Chua Kheng Wee Louis
Singapore
“It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill does not mark the end of Singapore's vision of a share-owning society, but rather the beginning of a new chapter – one in which we seriously revisit how Singaporeans and the Government can invest together, participating fairly and directly in the nation's wealth creation, and achieving w…”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just three quick supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I think the Senior Minister of State talks about gaining access to the best tools available globally.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just two quick supplementary questions. The first is on the guide that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared just now.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just one clarification for Ministers on the EV chargers. I think the MOT has previously said that we are looking at three to 12 charging points per HDB carpark by 2025, but my question is not so much on the deadline, but more in terms of the number of chargers that can be supported, because in most of the multi-storey…”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just two clarifications for Minister Chee. The first is on the review of the EC policy – any timeline around that? Second is in terms of how the Minister talked about building a robust supply pipeline and given that we are now in March 2026.”
“Chairman, given the increasing unaffordability of ECs in the markets today, I urge the MND to seriously re-think the current EC model and to consider upstream policies to bring the price of ECs into a range that will suit their original intentions. With affordability and equitable access being key tenets to underpin the new EC model.”
The complete record
Every one of 716 lines we hold for Chua Kheng Wee Louis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 15.
“Thank you, Speaker. Allow me to first declare that I work in an FI. Two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is on BO based on the FATF report, where information for Variable Capital Companies and unregistered foreign companies is not available in a timely manner or at all in certain cases. And hence, my question is will the central register's coverage be extended to these entities? And if so, any timeline for doing so? And the second question is in relation to the FATF report on the point that Singapore makes four times fewer Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) requests than it receives, despite acknowledging that its primary risks lie abroad and that Singapore has sent a very modest number of MLAs to recover assets. So, my question is how does the Ministry intend to increase the use of MLAs or whether it is other formal or informal forms of cooperation channels, especially when it relates to scams? As we all know, if we look at 2025, $913 million was lost to scams and only about 15% of it was recovered, given that most of it originated from overseas, and when the funds go overseas, it is quite difficult for us to recover.”
“It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill does not mark the end of Singapore's vision of a share-owning society, but rather the beginning of a new chapter – one in which we seriously revisit how Singaporeans and the Government can invest together, participating fairly and directly in the nation's wealth creation, and achieving what it truly means to keep wealth among the people.”
“This will not only provide a financial safety net but also foster a generation of financially literate citizens who understand the value of a long-term strategic investment and who have an interest and a stake in national policy. Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mr Speaker. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, in 1993, Singtel was officially listed as a public company and the Government launched the SDS scheme, allowing citizens to share in the nation's economic gains through broad-based share ownership. I was only six years old that year. More than 30 years on, at 39, I have only now come to truly appreciate the historical significance and importance of that scheme. A $2,000 CPF investment made at the time has grown to a total value of nearly $12,000 today, including $5,000 in accumulated dividends. For many Singaporeans, this represents a substantial contribution to their retirement savings, and more importantly, it is more than twice the return that would have been earned by leaving the money in a CPF Ordinary Account at 2.5% interest. Had the Government fulfilled its promise to extend similar discounted share schemes to companies, such as PUB, SMRT and PSA, would our retirement security be considerably more robust today? What I wish to emphasise today, however, is that we cannot remain confined to a framework of waiting for the Government to occasionally distribute "one-off" discounted shares or vouchers. The Workers' Party has advocated in our manifesto for enabling Singaporeans to co-invest their CPF savings with GIC. This is not a call for "handouts" or "red packets" from the Government – it is about giving citizens a stake in the long-term strategic growth of our sovereign wealth.”
