declined by 19% between January and April 2025, compared to the same period in 2024 and this marks the third consecutive year of decline.

We are in the calm before the storm ahead during my house visits and walkabouts. I spoke with many young undergraduates facing difficulties getting internships. University and polytechnic graduates had sent up more than 100 resumes but still they cannot secure a job offer. I hear their struggles and concerns especially those from less well-off families who need to contribute to family expenses and pay off their study loans. Also, from my discussions with human resources (HR) professionals and from recruitment firms feedback many companies are freezing headcounts. Employers, including government agencies, are offering only one- to two-year contract roles, not permanent roles.

That is the nature of the market now. What more can we do to help the jobseekers? I want to talk about a very specific plug-in that will allow young Singaporeans to meet an immediate and tangible need.

At the recent Institute of Policy Studies and Singapore Business Federation (IPS-SBF) conference, Prime Minister Wong said that "Singapore will have to put more thought into helping businesses, especially smaller ones, harness the use of artificial intelligence in their work processes." Artificial intelligence (AI) is now a general-purpose tool, powerful and highly accessible. However, the bottleneck is not in the availability of AI as a resource but in corporate attention.

The problem is that many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) wish to transform their businesses but they are not familiar with AI tools available and they do not have the funds to hire consultants. My proposal is for the Government to provide funding, train up young people with AI tools that will help businesses reduce costs, automate work processes and increase their marketing efforts to drive sales.

Today, there are already AI tools that can help businesses achieve these objectives. What our SMEs need are young people who are digital natives and adept in this AI tools to reduce repetitive manual work and boost efficiencies in their businesses and operations. This AI change agents could undertake a project-based assignment to help companies. They can introduce AI tools into their systems and work processes. They could customise the AI tools according to the nature of the business and the goals set by the management team.

Upon the completion of the assignment and armed with the implementation experience, they can then move on to another company to help the next company with similar AI driven transition and transformation. Alternatively, if the companies find the young change agents valuable to their businesses, they may go on to hire them and perhaps as their in-house AI officers together. The AI change agents and SMEs can create a win-win collaboration and drive an AI powered business transformation in our SMEs. Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] During my house visits and walkabouts to meet residents, I spoke with many young undergraduates facing difficulties getting internships. In fact, there are university and polytechnic graduates who sent more than 100 resumes but were still unable to secure any job offer.

I hear their struggles and concerns, especially those from less well-off families, who need to contribute to family expenses and pay off their study loans. However, this crisis can be seen as an opportunity. Young people trained in using artificial intelligence (AI) tools can help to digitise and automate many company processes. They can help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) improve their business costs, enhance their marketing and increase their revenue.

Therefore, may I propose for the Government to fund the AI Traineeship Programme. By funding the AI courses and supporting the hiring of young people as AI Change Agents by the SMEs, the Government can catalyse SMEs business transformation and strengthen our country's economic competitiveness.

(In English): It has been almost six months since the "Liberation Day" tariff announcement. We need partners to do this quickly and effectively and so I offer a simple sketch of this scheme which I call which I call "AI traineeship". I should clarify that the AI traineeship is different from the GRaduate Industry Traineeship that was announced by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at the National Day Rally. It is also different from Infocomm Media Development Authority’s (IMDA’s) company-led training, which has included generative AI (gen AI) technical skills and competencies for AI users and practitioners. First, we start with a small group of 1,000 jobseekers. The National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) can work with AI training companies and run training courses for this 1,000 batches. It will typically take two to four weeks to master this AI tools.

Thereafter, e2i will match this trained AI change agents to SMEs who are keen to automate their business processes. The Government will then fund e2i to run these courses. There are more than 200,000 SMEs in Singapore so we should start with the medium enterprises in the manufacturing industry which may be most impacted by the American tariff hikes.

Enterprise Singapore could work with SMEs and business groups to seek companies keen to join this programme. I propose that Enterprise Singapore subsidise 70% to 80% of the salaries of the AI change agents for up to six months and if the companies decide to convert them to become permanent staff, then Enterprise Singapore could fund 50% to 60% of their salaries for up to a year.

In Sembawang West, I have started a pilot programme working with e2i and AI training companies with the relevant business AI tools. We plan to start the first run in the next few weeks for young jobseekers, keen to equip themselves with new AI skills. Meantime, we are also in early discussion with Singapore Manufacturing Federation and food manufacturing companies in the Woodlands Industrial area, situated next to my constituency.

We hope to shortlist these companies and others who are keen to hire these AI change agents as our ground-up initiative. After one or two successful pilots, we can consider scaling this up at the national level. The Enterprise Singapore could work with more business groups, like the SBF, Singapore Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to extend this programme to more medium enterprises in other industries and maybe even the small enterprises. I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Manpower to consider this proposal and allocate funding to e2i and Enterprise Singapore for this AI Traineeship scheme. Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The world is being disrupted severely by geopolitical tensions, US tariffs and the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Many businesses are holding back hiring because of uncertainties. Hence, young graduates are unable to find jobs in this soft market.

I propose for the Government to turn this crisis into opportunity. Young people trained in using AI tools to digitise and automate many administrative processes, can help SMEs improve their business costs, expand marketing and increase their revenue. The Government can catalyse the business transformation by funding the AI courses and hiring of these young AI Change Agents by the SMEs.

I hope the Government will consider carefully my proposal for this win-win collaboration, that will strengthen our SMEs and equip our young people with practical AI skill sets.

(In English): We need to move quickly on this scheme so that young people do not lose more time looking for jobs. Otherwise, it will become even harder when later cohorts join the workforce. The last recession was in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our Government responded swiftly and decisively, using our Reserves to cushion impact on jobs and livelihood with the Job Support Scheme and the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Schemes. It is a different world now with the advent of AI and we should make the best use of these opportunities.

Mr Speaker, I must stress that these AI change agents are not an additional headcount for small companies. They do the traditional core functions of marketing, administration and corporate planning. But now, they are supercharged with the power of AI. So, this training scheme is not a way to disguise unemployment or to provide a temporary band aid. It is to perform a vital function – to jumpstart a structural transformation of our economy.

I would like to share some wise words by Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong. In a recent forum with National University of Singapore students, Senior Minister Lee warned young people of the challenges coming their way. Even as they could take advantage of AI and better education, they had to be, "prepared psychologically for things which human beings do to one another, like great rivalry in power and things which human beings do to the world, such as global warming. You did not live through the founding crisis of Singapore. But your challenges will come."

Mr Speaker, our challenge has come. As the Senior Minister said, "In 60 years, we have become progressively one people – not complete, not permanent – but much more than before. And therefore, able to do more things and deal with more crises than we would have been able to do 30 or 40 years ago."

This is indeed an uncertain, tumultuous time. But in some ways, the best of times. Our young people are hungry, our companies are ready and if we can design the policy well, the time is now. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

1.19 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President for his address at the Opening of the 15th Parliament. This is a year of uncertainty for workers. Over the past few days, my Labour Movement Parliamentary colleagues have shared how global trade tensions and disruptive technologies are transforming the workforce, workplaces and the future of work.

At NTUC, we have heard the anxieties of young graduates as AI accelerates the shrinking of entry-level jobs. We have supported the upskilling and career transition aspirations of the mid-career workers and we have championed the platform worker's rights to work injury compensation and even Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions.

As the economy evolves, we must continue to stand in solidarity with our workers and equip them with the skills and protections they need to succeed. Because when workers succeed, Singapore succeeds. To this end, I will focus my speech on three priorities for the next bound of workforce development, or what I call the three "Ses" – supporting Singaporeans, strengthening the Singaporean Core and a skills-first Singapore.

The first "S" in my speech is supporting Singaporeans. According to the World Economic Forum's 2025 Future of Jobs Report, globally, 92 million of all current jobs will be displaced in the next five years. At the same time, 170 million new jobs will be created, resulting in a net growth of 78 million jobs. This is attributed to drivers, such as the race towards renewable energy and AI, which have already been cited by major companies for mass retrenchment exercises both globally and in Singapore.

Gen AI especially has the potential to displace entry-level knowledge work by automating mundane or repetitive tasks, which will significantly impact Singapore's knowledge-based workforce, unlike earlier waves of automation that primarily displaced manual work. The same report found that, on average, workers can expect that two-fifths of their existing skillsets be transformed or become outdated by 2030. The hard truth is that previously secure jobs and valued skills will become obsolete. Workers cannot remain stagnant and expect to still compete.

AI should break and not build barriers. In every challenge lies opportunity for those who choose to meet it. Renewable energy and the generative cognitive AI are generation-defining technologies that can not only create new jobs but make them better and better-paying. By supporting workers' learning and upskilling ambitions, businesses and the economy also benefit from more growth and a more skilled workforce.

To ensure no worker is left behind in the adoption of new technologies, we must commit to a Just Transition that prioritises the re-skilling and re-deployment of workers. If you recall the old adage: it is learn, work and retire. But today, it is no longer that. It is learn, work; learn, work; learn, work; and maybe retire. The Labour Movement has persistently advocated for training allowance and subsidies for a second degree or diploma for mid-career and older workers who may be more vulnerable to skills obsolescence, financial support for the involuntarily unemployed to help them bounce back from employment setbacks and, most recently, Government-funded traineeship and apprenticeship opportunities for young graduates to strengthen their employability. I am heartened that the Government has answered our calls with the launch of the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, Jobseeker Support Scheme and the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme.

In NTUC's 2025 Survey on Economic Sentiments, one-third of over 2,000 workers expressed concerns about losing their jobs or not having their contracts renewed in the next three months. On the ground, I have also heard the anxieties and frustrations of young graduates and involuntarily unemployed jobseekers who have not been able to find jobs after sending out hundreds of applications despite having good diplomas and degrees.

I, therefore, continue to call on the Government to consider three policy moves.

First, extending the Jobseeker Support Scheme eligibility to involuntarily unemployed professionals, managers and executives (PMEs), especially those earning above the current $5,000 salary threshold imposed by the Scheme, so that the majority of the more than 43% of resident PMEs can benefit.

Second, taking stronger action alongside unions against errant employers who do not practice fair and responsible retrenchment practices, as we have seen in the recent spate of retrenchments.

Third, incentivising companies that hire first-time workers for full-time positions, similar to the Jobs Growth Incentive launched during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Considering the scale and speed of AI's impact on the workforce, I also ask that the Government consider forming a Tripartite Workgroup on Safeguarding Workers in the Age of AI to encourage companies to adopt Just Transition practices, prevent algorithmic discrimination and ensure responsible use of AI-powered human resources (HR) tools. I thank the Government, also, for hearing my call for a review of the Employment Act through a Tripartite Workgroup, recently formed, and to keep pace with rising median wages and evolving nature of work. I opine that the Employment Act should cover more PMEs by raising both the salary caps of workmen and non-workmen, as well as providing more clarity on transfers that impact workers affected by ongoing company restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, and require employers to give explicit reasons for termination or discontinuation of employment initiated by the employer upon the request of the employee.

During this time of uncertainty, I encourage our workers to adopt a mindset of resilience and adaptability, to find strength in numbers and collective action. This is not the first time new technologies have disrupted the workforce, nor will it be the last. As with each economic wave and transition, NTUC and our unions stand ready to support our workers.

The second "S" is strengthening the Singaporean Core. Since my maiden speech in this House in 2011, I have persistently advocated for strengthening the Singaporean Core, especially for our local PMEs, who face increasing competition with foreign PMEs. Over the past decade, I have advocated for a compendium of measures to level the playing field for our local PMEs, including the Workplace Fairness Act, which protects workers against the most common types of workplace discrimination, including age and nationality; a foreign PME dependency ratio; stricter Employment Pass (EP) application conditions and continuous enhancements to the Fair Consideration Framework and many others.

These protections are important and we should regularly review it. A strong Singaporean Core must therefore be a Singaporean-led core. This means building up our local bench strength through investments in local talent pipelines to set Singaporeans up for senior and leadership positions before turning abroad and facilitating knowledge and skills transfer. We cannot assume that if we grow the pie, Singaporeans will naturally get their share. There must be a concerted effort to encourage companies, especially our multinationals, to groom our local PMEs as part of their leadership identification and developmental process, improve HR standards and practices to ensure compliance with fair employment practices and Tripartite Guidelines, and encourage workers to step-up and step forward for opportunities to relocate for greater international exposure.

After years of lobbying, I am glad more resources will be set aside for schemes that groom Singaporean workers by sending them for overseas work postings, such as the Overseas Market Immersion Programme. I hope the Government will consider extending these opportunities to more Singaporean workers and adopting new levers to improve reciprocity between multinational corporations (MNCs) and our local PMEs. For example, the proportion of Singaporeans in management positions could be a bonus criterion incorporated into the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) for EP applications. Companies that have a highly disproportionate number of foreign PMEs and weak commitment to nurturing local talent pipelines can also be closely monitored. If no improvement is made within a certain time period, the Government can consider even removing preferential tax and other benefits, such as the award of public sector contracts. Even the US is also mulling over imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications.

HR professionals play a key role in fostering fair and progressive workplaces that attract, develop and retain top talent. I, therefore, submit that the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) certification, which equips HR practitioners with essential competencies in workforce planning and regulatory compliance, be made mandatory for all companies. This is especially critical for MNCs employing foreign HR practitioners who operate within Singapore and help them better understand our tripartite industrial relations framework. To date, over 9,000 HR practitioners have attained the IHRP certification. More widespread certification adoption will be better and will position our HR practitioners to deepen their capabilities and signal a commitment to professional excellence.

To be clear, a Singaporean Core does not mean closing doors to foreign PMEs who can help fill critical skill gaps and support sectors facing labour shortage. It is about building a more competitive economy that is less reliant on external labour and nurturing the next generation of Singaporean leaders. It is about ensuring that Singaporean workers who work hard and can contribute can afford a good life in Singapore, for themselves and their families, in the only home they have.

Third and final "S" is a skills-first Singapore. Today, disruptive technologies, like Gen AI and new work trends, including the rise of gig work, freelancing, remote work and side hustles have transformed how we traditionally define and plan a career. Instead of a linear progression within a single organisation, more are embracing flexible journeys defined by adaptability, continuous learning and the ability to move across job functions and industries.

Job instability and career transitions are increasingly commonplace, but so are building portfolio careers, pursuing passion-driven pathways and going back to school for reskilling. This means more voluntary underemployment, but also more involuntary underemployment, an issue NTUC has been studying very, very closely and examining the past decade. A two-year research study in collaboration with the Singapore University of Technology and Design on underemployment, especially involuntary skills-jobs mismatch, where workers are unhappily overskilled for their current jobs, will be completing soon, and we will share more in due course.

Against this evolving landscape, diplomas and degrees can no longer act as a proxy for competency. According to a Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies study released in 2024, higher levels of education do not always equate to better skills and knowledge. Earlier data from LinkedIn in 2021 also revealed that employers in Singapore preferred to hire candidates with technical skills and transferable skills over traditional qualifications, such as education and minimum years of experience.

At this 10-year mark since the launch of SkillsFuture, I, therefore, submit that it is timely to review Singapore's continuing education and training (CET) framework and system for the next bound of workforce development using a skills-first approach. Skills-first refers to a paradigm shift that prioritises skills and competencies over degrees and diplomas. In real-world terms, this means that a student majoring in history, for example, but who has demonstrated coding skills through relevant work experience or winning hackathons should feel confident in applying for an entry-level programmer position. It also means that two workers who are equally skilled, equally knowledgeable and demonstrate good work performance should receive equal opportunities to advance in their career, regardless of whether one worker holds a diploma and the other has a degree.

A skills-first economy, therefore, holds powerful potential for the inclusion of non-traditional learners who acquired skills through experience and expanding individuals' career pathways beyond the scope of their formal qualifications. It supports caregivers, older workers, persons with disabilities, young graduates and freelancers or self-employed persons in asserting the value of their labour, thereby also allowing employers to tap on a wider talent pool.

For this idea to take flight, however, requires the buy-in of all stakeholders across the workforce development ecosystem. The Government will need to create robust and integrated frameworks for credible skills accreditation and transferability across institutions and industries. Career Conversion Programmes should be expanded to cover more sectors and industries to become more relevant to PMEs. The Public Service will also need to lead by example in implementing skills-based hiring and progression.

Employers will need to adopt progressive practices, such as listing the necessary skills required in job descriptions, on top of formal qualifications and taking skill certifications, testimonials, performance appraisals, awards and leadership experiences outside of work into consideration for progression. Where relevant and when it does not affect employers' economic interests, employers should not punish the industrious and passionate pursuit of "hobby jobs" and "side hustles" as moonlighting.

Schools and Institutes of Higher Learning will need to adapt their curricula to raise students' curiosity, confidence and creativity in exploring diverse ways of learning and working. The arts must be as well-funded as the sciences, we need to go beyond STEM to STEAM. Students must spend as much time in industry and community as they do in classrooms and lecture halls. And most importantly, workers will need to be open to learning new skills and exploring new interests, fail and try again.

In 2024, over 60% of Singaporean resident workers had tertiary qualifications and over 40% had degrees. Yet in the same year, Singapore's training participation rate fell to a nine-year low of about 40%. Unlike other countries, where unions often must lobby for uneven training and upskilling opportunities, Singapore continuously doles out funding. We undoubtedly have a highly educated workforce, but does that education end when we leave school? Does a highly educated workforce equate to a highly-skilled and knowledgeable workforce? The shift towards a skills-led economy, therefore, surfaces starting points for us to boldly reimagine how we learn and work, and also why we learn and work, which lays the groundwork for more flexible and fulfilling careers.

To conclude, work is a source of and the pursuit of hope, purpose and dignity. It is what built this nation. It is the measure of our days, our connections to community. By prioritising the three "S" of supporting Singaporeans, strengthening a Singaporean Core, and a skills-first Singapore, we honour workers and commit to helping them earn a better living and live a better life. For all to train up to keep up and skill-up to move up. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

1.36 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, it has been four months since the last General Election (GE). As we commence this new term of Parliament, I note that there are 31 Members who are entering Parliament for the first time. I am privileged to be here for my fifth term. There are quite a few others who have been here longer, including Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his 10th term – more than 40 years. Nevertheless, I trust I may be permitted to give my personal welcome to the newly-minted Members of Parliament (MPs) from both sides of the House.

One of the themes in the President's address is about trust. Some Ministers have, in past days, also emphasised the importance of trust in institutions. Today, I wish to say a few words about trust in one of the key institutions we have – this Chamber, Parliament.

All of us here gained entry through a competitive process, that is, we contested in the recent elections to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans.

Fundamentally, party politics is a competitive process which pits one party against another. Yes, elections involve a zero-sum game: one vote for you means one less vote for me. But once the dust of elections has settled, we are entrusted to represent our constituents. How can we best do so? On a broader level, how does one measure the effectiveness of a Parliament?

To answer this question, one needs to return to the purpose of Parliament in the first place. One respected index that covers this issue is the World Justice Project. The World Justice Project compiles an index that the Singapore Government frequently cites for its high rankings of Singapore in the area of Order and Security.

To give a bit of background, the World Justice Project declares itself as an independent, multi-disciplinary organisation that seeks to advance the rule of law worldwide. The Project reviews countries around the world to assess each country's laws, institutions, norms and community commitment to the rule of law. The outcomes it is interested in centre around four principles: accountability, just law, open government and accessible and impartial justice. It believes these principles are universal. I do not think anyone in this House will disagree that these principles apply to us as well.

In assessing the state of the rule of law, the World Justice Project examines each country on various indicators. In its latest overall ranking in 2024, Singapore was ranked 16 out of 142 countries, which is, overall, respectable. When we look across the different sub-indicators for Singapore, what sticks out is that we have largely healthy scores around six out of eight indicators. The two indicators where we do not do so well are in the factors called Open Government and Constraints on Government Powers. I believe this has been our consistent scorecard from the World Justice Project for many years. Such a mixed scorecard should also come as no surprise.

In measuring Open Government, the index looks into matters, such as how much information is shared by the government with the public and whether citizens have a right to information. Open Government also measures public accountability, whether there are effective complaint mechanisms and how far the people are empowered with the tools to hold the government accountable.

As for the factor of Constraints on Government Powers, it is concerned with how far those who govern are bound by law. One key sub-indicator is whether government powers are effectively limited by the legislature. That is where Parliament comes in. On this issue, our score is not respectable. The Singapore Parliament is ranked 104 out of 142 National Parliaments. Among high income countries, we are second last. In contrast, our Courts appear to be doing well as a check on the government, being ranked 17th out of 142 countries.

Sir, I cite these rankings not as gospel truth but as a point for introspection. We should honestly examine why there is an independent, multi-disciplinary opinion that our Parliament is not effective in limiting government powers.

Of course, one likely reason is the balance in Parliament between different political parties, or should I say imbalance, with almost 90% of the seats in the hands of the ruling party. This is the result of our system design and Singaporeans' votes on Polling Day. We respect the outcome of the elections.