“As I have shared in my past speeches, we can give this current generation of Singaporeans a stake in the country via a meaningful IPO of the next wave of various private companies held by Temasek and encourage them to list on the Singapore Stock Exchange to fulfil the promises set more than 30 years ago. The Government will also be leading by example as part of its suite of measures under the recently introduced Equities Market Development Programme. More importantly, the point here is not just about a one-off distribution of shares and a discount to Singaporeans whenever a company goes to an IPO. The Workers' Party has advocated in our manifesto for enabling Singaporeans to co-invest their CPF savings with GIC. This is not about one-off handouts. It is about giving citizens a stake in the long-term strategic growth of our sovereign wealth. The middle 20% of households have the majority of their household wealth in property equity, followed by 33% in net CPF balances and only 14% in other financial equity. If you want to generate real net worth for Singaporeans and provide a legacy for their children, you must move beyond being property asset rich but cash poor. I suggest the Government consider a Temasek or GIC for every Singaporean model. Imagine if every newborn was given a small share in a diversified portfolio held until retirement, similar to what my hon friend, Mr Andre Low, shared in this year's Committee of Supply debates. He proposed that Singapore study the introduction of a baby bond, a universal state endowed account opened automatically at birth, invested in a diversified low-cost portfolio over 18 years.”
“Emeritus State Minister Goh went on further to say that the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) will be corporatised and publicly listed. These are well-run profitable enterprises. Their shares will appreciate as long as Singapore continues to be stable and prosperous and good management is in charge of the companies. Fast forward to today, SMRT was listed and then privatised by Temasek Holdings subsequently, but there was no SDS. PSA was never listed, and its real estate arm, Mapletree Investments, continue to be private as well. In 1994, after the listing of Singtel, former President Mr Ong Teng Cheong even shared in his President's Address, "The Singapore Telecom flotation was a resounding success: 1.4 million citizens bought Group A shares. Significantly, people are holding on to them as long term investments instead of selling them immediately for quick profit. Other major privatisations will follow Singapore Telecom. The next likely one will be the PUB electricity and gas departments in two to three years' time. The Government will use these privatisations to enhance the assets of Singaporeans." The automated creation of CDP accounts under section 26C is a commendable administrative move and could serve as a blueprint for future Government-led asset transfers. However, I am concerned that the closure of the SDS scheme signals an end to the share-owning society vision. As a Member of Parliament who was only in primary school back then, will the Minister enlighten me on what happened to all these bold and attractive plans to enhance the assets of Singaporeans? Why was it that there was only one SDS scheme? Does the Minister and the Government not see the value and enhancement to Singaporeans' retirement savings with the SDS scheme?”
“Why is it that when a Singaporean uses his or her CPF savings for a home, which the Government has called an appreciating asset and a store of value, they must pay back the principle plus accrued interest. Yet, for a CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) investments, no such requirements exists. The Government's long-standing justification is that this safeguards retirement adequacy. To quote from the frequently asked question (FAQ) section on the CPF Board's website, "refunding both the principal amount and accrued interest ensures your retirement savings are fully restored to what they would have been if they had remained in your CPF account. Without this refund, your retirement funds would be permanently reduced." Yet, from a financial investment under the CPFIS, which is arguably more volatile and which the Government has itself noted in the past, underperforms the 2.5% Ordinary Account rate for many CPF members, no such accrued interest is clawed back. Is the Government suggesting that housing is a value-destructive asset that will ultimately permanently reduce the value of one's retirement savings due to its leasehold nature, while financial investments are value appreciating and bear less risk of endangering our retirement funds? I hope the Minister can clarify the policy logic behind the distinction. Returning to former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's National Day Rally speech in 1992, I note that, in the addition to Singtel, a company was to be set up to run the electricity and gas departments of the PUB, which I believe is now corporatised as the SP Group, and remains wholly owned by Temasek Holdings today.”
“This was by design, and then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stated the 45% generous discount was to encourage long-term share ownership. The illustration, as shared by the CPF board in Singtel is clear – for the median SDS holder with approximately 1,360 Singtel SDS shares, a $2,000 investment in Singtel SDS has grown into nearly $12,000 in total value today, comprising $5,000 in cumulative dividends and $6,800 worth of shares as at 1 April 2026. In contrast, had that same $2,000 remain in the CPF Ordinary Account, earning a base interest of 2.5%, it will be worth only approximately $4,500 today, a mere 38% of the value of the SDS shares, or in other words, the SDS has outperformed the CPF Ordinary Account by a factor of 2.6 times. For many Singaporeans, especially those approaching retirement, this kicker is a vital addition to their requirement adequacy. Mr Speaker, I have several broad clarifications on this Bill. First, I note that under section 26E(2) of the Bill, while shares remain in the designated shares account, dividends and sale proceeds must be returned to the CPF Board. However, once the shares are transferred to a direct CDP account and sold, the funds do not need to be returned to the CPF. This is a departure from the standard CPF investment scheme, where sale proceeds must typically be returned to the CPF account. While I am supportive of this arrangement, what is the Government's rationale for why the SDS proceeds are treated differently? Furthermore, the amount withdrawn for SDS does not require the payment of accrued interest upon sale. This highlights a glaring inconsistency in our system.”
“Mr Speaker, the CPF (Amendment) Bill introduced today marks the closure of an important chapter in the history of Singapore's social security system. Specifically, it facilitates the transfer of Singtel SDS from the CPF Board through the CDP accounts of over 615,000 Singaporeans. The Workers' Party supports this Bill. Even as Singtel may stand to benefit from the scheme through an easing of its administrative requirements and the ease of undertaking future corporate actions to enhance its own shareholder value, ultimately, Singaporeans will benefit from such an exercise. However, the closure of the Singtel SDS scheme also presents a timely opportunity to reflect on its successes, its inconsistencies and the broader question of how we truly enable Singaporeans to have a tangible stake in our nation's wealth. Before I proceed, I wish to declare that I am not old enough to obviously have SDS shares, but I do have regular Singtel shares. To understand the unique and what appears to be a one-off Singtel SDS scheme, we must look back at what then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stated as the goal of his Government – to make Singapore a share-owning society. A statement by Singtel on its website explains it best: that the SDS scheme is a legacy scheme introduced in 1993, as part of the Government's efforts to give Singaporeans a stake in Singapore's economic success through share ownership. On this note, the 1993 and 1996 SDS exercises were arguably ahead of its time in inclusive wealth creation. By offering shares at a massive discount as low as $1.90 for the ST "A" shares in 1993, and $2.50 for the ST2 shares in 1996, the Government ensured that even the smallest retail investor was in the money from day one.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just three quick supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I think the Senior Minister of State talks about gaining access to the best tools available globally. In so doing, is the Government working to gain direct access to the Anthropic Mythos model to enable the Government to better strengthen its cybersecurity defences? Second, I think the Senior Minister of State also talked about how it is working with partners that actually have access. So, I was wondering if there has been any outcomes or patches to threats and vulnerabilities that have already been done, and if there have been any successes that the Senior Minister of State can share. And lastly, in terms of the level of risk assessment through the CII, what is the Government's assessment of it right now, and how is it directly supporting the CII providers other than getting them to take action right now?”
“Back in September 2024, I asked a Parliamentary Question about whether there are plans to implement licensing requirements for pet groomers in the manner similar to pet breeders and boarders. I understand the Government is currently reviewing the Code of Animal Welfare with a focus on groomers as well as introducing a new chapter for dog trainers. However, the aforementioned instances of negligence by pet groomers and trainers highlight the need for a tighter enforcement regime for this group of professionals in addition to revising the penalties for animal cruelty and failure to fulfil duty of care to ensure that practitioners actually adhere to professional standards. Mr Speaker, to care for animals is a labour of love. I support the passage of this Bill but there is more we can do to develop a fully functional animal health and welfare ecosystem. I hope we can do more by strengthening the pipeline of veterinary professionals, plugging the brain drain faced by the industry, recognising the contributions of our veterinary professionals, enhancing consumer protection measures within the industry, and tightening the enforcement regime for pet groomers and trainers. This will nurture a driving animal care ecosystem that is centred around the health and welfare of its patients, whether it is domesticated pets, community animals or the wildlife in our garden city.”