That said, it is a fact that in the House, the Government agenda is set by the leaders of the ruling party and party discipline demands that ruling party MPs vote in support of the Government agenda. But we should be mindful that, as MPs, our overriding duty is not to our parties, but to Singaporeans. Regardless of our affiliation, we have a duty to speak for our constituents and ensure that this Chamber works for them. This means questioning the Government and holding it to account, rigorously, if necessary.

On the Government's part, it should always demonstrate that it is sharing as much information as possible in the House. And in the long run, it is Singaporeans who need to decide if the balance of power in the House should be changed.

On our part as opposition MPs, we are expected to take an independent line, question the Government and vote against proposals when we deem it necessary. Speaking from experience, this is not easy, especially when one is surrounded and vastly outnumbered. But that is our obligation and that is what voters expect us to do. We will play our part to build a Parliament that the people trust. We are cautiously optimistic that our Parliamentary system has potential to do better.

Sir, earlier this month, I had the privilege of attending a parliamentary sitting in the United Kingdom (UK), in the House of Commons in Westminster. Many of us would have seen television footage of somewhat rowdy sessions from the UK Parliament and strong exchanges between opposite benches. But I realise, now, that such scenes do not tell the whole story. What I saw that day was a Minister from the Labour government painstakingly explaining an urgent matter that had just taken place over the weekend in London – how the British police had upheld democratic values while policing a mass protest over the situation in Gaza.

What was more striking to me was the response of the Shadow Minister from the Conservative Party. He rose to ask for an assurance from his political opponent – the Minister – stating that if that particular Minister gave the assurance, he would accept it. That moment set me thinking hard. Political competitors, yet able to give each other some credit and credibility.

That is my hope for our Parliament, too. Politics is competitive, but why are we in this? I would like to believe that the main motivation is a calling to serve the public in elected office, a calling that is most meaningful and noble. In this term of Parliament, I hope we can build trust in the House as well. At the very minimum, we should remember that all colleagues here are fellow Singaporeans who have made a choice to leave our comfort zones to take up national office. Let us start from a position that a fellow MP has a good motivation, though we may disagree with the position he or she is taking and should take the issue on. If we can do that, I believe Singaporeans will benefit from a focus on the issues that matter.

Sir, let me conclude. Our system of Government expects Parliament to play its role to ensure good governance. All of us here are competitors but not enemies. The people have elected us to act on their behalf, to ensure Singapore endures for the long term, to work towards a Singapore built to last. On this, Sir, we have common cause.

Mr Speaker: Mr Victor Lye, do you have a clarification?

Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the hon Member for her speech and I quite agree that we both, on both sides of the aisle, have a common cause to serve Singaporeans and Singapore. And to the Member's point, I think we are not enemies, and we are friends. We have known each other for a long time. Having said that, may I seek a clarification for when the Member used the word "imbalance" in this Parliament and also separately, the Member saying it is "vastly outnumbered", may I ask if the hon Member is questioning the outcome of the GE, which is the choice of Singaporeans overall?

And secondly, if the Member cites another Parliament, may I seek a clarification if our hon Member actually aspires to a different system?

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim. Ms Lim, you might want to turn on your microphone?

Ms Sylvia Lim: It came on automatically just now, so I trusted the system, but maybe, I should not.

Sir, on the Member's two clarifications, first of all, I made it clear in my speech that we respect the outcome of the elections. So, that was stated explicitly.

Secondly, by citing the example of what I saw in the UK, it is not that I aspire to another system, but I believe our system can still do better, as I said. And as I mentioned, what was most striking to me was that momentary expression of trust in each other. In the last few days, I see some flashes of that, but I hope it can be sustained. So, it is not that I aspire to another system, but I would want to be part of the effort to make our system even more robust.

Mr Speaker: Mr Victor Lye.

Mr Victor Lye: Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for her clarification. And I think we should just focus on the conclusion that the Member had in her speech – that both sides of the House work harder to maintain trust between our leadership, that includes the Member as well, and our people.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai.

1.47 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Law and Transport (Mr Murali Pillai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks standing in the name of the hon Member Mr Sharael Taha.

That Singapore is a small island is a matter of geography, but that we can travel swiftly and in comfort across all its corners is a matter of human endeavour. It is our transport system that allows us to work, study, exercise, access essential services, socialise, volunteer and live our lives to the fullest. These were amongst the topics that hon Members spoke passionately about in this House over the past five days. If we do it well, transport becomes an invisible social service, moving from point A to point B is as effortless as stepping through a door. This is our urban dream, a 45-minute city and 20-minute town.

This dream, of freedom and connectivity, is not new. Although at the time of our Independence 60 years ago, there were immense challenges in ensuring Singapore’s survival, from clean water to housing, such that transport may have seem to be a poorer, lesser cousin.

Yet, transport is a peculiar policy problem. Once laid down, whether planned or organic, transport lines carve out their place in the history of a place; implacable, immovable and, for better or worse, they shape the fate of cities. We see this now in the gridlocked congested lives of many cities, whose systems had not been built to accommodate growth. It is Singapore's good fortune that our early Governments built for the future.

But transport is not just a decision of the past. It demands ceaseless attention to keep pace with the needs and lives of the people it serves. To neglect investments is to accept time spent in traffic jams, accidents, breakdowns, workdays lost and important occasions missed. Again, we see this in the cities of developed countries, whose transport infrastructure have suffered from decades of under-investment.

These two challenges, greater complexity in needs and financial demands for infrastructure, also apply to Singapore. As our systems expand and become more complex, the number of potential points of failure increases. The needs of our people are evolving. New vulnerabilities will emerge as we digitalise, adopt new technologies and put more of our services online into the cyberspace. The emerging challenges, coupled with the unprecedented pace of change in our external environment, will mean that we need a new generation of transport professionals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, I will speak on how we can build a strong transport system through three strategies.

First, resilience. We will enhance our ageing infrastructure, make them robust and flexible so as to meet the needs of our population, which are increasing in volume and complexity. Second, technology. We will seize opportunities from new technologies, while safeguarding against cybersecurity risks. Third, people. We will continue to build a professional and adaptive transport workforce, the only real piece in the transport landscape that can ensure our systems remains fit for purpose well into the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we sometimes forget the breakneck speed at which our transport system has travelled. Many from my generation remember growing up alongside this journey. As a young boy, I took the single-door "bone shaker" public bus to school. I would leave home from Sembawang at 5.30 am to catch the 5.45 am bus on a one-hour 30-minute journey to reach school at Newton by 7.15 am, with 15 minutes to spare before morning assembly. With limited resources then, these "bone shakers" were, in fact, refurbished lorry chassis with suspension systems so poor that they vibrated vigorously. But as a young boy, I did not mind it. I was thrilled, in fact. The same journey today, via Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), would take 30 minutes in air-conditioned comfort, just one-third the time it originally took.

Today, we enjoy a transport system that is admired across the world. Changi Airport is our nation’s pride, consistently ranked amongst the world’s best airports. Our port was recently named the “Best Global Seaport”. And our land transport network serves about 10 million journeys each day.

Our transport systems today are extensive and highly complex, with many interconnected elements and moving parts. Our public transport network today covers 240 kilometres of rail lines and over 350 bus services, with 160 stations and 5,000 bus stops.

As I said at the start of my speech, transport infrastructure incur large sunk costs. Even with long-term planning, we can only build to the best of our knowledge and ability at any given time. We must also make the most prudent choices possible. At the beginning of our MRT development journey, we had just five stations. Within 30 years, we have 100 and then to 160 stations today. Underneath this, lies years of design, planning, battles over land and billions of dollars in investment.

While 30 years is a short time in the life of a nation, it is long for an MRT line. Our rail system comprises many mechanical parts, each with specific lifespans, similar to everyday appliances, such as washing machines. With different parts of our rail system at different ages, ensuring the smooth operation of all trains in the network becomes increasingly complex and challenging. We aim to keep our rail network running smoothly, through a combination of maintenance, refurbishments or replacements where needed.

We will do so by focusing on the three "Rs": resilience, reliability and recovery.

First, we will enhance resilience with more alternative routes. We are building new rail lines that will enable commuters to still get to their destinations in the event of disruptions or planned maintenance works through alternative train routes. We will close the loop for the Circle Line next year and extend the Downtown and Thomson-East Coast Lines. In the longer term, we plan to expand our rail network further, such as with the West Coast Extension.

Second, we will invest in improving the reliability of our rail assets. As announced at the Committee of Supply this year, we will invest an additional $1 billion over the next five years to enhance the way we monitor and maintain our rail assets, and uplift the maintenance capabilities of our rail workforce. We also set up the rail reliability task force to address immediate issues, following the recent incidents.

If not for the COVID-19 pandemic which the hon Member, Ms Mariam Jaafar, reminded us in her speech yesterday ended just 30 months ago, the progress on these two "Rs", resilience and reliability, would have been even more significant. Now we are playing catch-up, but catch up we will.

Having regard to the state of affairs now, however, we cannot eliminate rail disruptions entirely. But when disruptions occur, we will ensure recovery as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. We will communicate with commuters and help them find alternative routes.

Sir, transport is a key essential service which we all count on to arrive at our destinations on time. Failure in service is a justified cause for frustration and disappointment. The Singaporean reputation for reliability and predictability is hard earned. Nowhere must this be more clearly seen than in our transport system. So, I accept that we need to work hard to win back the support of frustrated Singaporeans affected by some failures.

Let me say squarely what I mean. We will invest to reduce disruptions, but they will not be eliminated. We will still have disruptions. I do not take any pleasure in saying this, but this is the hard truth. But knowing that disruptions will happen, we have in place systems to help affected people still arrive at their destinations, not on time, unfortunately; not without trouble, regrettably but with all practicable haste.

I want to assure the House that all my colleagues on the ground, work tirelessly, truly flat out, during disruptions, including the East-West Line disruption in September last year. I saw that with my own two eyes. Alongside my colleagues were many volunteers to guide and support commuters to use the bridging buses.

These are hardworking transport professionals, including our sisters and brothers of the National Transport Workers Union and fellow Singaporeans who deserve our respect and support. Yet, they have, on occasions, been cathartic vehicles, on the receiving end of abusive language, anger and derision.

I ask all hon Members in this House for ideas that you may have to improve our transport infrastructure and to build up the resilience of our systems. At the same time, I am sure Members will agree that we should forbear from cheap shots and low blows when things go wrong. Never exploit problems, but by all means, let us work on the problems.

Even as we tackle the challenges of today, we must prepare for the future. Our people are getting older. We are developing more areas across our island. We need to move more people who are less mobile across larger tracts of space. These are points that hon Members, Ms Valerie Lee and Mr Shawn Loh, admirably made in their respective speeches. We will engage our members of public on their desires, aspirations and concerns for the future of land transport. People remain at the heart of our transport system.

To fellow Singaporeans, I say, preparing for the future is an important journey. I hope you will support and join us every step of the way.

Second, technology. Across transport sector, innovative technologies can enhance efficiency and productivity of our systems. For example, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) launched DocuMind and DocuMatch last year, harnessing AI to streamline ship insurance certificate renewals for Singapore-registered ships. These tools streamline the process to minutes compared to up to three days previously.

New technologies are essential for our path to net-zero. Electrification remains a key strategy to decarbonise Singapore's land transport sector. As we build a network of chargers to support electric cars, we employ new technologies, such as the dynamic load management at our Housing and Development Board car parks to allow us to tap on existing unutilised electrical capacity. And this will enable us to deploy even more electric vehicle (EV) chargers, bringing us closer to our goal of 60,000 EV chargers by 2030.

However, as our system increasingly digitalise and move into the cyberspace, we face unprecedented security challenges. We are familiar with the cyberattacks on critical infrastructure by UNC3886. With so much of our daily lives and economy reliant on our transportation networks, our infrastructure becomes prime targets for malicious actors.

Globally, cyberattacks on transport infrastructure have occurred across land, air and sea. In July 2023, Nagoya Port, Japan's largest maritime hub, fell victim to a cyberattack that disrupted its container handling operations. In September 2024, Transport for London reported a cyberattack on their computer systems that lasted for three months. And just last week, a cyberattack at a provider of check-in and boarding systems disrupted operations at several major European airports, leading to flight delays and cancellations.

So, you see 2023, 2024, 2025. There is no telling when malicious actors may target our systems in similar attacks, these cyberattacks show us that even as we leverage the transforming power of technological advancements, we must put in place appropriate safeguards to address vulnerabilities. We must work together, as One Transport Family, with our fellow Singaporeans to secure our critical transport infrastructure.

We are only as strong as our weakest link. The work has already started. The Land Transport Authority (LTA), the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and MPA have established cybersecurity operations centres that provide monitoring to detect cybersecurity threats. Agencies also share critical information with key partners, from public transport operators to aviation partners and maritime companies.

We are also investing in our people to cultivate their cybersecurity awareness and skills, tailored to the air, land and sea transport sectors. This will not only enable them to practise good cyber hygiene, but also uplift them to become the first line of defence to detect anomalies that could signal cyber intrusion attempts. For example, the Singapore Aviation Academy and the Singapore University of Technology and Design offer a joint course to provide aviation professionals with an understanding of the cybersecurity landscape and specific challenges facing the aviation sector, as well as the key foundations in cybersecurity concepts and controls.

Finally, and most importantly, we owe our transport story to the hard work and dedication of more than 300,000 workers across our land, air and sea transport systems. They will continue to be central to our transport ecosystem as we write the next chapter of this story. Automation and autonomous innovations have great potential to transform the way we work. This not only allows our ecosystem to transcend manpower and land constraints, but also creates new good jobs for our people.

We are already seeing this transformation on the ground today. Tuas Port is designed to be fully automated, intelligent and sustainable, and will offer new jobs with enhanced career prospects. At older port terminals, crane operators work at great heights atop cranes to direct movement of each container from ship to shore, and vice versa. With automation, our crane operators are upskilled from doing manual work to directing automated crane operations and troubleshooting exception cases remotely from control centres.

This is the experience of Mr Muhammad Zulfikar Bin Minhat, from managing manual operations on site at Tanjong Pagar Terminal when he started his career 11 years ago, today, Mr Zulfikar remotely manages automated yard operations from PSA's control centre. In fact, when I spoke to him yesterday, he told me that he got promoted and is now in charge of 26 remote operators on his shift. He continues to upgrade his skills, enhancing his ability to troubleshoot and navigate operational challenges. He is also a proud member of the Singapore Port Workers Union, which supports him in every way possible. What a great example Mr Zulfikar is to his peers.

Changi Airport and SATS are also transforming to harness AI automation and robotics to stay competitive and resilient. Existing jobs, such as airport ground handling services, will change in tandem, and new jobs will be created for a new generation of Singapore workers who are tech savvy. Exciting new mobility options in our public transport network are on the horizon as we plan and start piloting autonomous vehicle (AV) shuttles. This will better meet the growing and evolving connectivity needs of Singaporeans without running into manpower constraints. The AV industry will also create good jobs for Singaporeans in roles, such as software developers, engineers and radar designers. We will continue to collaborate closely with our industry unions and education partners to upscale our workers and ensure their access to these jobs.

As rightly highlighted by the hon Member Mr Ang Wei Neng, lifelong learning is crucial for our workers as industries are transformed by AI and new technologies. That is why we are investing in support for training partners and companies to provide upskilling training opportunities.

CAAS established a $200 million OneAviation Manpower Fund in July 2025 to better attract, develop and retain the OneAviation workforce. The fund will provide stronger and more targeted support to companies to transform jobs and better support workers. Together with our tripartite partners, we are equipping workers with skills that are increasingly sought after in their industries. The MPA-Singapore Maritime Foundation Joint Office for Talent and Skills is working with educational partners to develop tailored training courses for maritime workers in emerging domains. A pilot course on applied data science and analytics tailored for maritime professionals, co-developed with the National University of Singapore, was well-received and will be scaled up.

The transport sector is a rewarding career spent in service of our fellow citizens. It is a dynamic sector with good jobs for Singaporeans of all ages and backgrounds.

The veteran union leader, Sister Mary Liew, General Secretary of the Singapore Maritime Officers' Union, shared with me the heartening story of Miss Valerie Thai, a legal professional turned seafarer, with me recently.

Valerie obtained her law degree from Australia and worked as a paralegal in Singapore but soon found the legal profession a bit too boring for her. Attracted by the wide range of opportunities in the maritime industry with fields that allow her to tap on her legal background, Valerie took the brave plunge into seafarer training under the Tripartite Maritime Training Award. This award provides a place-and-train programme that equips Singaporeans with seafaring skills and experience for careers in the maritime industry. I met her two days ago, a cadet now, she is eager to blaze the trail for women wanting to be seafarers. I wish Valerie all the best in her training.

Valerie's story is one of many. With the diverse range of career opportunities, whether in traversing our skies, connecting people on land or plying our seas. I look forward to welcoming all to join our transport family.

Sir, I spent quite a bit of time in my speech, emphasising on the employment opportunities and prospects in the transport sector. I do hope that fellow Singaporeans, young and old, will consider these options and join our One Transport Family. As we write the next chapter of our transport story. We will face unprecedented challenges. However, we will also discover new opportunities as our environment changes.

Navigating these challenges will require concerted efforts from everyone as we enhance our physical infrastructure, digital systems and transport workforce. Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in a dialogue with young people, said recently, "Being small is a very deep part of our psyche. Some things we cannot change."

This is true. Being small is our geography, but it is not our destiny. Being small requires us to be imaginative, not only use each space to its fullest, but also to allow us access to anywhere we want to be in the shortest of time and in the greatest of comfort. If life is about journeys, then only with a strong transport system can we ensure that all Singaporeans, no matter how big our dreams, can live a full life on our small island, our little red dot. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

2.12 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I am honoured to address this House as an MP representing the people of Aljunied group representation constituency. This special constituency reminds us of that moment in 2011 when Singaporeans began to dream of a more plural political system, and I stand here today in service of that dream.

I wish to speak on one of the most important economic questions for our country today: what it will take for Singapore to build inherent capacity.

By inherent capacity, I mean a rooted high-value local set of companies, local base of companies and industries. For 50 years, our prosperity has been built on attracting foreign direct investment within a world of free trade. This model served us well.

But in a new era of geopolitical blocs and strategic industries, this dependence is a vulnerability. High-value work hosted on our shores can be repatriated at any time, leaving our workers exposed. The ultimate defence for our workers is not a certificate from a course.

It is being part of a deep industrial ecosystem. It is tacit knowledge, the unwritten secrets of an industry learned not in a classroom, but in a coffee conversation after work or overheard on a factory floor. The guarded tricks of building and tuning a foundation model or advance notice of a new industry standard. It is the sticky localised knowledge that gives our workers a genuine defensible edge, justifying their wages and creating the conditions for our best entrepreneurs to thrive.

Of course, we must continue to upskill our people. But skills-training alone, unmoored from a home industry, is not enough – a skill that can be learned anywhere, can be performed anywhere, often at a lower cost. We must therefore build the inherent capacity to foster unique knowledge advantages.

Building this inherent capacity requires a resurrected developmental state for our time, a state that actively shapes an ecosystem to benefit our people. There are three ways to do this: through research and development (R&D) policy, industrial policy and foreign economic policy.

Today, with only 20 minutes, I will focus on the third pillar: how we engage with the world.

I would like to tell a story about economic integration.

Once, in the 1960s, American giants – Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas – dominated over 80% of the civil aviation market. Europe’s national champions – like Sud Aviation, Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm and Hawker Siddeley – were confined mainly to national markets and had a bleak future if they stayed alone. The industry dynamics favoured the American giants due to large economies of scale, enormous R&D commitments rising 20% yearly between 1930 and 1970 and steep learning curves. In their enlightened self-interest, they turned to a new policy instrument: a transnational industrial consortium. Airbus, founded in 1970, was designed to preserve the aviation industries of Germany, France and the UK.

It is important to note it was not a top-down creation of the European Community. It was driven from the bottom-up by the firms themselves. Airbus is not a private creation. It arose from a group of state-backed enterprises and was founded on commercial principles, learning the lessons from the commercial failure of Anglo-French Concorde. State-backing was necessary as the long-duration debt market in Europe was too small to finance this industry alone. This political decision was made possible by two points of consensus: First, the knowledge that industrial policy was necessary to build inherent capacity – again, a rooted high-value local base of companies. Second, that national industrial policy would likely prove insufficient. Transnational projects would be needed to achieve the necessary scale and competitiveness.

It was sustained by three key points: political will to provide financing until the consortium hit its first financial milestones, demand-assurance for guaranteed orders in the early years and partner lock-in via specialisation and workshare agreements for the different components.

Above all, it was a 50-50 split in equity holding between France and Germany. This has proved highly successful for Europe. Today Airbus is the leading civil aviation company in the world, founded 55 years ago on a framework for positive integration – an integration that builds.