“I do hope the Ministry and the Council can consider regularly publishing hospital bills and fee benchmarks, similar to how the Ministry of Health has done so, or even fee guidelines for starters. Finally, I return to the concern I have raised previously about pet groomers. Beyond veterinary professionals, there are others within the wider animal care ecosystem that play a key role in ensuring the health and well-being of animals, such as pet groomers and trainers. This Bill creates full professional registration, practising certificates, continuing education requirements and a multi-tiered disciplinary framework for veterinarians, like pet groomers who handle animals daily and the number of whom have been linked to dozens of investigated welfare incidents, and who, in some cases, have been responsible for animal deaths, remain largely unregulated. A Parliamentary reply this year revealed that NParks investigated 54 cases of harm to animals involving pet groomers over the past three years. Following questions raised in this House, MND indicated in January 2026 that the ABA review would consider whether to include the requirements for closed circuit television recordings. There have also been cases of mishandling involving dog trainers. For instance, two employees of a dog-training firm were suspended in 2024 for physically harming two dogs under their care in preparation for a photo opportunity. Currently, pet groomers and trainers are simply required to adhere to the Code of Animal Welfare, a set of minimum standards and best practices regarding certain aspects of animal care, such as housing, feeding and transport.”
“In fact, although dogs are allergic to chocolate, the Mars Corporation is ironically one of the biggest players in the veterinary scene. While such clinics benefit from a flush of capital, veterinarians might have to keep a closer eye on their bottom lines and the demands of upper management, instead of their patients. Some years ago, our family adopted a dog from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). We named him Yellow. It was uncommon to find what appeared to be a purebred dog put up for adoption, but Yellow had physical deformities that required consistent and ongoing medical attention. Towards the end of his life, the cost of managing his condition was not far from what one might expect to pay for a human specialist. He was family and we wanted to do everything we could to ease his suffering. But I am acutely aware that not every family is in the same position. For some, the cost of treatment is simply prohibitive and the cruellest irony of all is that euthanasia, the most unbearable option, may also be the cheapest one. During the consultation process of the Bill, some respondents have also raised the issue of high veterinary fees and a lack of transparency. Although regulating clinic fees is beyond the remit of the Council, I believe that there is space for the Council to act in the interest of consumer protection and to prevent runaway healthcare cost in the veterinary scene. It will be instructive of us to study the approach taken by other jurisdictions. For instance, the UK recently started mandating veterinary clinics to publicly disclose their practice ownership structure and introduce price lists for common procedures to boost transparency for consumers.”
“A study conducted by James Cook University and the Singapore Veterinary Association highlights that veterinary professionals are four to nine times more likely to experience depression, anxiety and stress compared to their human healthcare counterparts. Improving our local talent pipeline would therefore help plug the brain drain within the industry by spreading out the workload more sustainably, thus reducing the likelihood of burn-out. Another issue faced by the industry is the lack of career progression, especially amongst veterinary paraprofessionals, such as nurses and technicians. When combined with burn-out and wages in commensurate with their less-than-ideal working conditions, it has resulted in a high attrition rate and manpower shortage. According to the Singapore Veterinary Association, only 20% of veterinary nursing graduates remain in the industry after five years, as of 2022, with many of them viewing this profession as unviable. With plans to regulate veterinary nurses and technicians in works, I hope that the Council can develop structured opportunities for career progression and specialisation, thus boosting their wages and job prospects. Furthermore, while clause 4(3) of the Bill specifies that the Council should minimally comprise of four fully-registered veterinarians and two laypeople, there is no explicit requirement for our veterinary paraprofessionals to be represented. Given their invaluable contributions to the industry, paraprofessionals should also have a seat at the table, thus providing an avenue for the concerns to be heard. Mr Speaker, reforms to the vet sector should also protect consumers' interests. Big conglomerates and private equity firms have recently been heavily investing and acquiring pet care chains and veterinary practices.”
“But the question is not whether the current supply is sufficient, which increasingly appears to be insufficient, but whether the pipeline is resilient. A profession whose entire intake depends on Singaporeans willing to bear the cost and disruption of overseas education with no guarantee of returning, is a profession with a structurally fragile supply chain. Moreover, we can always start with a partnership model. For starters, I am reminded of the double degree programme offered by the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in biomedical sciences and Chinese medicine with Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, which began in 2005. Today, NTU is launching its own four-year Bachelor of Chinese Medicine degree, which enrolled its first class of 25 students in August 2024, with plans to go up to 40 eventually. I believe this is a model which we can replicate for our own veterinary degree. Will the Government be keen to introduce a locally offered veterinary degree, in addition to strengthening the supplies of veterinarians, which is crucial in addressing the manpower gap? I hope that the Council can look into plugging the brain drain faced by the industry. As of September 2025, Singapore had approximately 674 licensed veterinarians, rising to around 700 by end-2025. This is up nearly six-fold, from just 122 in 2006. Demand for vet services have been rising alongside the rising incidents of pet ownership, yet every single vet in Singapore has been trained entirely abroad. Amongst the Singaporean veterinary students that study overseas, which comprise an overwhelming majority, only 50% or less choose to return home to practice, as many prefer to work in Australia or the UK, where opportunities abound, with perhaps better work life balance.”
“While Ngee Ann and Temasek Polytechnics offer vet-related diplomas, they do not provide students with the pre-requisite qualifications to become a full-fledged licensed veterinarian. To apply for a licence to treat birds and animals under the present system, one must study overseas at a veterinary school recognised either by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons or the Australasian Veterinary Board's Council. If they hold a veterinary degree from a non-recognised university, they could also sit for and pass either the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Statutory Examination, the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination or the Australasian Veterinary Examination. This is a costly pathway, only open to those who have the means to do so or are awarded a scholarship, discriminating against many potential veterinarians with the love and passion for helping animals from pursuing such a novel profession. In February 2026, a Parliamentary Question was posed to the Minister for Education on whether the Ministry will work with autonomous universities to introduce a locally-offered veterinary degree in view of growing demand and reliance on overseas trained vets. The reply was that the Ministry of Education (MOE) will continue to work with the autonomous universities and sector agencies, such as MND and NParks to monitor and assess how best to meet Singapore's long-term veterinary manpower needs. I find the answer to be quite inadequate. I understand the arguments that Singapore's small land area means limited farm animal populations, and that there may not be sufficient scale to justify the opening up of a new programme.”
“Mr Speaker, as a proud parent of a fur kid, I relate to the stress faced by pet owners when bringing their pet, often with much resistance, to the vet for medical treatment or check-up. I am sure many pet owners can relate to how they can somehow figure out whether they are being taken to the dog run or being taken to the vet for medical appointment. However, no matter how anxious or rebellious the patient may be, it is the patience, skill and professionalism of our veterinary core that often place both the patient and its owner at ease. In Singapore, demand for veterinary services is booming, owing to the rise in pet ownership and how pets are now often regarded as a member of the family, and not just a pet per se. The Bill introduces a new three-tiered registration framework for veterinarians based on one's qualifications, namely full, restricted and specialist. Establishing the Veterinary Council as industry's professional body is therefore instrumental towards upholding the high standards expected of the profession, and a move I strongly support. Nonetheless, this Bill arrives against a backdrop of stretched veterinary manpower, mounting public concerns about care costs and an overall pet care ecosystem that still has significant gaps. Allow me to touch on these topics in turn in my speech. In addition to regulating the veterinary industry, I hope that the Council would strengthen the pipeline of registered veterinarians to ease Singapore's shortage of veterinary professionals. According to the Singapore Veterinary Association, there are approximately 898 pets per vet as of 2022. Currently, there is no university course in veterinary science available locally.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Two sets of clarifications. First, if we look at the fuel prices, petrol prices have gone up by 20% and diesel 70%. And for the diesel vehicles, most are actually commercial vehicles. In this this regard, if you look at the impact to sole proprietorships or micro and SMEs, the impact could be quite hard. In the spirit of not using blunt tools, I was wondering if there are specific measures to small businesses that have diesel vehicles to mitigate the impact of higher fuel costs. I do note the point about the enhanced Corporate Income Tax rebate. And if you look at the cash run component, it has been increased to about $2,000, basically an increase of $500. But some estimates have it that just the monthly fuel cost increase for one diesel van alone is already $172 a month. Second, Minister Tan last month encouraged all of us to conserve energy. Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister have also said the same. But if I look at the electricity demand in Singapore, households represent just about 6% of electricity demand based on the latest numbers. In this regard, in terms of looking at the industrial and commercial uses, which is the overwhelming use of energy demand, what specific measures are there to have targeted measures to encourage these companies to step up on their minimum energy efficiency standards or energy conservation measures?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just two quick supplementary questions. The first is on the guide that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared just now. I wanted to ask if that is actually consistent across all the different schools and whether this can be made available to across both parents and teachers, so that everyone can have a better understanding on how best to support the children. The second question is in relation to the training. So, I understand that for in service teachers, there are optional online courses that they can sign up for as part of their 40 hours continuous professional development (CPD), but just wanted to ask what is the actual number of hours of these SEN-related training that is being imparted? May I also ask as a extension where, if you look at the finance industry for certain modules, such as ethics or regulations, there are minimum hours required for these components, whether or not there is a specified requirements for this continuous training.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just one clarification for Ministers on the EV chargers. I think the MOT has previously said that we are looking at three to 12 charging points per HDB carpark by 2025, but my question is not so much on the deadline, but more in terms of the number of chargers that can be supported, because in most of the multi-storey car park that I see, it is typically just three 7.4 kilowatt chargers. So, I just wondering in terms of the original tenders that were put out to upgrade the electricity infrastructure, what was the maximum power capacity or number of charging stations that can be supported? One of the key feedback that we often get is that the additional charging lots is subject to power capacity and it just does not seem to be the case that we might get twelve in each multi-storey car park in the near term.”