Let us turn to our own region, Southeast Asia. The President’s address and its addenda have told us of the multiple platforms we will pursue for economic growth. We are to deepen engagement in existing trading frameworks, from the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership to our networks of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Digital Economy Agreements. But we have spent years and decades cultivating these types of platforms without fostering that strong base of locally grown companies. Something is missing.

For decades, our diplomatic energy has been spent on the idea of "negative integration" – that is to say, integration by way of removal of trade barriers. "Negative integration" has been duly implemented. In 2009, the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) came into force.

ASEAN's website states, and I quote, "Through ATIGA, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand have eliminated intra-ASEAN import duties on 99.65% of their tariff lines. Cambodia, Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR), Myanmar and Viet Nam have reduced their import duties to 0%-5% on 98.86% of their tariff lines. Today, focus is given to addressing non-tariff measures that could have non-tariff barrier effects on the region's trade and business activities"; end quote.

Yet a 2019 commissioned study by ASEAN's Coordinating Committee for the Implementation of ATIGA, found that 10 years after ATIGA came into force, intra-ASEAN trade had not grown any faster than ASEAN’s total trade, stagnating at 25%. Moreover, for a large fraction of trade, ATIGA offered no real advantage – either "Most-Favored Nation" rates at zero already meant that there were no tariffs to cut, or the special ASEAN discount was so tiny that it made no practical difference. Decades of effort for negligible results. I am not against negative integration, but it is clearly not a sufficient ideal for Southeast Asian integration.

Against it, I believe Airbus exemplifies an ideal of "positive integration" in the industrial sense.

Our region tried a form of "positive integration" before, with the ASEAN Industrial Projects (AIPs) of the 1970s. In 1977, five projects were designated: nitrogenous urea fertiliser for Malaysia and Indonesia, phosphatic fertiliser for the Philippines, soda ash for Thailand and diesel engines for Singapore. The equity arrangement agreed in 1980 was fundamentally imbalanced – 60% for the host country, with the other four taking 10% each. The four non-Singapore projects were geared towards the agricultural industry, a reflection of national development priorities. The AIPs failed, because national priorities overrode genuine complementation and because the equity structure was fundamentally unbalanced. States will only enter enduring cooperation agreements when they do not fear that their partners will gain disproportionately.

The success of Airbus holds a mirror to these past failures and shows us a path forward.

Mr Speaker, critics will rightly point out that Europe in the 1960s and 1970s is not Southeast Asia today. They will speak of deep-seated political sensitivities, of differing economic priorities and of the cultural gulf that separates our nations. They are not wrong. These challenges are real and significant.

But I ask: are these differences greater than those that separated France and Germany just two decades after a world war? True partnership is not born from the absence of difficulty, but from the shared will to overcome it in the face of a greater common challenge – the squeeze of geoeconomic competition and knowing that going it alone is a losing game.

Three factors are critical. First, it requires coalitions of the willing, not committees of the whole. Bilateral or trilateral consortiums of nations. Some must integrate faster, to demonstrate the benefits of a particular integration model. Second, it demands balanced payoffs, like an equitable 50/50 or 60/40 structure. This ensures that every nation has an equal stake in shared success, bridging a trust deficit that erects non-tariff barriers. Defined payoffs and the way they are structured, must be negotiated early on. These negotiations reveal the viability or lack thereof regarding long-term cooperation. And third, today, the industrial bases across Southeast Asia by foreign direct investment give us a foundation that our predecessors never had, that allows us to build complementarity from a higher-base than the agricultural-industrial options available to the previous generation of policy-makers.

I am a believer that foreign investment has been a net positive for this region. Negative integration in ASEAN, via ATIGA and FTAs, has created a stable potential foundation for increasing regional trade. But the world is changing and we must now adapt to that changing world. Positive industrial integration is not the only option available to us. But it is a necessary diversifier in a portfolio of international strategies. Above all we should not spend all our diplomatic capital deepening a model that is yielding diminishing returns. We need to build a future with real, defensible, and shared prosperity.

This is not a dream.

I read with interest in March 2025, the call in the Malay Mail by the chief executive officer of MIMOS Berhad, Malaysia's national applied R&D centre, calling for strong industrial policy to create a semiconductor chip design ecosystem for Malaysia. To move beyond being a trusted manufacturer for global companies to become innovators.

When I read this call and others like it, I hear a common developmental language across nations. But to channel these ambitions through national industrial policy is to face the full cost of global competition alone. Singapore should be the partner that de-risks these aspirations by opening a path to stronger, more resilient regional consortiums.

We are in the midst of a global investment cycle in many things. Healthcare, nuclear energy, renewable energy, photonics. Budgetary decisions from the Ministry of Finance should begin to inform industrial policy decisions of the Ministry of Trade and Industry. We should head in broad strokes to what will be the big buckets of spending over the next 20 years – healthcare, the clean energy transition, maritime industrialisation, education. To ensure these efforts build our local capacity, Government support, like funding and early contracts, must come with conditions. Firms must be required to build deep roots here through local engineering teams, apprenticeships, joint-IP and guaranteed work for our SMEs.

Mr Speaker, Singapore should champion the creation of new "Airbus-style" commercial consortiums with willing regional partners. In the 21st century, this need not be a bloated state-owned enterprise. But rather the principal client and industrial anchor for an entire ecosystem of SMEs, along with the safeguards to make sure that value flows down the value-chain. Airbus sustains tens of thousands of European SMEs. Similarly, every successful venture in Southeast Asia could allow an ecosystem of SMEs to thrive.

So, how do we begin? Our strategy should be modular. We do not necessarily need to build the entire metaphorical aircraft at once; we can start by mastering a single critical component – the engine, the avionics, the advanced materials. This "building block" approach allows each partner to specialise, making us stronger together than apart. As we prove the model, we can integrate more partners, even from outside our region, to build more complex systems.

And what about scale? How might such a cooperation and integration model be replicated? Once done once, the private sector can increasingly take over.

The same unfolding ladder of ideas from AIPs to ASEAN Industrial Joint Venture (AIJVs) to ATIGA, from positive integration to negative integration. But we must recognise our current lack of inherent capacity. So, the state must be the prime mover to catalyse and build it again and anew. This requires a change in our Government’s mindset. The state must be bigger in its ambition to build this inherent capacity and shape markets as only a state can. But it also needs to become smaller, by not competing directly with our own SMEs. Too many local entrepreneurs tell me that once they reach a certain size, their biggest competitor is the Singaporean state and those linked with it.

For too long, the State's ambition has turned inward, often leading it to compete directly with our own SMEs. No more. Its role must be redefined. The greatest enabler of our local enterprises and not their competitor. A government that acts as a market-shaper internationally but knows when to retreat domestically creates a fairer playing field for our and our children's ventures to succeed.

I know that there are many Singaporeans who do not share the views of some who think that Singapore should focus on doing small things and let big countries do big things. But my message to all is that every ambition has a price. If a nation wishes to be at the frontier, it needs to be prepared to pay that price to cross that bridge. And inherent capacity at the frontier, guarded by protectionist sentiment at the best of times, is today a contested ridge-line, with all nations reawakened to the necessity of inherent capacity. It remains possible, as it always was possible, to cross this bridge, as long as the political will allows. But it requires no illusions about the limits of different growth models. It requires both developmental will abroad, and restraint at home.

This generation must decide what our country’s position is in the whole scheme of human progress. But it is my belief that we are here to catalyse a brighter future. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

2.26 pm

Mr Speaker: Dr Koh, do you have a clarification to make?

Debate resumed.

2.26 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang, do you have a clarification to make?

Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification to make with regard to the hon Member Mr Kenneth Tiong's speech. Two quick clarifications just to make sure I do not mischaracterise what he has shared.

The first, is he suggesting that the Singapore Government should be entering a domain or a partnership with some of our regional Governments in partnership to develop as what he described, a similar model of whatever was the collaboration between the English and the French? So, the first is he suggesting that the Singapore Government collaborate with governments in the region to develop an industry?

The second one and he also made this point quite clearly that the Government should not crowd out the space for SMEs. But at the same time he also shared that for this initial project, the Government must play an important role and then develop the system of SMEs, the ecosystem of SMEs underneath it. So, maybe for me to understand better, what is this sector that he has in mind? That the Government will not play a role whereby it oversteps the role of SMEs, but is able to create an ecosystem for SMEs in collaboration with governments in the region?

Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: I thank the Member for his clarifications. For the first question, yes, indeed I do believe that the Government has a very key role to play in fostering these collaborations. Airbus is not a private creation. They have fostered these consortiums to create the economies of scale that are necessary to sustain leading-edge industries.

On the second clarification, on which sectors that it should be in. Certainly, there are many, many areas of strength that I think are in Southeast Asia. Healthcare is a big bucket of spending in the future; and there is a strong semi-conductor ecosystem. There are many others, but I think these two are realistic.

And I think generally the principle is that it really depends on if the Government is in a position to shape these markets internationally, for the benefit of this country , it should.

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang.

Mr Foo Cexiang: Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Member for his clarifications as well. Could I just venture a step further to ask the Member whether he could share with us some of the countries or governments he has in mind that, in his view, we should be collaborating with in terms of some of the sectors that he has raised?

Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: I brought up one example in my speech. I say that that is one possible direction, regarding semi-conductors. But of course, I do not want to be overly prescriptive about the nature of the industry. I think there are many potential areas that could be developed. The general principle is that this is a policy instrument that I do not believe this Government has ever considered; or rather it has considered it once in the 1980s and I do believe it should be revived again.

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang.

Mr Foo Cexiang: Thank you, Speaker, I thank the Member as well. But I guess the root of the question I am asking is that, in his view, there are governments in the region that will be able to partner us meaningfully in such an endeavour. The level of the region, where they are, the resources that they have, the manpower they have, the skills that they have, there will be a meaningful collaboration that we can have with them. That is the question I have for the Member.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: There are many sources of industrial strength in Southeast Asia. Malaysia is certainly strong in semiconductors. It has a strong healthcare industry. Vietnam is strong in manufacturing. There are others. Again, as I said, I think this Government has a prerogative to decide what these areas should be and to see how best to develop these, but certainly I do not want to be overly prescriptive in what it could be.

Mr Speaker: Let us move on, Ms Hazlina.

2.31 pm

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I am lucky to be born an optimist, always preferring to look on the brighter side of life. But I know it is easier said than done, especially when success seems out of reach; and the people who are in the position to make a difference seem out of touch.

I sense some among us may be feeling this way: unsure, uncertain, overwhelmed. This too, shall pass, and with hardship comes ease. But let me say this: I believe in the power of the youth, so do not give up on you. I believe in the power of family, do not give up on each other. I believe in the power of unity, so let us do this together.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support for the Motion to thank the President who spoke about unity, tenacity and inclusive mobility. Let me start by appreciating the East Coast and Fengshan residents – because of whom I have this honour of being here today, sharing my voice with fellow Singaporeans. With this same voice, I thank our families, our volunteers and Singapore's patriots who rally with us to build a Singapore we can all be proud of. One, where we belong.

The privilege, expectations and "amanah", or responsibility, standing right here right now, is not lost on me. Mr Speaker, I seek the guidance of your good self, honourable, learned and experienced Members of this House as well as our community leaders and private sector leaders to join hands and build an ecosystem of support so every one of us Singaporeans, dare to dream, to be our best.

Today, I will take you on a journey to envision the Singapore I hope to build in three parts, using three proverbs, and in three other languages.

First, in our National Language, Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The strength of the people, is in its unity.

A Singapore that is strong, united and cohesive.

A Singapore that supports one another during difficult times.

A Singapore that celebrates each other's successes.

That is my hope for Singapore and for our community.

For 15 years, I reported the stories of our community as an editor and presenter for Mediacorp News. I was fortunate because through my career, I had the privilege of preserving our culture and language and connecting with our community.

I also served for more than a decade in charitable organisations, such as PPIS (Singapore Muslim Women's Association) – helping those in need amongst us and in several national councils and associations – representing the voice and aspirations of our community. I have never missed any opportunity to contribute because I truly believe that success, values, and aspirations; all begin at home.

Therefore, I hope the Government continues to work hand in hand with Malay/Muslim organisations, social service agencies, as well as the private sector, making holistic efforts to strengthen and empower our families, so that no one is left behind.

Mr Speaker, every family's situation is different. Similar but not quite the same. Sometimes, when tackling complex problems, there seems to be no clear solutions, no examples, no templates. For instance, a Fengshan resident, Mr O, is a father with a heart condition. He is no longer working and must care for two children – one studying at MINDS and another who has eczema, a type of skin ailment. Additionally, his wife is receiving long-term treatment in hospital due to stroke. When he came to us, Mr O was quite at a loss. Our team worked to address his challenges step by step.

We began by ensuring that he receives assistance from ComCare and also MUIS. We then addressed his financial difficulties by guiding him in planning his family's monthly expenses. We also provided grocery vouchers and made appeals for outstanding bills. Essentially, our team used a holistic approach that took into account the specific characteristics of each family, which is providing assistance while empowering them.

Mr Speaker, Singapore's success and strength are not only subject to economic sustainability. Family and community stability, as well as a united people, are also important indicators of success – especially in uncertain times, when tensions between nations are escalating.

We must take care of our own.

Recently, I had the opportunity to join President Tharman Shanmugaratnam's delegation for his State Visit to Egypt – for the very first time. Singapore's reputation as a trusted, respected and forward-looking country was clearly evident. The President's visit demonstrated both the importance of expanding our networks and Singapore's significant role on the world stage. The President presented a $1.2 million contribution from the Singapore Red Cross to the Egyptian Red Crescent. These funds will be used for medical services that will benefit 4,000 Gaza residents as well as educational services for around 2,000 Palestinian children.

During the visit, I had the chance to meet four Gaza residents who were receiving medical treatment in Egypt, together with a team of Singaporean doctors and nurses who were specially flown in to provide treatment – the first foreign team given permission to work in an Egyptian hospital.

Mr Speaker, I believe this effort is welcomed by all Singaporeans. Therefore, Singapore must remain steadfast and firm in helping victims of war and continue to speak up for the oppressed. Singaporeans harbour hope that Singapore will assume a greater role and take a clearer stance on the Gaza conflict. While in Egypt, I was also deeply moved after meeting Singaporean students studying at the Al-Azhar University. They possess tremendous spirit and are committed to flying the Singapore flag high. I applaud and congratulate them for that.

Mr Speaker, solidarity does not mean uniformity, without any differences. Solidarity is the harmony of different voices, with varying tones and rhythms flowing together, united for the same purpose. A nurturing environment is important for someone to flourish. The family is like a garden that must be carefully tended, so that life's resources are shared as fairly as possible, and nothing is hidden in the shadows. We can be anchors of progress and beacons of unity. I will strive to ensure that our children grow up with confidence, our youth receive opportunities and our families believe in a brighter future.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please, especially, for my Fengshan residents.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] "Care for our own elderly and extend that care to the elderly of others" – what a beautiful saying! Many of our elderly shy from asking their families for help, fearing they might trouble others. I hope we can proactively extend a helping hand and do our part for our elders, so they can enjoy a meaningful and dignified life.

(In English): Mr Speaker, we are where we are because of the giants before us. Trail blazers who cleared the path, smashed ceilings and cleaned sticky floors. Singapore must be a safe space for our elderlies who have done so much to build the Singapore we are privileged to live in now.

During the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, shared a photo of my Fengshan resident, Mdm Wong celebrating her 100th birthday. I met her the same week, to show her how many Singaporeans celebrated with her. She was in high-spirits, all smiles and said, "阿嬤开心!" or Grandma is happy.

Joy keeps Mdm Wong going and many super-aged seniors too. I hope for our seniors to truly age well, on site and with dignity. I hope for a Singapore where our elderlies know they can depend on their families for support. I hope for the Government to better support families with elderly, especially the ones who also have young children as well.

On my house visits, I often meet seniors who live alone. At Fengshan, we take note of these homes. Our grassroots leader and I make time to engage and stay in touch. We organise luncheons and gatherings and encourage them to have an active social life. The work of the Active Ageing Centres, the Active Ageing Centre befrienders and the Silver Generation Office is becoming more important, to ensure our seniors living alone are not isolated. Perhaps it is time to consider a national level initiative together with coordination and partnership with social service agencies to have a more structured approach in caring for the ones who have no one else.

I also recently met a community of caregivers in Fengshan who are looking after seniors with dementia. Their challenges are real. I welcome the new dementia programmes at our Active Ageing Centres which would benefit this growing, big-hearted community of carers who deserve better support. And I look forward to greater synergies among all our initiatives so seniors have one single point of contact for community care, so they can focus on living their golden years meaningfully and with dignity.

Next, very briefly in Tamil, please, Mr Speaker.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The continuous crawling of ants can wear out even a rock. Do not give up hope. Keep on trying. There is so much we can learn from this saying. My grandfather and grandmother spoke Tamil. I have not learnt enough of it, but one day, I will.

(In English): The proverb, even ants can wear out a rock, speaks of the perseverance and resilience I hope for Singapore and our youths to possess. A Singapore where our young feel heard, seen and where they matter. A Singapore where our young are motivated and do not give up. A Singapore where our young feel like they belong.

Economic uncertainty and social pressures are on the up and up. One of the concerns of young Singaporeans is employment. It is unfortunate that the pressure to get a job meant young people are racing to stack internships. I worry for the vulnerable ones whose social capital is limited. I hope Government initiatives, such as the GRIT programme, truly evens the playing field of opportunities, and for the Government to keep a close eye that they are not misused for cost savings.

Perhaps the Government can also consider better supporting companies who successfully upskill and coach a trainee for full-time employment upon the completion of their traineeship. I believe it is important for the young to discover themselves. I started my career as a journalist, crossed over to public affairs, found meaning in social impact and embraced a new opportunity in advisory consulting.

For Singaporeans to embody lifelong learning, there must also be a mindset shift of embracing lifelong support. I shared the anxiety of our young, but also their drive for making the world a better place for the next generation. I share their purpose on being good and doing right. I will continue to listen to our young and give them space to untangle, deconstruct and undo what does not quite work.

I recently met some youths based in Cairo, having just returned from a State Visit with the President to Egypt and I am filled with immense pride at how our youths are flying our flag, determined to do Singapore, their families and themselves proud in their campuses. Egypt, like Singapore, values inter-faith harmony; upholding the values of peace and mutual respect is essential in continuing to build a peaceful and harmonious Singapore.

The recent incident at Al-Istiqamah mosque is deeply concerning. Such acts threaten the values that Singapore revere, peace and harmony. We must move upstream in our interventions. We must ensure our places of worship for all faiths remain safe spaces like the rest of Singapore. To do so, we must embrace unity in diversity.

Mr Speaker, Sir. Our mighty red dot shines bright beyond the water’s edge. Think about how Singaporeans make our mark and add value overseas and how Singapore makes a difference in a world that we care about. We must carry that same pride, here on this island.

Sir, I conclude with the recap of the three proverbs that exemplifies my kind of Singapore.

"Kuat lilit kerana simpulnya". The strength of the people is in its unity.

"老吾老，以及人之老". Care for the elders, our own and others.

"Yerumbu Ora Kalluum Theiyum". Persistence never fails.

The Singapore name is our pride. We must protect it. We must build it, we must move forward with it, together. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, I think you have joined the rare group of Members who used all four languages in her speech. Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling.

2.47 pm

The Senior Minister of State for National Development and Transport (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Housing policies are often discussed in this House. It is a topic that is important to many. Homes are where our children grow up, develop a sense of self and identify a space that they call their own. Homes can be a source of pride and joy for young working adults – something that they worked hard for and something that they continue to build their dreams and aspirations on.

For seniors, a home can be a sanctuary giving them peace of mind in their golden years. In land scarce Singapore, the Government takes active steps to ensure that there is housing to meet the different needs of our people. But there are also competing uses for land – to generate economic growth, for environment sustainability and sometimes for cultural and historical conservation.

The Ministry of National Development (MND) takes its development and stewardship role over land use seriously and undertakes this in partnership with our people. In June this year, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) released the Draft Master Plan 2025. It was developed through URA's most extensive public engagement exercise to date with 200,000 people engaged. We laid out our urban planning vision for the next decade.

We want to bring jobs closer to homes and strengthen three economic gateways in the north, east and west. We want to develop exciting and attractive neighbourhoods for both public and private housing, for example, in central locations, like Berlayar: regional job centres, like Woodlands; and sites closer to nature, like Kranji. We will also set aside more spaces for recreation with the development of new integrated developments, new parks and park connectors. Singapore will continue to be an exciting and endearing place to work, live and play.

As we develop these plans, we will not lose sight of our fundamental commitment to our people, that the Government will continue to provide affordable and accessible housing to our people. This was the founding ethos for HDB, which was established in 1960, five years before Singapore's Independence. This continues to be its mission today. Our home ownership policies give our citizens a stake in our nation, foster a sense of rootedness and a shared sense of identity.

I will now speak about, one, how we will continue to meet the housing aspirations of Singaporeans through affordable and accessible housing; how we will plan major new estates so that new residents can move in with greater convenience and comfort; and three, how we will rejuvenate our homes and estates to make them safe, liveable and vibrant for residents of all ages.

In the last term of Government, the pandemic impacted construction and led to delays in the completion of housing projects. Application rates for BTO flats were high, waiting times were longer and resale prices increased as more buyers turned to resale flats. Together with industry partners, the Government responded swiftly to the situation. We completed the flats delayed by COVID-19, ramped up supply of new flats, brought down waiting times and introduced multiple rounds of cooling measures to moderate the resale market.

After COVID-19, there continues to be strong broad-based housing demand. Singaporeans want to start their own families with most young people getting married at about 30 years old and they want to have their own flats then. There are also singles who want to live independently, though near their family. There are also seniors who want to age-in-place or right-size their housing for retirement needs.

In this term of Government, HDB will continue to build more, build faster and build better. We want to help more Singaporeans meet their housing aspirations. There will be a variety of public housing options in different locations to suit diverse income groups and family needs. We have exceeded our commitment of launching 100,000 new flats from 2021 to 2025. And from 2025 to 2027, we will launch 55,000 BTO flats, 10% more than the earlier commitment of 50,000. We will launch at least 4,500 flats with shorter waiting times this year, and over the next two years, we will launch about 4,000 annually, an increase of more than 20% compared to our earlier plans.

We will also sustain a steady private housing supply. From 2025 to 2027, we plan to launch more than 25,000 private residential units through the Government Land Sales programme. New estates will be developed in more central locations, such as Newton and Pearl's Hill.

As we build more, build faster and build better, there will be greater capacity to meet the aspirations of more Singaporeans. Mr Henry Kwek spoke for some of these groups, like young Singaporeans doing well at work and earning more but are afraid that they will bust the HDB income ceiling and end up not being eligible for a HDB flat.

The current BTO income ceiling is $14,000. This was last revised in 2019. We recognise that incomes have gone up over the years. We will, therefore, review the income ceiling to keep pace with economic trends and ensure that the majority of Singaporean households remain eligible for HDB flats.

Another group of Singaporeans who desire to own their HDB flats are singles who can only apply for a BTO flat after reaching the age of 35. In recent years, we have made significant moves to enhance singles' access to HDB flats. These include expanding access to two-room flexi BTO flats island-wide, increasing the housing grant for singles and giving priority to singles when they apply to live with or near their parents for mutual care and support.

We understand that there is still unmet demand from some singles who wish to apply for a BTO flat before reaching the age of 35. To make further policy moves, we need policy space and a higher supply of BTO flats. We are continuing with a robust supply of public housing and when the right conditions are in place, we will be able to raise the income eligibility threshold for BTO flat buyers and lower the eligibility age for singles.

Besides improving accessibility, we will also ensure that HDB flats remain affordable for Singaporeans. The Government will continue to price BTO flats so that they are affordable for buyers with different income levels. This includes first-time buyers who may also be eligible for additional housing grants.

Unlike other countries where public housing is targeted at the lower-income, almost 80% of Singapore residents stay in HDB flats. We must, therefore, provide a range of BTO flats at different locations and price levels to cater to buyers with different incomes and aspirations.

Let me share two examples using the recent July BTO exercise. Take a young couple earning around $5,000 monthly adding up to our median household income of $10,000. The average price for a standard four-room flat in a July exercise was around $460,000. With a 25-year HDB loan, the couple's mortgage servicing ratio would be 16%, meaning their monthly loan instalments would be fully covered by their CPF contributions. No need to pay cash.

If they opted for a four-room flat in Prime areas in this particular July exercise, given the additional subsidies for Prime flats, the couple will still be able to afford such flats with up to $350 payable in cash per month. Their mortgage servicing ratio would increase to 27% but this is still below international benchmarks of 30%-35% for affordable housing. To add, as the couple only starts paying their loan when the flat is completed, their incomes will likely have increased in those three or four years when they are waiting for the flat, so their actual mortgage servicing ratio and monthly cash outlay would be even lower.

Let us consider another couple with a lower combined income of $6,000 which places them in the lower-third of households by income. In the same July BTO exercise, three-room flats were going from $267,000 up to $389,000. This couple would be able to afford any three-room flat only using CPF, without any cash outlay. That gives them some buffer to cover their daily expenses and build up their finances. In fact, because of the additional grants they receive, this couple would also be able to afford the average standard four-room flat in this exercise without any cash outlay.

I have taken the July launch as an example, as this is the nearest launch to date. The exact prices and locations will vary across launches but our commitment is to ensure a range of options to meet diverse budgets and diverse needs.

We will also ensure that standard flats continue to form a significant portion of our annual supply to provide sufficient options for buyers with tighter budgets. And across flat types, BTOs will be priced well below comparable resale flats. On top of that, we provide further means-tested grants. Because of this, nine in 10 first-time home buyers can pay their loan using their CPF with little or no cash outlay. This is a good gauge of their lived experience of affordability, as this captures how they can manage their mortgage and daily living expenses relative to their disposable income.

I will now touch on the resale market. As we all know, resale prices are agreed between buyers and sellers, influenced by supply and demand. Behind every resale flat transaction, there is a willing buyer and a willing seller. Buyers pay a higher price compared to BTO flats, but they get the resale flat immediately and can choose their preferred flat attributes, like location and size.

There will be resale flats with attractive attributes that allow them to command higher prices, such as being in Prime locations, on a high floor, facing a good view, near amenities and transport nodes. But there are also resale flats available at lower prices in many locations. A four-room resale flat with at least 40 years remaining on the lease can go for less than $700,000 in locations, like Tampines and Punggol; less than $600,000 in Sembawang and Yishun; and less than $550,000 in Jurong West and Woodlands. [Please refer to clarification later in the debate.] First-time buyers pay even less because they qualify for grants of up to $230,000.

The resale market is cyclical. Before COVID-19, resale prices fell for six consecutive years. When prices rose in the COVID-19 years, we had to implement four rounds of cooling measures, such as reducing the Loan-to-Value limit for HDB housing loans and the wait-out periods for private property owners wishing to purchase HDB flats. We are now seeing moderation in resale price growth. The quarter-on-quarter resale price index Resale Price Index growth for the last quarter at 0.9% is the lowest since the second quarter of 2020.

There are signs to point towards continued moderation in resale prices. More BTO flats will reach their Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) from 2026 onwards. The number of BTO flats reaching MOP will increase from 8,000 flats this year to 13,500 in 2026, 15,000 in 2027 and 19,500 in 2028. The increase in the supply of resale flats will help to moderate resale prices. At the same time, the ramp-up in BTO supply that I spoke about earlier will also help to reduce demand in the resale market, as more buyers turn to BTO flats. Together, these trends of increased supply and reduced demand will help support a more balanced and sustainable resale market.

To sum up this section of my speech, we will keep public housing affordable and accessible for buyers with diverse needs and budgets. The robust supply of public housing will enable us to expand access to more groups.

Ramping up housing supply also means that we will be developing in new areas, such as Tengah in the West, and Kranji in the North. These areas present opportunities to design thoughtful and beautiful towns. We did this with "Punggol 21" since the 1990s, and we are doing this again with Tengah – our first large-scale smart and sustainable town.

At the same time, we hear feedback from residents that amenities such as cooked food options and childcare centres were not available when they first moved in. Having been in Punggol for the past decade, I can understand how residents feel. To review how we can be more resident-centric in our planning for such large-scale BTO estates, we set up the inter-agency BTO Coordination Committee last year, which I now chair.

The committee has studied the experience of residents in new large-scale BTO estates, such as Punggol and Tengah. I will share more in the months to come, but today, I would like to give you a broad overview of the improvements that we are looking into, to prepare for other large-scale BTO projects we are building.

The inter-agency committee is looking into a wide variety of issues, such as transport accessibility, construction disamenities and also, mobile signal strength. In the interest of time, I will highlight three areas that HDB is working on: sheltered linkways, childcare and food options.

First, sheltered linkways. Residents desire shelter to connect them on their commute and journeys around the neighbourhood. For new estates, from the onset, we will see how we can connect our residents to more bus stops and shop clusters. This can potentially be implemented at the BTO construction stage, especially if there are cost savings.

Next, on childcare. For our young parents, it is crucial to minimise the gap between the first residents moving in and the commencement of childcare services. We are refining our planning approach, so that the childcare centres are built earlier in the development of the estate and handed over to operators in a smoother and faster manner.

Finally, when residents move into a new area, more often than not, food is the first thing that everyone looks out for. However, we know through experience that operators are hesitant to open their shops or stalls when footfall may be low in the initial period. Currently, we already provide a rent-free period to tide operators through this period. We are studying how to enhance such measures while studying alternatives for residents. We will work with the food and retail industry to see how residents can be better served during the move-in period and the town's early years.

At the National Day Rally this year, the Prime Minister had shared our vision for the new BTO estates in places like Kranji, Sembawang and Woodlands. They are to be well-connected to job centres in the northern region. This is an opportunity to apply this resident-centric planning approach and build a new generation of heartlands.

Across Government agencies, we will plan and coordinate much more closely so that new residents enjoy greater convenience from the time they move in. We will continue to gather feedback from residents, grassroots leaders and community leaders, and adopt a resident-centric approach in planning, development and execution.

Our commitment is not just to new homes. We are equally focused on rejuvenating our mature heartlands where many Singaporeans have lived for decades. We often hear residents asking what will happen to their flats and estates as the infrastructure, and they themselves, get older. I assure residents that we will continue to work with you and your Town Councils to keep your homes and neighbourhoods safe, liveable and well-maintained.

Many residents of flats aged around 30 years have already benefited from programmes, such as the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), covering essentials like toilets, doors and spalling concrete. As flats age further, HIP II will offer a second round of upgrading when flats reach 60 years and above. Works will be more comprehensive, using updated technology.

We will announce more details about HIP II next year, but I will share one example today. As buildings age, the problem of water seepage becomes more common and this damages concrete. HDB is testing a scanning technology which can see beyond the surface of the concrete, trace the root cause and make more timely repairs. I have seen the use of this technology and how it can help to resolve more complex water seepage cases. HDB is currently exploring how to scale up its use in a cost-effective manner.

Beyond individual flats, we will continue to refresh the whole estate, through programmes such as Remaking Our Heartlands and the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme. For example, under Remaking Our Heartlands in Choa Chu Kang, the Teck Whye and Keat Hong Shopping Centres are getting a fresh revamp, so that residents do not have to travel into town, but can enjoy themselves at the nearby malls. Outside the town centres, there will be new pocket parks, playgrounds and linkways, down to simple improvements to the lighting and seating.

Residents of private housing estates, including seniors, will not be left out. We are extending these upgrading efforts to selected private housing estates, under the Estate Upgrading Programme. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to continue in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As society ages, we have to make HDB flats and neighbourhoods more senior-friendly, to support seniors to age-in-place and remain active. We believe that our whole society benefits when seniors live joyful, healthy and active lives.

The Government provides the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme for seniors which includes senior-friendly fixtures that allow seniors to move about safely within their homes. This includes grab bars and handrails, slip-resistant flooring, wall-mounted shower seats and widened bathroom entrances.

At the neighbourhood level, we have launched the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, adding senior-friendly facilities in our public housing estates such as barrier-free ramps, therapeutic gardens, and fitness areas. All this will support seniors who wish to age-in-place, surrounded by familiar faces and places. But there will also be seniors who wish to monetise their flats, and find a smaller flat that suits their retirement needs. We will ensure they have ample options.

Two-room Flexi units continue to be a popular choice among seniors who want a smaller home that is easier to maintain, especially in their later years. We are maintaining a steady supply of two-room Flexi units in every BTO exercise, with the majority of these flats set aside for seniors.

We will also launch more Community Care Apartments for seniors who wish to live independently, with access to care and support. Community Care Apartments combine senior-friendly design, eldercare services and activity spaces. We have seen positive response and feedback, and we are expanding this model to more sites.

The Prime Minister recently announced the new Age Well Neighbourhood concept. We will work with MOH to provide more details when ready.

I would like to assure seniors that regardless of whether you choose to remain in your current home, move to a smaller one for retirement, or live somewhere with more care support, we will provide safe and convenient housing options. We will continue to make Singapore an endearing home for all ages.

(In English): Sir, during this debate, we have seen many MPs speak passionately about issues concerning national development – their estates, residents, our social fabric and the environment.

I sincerely thank our Members for raising concerns and proposals on behalf of your residents. We hear you and we will continue to engage you and work with you to further improve our policies and schemes.

To our residents, we hear your hopes and concerns, whether you are a young couple planning to start a family, a homeowner wondering what is next for your estate, or a senior thinking about retirement.

We will build more homes across the island, with a range of housing options to cater to different needs and budgets. We will plan for infrastructure and amenities in new estates, so that residents can move in with greater comfort and convenience. We will rejuvenate mature homes and estates, keeping them safe, liveable and vibrant.

Over six decades, we have moved from the urgent task of housing a young nation to a nation of homeowners, proud of our quality homes, well-designed towns and strong communities. We will carry this spirit and legacy, meet the needs of today and fulfil our aspirations for the future. Together, let us build a Singapore that is home for all, for today and for generations to come. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua, you have a clarification to make.

3.11 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just a quick clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I thank her and MND for reviewing the BTO eligibility age for singles. I just wanted to ask what are these right conditions that she mentioned in her speech, whether it is certain indicators or macroeconomic factors, or some factors that MND is considering, before taking the action to review the age? Because on the supply and demand side: demand, we do know that there is; and on supply, I think that is something within MND's control.

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for the question. Singles are a very important part of our society. As I have shared, we know that there is unmet demand from singles and in particular, those who are less than 35 years of age. In my speech, I had shared that we will build more, build faster, build better, because we need a larger housing supply, so as to be able to meet the needs of as many Singaporeans as possible.

So, the right conditions that I talked about are: we need to build more, build faster, build better. Because with a larger housing supply of BTO flats, we will be able to manage the trade-offs a bit better. Because a flat that we allocate to one particular segment of the society means, unfortunately, one flat less to allocate to another segment of the society. So, I would say that what we are very focused on right now is to build as quickly as we can.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.14 pm until 3.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm.

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

President's Speech

(Debate on the Address of Thanks – fifth allotted day)

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling, you have a clarification?

3.35 pm

Ms Sun Xueling: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Earlier in my speech, when I was giving an example of resale flats being available at lower prices in many locations, I had said "a four-room resale flat with at least 40 years remaining". That is inaccurate.

It should read, a four-room resale flat with at least 70 years remaining on the lease can go for less than $700,000 in locations like Tampines and Punggol, less than $600,000 in Sembawang and Yishun and less than $550,000 in Jurong-West and Woodlands. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

3.36 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, today we live in a changed world, just at the time where the fresh team, led by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has taken over the leadership of the nation. But I can sense the new resolve to tackle the challenges ahead, come what may, and to keep this miracle of Singapore going.

Sir, in the new global landscape, we need a new playbook to grow our economy, which will inevitably come with its disruptions and risks. There will be new stresses and anxieties and Singaporeans will need to adjust and adapt in a fast-changing and more unsettling environment. The Government has committed to supporting Singaporeans to ride through this new "disordered" world. At the same time, we must double down in our efforts to sustain social mobility as well as protecting the vulnerable among us. And through it all, we can build a stronger social compact and a truly "we" mindset. These are among the areas of priorities outlined by the President on behalf of the Government, which I fully support.

Much has been said in the last five days and so for my speech today, I would just focus on two sticky perennial issues, which I would like to add my voice to.

Firstly, how do we moderate cost increases? Secondly, how do we reduce job matching friction?

I raise both these issues, not because I feel that the Government has not done enough but rather these two issues: cost and jobs, are and will be an unending challenge for Singapore and would, therefore, require continued resolves to tackle them.

Firstly, on costs. How can we better moderate cost increases in Singapore? As a tiny resource-scarce city state, where we import almost everything that we need and where our economy is constantly on an overdrive mode, Singapore is inherently more susceptible to price increases than other economies. It is a circumstance that we have to constantly manage and live with. Like almost every economy in the world, the universal approach is to let market forces determine allocations with the use of price as a way to sort out demand and supply.

This is by far the most sensible way and it has worked this way for centuries. However, in Singapore's circumstances, prices tend to be more upside elastic because of our greater scarcity, as we do not readily have excess capacity to just ramp up supply where demand are high to moderate price increases. At the same time, due to our remarkable economic progress over the decades, there is a wider disparity now in purchasing power among our consumers. There are people or businesses who are prepared to pay up a lot more or bid higher than others and some in the range of extreme outliers. We see some of that in the Certificate of Entitlement bidding, where supply is limited and hence, prices is the key determinant to allocate the limited number of certificates.

To the Government's credit, there are extensive and comprehensive range of subsidies and policy schemes to keep things affordable for Singaporeans. Among them the core areas that the Government has committed heavy subsidies are housing, healthcare, education, transport and others. These direct subsidies require substantial and continual fiscal resource to fund and, hence, we must be able to keep generating revenue on a sustainable basis to pay for these items. Since COVID-19, the global inflation has raised prices, underpinned by higher energy, food and commodity prices, and the effects are being felt though the imports that Singaporeans consume daily.

Fortunately, our strong economic and fiscal fundamentals avail us the Singapore dollar as a broad-base tool to mitigate inflation. But there is a limit as to how much the strong Singapore dollar can strengthen without impacting our export competitiveness. So, we do have to count on other supporting measures.

At the same time, domestically, we are also in this necessary transition to uplift wages of fellow Singaporeans, especially the lower-wage workers. This has added cost pressures to businesses and some of which show up in the form of higher prices in products and services.

Also, we have also seen land costs increasing fairly steeply in recent years as Singapore continues to command premiums as a business destination and also a much sought-after residential home. The Government has introduced a series of property cooling measures like Additional Buyers Stamp Duties, among others. These are all necessary to cool the market.

But besides the indirect measures, we would also need both broad-base and targeted direct measures to assist Singaporeans. The Government has enhanced and upsized a series of cost mitigating measures, like the Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers, among others. But we know that such direct assistances cannot be a norm and sometime down the road it has to taper down and wind down, and the pace will depend on the inflationary situation and our fiscal headroom.

We, therefore, need to look into more supply-side measures to lower our overall cost structure in Singapore, both through administrative means as well as through improving efficiency as an economic system. I will attempt to share some illustrative examples, not exhaustive by any means.

Mr Deputy Speaker, ensuring that we have a competitive business ecosystem is one of the Government’s cost management strategies and a sound way to keep costs and prices in check. While we largely leave to the spontaneity of businesses to evolve the ecosystem, it will also require the Government’s hand, from time to time, to curate, monitor and call out unfair market behaviour to protect consumers' interest.

Besides the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, the Consumers Association of Singapore and other consumers’ advocacy groups, MPs have also played a part in the past to call out anti-competitive practices. For example, Parliamentary Questions were raised in the past when we saw retail petrol prices lagging on the downside but quicker to rise on the upside.

One area where I would like to use this opportunity to raise and to get some attention from the Government is the escalating costs in the building maintenance and repair area. The cost of, for example, repairing seepages in HDB flats has increased significantly. The problem with seepages in buildings is that you cannot really see where the source of leak is with the naked eye. So, there is often some amount of guesswork by the repair contractor.

The process usually goes this way. When a seepage is reported during a raining day, the contractor would wait for a dry day to carry out the repair. After the repair, the contractor would wait for the next rainy day to determine if the seepage repair has been effective. If it is not, they would find another dry day to repair on another suspected spot. So, for more difficult and complex seepage situations, the process may go on for a few rounds to the frustrations of residents, who has to bear the inconveniences of multiple appointments and continued seepages. All these would mean costs escalating.

Typically, what the contractors would do is to carry out what they call "PU injection", injecting high pressure liquid, polyurethane (PU) chemical, into the suspected cracks in concrete structures hoping that these PUs will plug the gaps and source of the leaks. Sir, these seepage repair contractors are SMEs, they are typically capital-light, they run on very tight cashflows in their business. It would be too much to ask for these companies to invest in costly sophisticated technology to more precisely diagnosed the root causes of seepages, not knowing that they can still win the next contract or next tender.

Sir, seepages in older flats is a common wicked problem across HDB estates especially the older flats and I believe the problem requires an industry-wide solution. So, I hope HDB or Building Construction Authority can intervene to find an industry solution. We almost need an Industry Transformation Map of sorts to invest in the research, technology, training so as to improve on the way we can diagnose the source of the seepage. This would help contractors to better able and more accurately repair the seepages in older flats and hence, costing less.

Another cause of concern that I would like to raise is the extreme high bids we saw in heartland shop spaces. A case in point is the $52,000 bid for a heartland medical clinic at Tampines. Such record-high bids, though not the norm, nevertheless, has the effect of setting new reference benchmarks and may influence future would-be bidders to submit higher bids, leading to upside stickiness in pricing. Other private HDB shops landlord may use this new higher benchmark reference to price up when they renew the rental.