“7 kW, which is the slowest among those accessible publicly, which take up to 16 hours to charge a typical EV. Comparatively, only about 11% of chargers deployed have direct current, of which most of the DC chargers can qualify as "fast chargers". Where typical AC chargers, typically take four to eight hours for a full charge, DC fast chargers can bring a battery to 80% in just 30 to 45 minutes, based on a May 2024 article by SP Group. I wish to highlight however, that technology has advanced rapidly in this space. In March 2025, BYD announced its super e-platform, which provides a 400-kilometre range in just five minutes of charging. BYD is now rolling out such megawatt level charging infrastructure in China. For comparison, 1,000 kW is about one MW and this is 135 times higher vs the 7.4 kW typically found in Singapore. This distinction matters enormously. LTA has already recognised that high-powered fast chargers will be needed to meet the needs of high-mileage users, particularly taxis and commercial fleets. Of all cars registered in 2025, 45% are already electric. Currently, it is typical for a Housing and Development Board (HDB) multi-storey car park to have only three slow chargers. As EV adoption grows beyond early adopters, everyday residents will find this increasingly inadequate. I strongly urge the Government to accelerate the roll-out of EV fast chargers and/or to increase the number of EV chargers at high utilisation HDB multi-storey car parks, which is already posing a significant challenge to some Sengkang neighbourhoods today. EV Charging in HDB Carparks”
“Saudi Arabia's Transport General Authority has set a target for 25% of all goods transport vehicles to be fully autonomous by 2030. Additionally, according to SMRT, our public bus system is struggling to hire bus captains, especially from our local manpower pool. AVs as buses would ease the pressure on this issue, yet despite numerous trials all across the island. Singapore's AV roll-out is still in the trial phase about 12 years on. Beyond stating that Singapore will have, and I quote, "many autonomous vehicles in Singapore" in five years' time, can the MOT provide numerical targets for our AV ambition? As my colleague Mr Gerald Giam shared more than a decade ago in 2015, Singapore is in an excellent position to lead the world in the adoption of driverless cars. But we must ensure that legislation promotes and does not inhibit the test-bedding and public use of these vehicles. I hope we will be able to accelerate AV roll-out in Singapore, especially for buses given the severe shortage of drivers. Accelerating EV Fast Charger Roll-out As part of Singapore's net-zero goal, Singapore aims to reduce land transport emissions and the electrification of vehicles is one of the key initiatives to help Singapore achieve this target. One of the key pillars of the roadmap is the deployment of EV charging infrastructure. In response to my Parliamentary Question in February this year, I understand that Singapore currently has around 28,300 charging points. The vast majority, about 88%, are alternating current-based, of which about 50% have a low power rating of 7.4 kilowatts (kW) and below. The majority of TotalEnergies' chargers, which represented 13% of Singapore's charging stations before they were taken over, are rated at 3.”