While we leave it to markets forces to determine prices, we must drill down if such outlier bids are sustainable in business, and the impact to healthcare costs at the neighbourhood. There must also be a so-called price reasonableness assessment.

In response to media queries on the high rental bid at Tampines, HDB said that the bid of $52,188 is significantly higher than the average tendered rent of around $9,800 per month for similar-sized clinics rented out by HDB in 2024. And at that rental, $52,000, it is by far the highest per sq ft rent that HDB has received for general practitioner and dental clinics.

I am glad that HDB later announced that it will move to the Price Quality Method (PQM) and as was further elaborated by MND's Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling three days ago in the Parliamentary Question reply. Hopefully that will help reduce future occurrences of overly high rental bids.

Another case in point is the high rental bid for hawker centres. The National Environment Agency (NEA) received a bid of $10,158 last year in Marine Parade. This is way higher than the $1,800 median successful tender price for cooked food stalls in 2023. Again, this may not be the norm, but it could create upside headroom for rental prices to escalate.

NEA has since implemented the new rental model to deter overly high tender bids, where the rental adjustment will be staggered when renewed. Let us see if this new model works, but I hope that NEA can, in addition, also consider the PQM approach that HDB has adopted.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we must be watchful of extreme high bids for retail spaces in the heartland as, in aggregate, it can add more upside cost pressures. Another measure that I hope HDB can consider and look into is to increase the supply of rental spaces in locations where rental bids tend to be high, as the high rental bids may well be due to inadequate retail spaces in high population-density residential town.

Prior to the Government's decision to resume building of hawker centres, coffee shops were at one point changing hands in the tens of millions of dollars. But with the hawker centres being built and new supply of retail stalls, we have seen transaction prices of coffeeshops stabilised. So, this is something that if we supply, it can make a difference.

I have noticed that in Hong Kong, among the most expensive commercial real estate area, like Central and the Admiralty areas, there will always be side lanes in between the top-grade office properties, where low costs budget retail shops can co-exist. These are the small retail shops when we can find, among the buildings, where you see Hong Kong cafes, or "cha chan teng", selling affordable meal sets, small sundry shops selling low-cost daily grocery items and so on.

If the prices or rents of these spaces at these small lanes are to be benchmarked against the valuations of the adjacent premium office buildings, the retail shops would not be able to survive at the affordable prices that they provide. So, perhaps, URA and the Singapore Land Authority can study what administrative measures do the Hong Kong land authority has to allow such dispensation.

I know we do have such similar dispensation of sorts where we set aside office spaces in commercial buildings for non-profit use that are for social and community good. But we should expand this programme. I always thought it would be a great idea for Marina Bay to also have a social enterprise-run hawker centre. That would be helpful to the office workers there who wish to have an affordable meal.

Sir, let me now move to my second concern, which is, how do we reduce job-matching friction? In this year’s National Day Rally speech, the Prime Minister mentioned jobs as a main focus. At one juncture, he repeated “jobs, jobs, jobs” three times in succession.

Despite Singapore having among the lowest unemployment rate in the world and, in fact, we have to count on foreign labour to fill up many of jobs not taken up by Singaporeans, it is very heartening to hear this from the top-of-the-house leadership. It demonstrates once again that when it comes to unemployment, we set very low thresholds of tolerance and we are determined not to leave any jobseekers behind.

And that determination is manifested in the whole gamut of policies and the resources the Government has put in place to create jobs to sustain employability. On the demand side, the priority is to grow the economy. On the supply side, the unrelenting endeavor to equip and upskill Singaporeans to take on job opportunities across life stages, starting in schools, during their career life span and even during their senior years.

There are literally countless policies, initiatives and schemes in place to support Singaporeans to stay employed and to be employable. We have agencies, like the Workforce Singapore (WSG), SkillsFuture Singapore and e2i, and now the five CDCs will be also roped in to help with local job matching.

We have done much on either side, the demand and the supply. The part that I hope we do better is how we can match the demand to supply, so that we can see more meaningful employment outcomes. Matching jobs remains an arduous task, more so for workers disrupted by technologies or jobs obsolescence.

I have come across displaced mid-career PMETs who took more than one year to find the next job. Imagine the stresses and anxieties, as well as the emotional toil and frustrations having to send countless CVs, going for interviews, awaiting outcomes, only to be disappointed again. It saddens me when I see middle-aged PMETs with good work experience, still able, still capable, but having to retire early or to be not meaningfully employed. This is especially so, when now, today, we have our life expectancies, health expectancies are also all increasing.

Very often, the skills and experiences that these mid-career PMETs have are actually the skills that the companies are looking for. But, somehow, the match just does not occur. Some of these available jobs are quite general in nature. Some administrative, it could be support roles; some are managerial, which we have no shortage of experienced managers.

So, it is not due to the lack of jobs or not lack of skills or experiences, then what are the impediments? I can think of a few. Mismatched expectations; bias, whether is it age or others; inability of the jobseekers to impress the hirers. Singaporeans, some of us may tend to undersell ourselves.

Here, I would just want to focus on one particular impediment and, that is, the jobseekers are not being plugged into the employers' hiring network. Job search platforms and agencies, like MyCareerFutures, e2i, WSG, has done a great job, matching jobs for many Singaporeans.

But for matching jobs in more senior position where many mid-career PMET jobseekers are looking for, it can be less effective. In such more senior roles, the hirers tend to depend on their own channels to find the candidates, often by way of HR search firms or by their own internal or external referrals. The companies may still advertise the jobs on public platforms if they are opening their search to include foreign candidates, as part of MOM requirements. So, they do that too.

How do we better match jobs, especially for more senior PMET positions? Firstly, we must help jobseekers plug into the job search network by encouraging companies to open up their search beyond the usual network and genuinely work with agencies, like e2i, WSG and NTUC, to source a wider pool of candidates, and as another source of referrals.

Secondly, jobs counsellors, besides helping jobseekers with career advice, CVs and interview preparations, can also show the jobseekers how they can put forward the candidacy more effectively and directly to the companies, as well as right set the expectations.

Thirdly, HR managers and HR search firms are the critical conduits, and they must be similarly aligned as well in terms of giving candidates that come from outside their network a chance to be interviewed, for example, and to help the company grow the local core. Sir, in this regard, I would like to revisit a suggestion that I made a couple years ago, which is to increase the Fair Consideration Framework job advertisement period for EPs, from 14 days to 28 days, to allow for sufficient time for companies to consider all candidates fairly.

Sir, I do understand that, at the end of the day, job search is a personal undertaking. The jobseekers must have the adaptive and positive mindset to ride through the job search journey and be well-aware and realistic of the changing market landscape. At the policy level, we must resolve to leave no jobseekers behind and help every Singaporeans who wish to be gainfully employed, find their livelihoods.

Sir, in conclusion, I have worked in the financial markets sector for all my career life, very much living and breathing markets. I have seen extreme volatilities in markets, very often to the detriment of economies and societies. And I know too well that markets do misbehave from time to time. It may not always bring us to the right place that we desire and that is why often we see central banks and governments intervene to steer the markets to the right pricing.

Similarly, in the areas of cost and employment, the Government should not take our eyes off the market forces that are in play and, where necessary, intervene in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. We must endeavour to keep cost and prices stable for reasons of our economic competitiveness and affordability, and also to do our best to help every jobseeker find the best opportunity so that they can also live fulfilled lives and take care of their families. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan.

3.56 pm

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be speaking on two areas from President Tharman's address: supporting our seniors and artificial intelligence. In the past few months at NTUC, I have focused my work on these two areas.

On supporting our senior workers, let me put on record, a big thanks to brother Heng Chee How, who has been supporting and championing our senior workers for the last two decades on behalf of NTUC. Now that he has retired as the most senior labour MP by age, or maybe not the most senior, other than the Secretary-General, I thought I should step in to continue the good work he has done by championing our senior workers for Singapore. Personally, I have also hit two senior milestones very recently: one, becoming eligible to withdraw from my CPF; and two, most proudly welcoming a new daughter-in-law into our family.

More importantly, I have always cared deeply about our seniors. I have advocated for many senior residents in Pasir Ris and now I feel very honoured to have the chance to engage a wider and broader segment of senior workers. Listening to their stories, understanding their struggles and also sharing in their aspirations inspire me to do more for them.

On the AI front, I have spent the last year diving into this technological wonderland, taking many courses, experimenting with the 10-over AI tools that I have downloaded on my mobile phone. My mission: to learn as fast as I can to drive NTUC's digitalisation efforts and to support business' transformation.

I have been visiting many technology companies and attending AI events, which felt like an intense SkillsFuture boot camp, in the last couple of months. So, initially, I planned to speak on these two tech topics separately, but as I reflected more deeply, it dawned on me. Ageing and AI should not be mutually exclusive or stand alone. In fact, they could form a powerful partnership, and that is the idea I want to explore with us here today.

Singapore is being shaped by two major shifts. I refer to them as the two AIs.

AI, number one, we are familiar, it is artificial intelligence; and AI, number two, ageing individuals. One generates rapid knowledge, the other brings accumulated wisdom. And as the saying goes, knowledge can inform us what is the quickest path up a mountain, but it is wisdom. Wisdom is knowing if the mountain is even worth climbing.

AI number one gives us answers very quickly; but wisdom from AI number two helps us to ask the right questions.

These two waves are rising quickly. We can either learn to ride them or risk being swept away. For many senior workers, let us face it. Productivity slows, knowledge and technology kept on evolving. But AI can complement our senior workers by giving very updated information and analysis at lightning speed.

On the other hand, AI may be game changing, but we also know that it can hallucinate and lead to information overload. Our seniors with years of experience and wisdom can guide the use of AI. The real opportunity lies in bringing these two AIs together, to redefine the future of Singapore's workforce as one that is smarter, more inclusive and future-ready.

So, let us take a look at what are the challenges that our senior workers face today and what more can we do to support them? Thankfully, we are not starting from scratch. The tripartite partners have made good progress over the last few decades. We have raised CPF contribution rates and boosted retirement adequacy. We also raised retirement and re-employment ages, so that those who prefer and wish to work longer can do so. But as our workforce ages rapidly, we must do more.

In our focus group discussions, some of the common issues raised included ageism in hiring practices and selection for training and promotion; affordability of medical costs, coupled with concerns over adequacy of existing medical subsidies; lack of flexible work arrangements to accommodate, especially caregiving; heightened anxiety about job displacements by AI and also, offshoring; and insufficient support for targeted placements and training.

NTUC's 2025 Survey on Economic Sentiments revealed that only 43% of senior workers aged 55 and above believed that there were sufficient good jobs for them in the market. This compared to 66% for younger workers. Senior workers also face a longer period of unemployment and job search duration of 6.2 months, compared to 4.9 months for the workers on average, and even when they are willing to change vocation and at a lower pay.

These numbers speak for themselves.

That is why in last year’s Budget speech, I urged employers to see mid-career workers beyond their age; to hire more of them; to pay them fairly, based on their skills and experience; to give protected time for their training; and recognise their acquired skillsets. If left unaddressed, age-related bias could discourage labour force participation among senior workers, resulting in a loss of valuable experience in our workforce and institutional knowledge, and worsening Singapore’s manpower challenges.

Yet, amid these challenges lies a powerful opportunity. Ageing should not be seen as a liability but as a source of strength. Research, including findings from Harvard Health, shows that older workers often make more rational decisions and demonstrate better judgement. Employers must recognise that this kind of expertise, accumulated from years of experience, is essential for navigating uncertainty and making better business decisions.

It is timely for us now to take a fresh look at how we can better support our senior workers.

From our engagements, broadly, there are three archetypes of senior workers who need further support. There are those who wish to extend their retirement age and to work for as long as they are healthy and possible. There are those who would like to slow down, maybe have some flexibility to contribute back meaningfully to the workplace and to society. There is also a group who finds it very difficult to re-enter the workforce when they lose their jobs and they need targeted support.

So, let me share two real-life encounters that I had over the last couple of weeks. At one of the Tripartite Work Group dialogues, I met a gentleman in his 50s. Despite a strong track record in various multinational companies, he was retrenched, twice, within four years. While actively looking for a job, he is also having to look after his elderly parents-in-law and support their children through their tertiary education. Even after lowering his salary expectations, his applications have not been successful, and we are still supporting him.

The second story has a better ending. Recently, I met Ms Lim Kai Ning, the young co-founder of Courage Chapter, a startup that helps senior professionals transition into their next chapter through meaningful projects and roles that tap into their skills and experience. Her journey began not with a business plan, but with a rather deep, personal experience.

Her father retired nine years ago in his 50s and like many, he looked forward to a well-deserved rest. But just six months into retirement, he felt less engaged and contemplating a strong desire to contribute back to the society. He wanted more balance in his life and decided to work part-time while pursuing his hobbies, and today, he teaches three days a week at a local university and advises on operations for a friend’s F&B business and is more fulfilled than ever.

This experience inspired Kai Ning to start Courage Chapter, to help other seniors tap into their wealth of experience while enjoying flexible work arrangements. The courage to work should be celebrated and we can do more to scale these efforts.

NTUC is working with our tripartite partners to ensure that our senior workers have the options, the flexibility and the dignity at work, as we navigate the future of work shaped by AI. As industries transform, our senior workers should be given fair access to training and upskilling opportunities so they can adapt and continue contributing meaningfully.

The Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment, which I co-chair alongside MOM and the Singapore National Employers' Federation, are working closely to identify some practical solutions. And from the problem statements I have stated and the stories I have told, Members have an idea, we have some plans in mind. But we will share the findings and plans next year.

Let me turn to AI. We have heard a lot from Members in this Chamber and we are also hearing concerns from workers, particularly in white-collar professions across sectors in ICT, in finance and media, and even freelancers about their anxiety over job security. Globally, we witnessed labour disputes arising from the adoption of AI. Last year, I spoke about the Hollywood Writers’ Guild Association and this year, in fact, the SAG-Aftra video games actors were on strike that only ended in July 2025 after a year-long protest against AI.

At NTUC, our response to AI is not to protect jobs from disruptions. Instead, our vision is to help our workers to thrive in the AI economy, by ensuring a just transition, supporting business transformation and upskilling our workforce. Just as we lifted workers through the computer revolution in the 1980s, the rise of Internet in the 2000s, we will ensure that no worker will be left behind, including and especially, all our senior workers.

The NTUC Company Training Committee (CTC) Grant has been a valuable resource for companies to implement AI initiatives. For example, SBS Transit used the CTC Grant to implement an AI-powered tyre management system, turning a manual process into a digitalised, predictive one. This significantly reduced man-hours and enabled technicians to do higher-value jobs, improving their wages and job prospects.

Brother Mazri bin Masrah, a 52-year-old technician, successfully transitioned through this AI transformation in SBS Transit. After spending about 18 years as a driver, he became a bus technician and completed a work-study diploma sponsored by SBS Transit. He was then selected to be a diagnostic expert, a new career scheme developed by SBS Transit to upskill their technician workforce. With structured training, he now uses AI-powered tools, like the automated Tyre Management System, to boost productivity and sharpen his technical skills. His journey shows how older workers can thrive in a tech-enabled environment with the right support and opportunities.

Let me cite another example within the NTUC family.

At the Ong Teng Cheong Labour Leadership Institute, we are piloting an AI research assistant to streamline research and in future, maybe even curriculum design. One affected key staff is Ms Ng Yuen Jiuan, or we know her affectionately as Jiuan. With over 30 years of service in the Labour Movement, Jiuan is widely respected for her deep institutional knowledge and resourcefulness in extracting and presenting historical data. Even in her late-60s, instead of resisting the AI tool that might potentially replace her job, Jiuan continues to embrace lifelong learning and took the initiative to upskill herself with the latest tech skills.

Working alongside younger teammates, Jiuan leveraged her experience to identify gaps, accuracy of AI results and propose improvements to the system. Through her quiet resilience and collaborative spirit, she not only contributes valuable insights in the process, but also mentors and inspires her younger colleagues. Jiuan’s story highlights how multi-generational collaboration efforts fuels innovation and stronger team outcomes. It is a reminder that experience, adaptability and willingness to learn are strategic assets in building a future-ready workforce.

Before I conclude, let me leave Members with three calls to action.

First, to employers, let us invest in older workers. Do not choose between AI and age. Choose both. Together, they can bring great value to your business. To our Government, I hope you continue to support NTUC, particularly in our "AI-Ready SG" movement, which is a one-stop initiative that integrates resources from tripartite partners and the ecosystem to help our workers and businesses bridge the AI gap. To our senior workers, let us be bold to embrace technology and AI, learn and apply ourselves, so that we can be ready for the new AI economy. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now speak in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just mentioned in my English speech that AI represents two key topics, "Artificial Intelligence" and "Ageing Individuals". Can ageing individuals keep up with artificial intelligence? The answer is, with AI and with love, we definitely can do it! As long as everyone: has a love for learning, a love for asking questions and a fighting spirit.

First, love for learning. All AI tools are becoming increasingly simple. By using mobile phones, voice commands and taking photos, we can ask questions and learn. Language is not a barrier; AI can communicate in most of the world's languages. With a love for learning, we can make meaningful progress and enhance work efficiency.

Second, love for asking questions. Curiosity matters – regardless of age. AI is not afraid of your questions. It is only fears that you would not ask. AI is like an encyclopaedia in your hands, ready to provide answers anytime. This also proves that technology is making knowledge more accessible, no longer a privilege reserved for a select few. Technology will help more workers improve both in their work and lives.

Third, a fighting spirit. AI provides information but critical thinking depends on ourselves, especially the experience and judgement of our senior workers. Innovation is not a miracle, but the commitment to doing better tomorrow. As long as we are willing to work hard, willing to think and willing to do better, I believe we will thrive in the AI economy.

Deputy Speaker, fellow Parliamentarians and fellow workers, AI is not the exclusive domain of young people; it is a tool for all of us. On this journey of learning and transformation, NTUC will be everyone's steadfast partner, providing practical support and companionship.

We will approach this from three areas. First, ensure all workers have fair opportunities for transition. Second, provide all workers with the necessary training to acquire new skills. Third, support businesses in their AI transformation to enhance competitiveness.

Finally, let us embrace AI and also honour our older selves. With AI and love, the future is ours.

(In English): Let me end by sharing an article I came across in Forbes that got me thinking. It is titled "How Gen AI could give us back at least 40% of our time". The article went on to explain a growing reality that AI can increase productivity by automating administrative processes, research and even content creation. I can imagine the time savings, but I am not sure about the 40%, although I wished it is the case.

The question for us to ponder is if AI can give us X% of time, say 20%, 30% or 40%. What will we do with it?

Brother Arvin Tang from the Tech Talent Assembly also asked a similar question last week at the Amazon Web Services Fireside Chat. If you think about it, we could reinvest this time to grow our business, to work even harder to pursue our career goals, or we could spend time volunteering doing something meaningful, serving our community. But deep down, I hope we, and especially our seniors, could live a more balanced life. Cherishing time with family and friends, learning something new and pursuing our passions.

This is the true purpose and promise of technology when paired with human intelligence, not just doing more but doing better, together. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

4.16 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the President's address charts the path ahead for the Government in this term. The President stated in his address, our first priority is to secure our home and safeguard Singapore's place in the world. My speech is structured around the theme of security. Global security, domestic security and, finally, job security.

Over the course of my 14 years in this House, I have spent a decade each in the Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs) of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs and Law, and continue in two GPCs this term. The foci of these GPCs are Singapore's external and internal security, respectively. As union advisor, I know job security is a matter close to every worker's heart. I, therefore, address these three matters.

First, global security. Over the last three decades, the global security situation has fundamentally changed. Following the end of the Cold War, historian Francis Fukuyama wrote a book on "The End of History" which suggested that liberal democracy had triumphed over communism and the world could continue to look forward to peaceful prosperity. The inevitable communist revolution that Karl Marx had predicted had not come to pass and hence, the historic dialectic of history had ended.

This did not mean conflict had ended but with the triumph of America in the Cold War, we had a unipolar world and the triumph of a rules-based liberal world order. Where there were breaches of our fundamental norms of international law, say, in relation to armed conflict, the idea of collective security and international action against the aggressor was real. Examples of these included the First Gulf War, where Kuwait was liberated following the invasion by Iraq; and the war in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre.

The Second Gulf War with Iraq, on the basis that it had weapons of mass destruction, was more controversial as there were disagreements on whether Iraq's conduct triggered the requirements for collective response. However, again, the message was clear. If you breach the fundamental norm of international law, collective response was a real possibility. Actions like this would have had a strong deterrent effect on would-be aggressors.

Many countries cut back on military spending following the end of the Cold War and the reliability of the United States (US) deterrent may have accelerated this process. Countries that had conscript programs, including in Europe, South Korea and Taiwan, cut back on these and military spending in most of Europe was cut back. People were indeed enjoying the peace dividend. However, war is an expensive business. The US had taken up the mantle of global policeman and incurred significant expenses. President Obama inherited one of the largest deficits in US history and gradual cut back in US military spending began, which would mean being more careful with foreign interventions.

In 2012, the Russian invasion of Crimea, while met with international condemnations and sanctions, did not meet with collective military response or anything stronger. Some analysts believe this gave Russia more confidence that its current attack on Ukraine would go similarly without significant international resistance. During the first Trump presidency, there was a view that China was a developing power and security gets particularly dangerous when a rising power threatens the incumbent.

Thucydides, the Greek historian who wrote about the war between Athens and Sparta, was often referred to for the proposition that a confrontation between a rising power and a dominant one could lead in military confrontation. There were several potential flashpoints at the time including over Taiwan and the South China Sea. If there was a military confrontation between the US and China, the whole world would be impacted by the fallout. From the US point of view at the time, the earlier the confrontation, the more likely would it be to triumph, rather than allowing China to catch up with its faster growing economy. Luckily, this military confrontation never happened.

I would also suggest that such a confrontation is less likely to happen. Instead, the US appears to be in a position of what writers McDonald and Joseph wrote in "Twilight of the Titans" as a retrenchment, a position of gradual withdrawal from its dominant position on the world stage. It will still remain an important and influential force but it cannot be counted on to come to the defence of other countries or right every wrong of international law. This is what seems to be playing out both in Ukraine and in the Middle East. The implications of this are important, particularly for small countries, like Singapore.

It means that in the event of war, no matter how wrongful the conduct of the aggressor, we still cannot count on anyone else to come to our defence. We need to be in a position to fight for ourselves against any potential aggressor. Allies remain important, though, in the case of Ukraine, it would not have been able to continue this war for so long without financial and weapon support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries. While none of them are sending boots on the ground, their assistance remains important. As between allies too, those who have most to lose from your defeat are likely to have a stronger incentive to help you. In the case of Ukraine, it is its European allies who are closer to it that are now playing a more important role in continuing to support its war efforts. The US remains important in resuming weapon supplies but it has not made significant fresh financial commitments.

The reality is that Singapore is a small country and we never know who our potential aggressor could be. Sometimes, your closest allies today may turn aggressors tomorrow, as was the case between Russia and Ukraine. Your aggressors could also come from very far away, as was the case in World War II when we were invaded by Japan. An important bulwark against this, in addition to being fully prepared to defend ourselves, is to build a wide set of relationships, both diplomatic and defence-related.

Having a wide range of allies means that there are more potential countries that could be aligned with you and willing to help if the situation calls for it. In Singapore's case, natural counterparts would be other countries in Southeast Asia and, potentially, Japan and Korea, which are both advanced Asian economies with strong research and development capabilities for potential defence technologies. I think an important priority for this term of Government will be to include our investments in our own defence and our diplomatic and defence relations in the region.

The second aspect I wish to discuss is domestic security. Singapore prides itself on having one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Singapore is one of the safest cities in the world and our citizens have no fear of walking alone at night or even leaving valuables like mobile phones around to chope dining tables at eateries.

Despite this, though, the surge of organised crime lurks beneath the surface. Two major issues are drugs and scams. Both of these originate from abroad. Recent reports describe scam centres operating from Shan state in Myanmar, where scammers are usually victims of human trafficking. The same area was also associated with the growing of opium and the trade in heroin. These stories are horrifying and as the victims of these scams are all over the world, I think stronger transnational cooperation and coordination is needed to deal with these international syndicates, especially where crime originates from areas of states that may be beyond the control of the government of the country involved.

Within Singapore, our war on drugs has generally been successful because of the combination of strong laws, effective enforcement and swift justice. Drug traffickers know that Singapore is not to be trifled with. Despite this, the threat and power of organised syndicates remain and the recent spike with Kpod and etomidate shows these syndicates exploiting a rare chink in our armour. Essentially, a substance that was not previously classified or used as a drug, etomidate, started becoming used as one, with similar effects of addicts losing control of themselves and suffering serious side effects, including suicidal tendencies and violence, as Senior Minister of State Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, shared this morning.

I believe lax penalties for sellers led to the initial spike in sales of both vapes and etomidate. Interestingly, ketamine, which was also a compound component of Kpod, but classified as a drug, did not see such a large spike, which suggests the classification of the substance as a drug makes a difference for the sellers' behaviour and its proliferation. Around the same time, The Straits Times was running a series of stories on Kpod.

I had met a resident at my meet-the-people session, who shared the story of her son who was struggling with Kpod addiction. She wanted her son to get treatment but under the laws as it then stood, the Health Sciences Authority could only confiscate the vapes and issue a fine. In the end, the parent paid the fine and the son got fresh vapes. The son displayed all the traits of a drug addict, including trying to get high on a daily basis, being unable to concentrate in school and threatening violence or suicide if the vapes were to be taken.

This, coupled with the articles I read at the time, suggested etomidate should be classified as a drug and I made this suggestion. I am grateful the Government moved swiftly and decisively on this even before Parliament resumed. I am concerned, though, that the classification of etomidate as a drug is only temporary and that we have announced an end date of February 2026. I think it is important for us to set out clearly what will happen once we get to this stage next year.

If there is a public step down in the seriousness with which we treat this, barely months after the crackdown, that may signal to traffickers that it is safe to resume business once again. I understand, for Minister of Health Ong Ye Kung, that new legislation is contemplated under MOH deal with this matter but if the penalties and measures appear to be a step down from what is available under the Misuse of Drugs Act, this may still send the wrong signal to traffickers.

This episode with etomidate also reveals the potent force of our laws and also what happens if a drug-like substance is not captured by them. I think we may need to consider if we need more flexible laws which not only have a list of banned substances but also sets out some general principles of when a hitherto, unclassified substance may be considered a drug, say, if it meets certain objective requirements. This general provision may help to capture new substances and allow Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to move more swiftly when new substance comes into circulation.

In relation to scams, while the prospect of waging wars in foreign countries with the operators of scam centres may be a stretch too far for Singapore to do alone, I think it is important for us to take all available steps against the arms and legs of scam operators. This was similar to the approach taken to combat unlicensed money lending more than a decade ago which has almost eradicated the threat from our heartlands.

The latest legislative changes on this front have been to take action against those who provide bank accounts and otherwise facilitate scammers. However, many scams are also being done on social media platforms, including Facebook and Telegram. Telegram, in particular, I understand, is being used both as a platform to sell vapes and etomidate, as well as to reach out to people to provide bank accounts to facilitate scams. Facebook, on the other hand, has had pages impersonating Government officials and promoting dubious investments and it seems, from recent news reports, they have been used for government impersonation scams.

I think MHA should consider if it needs more levers to deal with social media platforms and other means that scam operators use to reach out to victims and if so, in this term of Government, to bring in legislation to do so. We are one of the safest countries in the world but in the face of organised transnational crime, we need to remain on our guard and deal with ever-evolving threats.

In the last part of my speech, I touch on a deeply personal matter for many Singaporeans, job security. The President's address sets out the challenges Singapore faces in a changed world, in particular, with a looming trade war sparked by US tariffs and the rise of AI. One major risk to Singaporeans from these developments is the loss of jobs. Singapore has generally had a very low unemployment rate.

While we were expecting an economic slowdown, this has not materialised yet and the latest labour market report for the second quarter of 2025 shows a resilient labour market. The report shows total employment growth and that unemployment rates have remained at 2%. The incidence of retrenchments are also low. Notwithstanding that, the long-term issues remain. Undergraduates are taking longer to get jobs. The Government has introduced a slew of well thought through initiatives to address these matters. This includes the great programme to assist fresh graduates to get work experience if they have difficulty getting jobs. The idea of governments paying private employers to reduce their risk in hiring fresh graduates is a novel support solution. Likewise, the Mid-career SkillsFuture Grant is there as a support cushion for those who may lose jobs or need to upgrade later in life.

Over my years in this House, I have also spoken up for stronger labour protection in our laws. I had suggested legislating anti-discrimination laws and retrenchment benefits. The Government has moved forward on these, initially through the tripartite framework, with guidelines on both. Anti-discrimination laws have since been enshrined in our Workplace Fairness Act. Stronger labour laws change the relationship and negotiating positions as between employers and employees.

Generally, having less legislation creates a freer market with employers having less inhibitions to hire and employees having less incentives to stay at an employer. This, however, may result in a more transactional relationship between both, resulting in less willingness for employers to invest in employees since they may leave after being trained and less downside for employees for leaving.

On the other hand, if there is legislation that, for example, gives employees legislated redundancy or retirement benefits, employees will have less incentive to leave their employer since these benefits generally kick in only when the employee is made redundant or retired. These may be linked to their years in service, typically say anywhere from a week to a month worth of pay per year of service. This creates incentives for employees to stay with their employer and for employers to invest in their employees for a long-term relationship.

Legislated retirement benefits is a suggestion to pay employees at the time they retire, a sum based on their years in service. Similar to a redundancy benefit in concept, save that it will be paid to all employees at the time of retirement. This would reduce some of the "cliff" effect that long serving employees currently face in that if they are made redundant before they are 65, they are likely to get a substantial payout pegged to each year of service, based on the current guidelines. On the other hand, if they are made redundant after 65, say, when they are re-employed, they will not get any redundancy benefits. On the other hand, if retirement benefits are legislated, every employee knows they will get a good payout at the time they reach retirement age and the cliff effect will not be there.

The upshot of these suggested changes is to gently incentivise longer term relationship between employers and employees by tying financial incentives to long-term employment. This will also hopefully give employees more security in their employment and some guarantees of payouts in the event they lose their jobs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in my speech, I have shared some thoughts on global security, domestic security and finally, job security. I support the President’s address and look forward to supporting the work of the Government in overcoming the challenges in the years ahead. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

4.32 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to thank President Tharman Shanmugaratnam and speak in support of His Excellency’s address. As we look back in our nation’s formation journey, Singapore has indeed been on a "remarkable journey". To me, ours is also a never-ending journey because this House can, and will always strive to do better for our Singaporeans.

I pause at this juncture, to register my utmost gratitude towards all who have given me the opportunity and support to continue in this journey as a Member of this 15th Parliament. Especially to my Woodgrove residents. Thank you for entrusting me with this honour to renew my commitment of service.

Five years ago in my maiden Parliamentary speech, I shared with this House my GEL mission to co-create a brighter future for Woodgrove, where "G" pertains to green living initiatives to sustain our environment; "E" for embracing parenthood to support our families; and "L" for law awareness to empower our community. With the support of our residents and working hand in hand with our ever-supportive community partners, we turned those missions into reality and built an active, vibrant Woodgrove where residents are proud to call home.

Today, I want to build on this foundation, drawing inspiration from the Draft Master Plan 2025 and the Prime Minister’s recent National Day Rally to transform the northern parts of Singapore, where Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC is situated, into a more family-friendly and senior-friendly, live, work, learn and play hub, while ensuring our residents can realise their Singapore dreams through determination, passion and lifelong learning.

During the National Day Rally, Prime Minister dispelled the myth that the North is "ulu". As Prime Minister's fellow Marsiling-Yew Tee MP, I, too, seek to assure fellow Singaporeans, that not only is the North not "ulu", but the planned developments will further transform the north "into a modern and vibrant regional centre."

We will be welcome many exhilarating projects in the pipeline, such as the commencement of Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link operation next year, which will be an additional land link to Malaysia; the expansion of the Woodlands Checkpoint to shorten clearance waiting times, reducing traffic congestion, yet enhancing security; including also the redevelopment of Kranji race course into a new major housing development project, just to name a few. But I want to take this opportunity to share a few additional ideas and suggestions which I have received from my Woodgrove residents to transform our north even further.

With the Sports School relocating as part of the Kallang Alive Masterplan, many of the residents have expressed a pity if the site is converted to be yet another housing project. Instead, we should try our best to retain as many of the state-of-the-art facilities there as possible, and convert the facility into a recreational hub for the benefit of the residents. One resident even remarked, "If we have a Downtown East Singapore, why can we not have an "Uptown North" here?"

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

I further suggest that the premises can be enhanced further to incorporate green and sustainable solutions, supporting family health and bonding, including ageing-in-place. Additionally, Yishun Innova junior college will be relocated back to its permanent site in Woodgrove and open its doors at the newly upgraded campus in 2028. It would be an opportune juncture for MOE to also consider whether an ITE can be built in the near future in the new Kranji town, offering an even broader variety of tertiary education options for the youths living in the north.

Mr Speaker, I turn now to the topic on fertility support, an embracing parenthood cause close to my heart. In 2022, I filed an Adjournment Motion titled "Celebrating SG Families: Embracing Parenthood through Live, Work and Play". In November 2024, I participated in the debate of the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill during its Second Reading. In February earlier this year, I moved a Motion with my Parliamentary colleague Mr Zhulkarnain titled "Supporting Singaporeans in Starting and Raising Families". This Motion was passed successfully. During the Committee of Supply in April this year, I spoke on fertility support for first-time parents.

Today, I wish to highlight the need for more support for aspiring parents at the workplace. As highlighted repeatedly, the total fertility rate (TFR) fell to a historic low in 2023. In 2024, the TFR remained at 0.97. This existential crisis we face is not over. I refer to the 2025 study conducted by Fertility Support Singapore with Milieu, "Findings revealed that when it comes to facing fertility struggles in the workplace, stigma forces employees into silence, fertility treatments come at a career cost, and workplaces remain lacking in fertility support measures and benefits."

As a matter of policy, surely, we can do more. From the perspective of the existential crisis we face, definitely, we must do more.

The fertility journey is tough, beginning with the first stage of trying to conceive naturally, which, if unsuccessful, leads to seeking medical advice, and only where suitable can couples embark on initial treatment options, such as in vitro fertilisation. The journey does not end there, as pregnancy may still elude the couple, or in the case of successful conception would then require the couple to take extreme care to minimise the risk of pregnancy loss.

Along this journey, couples face a gamut of challenges – physical, emotional, financial and career wise. Crucially, the employee’s experience at work can make or break their dedication to work, fertility treatment, or both.

It saddens me when I read some of the comments submitted to Fertility Support Singapore’s sensing poll. My boss joked, "Maybe you're just not meant to be a parent", and my boss demanded two weeks' notice for follicle scans."

Mr Speaker, not only are such comments insensitive and unsupportive to an employee who is undergoing a challenging journey, they can feel like personal attacks. On the other hand, there are examples that are positive that we can follow from. Fortunate employees have also shared and reported that fertility benefits are a talent magnet. I quote some of their comments: “When my CEO shared her IVF story, I knew I’d stay; Egg freezing benefits showed they get it; Emotional and mental support to make the journey less lonely and hard to bear.”

This need not be a zero-sum situation. Indeed, with the right mindset and support, I am certain that everybody can and will "win".

To be clear, I am not at all saying that work exigencies ought to always be deprioritised at the workplace. However, the starting point cannot be the trivialisation or dismissal of an employee’s legitimate fertility efforts, and especially not by responding with insensitive remarks or personal attacks.

On this note, I assure all aspiring parents who are on your fertility journey or going to embark on the same, that my fellow PAP Women’s Wing Members of Parliament and I will never stop advocating for greater support for all of you. I take this opportunity to also exhort employers to review your existing fertility support policies, or if none exists at this juncture, please urgently implement one. For example, Fertility Support Singapore's Guidebook for Employers to Support Employees Facing Fertility Challenges could be a viable resource to begin with.

As Deputy Chairperson of the Education GPC, I am committed to ensuring access to education at all life stages. I shared with this House previously that the late E W Barker once said, "Education should always seek to find and nurture the best in every student, inspiring him to contribute confidently and fully in the area of his own capabilities, rather than made to feel useless and ashamed for not having made it to the top of the school."

The intent behind the "generational shift" away from competition based on grades, such as by revising the Primary School Leaving Examination scoring system and those as shared by Minister Desmond Lee in his speech yesterday is laudable. Notwithstanding this, we ought to keenly observe and assess whether the policy objectives have been met, or will be met. Along the way, we will make the policy and legislative refinements in furtherance of those objectives.

I say this because the policy intent cannot be met solely by MOE’s efforts alone. It will take every stakeholder's hands to clap. As a society, and especially by parents of school-going children, the change in mindset must follow. Otherwise, we risk reducing the policy improvements to merely changes in labelling, which would result in a distinction without a difference.

On this front, some of my residents have confided in me and shared that despite MOE’s efforts, the practical experience and effects have not or at least do not feel like they have changed much, if at all. Generation after generation, parents, children, and employers have participated in a race defined by academic achievements.

The change in mindset will not be engendered overnight, not least because a shift in mindset could mean dropping out of the “arms race”, as mentioned by the Prime Minister in his speech two days ago.

Should we encourage our children to pursue their passions and dreams, even if these are unconventional or may not lead to what are perceived as the best employment prospects or best jobs? Does this mean we should do away with or reduce the number of tuition as well as enrichment classes now, or when? What if nobody else does so, and my child ends up having to return to the race with a handicap?

These are some of the questions that naturally and frequently arise in many Singaporean parents’ minds.

In a society that has become more frenetic, and competition more toxic, as Singaporeans seek to outdo one another, we have become more anxious and stressed, and worse, we pass this on to our children. But I share the same sentiment with the Prime Minister that families, should not feel they are stuck on a treadmill running harder and harder in a bid to avoid falling behind. There needs to be a broader definition of success in Singapore that goes beyond narrow metrics of academic and material.

Mr Speaker, this vision of a broader definition of success, where we encourage our children to pursue their passions, brings me to my next point: ensuring that education financing supports this shift by enabling access to a wider range of courses that reflect diverse aspirations. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Presently, the CPF Education Loan Scheme allows an Ordinary Account owner to use his or her savings to pay for tuition fees for full-time MOE-subsidised courses.

The other option comes in the form of MOE's Tuition Fee Loan. Loan coverage is up to 75% for eligible diploma courses, and up to 90% for undergraduate programmes.

However, as we encourage our children to pursue their passions, be it in fields like performing arts, environmental design, or emerging technologies like AI and digital media – the current scope of eligible courses under these schemes is too restrictive. Many passion-driven programs, such as those offered by private institutions or specialized academies, fall outside MOE-subsidised categories, leaving several parents I met in Woodgrove sharing their concerns with me of their struggle to finance these aspirations of their children.

I urge the Government to broaden the scope of eligible courses under the CPF Education Loan Scheme and Tuition Fee Loan and for more banks to likewise follow suit, to include programs that nurture diverse talents – whether in the arts, vocational trades, or innovative fields. We could consider accrediting high-quality courses from private institutions or expanding subsidies for lifelong learning modules.

By doing this, we can truly help learners at different stages, supporting the youth to pursue their dreams and older people to continue learning, hence building a more inclusive education system that support Singaporeans to follow their passion without financial worries.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I now turn to public health, a pressing concern for Woodgrove and Singapore. Persistent issues, like pigeon feeding, rat infestations and mosquito-borne diseases, continue to challenge our communities, particularly affecting households with young children, seniors and even those with immunocompromised individuals.

Pigeons, carriers of diseases, like salmonella and ornithosis, create nuisances through droppings. On land, NEA reported that over 1,000 enforcement actions against rat infestations took place in 2024, nearly double the 670 actions in 2023, as rats pose risks through their urine, droppings and fleas. Meanwhile, notwithstanding that dengue cases have reduced significantly over the years, the Communicable Diseases Agency noted a rise in Chikungunya cases: 21 by August 2025, compared to 10 in 2024, transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes, the same vector for dengue.

During my house visits and community events in Woodgrove, residents repeatedly shared their concerns about these issues despite intensified preventive and enforcement efforts by the community and agencies. While these efforts are commendable, they often address symptoms rather than root causes, leaving families worried about health risks.

To tackle these challenges more effectively, I urge the Government to explore innovative solutions, particularly putting in more resources to leverage on technology to identify and address the root causes of these public health issues swiftly. For instance, deploying more AI-powered surveillance systems, such as smart cameras or sensors, that could map pigeon and rat activity in real-time, pinpointing breeding hotspots or food sources, like improper waste disposal.

Earlier this month, Singapore University of Technology and Design announced that it has developed Singapore’s first robot that can detect mosquito breeding sites and spray repellents. We should encourage and support our town councils to roll out more innovative ideas aiming to significantly reduce manpower, time and safety risks to resolve these challenging municipal issues and I, for one, certainly hope that in the near future one day, we can have a robot rat catcher.

Moreover, technology should enhance community engagement. Over the years, we have been encouraging residents to use OneService App to report municipal issues, such as pest sightings, instantly for the relevant agency’s rapid follow up. However, we often receive residents’ feedback that while the platform appears to update that the matter has been followed up and, thus, the case is marked as closed, these issues continue to recur. It will be helpful if we can continue to look into reviewing how such interactive apps can be better enhanced and allowing opportunities for the residents to be kept regularly updated on the efforts made by the agencies in resolving the issue and how each of us can contribute towards resolving such issues.