“Chairman, research and small scale testing of AVs for use on urban roads in Singapore has been going on for quite a while now. With one of the earliest research and trials on the roads in one-north in partnership with nuTonomy. Another trial under the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) was started at one-north as well, sometime in 2014, this one under the Singapore Autonomous Vehicle Initiative. In 2015, the MOT signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to further expand trials on AV with PSA Singapore and another with the Sentosa Development Corporation and ST Engineering, which I was lucky enough to experience myself. There have been various other trials since then and fast forward to 2025, a 17-member committee chaired by the Acting Minister was formed to look at the roll-out of AVs on Singapore roads. Today, in 2026, a small number of vehicles are now involved in trials in the residential district in Punggol and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) plans to procure six autonomous buses with operations beginning in mid-2026 for an initial period of three years. In comparison, in this time, the AV industry in places like China and the US has boomed, with their biggest players, Pony AI, WeRide and Waymo already running fully driverless commercial services in the cities they are operating in. Waymo has around 2,500 vehicles today and targets at least 10,000 vehicles and one million robotaxi rides a week. Pony AI aims for more than 3,000 vehicles by 2026, similar to WeRide. Countries in the Middle East are also showing markedly faster implementation of AVs. The Dubai Autonomous Transportation Strategy aims to have 25% of the total transportation in Dubai to be autonomous by 2030.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just two clarifications for Minister Chee. The first is on the review of the EC policy – any timeline around that? Second is in terms of how the Minister talked about building a robust supply pipeline and given that we are now in March 2026. On the HDB front, is it still the plan to have the supply come down to about 15,700 or so, versus the 19,600 levels today. That is for 2027. Similarly, for private residential property, what are the expectations on supply for the second half of 2026 as well as 2027; the reason being, if I look at the last three Government Land Sale programmes, I think the supply has been coming down, especially for EC supply.”
“Chairman, given the increasing unaffordability of ECs in the markets today, I urge the MND to seriously re-think the current EC model and to consider upstream policies to bring the price of ECs into a range that will suit their original intentions. With affordability and equitable access being key tenets to underpin the new EC model. Minimum Occupation Period for Flat Occupiers”
“Even so, I reckon one has to have access to the deep pockets of one's parents if one is lucky, without which a first-timer will find it very challenging to fork out the downpayment required to afford the EC in the first place. Moreover, the irony is that based on current financing rules, young people who are currently unable to afford an EC are deemed to be able to afford and purchase and even higher price private condominium. This is because the ECs are subject to a 30% mortgage servicing ratio while private condominiums are only subject to the 55% total debt servicing ratio. At a prevailing household income ceiling of $16,000 per month, prospective EC buyers will be able to secure a loan of close to $1 million based on an mortgage servicing ratio of 30%. This would mean a shortfall of just over $700,000 based on the price of an average EC today. However, the same household will be able to secure a loan of close to $1.28 million, leaving a smaller shortfall of just over $400,000 should they choose to purchase a private condominium instead. Other than simply giving more grants, two other simple solutions are to raise the mortgage servicing ratio, which would enable households to take on higher mortgage to finance a property and to increase the monthly household income ceiling to allow more buyers into the market. However, it does not address the fundamental issue of affordability since the price of the EC itself will not be impacted. Perversely, these may even result in an even higher increase in EC prices, given the wider pool of buyers now available.”
“Well, I will argue that the prices today have become too expensive to service the original intention. As ECs were slated as a more premium yet affordable public-private hybrid for prospective buyers, its premiums can be compared to the resale market for HDB flats. In 2016, the average per square foot price for a resale HDB flat stood at approximately $424, and approximately $782 for an EC in 2016. This is roughly an 84% difference. In 2021, the resale HDB flat per square foot price stands at $488 versus $1,176 for an EC, a 141% difference. Coming to 2024, a resale HDB flat is approximately $603 per square foot and $1,531 for an EC, a 154 % difference. These numbers would differ, of course, based on the type of neighbourhood that the HDB flats and ECs are located. Well, for the sake of comparison, they do serve as a useful broad basis for comparison. The difference is even more stark in absolute terms. If we look at the average price of a new EC in 2016, this stood at around $860,000 versus $439,000 for a resale HDB flat, a difference of around $421,000. Fast forward to 2025, the average price of a new EC is $1.7 million compared to $652,000 for a resale HDB flat, a difference of more than $1 million. When the EC housing scheme was introduced in 1996, then-MND Minister Mr Lim Hng Kiang stated that the sharp increases in private property prices in the last few years had again created a sandwiched class of young people who are beyond HDB's income ceiling, but who cannot afford private property. Firstly, I do not know of many young people who can afford an EC, especially when the average price stands at a whopping $1.7 million and the statistics show for it. From 2021 to 2025, only four in 10 EC purchases were first-timers.”