Mr Speaker, OneService App should provide a "one stop" solution to ensure that feedback is promptly followed up and municipal problems can be properly resolved expeditiously. By addressing root causes proactively as a community, we can create safer, healthier environments for our families and seniors. As a member of the Sustainability and Environment GPC and Action for Green Town Champion for Marsiling-Yew Tee Town Council, I will continue to engage our residents, relevant agencies and partners to drive these innovations and improve public health conditions, ensuring our communities thrive in line with our collective vision.

Mr Speaker, I conclude my speech by appealing to our Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC residents, particularly my Woodgrove residents and fellow Singaporeans, please never hesitate to reach out to me to share your thoughts, your ideas and your aspirations. You will always have a friend in me.

Mr Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.

4.52 pm

Mr Chan Chun Sing (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Over the course of this week, many have spoken about how we can become a "we first" society. Many have suggestions on how our Government can do more or better.

On behalf of the Government, I would like to thank everyone for your suggestions. Our Public Service will certainly study all these suggestions and especially the new ideas.

As I listened to all the speeches, it struck me that all of us share pretty much the same objectives. We want a fairer society, we want to give opportunities to everyone regardless of their background. We want a Singapore that will not only survive, but thrive. And, most importantly, we want to give our best to the next generation. We may differ here and there on some details and those we can discuss.

Sometimes, our differences are not as large as we make them out to be and certainly, none of us have a monopoly on care, compassion or fairness. I think that we can agree. But ultimately, true victory for us is not about winning arguments in this House. True victory for us is winning the trust of our people, uplifting lives and delivering a better future for all of us; or in Chinese, we would say: "口舌之争, 胜负一时, 行动耕耘, 造就一世", which means, arguments bring momentary victory; actions forge lifetime success.

As the Prime Minister has said during his National Day Rally speech, a "we first" society is not something that the Government can force or direct. It will be up to all of us, as fellow Singaporeans, to encourage each other to step forward and take responsibility for one another. As mentioned, “we first” does not mean there being no place for individual aspirations or expressions. Instead, it is about mobilising the full spectrum of our society’s capabilities, creativity and commitment to overcome our challenges ahead.

Our Government will continue to lead where it must and can. We will strive to do more and do better. But having said that, we are realistic enough to know that our Government cannot do it all, and certainly not alone. We aspire to evolve from delivering for Singaporeans to also delivering with Singaporeans. I always remember this that was taught to me since young. No one can do everything, but everyone can do something. Together, we can overcome anything.

In his speech earlier, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim spoke about chess and its life lessons for his son and Singapore. It inspired me to think about the game of weiqi, a board game played with white and black pieces. The aim of the game is to fence off more territory than the opponent. However, unlike chess, weiqi pieces are all the same and are used similarly in the game. Just like the weiqi pieces, our individual efforts may be insignificant, but together, all of us play a part and any one of us can be that strategic piece in the evolving formation to win the game as the circumstances evolve. Perhaps, that is the Singapore that we can all aspire to.

Today, I will share my reflections on ways we can deliver with our people and progress towards a "we first" society. Let me first start with security. The world has changed, yes. The world will change even more and faster in the years to come. We must prepare ourselves for a much wider range of scenarios than ever before, including dangerous discontinuities. We should not count on assumptions that have guided us for decades, nor should we expect other countries to respect international laws and norms as in the past.

The question is: how do we anticipate, pre-empt and respond collectively? I say collectively, because I think all of us can and need to contribute. And if I may, I can suggest four lines of effort for all of us. First, understand the world deeply; second, create propositions for us to remain relevant; third, maintain our cohesion; and fourth, uphold our principles.

Let me begin with understanding the world deeply. Compared to the past, we all can now access much more information and travel more widely. However, we must not fall into the trap of our own echo chamber to confirm our own biases. There will also be no shortage of external influences that attempt to shape our views and hopefully our positions. To safeguard ourselves from being pulled apart in different directions, we will need to understand our own national interests, read and think deeply, speak widely to different people to understand their perspectives and agenda and also to access content with discernment. We have seen this being played out over the Russian-Ukraine conflict, the situation in the Middle East and even closer to home, in the conflicts and contestations that have happened of late.

Only when we deeply understand ourselves and the world we are operating in, can we come up with propositions that are relevant for our partners so that we can be of value-add in the relationship. It is a discipline to not just view or read what the search engine algorithms throw at us. It is also a discipline to seek out fresh perspectives with all the people we meet in our travels, to hopefully bring back new ideas and stress test our own assumptions.

And this is why I have consistently encouraged our students in the Institutes of Higher Learning and our Public Service officers who have the opportunity to travel overseas, to go beyond the beaten path, go beyond the guided tour that the Embassy can organise. I do not need them to write long reports when they come back. Just come back with a fresh perspective, a new idea that can enrich us.

I learned this when I was younger and I was deployed to Indonesia after the Fall of Suharto, where our greatest fear was what would happen to this big country. We made it a discipline to travel out of Jakarta at least seven days a month. We made sure that we covered as many provinces and as many regional commands as we could, making new friends, understanding the diversity of perspective and never kid ourselves that just because we have been to Jakarta and Bali, that therefore we seem to understand Indonesia.

And today, that same principle must apply – just because we have been to Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, it does not mean that we understand China; and just by going to California and New York does not make us an expert in the US. With my recent trips to both China and the US, we could understand and appreciate the diversity of views and the complex dynamics even within their own country. If we do not understand or appreciate this deeply, we cannot come up with value propositions that will make us relevant.

However, while we adapt our approaches, we must remain a consistent and principled partner where we can continuously strengthen our relevance for others to want to partner us. I am sure we want to partner everybody, but that is different from other people wanting to partner us. And this applies in the security and economics domains.

While we will not take sides, we must take positions based on principles, principles that best promote Singapore's long-term survival and success. We are ultimately responsible for our own destiny. But we must earn our right to determine that destiny. Only when we are successful, can we have the right to choose our path and not be held ransom or hostage by others. Then, we can truly say that we will neither be bribed nor bullied. That is something that we have to earn.

Foreign policy is not about balancing, calibrating and remaining neutral. Being neutral and principled are two different concepts. Neutrality is especially a dangerous concept for small states. Trying to maintain neutrality and balancing without principles, will only invite contesting larger powers to put more pressure on us to try and shift our "balancing point".

You can imagine if two giants are pulling at us and if we are just trying to maintain neutral, when one side squeezes us a bit harder, we move a bit to that side. What would the other side do? It would just encourage them to squeeze us just as hard so that we move back to the balancing position.

And that is why I always encourage all Singaporeans to make a nuanced but important distinction. Not saying that we are neutral, but that we are principled.

How then, can we remain relevant and earn our right to be principled, and be valued on the global stage? We need to have our own perspectives and not be a mouthpiece or proxy for others. We need to develop capabilities that cannot be easily replicated by others – the ability to think and execute long-term, the ability to build trust internally and externally, and the ability to foster cohesion amidst diversity. But ultimately, we need real capabilities, in all domains from economics to defence, for others to see value in working with us.

External parties have asked me what makes the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) strong. Our disciplined investment in equipment and people over the years have certainly helped. But to me, the biggest advantage the SAF has over many others is that we can draw upon the talent and energies of our entire nation. The best operational and technical ideas do not just come from our regulars, technicians or scientists. They come from all over, our Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs), NSmen and even pre-enlistees.

Today if you fly the unmanned aerial vehicles in the SAF, you will see them using a console that is exactly like the Playstation console. This idea came about many years ago from our pre-enlistees. They helped us to design the systems even before they came into NS. And when they came into NS, the system was ready for them.

When I was a young officer, the first person to introduce computers into our battle planning process was not a regular. He was an NSman working at Apple and he was wondering why we were still using pen and paper. That is the power of the SAF, drawn from our people. This is the concept of all of us chipping in, a mindset of delivering with to build defence capabilities ahead of time.

For Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the SAF, we will continue to spend wisely and consistently as warfare is redefined, we will make judicious decisions on what to buy, what to build and what to co-develop with partners. We will also need to evolve our capability development and acquisition processes to deliver at speed. Timeliness, rather than perfection, matters more very often.

By strengthening our indigenous capacities and developing unique value propositions, we will position ourself as a partner of choice in the capability development, technological innovation and supply chain resilience. Today, this is exactly what DSO National Laboratories (DSO), Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA), and ST Engineering are doing. We aim to go beyond a buyer-seller relationship whenever we deal with others.

Ultimately, our strongest defence and our strongest deterrence is not any weapon system, it is our collective will to fight for what we believe in. Together, we must contribute as a whole of nation to safeguard our future. Every one of us is in some way MINDEF and everyone one of us is also an ambassador, a little ambassador, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when we interact with the rest of the world. We share with the world what we stand for, how we do business and why they should trust in us.

Let me now move to economics, which is not so different. We also must earn our keep. No one deals with Singapore out of charity or sympathy. We also need to create our own value propositions. This means deeply understanding market needs and identifying what I call "acupuncture points" that make it harder for people to bypass us.

Many Members in this House will be familiar with our experiences during COVID-19. I was then the Minister for Trade and Industry. During the crucial moments, very often my team and I have to call up partners to ask for essentials, to ask for people to sell us essentials. Even if we had or more money than others, we did not always get what we wanted. Only when we had what our partners needed, could we trade for what we wanted. It is a lesson that is seared in the minds of all the officers of the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) for generations to come. That is why when the Economic Development Board (EDB) goes out and compete for investment, it is not just about making more money only. It is about making ourselves as a critical node that cannot be easily bypassed, so that in times of need, we will have what others need, in order to get what we want.

For our economy to be more resilient, many have talked about the need to diversify. Yes, we agree. However, we must also be aware that diversification comes with risks, it requires resources and it requires our ability to attract and work with talent beyond our own. Imagine if Singapore only focused on one or two sectors. Then surely, we will have enough of our own people to staff all of those positions in that one or two sectors and achieve critical mass. But when we say that we want to diversify our economy for us to be more resilient, when we say that we want to give more options to our younger generation to chase their dreams in diverse sectors, then we need many more sectors. We have to admit that it will not be easy for us to achieve critical mass in all of these sectors unless we are able to network with the global talent to compliment the best in Singapore.

This is why we must continue our efforts to make sure that we remain an attractive partner for others to want to work with us. We must continue to grow our homegrown talent so that we can remain an attractive partner. If we do not have people that can match up to the best in the world, I am not sure many people will want to partner us.

But there is also an opportunity amidst the crisis now. As the world becomes a more dangerous place, our attractiveness to talent can actually reinforce our competitiveness. This is an opportunity for us. But we will need to carefully balance our needs of integration with competitiveness. It is not a binary option of zero or one. It is about balance. And this will be a topic I am sure we will come back to in this House for many more times to come. It is about balance and never about a binary option.

On the other hand, when long standing platforms or networks no longer work, we will have to set up alternative networks to uphold a more integrated global trading and investment system.

Many years ago, we pioneered comprehensive Free Trade Agreements that went beyond traditional tariff reductions to encompass services, investment and regulatory cooperation. When the digital economy demanded fresh approaches, we led the creation of the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA), establishing new standards for cross-border data flows, digital trade and technological cooperation.

As the support for free trade and globalisation fray, we will work with like-minded partners to create new plurilateral and multilateral networks. For example, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong has just announced the Future of Investment and Trade Partnership to support open and fair trade. This is our little contribution to try and uphold the Global Free Trade Order which is in our interest.

As tariffs and retaliatory tariffs reshape trade and investment flows, there is also an opportunity for us if we can position ourselves as a reliable and resilient partner. Many companies are now talking about their "plus one" strategy. We aim to be their "plus one". We can expect to win some and lose some. However, I believe we can still be net positive if we play to our strengths. We have seen this already being played out in various sectors that are visited in the aerospace Maintenance, Repair and Operations (MRO), semi-conductor sector. We win some, we lose some, but we can be net positive.

To do so, we will double down on our man-made competitive advantages. It is often said that Singapore has no natural resources, but Singapore has many man-made competitive advantages. First, we will continue to invest in our education and workforce – not just for the first 15 years, but for the next 50 years when they are beyond the school years, by uplifting everyone to embrace the latest technological tools to enhance our productivity. AI is part of this important effort where we have the programme called “AI for Everyone”. Just as what we have done for the computerisation drive in the late 1980s, early 1990s.

Second, our ability to uphold the rule of law for investors to have the confidence to mobilise their capital, aggregate their talent and protect their IP here will remain important and more so than ever before.

Third, having a stable Government and forward-looking Public Service, so that investors can be confident that we think and execute long-term. This is especially for investments like pharmaceuticals and semi-conductors that require a long gestation period.

To conclude this section, may I also say that actually, we are all also part of the Economic Development Board (EDB) and MTI. Whenever we interact with people overseas, we will also need to pitch for Singapore. I can understand the concerns that many of us have in the job security front. But the best strategy for us is to make sure that we continue to attract good quality investments so that our people can continue to have the diverse opportunities that they would aspire towards. And all of us, at every opportunity, will have to chip in. And that is why we say we are all part of MTI and EDB.

On the social side, let me say that Singapore's success has never been about economic growth alone. Ultimately, economic growth needs to translate into growing the overall pie for Singaporeans, creating good jobs and enabling all Singaporeans to improve our lives. Every one of us aspire to do better. We also want our next generation to do even better than ourselves. It is only human nature for parents and grandparents to want to give our best that we can do for our children and grandchildren.

However, we must not forget that our successes are not just because of our hard work and abilities. It is built upon our society and the help that we receive along the way which enable us to achieve what we have. And therefore, when we are successful, all of us must remember that we have responsibilities towards those who are further behind.

As societies mature and become more developed, there is always the risk that resources, as well as disadvantages, get passed on from generation to generation. This accentuates inequality and reduces social mobility, and stratification happens. We see this happening in many countries throughout history. But I think all of us in this House would be united in saying that we do not want to see this happening in Singapore. This is what makes Singapore special. And therefore, the more successful we are, the greater the dangers we face, and the more we need to double and re-double our efforts to break this inter-generational transfer of disadvantage, which many Members have spoken about. As Minister Desmond Lee has spoken yesterday, we will do what we can as a Government, we will try to do more and do better.

Over the years, as Minister Desmond Lee has said, we have rolled out various programmes: KidSTART, UPLIFT, Comcare, ComLink+. You name it, we will try it.

We are doing this not just only in the early years of a child's life. We are systematically combing through the entire life cycle of a person to see how we can help everyone who needs the help to break that cycle. It is never-ending work. In fact, the more successful we are, the more we need to try.

But we must also see things in context. Our challenge is not so much that the people in our society are left behind, that they are not catching up with the world. If you look at the statistics, our challenge is slightly different from others. Our challenge is that our gap is not a result of the bottom falling way off the chart. In fact, 80% of our students are above the global average; 90% of our students are above the global average in terms of maths and science. Our gap is the result of the top being even further.

That tells us two things. First, we should never cap the top, but we must keep lifting the bottom. Second, we must not make our own children feel that just because they are relatively behind, that somehow they have failed themselves or failed us. Our average is way beyond the global average. Even the students from our so-called neighbourhood schools, as some of you would describe them, are generally above the global average.

We hosted the International Summit of the Teaching Profession last year. When other people host us, they showed us their best school. One school. When we hosted them, we showed them 10 schools every day. Any school that they chose, we would allow them to walk into the school. Many of them asked us, "Are you showing us your best school?" We said, "No, we are just showing you the diversity of our schools. We will show you schools from Raffles Institution to Northlight, because all of them will have different challenges and we will have different curricula for all of them." In fact, one remarked that he was most impressed, because in Singapore, your zip code does not determine or overwrite your genetic code, as in some other countries.

But having said this, we are not done. All these programmes by themselves will not be enough. Each of us, even those of us who may not feel that we have the most, can and must contribute in our own ways to support those with less and to uplift the less privileged to keep our society mobile. This is why we mobilise the time, talent and treasures of people to complement what the Government and taxation already do. This reminds all of us that we have agency and responsibility towards one another.

As we hear the calls to do more for various groups, each one meritorious in its own right, we must also be clear-eyed that because resources are finite, we will need to come to a societal consensus about who we should help more. This means that some of us will have to moderate our expectations, because there are others who need help more than we do.

Everyone gets help, everyone gets something. But not all of us will get the same. I am sure Members of the House also agree with me that it also does not make sense for all of us to get the same. Different strokes for different folks, each according to our needs. I think all of us can agree on this. So, let us not be divided by invidious comparisons when this is actually executed.

I am sure Members of the House would have this experience going around in your hawker centres and markets. Very often, someone would come up and ask, "Minister or MP, why is it this month, I did not get this payout that my neighbour got?" You can try your very best to explain why, but unfortunately, we are all humans and very often, invidious comparisons set in. If we are true to what we believe, that we should do more to help those with less, then when we execute this, we must also help to explain this to everyone.

In Singapore, we do not have a single yardstick for success. When I was the Minister for Education, I have seen the diversity of talents among Singaporeans, and this is what makes our country resilient and special. As a society, we must truly respect and reward the diversity of strengths and celebrate excellence in multiple fields. For many of us, all this have been said very often. What can we do? I have two humble suggestions. Maybe it is useful for us to start our conversations with our children, not with: "What grades did you get in school? How did you score compared to your peers?"

I have always asked two questions whenever I meet the students when I was Minister for Education. First question is, "Can you tell me what makes you special?" Because you can score however many "As" that you have, but if throughout the education process, you do not know what are your strengths and weaknesses are, and what makes you special, then I do not think we have succeeded. And for a child to know that he or she has something special is very important. It can be a life changing experience.

When I was in school, I thought my mathematics was so-so. One day, my teacher told me, "Your mathematics is quite good!" Suddenly, I was like, "Wow, my mathematics is quite good. I must study harder." Simple words, changed my life.

The other question that I think we can encourage ourselves to ask our children, especially during Chinese New Year, Hari Raya, Deepavali is, not so much, "What have you achieved?", but "Where would you like to make a contribution?" For every Singaporean child growing up to know that, regardless of your station in life, you can make a contribution because you have something special in you, and collectively each of us, just like the weiqi pieces, we will come up with that winning formulation.

So, let us respect the diversity of talents and let us encourage our children to understand what makes them special, and how each and every one of them can make a special contribution.

Beyond Government policies and institutions, such as the Ethnic Integration Policy, NS and our schools, I think many Members have also highlighted the need for us to enhance our interactions, so that we truly get out of our comfort zone to get to know people who are different from us. And more importantly, through this process, to try and find common ground, based on mutual respect. This is something that is a work in progress and something that as MPs, we all need to do.

HDB can build us the most beautiful houses and towns, but it is us, the residents who will build the most heartwarming homes and communities. So, let us not be trapped by this incessant comparison among ourselves. Yes, look at the right side of the bell curve to try to aspire to do better, but never forget our responsibility to those who are on the left side of the bell curve.

Let me move on to the issue of governance. Singapore has done reasonably well by most measures, but we must never be complacent. Our accomplishments are not predictions for future successes. And there are many matrices of whether a country, a government has done well. Sometimes, we get a good ranking – let it not get into our head. Sometimes, we do not get such a good ranking – it is time for introspection, but also never let it get into our hearts and wear us down. There will always be room for us to improve. But what is most important is for us to have the confidence and the conviction to do what we think is right for our people, by our people and to see it through.

There is no shortage of good ideas on what other countries, our country, can do. But one of the most difficult things is to execute the average ideas consistently. Having average ideas executed consistently will beat that brilliant idea that is a flash in the pan. In Singapore, we have the privilege of being able to execute this consistently for many years.

That was what I shared with my overseas counterparts when I was in MOE. They always thought that Singapore has some brilliant technology or system, but the truth is, whatever MOE can deliver today, we thank our predecessors who have seen it through consistently for us.

However, let us not be complacent. Take the example of the adoption of technology, digitalisation and AI. Countries that once trailed us are now seizing opportunities to build momentum and to leapfrog ahead, and a key advantage being that they have fewer legacy systems. This is a stark reminder to us that if we stand still, we will fall behind. Therefore, the Public Service will endeavour not just to do things better, we also need to do better things with our finite resources.

An example is the way that the Government is serving citizens and businesses. Whether it is our ServiceSG centres, Municipal Services Office or the new SME Pro-Enterprise office, these are just ways that we are working across Government to make services simpler, more connected and more helpful to our people and businesses. Each of these reflect our determination to deliver greater value and to do better things with our finite resources.

On the other hand, we must not copy blindly, but be bold enough to look for our own solutions. Our founding leaders and the Pioneer Generation did exactly that, from introducing National Service to safeguard our sovereignty and security, to setting up the EDB to attract investment and the HDB to provide affordable and quality homes. We did not copy others, but we found our own way.

Even for something like the CPF, we have continuously evolved it over the years, expanding from retirement savings to meet housing and healthcare needs, while providing stronger safety nets for our elderly and vulnerable.

Each of these decisions took courage, clarity of vision, a willingness to chart our path and the conviction to see it through. It is not just as simple as just plucking an idea from some other country and copying it.

I come now to the most difficult challenge. Delivering with our people will require a new approach from our Government and a new understanding with our people. Delivering with our people means that our Government must be prepared to engage even before all policy details have been finalised internally. On the other hand, our people must also accept that not everyone's idea will be adopted in full or in part.

Let me share a little vignette I learnt from Minister Vivian Balakrishnan when I took over, the then-Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports, from him. The first thing he told me was, "Chun Sing, when you become the Minister, you must consult widely. But remember, after you have consulted 100 people and you have chosen your idea, you must go back to the other 99 to explain to them why their ideas were not chosen. Each of them must be convinced why their ideas were not chosen after they have given you their feedback". That was 14 or 15 years ago. I think that still applies today.

All of us will contribute ideas just like in this House, but not all ideas may be implemented in full or in part. And we will debate it. We will take collective decisions and we hope that we will move forward in the right spirit.

The other thing is this: as we evolve our processes and services at speed to achieve timeliness and relevance, we must also accept that we may not always achieve that perfect or flawless product or policy, if there was ever such a thing. What matters most is to learn and keep improving fast, rather than to let the pursuit of perfection paralyse us from timely deployment of new solutions.

This is the spirit that CPF Board and Government Technology Agency (GovTech) have taken. No one in CPF Board or GovTech will claim that their product is perfect or flawless. They all know that they have to keep improving, but they all know that they have to be timely and relevant in their delivery.

As the challenges confronting Singapore are multi-dimensional, we will also need the Public Service to acquire new capabilities. The Public Service will continue to remain open and attract diverse talent, including mid-careerists, and provide opportunities for officers to gain exposure to the private and people sectors. Now increasingly important, we must also expose our officers to the International Organisations to understand how the world is evolving and we must secure a place at the table where international rules are made. Otherwise, as the saying goes, we are either at the table or on the menu.

From the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the 1970s to the recent debate on climate change, the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction and the cyber domains, many new rules are made on the international front. We will need our people to be au fait with the developments in order to secure our interest.

Next, after hearing all the many good ideas, this Government will have the difficult task of balancing our public finances. We have been fortunate so far that we have been able to afford what we wanted to, while delivering high quality services, because we run a tight ship. We have been prudent with our spending, saving a little year after year, invested these savings wisely and gradually built up our Reserves; and instituted rigorous safeguards to protect the Reserves, making sure that we only spent the money that we really needed to.

However, just as over the course of this week's debate, we have heard many new ideas, many new demands and all of that will ultimately translate into some form of resources needs. Hence, in this House, we must be judicious in deciding how to spend our public funds and be honest with ourselves about the trade-offs. Everything we want to do more of, means something less for either current or future needs. We should not and cannot pretend that there is somehow, somewhere a free lunch. We must also be honest with our own residents where those trade-offs are.

It also means making difficult political decisions, such as raising taxes when we need to, as we have done for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) increases to ensure that our revenues continue to keep up with our spending needs. I can understand. I can appreciate the calls for us to spend more, given our challenges. But I am always reminded of this. Let us think about it. Where did our Reserves come from?

Our forefathers started saving in the 1960s. In the 1960s, we had the British withdrawal east of the Suez Canal. My grandmother and her family lost their job overnight from Sembawang Naval Base. In the 1970s, we had two oil crises. In the 1980s, we had the economic recession. In the 1990s, we had the Asian Financial Crisis. In the 2000s, we had the Global Financial Crisis. And of course, we had Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and COVID-19.

Were those not tough times? Did any of our Pioneers say that life was too hard and therefore we would not save for the next generation? No, they did not. No matter how tough those times were and arguably there were moments that were even tougher than now, they have made it a point to save up for us. Today, we are benefiting from this. I think it is only responsible of us to similarly hold on to this spirit.

Of course, the Government will do what we can to spend carefully to take care of this generation but let us not forget that we must also take care of future generations, although they are not here to cast their votes. This is what makes Singapore special – that we do not define success by how well we do for ourselves in this generation only. We define our success by how well we enable the next generation to do even better than us.

Changi Airport's Terminal 1 (T1), T2 and T3 that we enjoy now were built by the previous generation for us. And now, we are building T5 for the next generation. This is the spirit of Singapore. In the many Committees of Supply debate that I have attended in this House, we have not had to make very difficult decisions on what to cut in order to fund what we want to do more. We have been fortunate. We have a growing pie.

But it is not the natural order of things in most countries. Even so, we should maintain our discipline. Every grant, expenditure and subsidy has a long tail. Once committed, they will be hard to remove. In Budget speak, or in Ministry of Finance speak, we must not use up our white space, our future spending capacity, without considering the need to cater to unforeseen circumstances, which will certainly happen from time to time, be it COVID-19 or SARS.

This is where we go back to where we started. We must focus on growing the overall economic pie for us to have the options and the luxury to make easier decisions.

The challenges ahead will be different from those in the past, but the core principles remain: to anticipate change, to be bold, innovative and pragmatic in finding solutions that work for us and keep building a fair, strong, united Singapore for generations to come.

Mr Speaker, Singapore has come a long way in the 60 years since our Independence. Our Pioneer Generation and founding leaders have built a nation upon the foundations of conviction, not convenience. From the very beginning we have faced challenges head on, never shirking our responsibility to one another, nor to future generations. Together we have weathered storms, overcome adversity and emerged stronger each time. Through crises such as the Asian Financial Crisis and COVID-19 pandemic, we stood together – Government, businesses, community, students – supporting one another, overcoming challenges and always promising one another that we will emerge stronger. These experiences have shown that our strength lies in our unity and our ability to trust and work with one another.

Recently, I gave out scholarships to this year's Public Service Commission (PSC) and MINDEF scholarship recipients. I shared with them this simple message: "When I was awarded the scholarship, it was SG23. Nobody told me the challenges ahead". Now we are in SG60. I told this generation of scholarship holders, "You are taking up the scholarship at SG60. Your job is to get us to SG100 and beyond". I also told them, "If you have a doubt, there is a cooling-off period. You can don't take up the scholarship".

None of them flinched. I am proud of them, because I did not promise them that if they get a scholarship with the PSC or MINDEF, that life would be a bed of roses. There is nothing that guarantees that we would get to SG100. I also told them that, well, if I am so lucky to be able to see the fireworks at the Padang on 9 August 2065, maybe they can spare me a pair of National Day Parade tickets.

To take Singapore to SG100 and beyond, we will need leaders at every level of society – a nation of lions led by lions – to have a strong sense of mission and the gumption to defy the odds, to remember our vulnerabilities as a nation but never be shackled by them; a people who dares to dream and innovate, and are willing to match our aspirations with our perspirations.

Last but not least, we will live by these values that we will put our collective before self, putting the "we" before "me" and taking care of one another, so that we can be truly proud that if you want to have the best opportunities in life, anywhere in the world, you want to be born in Singapore.

I thank all Members for your vigorous and constructive debate over the course of this week. Your insights and ideas will help shape our policies and programmes going forward. As we chart our path towards SG100 and beyond, let us stand united in purpose in this House. For there will be no challenge too great, too daunting that we cannot overcome together.

Our commitment is, as everyone has said, is to build a better future for everyone, including those Singaporeans who are yet to be born. Together, we will write the next chapter of Singapore's history. This Government will not only deliver for Singaporeans. This Government will deliver with Singaporeans. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha. I would like to invite you to do your wrap-up and closing address.

5.42 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Before I proceed, may I first convey my gratitude for the privilege of moving the Motion of Thanks to the President for the speech delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the First Session of this 15th Parliament. It is a great honour to move this Motion and an equal privilege to round up this debate as we begin the new term. I also would like to thank all Members of this House. Over the past five days, 81 Members have spoken in support of the Motion, including our Prime Minister Mr Lawrence Wong; among them were also 32 newly elected Members delivering their maiden speeches.

I have been heartened by the depth of conviction and the clarity of purpose in these speeches and together they reflect our collective resolve to improve the lives of Singaporeans and to advance the progress of our nation as one united people, something that was shared by Minister Chan Chun Sing just now.

Mr Speaker, the President's address reminded us of the profound transitions of our time, a world in flux, both globally and at home. He set out four key challenges and reminded us that our path forward depends on unity, nurturing a "we first" society built on trust, resilience and a shared purpose. As I listen to the many thoughtful speeches delivered, similar to what Minister Chan has mentioned earlier, it became clear that certain themes resonated strongly. And hence, I had to quickly remove quite a lot of my paragraphs – thanks to Minister Chan.

In closing, I will draw out these key themes. Firstly, there is collective agreement from the speeches that the changes before us are not just transient headwinds, but as the President reminded us, they are fundamental shifts in the tide that will shape Singapore's future. This span geopolitics, the economy, technology and demographics, and they will test us deeply.

Senior Minister of State Sim Ann spoke of great power, contestation, rising protectionism and geopolitical conflicts. Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong reminded us that countries are turning inwards while transformative technologies such as AI, coupled with our limits on land, carbon and energy, demand fresh thinking. Ms Tin Pei Ling emphasised the need for Singapore to remain relevant. Ms He Ting Ru cautioned that past performance is no guarantee of future success.

The Leader of Opposition pointed to the weight of international and domestic pressures. Mr Yip Hon Weng reminded us that defence and diplomacy are the twin pillars of our survival and Mr Vikram Nair shared the need for allies and self-reliance on defence.

This shared recognition of change matters. Transformation begins with recognition of the urgency to change. Knowing we cannot stand still. From the speeches, there is consensus: that transformation is needed in our economy, whether it is jobs, education and social safety nets. Not because they are not working, but because we need to prepare for the challenges ahead. And we must act decisively together.

Many Members stressed that the scale of change requires us to rethink fundamentals: our economy, job design, education, child-raising, transportation, housing and senior care. I thank Deputy Prime Minister Gan for affirming the point I raised on strengthening existing industries, while seizing new areas of growth. He spoke of securing footholds in emerging sectors and making Singapore a “home for leading firms.” Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Shawn Huang pointed to intelligent robotics as another exciting frontier.

Labour MP, NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng, Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan, Minister of State Desmond Choo and Dr Wan Rizal emphasised that unions will support workers through job redesign, upskilling, and reskilling, ensuring no one is left behind. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon spoke of the importance of tripartism in making transformation possible.

In education, Ms Goh Hanyan and Mr Goh Pei Ming urged a relook at how we raise our children and review our exam system, a call echoed by Mr Darryl David and supported by Minister Desmond Lee.

We face huge uncertainty and we must transform to survive. But as Mr Shawn Loh observed, the President's address over the past two decades have consistently emphasised these same enduring themes: global uncertainty, economic vitality, care for an ageing population, building an inclusive society and then, keeping Singapore united. What makes it different today?

The key point is this: as a small nation, we will always face these enduring challenges and emerging trends. We must be ready to pivot, ready to adapt and ready to transform as circumstances evolve. Our survival depends on staying agile, nimble and ever ready to renew ourselves. This acceptance of constant transformation is not optional. It is the very foundation of Singapore’s survival and progress.

The second theme is the diversity of support across society. While we agree transformation is necessary, Members also recognised that it brings both anxiety and hope. Above all, there was consensus that growth must never come at the expense of leaving anyone behind.

For our youths, Miss Rachel Ong, Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash and Mr Ng Shi Xuan spoke of creating safe avenues for expression and more community-driven care. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan and Minister of State Goh Pei Ming highlighted learning through play, while Mr David Hoe suggested “curiosity credits” to spark exploration.

Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Darryl David stressed the need to support marginalised youth and equip them with the skills for the global economy. Together with Ms Jessica Tan, I also called for structured apprenticeships to bridge technical learning with real-world experience. Ms Lee Hui Ying added that even more "senior youths" in their 20s face the burdens of adulting as they enter the workforce. "Senior youths" is a new term that I learnt yesterday. Unfortunately, I no longer fall within the group.

For workers, NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon, Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan, Minister of State Desmond Choo and Mr Patrick Tay spoke of securing good jobs, upskilling, "skills-first Singapore" and ensuring a "just transition" with AI, automation and leveraging on the wisdom of senior workers. Mr Henry Kwek talked about turning technology disruption into opportunities for all.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Dr Wan Rizal highlighted the recognition of lower-wage and platform workers, while Ms Gho Sze Kee, Ms Eileen Chong, Ms Poh Li San, myself and others raised support for professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and young graduates.

For our seniors, Mr Alex Yeo, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat raised concerns on retirement adequacy and dignified living. Mr Cai Yinzhou proposed the formation of the elder corp to leverage on the skills and wisdom of seniors. Ms Choo Pei Ling spoke about healthcare and support for those living with illnesses. Families too were highlighted by Ms Cassandra Lee, Minister of State Jasmin Lau and Ms Valerie Lee, who spoke of the struggles of working parents and the sandwich generation. Ms Elysa Chen and Ms Diana Pang shared the need for stronger support for caregivers. As Ms Valerie Lee memorably said, we must build a society where “caregiving is supported, not merely tolerated.” Ms Denise Phua shared the need for mandating inclusive designs and deliberately designing in opportunities for the special need individuals, one which I also mentioned in investing in inclusive technology.

Members also raised wider issues: Dr Hamid Razak and Ms Nadia Samdin on mental health, Mr Edward Chia and myself on SME costs of doing business, Mr Shawn Loh on growing our local MNCs, Mr Victor Lye on hawkers, and Mr Gabriel Lam and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua on giving second chances. On sustainability, Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad, Ms Nadia Samdin and Ms Valerie Lee called for protecting our environment and strengthening food and water resilience. Even support for animals found a voice through Ms Lee Hui Ying and others.

Mr Speaker, this breadth of voices is worth a mention and it shows that while transformation brings anxiety, it also carries hope. Every segment of our society – the youths, the workers, our special needs individuals, seniors, families, businesses small and large, and even our natural environment – has found representation in this Chamber. That is the strength of our Parliament: no group forgotten, every voice heard. Inclusiveness and care must guide us as we move forward.

The third theme is that in almost every speech, as Minister Chan Chun Sing has mentioned, MPs spoke about more can be done, and there are three variants of it. More can be done, full stop; more can be done with a suggestion; more can be done with a suggestion and something that we do less of. And more can be done not because nothing is being done, but because Members believe more is required. Whether it is in preschool education, youth development, worker upskilling, supporting businesses, addressing the cost of living, or helping young parents and the sandwich generation, or caring for seniors and in providing humanitarian support such as in Gaza as shared by Member Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim. I may have missed it, but I did not hear anyone calling for less to be done.

The question then is: if everyone wants more, how do we sustain it, especially as costs rise, from healthcare to infrastructure and social spending? One answer must be in continually growing our economy, so that the pie expands and every Singaporean receives a fairer share, with those in greater need receiving stronger support. Some Members cautioned against “growing GDP at all costs.” From the speeches heard here, this is not what anyone is advocating.

Mr Speaker, this is the essence of our compact: to build a growing and inclusive economy that uplifts all, and ensures those with less are never left behind. Growth is not an end in itself. It is the means by which we create resources to care for every member of our society. By enlarging opportunity and walking this journey together, we give every generation not just hope, but the confidence that tomorrow will be a better day than today.

With a larger pie, it brings me to the fourth theme that was common across all the speeches, on how to distribute the pie fairly. Mr Fadli Fawzi reminded us of the dangers of meritocracy, where some may be left behind. Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Xie Yao Quan stressed that while meritocracy is not perfect, in Ms Mariam’s words, "We must continue to refine it, to strengthen it and to make sure meritocracy in Singapore remains fair and real – not just in principle, but in practice."

As our Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said, "we cannot stand still" and we must "tilt the balance continually" to keep society fair. It is a continuous work in progress. This means upholding the principle that those with less should receive more. We already see this in schemes like KidStart, ComCare+, UPLIFT, financial assistance schemes, rental flats and the multiple education pathways – all designed to level the playing field. As Ms Mariam Jaafar, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan, Mr Darryl David, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr David Hoe have highlighted, our youths may begin from different starting points, but we must ensure that they all have equal opportunities to succeed. The landing point is clear: a fairer society is one where those with less are given more, so everyone has a real chance to move up in life.

Mr Speaker, having spoken about growing the pie and distributing it fairly, let me turn to how we defined success, another point that has been elaborated by Minister Chan Chun Sing, so I will keep it short. Some Members reminded us that success cannot be measured by GDP or wealth alone, but by ensuring every Singaporean has the chance to move up. True success means that a child born into a less advantaged family can still aspire, work hard and achieve his or her dreams. Recognising different starting points, many MPs defined success as those with less must be given more to ensure equal opportunity.

Others called for a broader and more inclusive definition of success, that success should not be defined narrowly by grades or income, something which we have been working on, but also by diverse pathways, whether in arts, sports, caregiving, or technical trades. I thank Acting Minister David Neo for noting that children participating in other co-curricular activities may also be recognised with Colours Awards. I do hope mountain biking and cycling is considered too.

Success must also be measured in the well-being of families and communities: affordable housing, accessible healthcare and the dignity of work. Success in Singapore must be more than individual achievement. It must be a collective, where communities thrive together, when those with less are given more and when every Singaporean has the opportunity to live a fulfilling life.

Mr Speaker, over the past five days, much has been said about "we first." As the Prime Minister puts it, "we first" does not mean suppressing the "me." Members here have shared many examples of how "we first" can begin from something as simple as helping a neighbour, volunteering at a home, or when individuals, employers, communities and businesses come together for the common good. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi shared "we first" as a powerful enabler that can strengthen cohesion and bolster unity and this is the cornerstone of a caring and values-driven society. Something which Dr Charlene Chen shared where kindness must be lived in every sphere of life.

"We first" means a society that strives for a collective good, not self-interest even as we recognise differences. Our commitment to "we first" will always be tested. The recent incident of suspicious parcels sent to places of worship reminds us that there will always be those who try to magnify our differences and sow division. The only way forward is for us to stay strong, deepen our solidarity and care for one another, building a Singapore where every citizen belongs. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] "Giving more to those who have less" and the spirit of "we first" are not something new to our community. It has been ingrained in us from the beginning.

As other speakers had previously shared, our Malay/Muslim community continues to excel – whether in terms of education, employability, or our professionals who now receive recognition on the world stage. However, this effort is still ongoing and there is so much more that we can achieve together.

All these could not be accomplished through individual achievement alone. It stems from community support that constantly helps one another. Established programmes such as the TTFS which covers tertiary education fees, Mathematics Classes for preschool children, Project Dian which assists families in rental flats, and Mendaki's Tuition Scheme for our children – all these exist because the community works hand in hand to help those who are disadvantaged.

At the grassroots level, many volunteers in our Malay/Muslim community also contribute their time and energy. In Pasir Ris-Changi, for example, programmes like Hash Tech provide opportunities for students to understand data and generative artificial intelligence – the very technology that is shaping our world today. In my previous speech, I also shared how students from Muhammadiyah Welfare Home were able to learn robotics through guidance from engineers in our professional networks.

This is what "we first" is all about – a community that puts the collective good above all else, instead of just self-interest. I would like to call upon more members of our community to join these volunteering opportunities. Let us continue to work together to build a more caring, more empowered and more united community.

(In English): Mr Speaker, allow me to draw the threads together as we head towards the end. Over these five days, six themes have emerged clearly. Firstly, our survival depends on staying agile, nimble and ever ready to renew ourselves. This is the very foundation of Singapore’s survival and progress.

Second, while transformation brings anxieties, it also carries hope. Every segment of society – youths, workers, persons with disabilities, seniors, families, businesses and even our natural environment – has representation in this Chamber. To be inclusive, we must continue to make these voices heard.

Thirdly, growing our economy is not mutually exclusive to caring for our people. Growth is not an end in itself. It is the means by which we create resources to care for every member of our society.

Fourth, a fairer society is one where those with less are given more, so everyone has a real chance to move up in life.

Fifth, we have already embraced and must continue to embrace the different definitions of success, beyond grades or income, to include dignity, opportunity and quality of life.

And lastly, that all this is anchored on "we first", the conviction that progress must be shared, and Singapore is strongest when we stand together.

Mr Speaker, we cannot choose the challenges of our time, but we can choose how we respond. Let us respond with courage, with care and with confidence. Let us renew our compact, not just with words but with deeds. Let us build a Singapore that is not only successful, but also one that is just, compassionate and united. A Singapore where every citizen has reason to hope, every family has reason to strive and every generation has reason to believe that tomorrow will be better than today.

I call upon all the Members of this House, on both sides of the aisle, backbenchers and frontbenchers, to join me in thanking the President for his Address. Majulah Singapura. [Applause.]

6.03 pm

Mr Speaker: After five long days, I am happy to pose the following question to Members one last time.

Question proposed.

Resolved,

"That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:

'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament'."