“I am grateful for the vendor, which is a replacement vendor after the initial vendor pulled out, for the commitment to the project despite the various challenges faced, chief of which is uncertainty around demand and the high fixed and overhead cost incurred. Rather than the ad hoc projects being introduced in Punngol, Sengkang or any other town, I hope the HDB can consider a large-scale tender of multiple sites across HDB towns to ensure that affordable and accessible meals are available to all residents across Singapore, especially those which currently do not have a food court or an eating house within 400 metres from their homes. This would then provide for sufficient economies of scale for would-be operators, allowing them to have greater business sustainability and visibility. Moreover, any incremental rental revenue derived by HDB should not be a primary consideration, given that the physical footprint of a vending machine is small and the vacant void deck space would not have been revenue-generating in the first place. Hence, there is no issue of opportunity cost for HDB. I urge the MMD to consider extending similar initiatives island-wide, similar to how it has piloted the Pick Locker Network island wide across HDB void decks for the convenience of all residents. Affordable food access should not depend on which district one lives in. Relooking the Executive Condominium Model Chairman, the price of ECs in Singapore has skyrocketed in the past 10 years. ECs are touted as a more affordable option for young couples who desire to purchase a private condo but not have the means to do so. Understandably, the price per square foot for an EC will be higher than a resale HDB flat.”
“Chairman, at the COS debates back in 2023 and the debate on the HDB (Amendment) Bill in the same year, I raised my concerns about the uneven distribution of hawker centres and coffee shops across Singapore. Fast forward to 2026, Sengkang finally had its own hawker centres, with Buangkok opening in 2023 and Anchorvale Village in 2024. With the completion of Rivervale Shores, the entire Rivervale division with 18,000 or so households finally had more than one coffee shop. The MND shared in an earlier COS response that most residents can access commercial facilities with a food court or an eating house within 400 metres from their homes or an approximately five to 10 minutes' walk. The question then is, what is the percentage of residents that have to travel more than 400 metres to access a food court or an eating house? While I appreciate that new BTO projects do contain retail and F&B options, there remains spanning neighbourhoods within and outside that do not. A case in point is the value meals at Southwest Project that was launched in March 2025 which aimed to place 80 vending machines in heartland locations for residents to purchase. Subsequently, such vending machines were also installed in Punggol and to quote Deputy Prime Minister Gan, he hoped to deploy more such vending machines across Punggol for the convenience of our residents. In Sengkang, after the projected period of working with the HDB and external vendors, we finally have hot-food vending machines, cafes, across three locations: at 108 Rivervale Walk, 188C Rivervale Drive and 288B Compassvale Crescent.”
“Rather than subsidise high net worth individuals who, like low-income households, all receive the same CDC vouchers, the subsidy will be better directed to those who need it the most. With this, the responsibility of ensuring the affordability of well-balanced and nutritional meals will be shared in a much more equitable fashion across stakeholders, a point which I have shared in a Parliamentary Question in 2025. By enhancing governmental support to ensure affordable meals, while securing the livelihoods of our hawkers, younger players could come in and rejuvenate the hawker scene, while sparking the trend of a rising number of veteran hawkers calling it quits and retire. MSE as Aggregator for Pest Control”
“Chairman, earlier this year, the Government announced that participation in the budget meal programme by HDB coffee shops would no longer be mandatory, citing feedback from patrons and hawkers. I believe this is a step in the right direction, amidst rising operational costs and long working hours, providing budget meals, eat away at the already thin profit margins of our hawkers, who often have to compromise budget meals' nutritional value to compensate for their diminished profit margins. Nonetheless, stallholders in SEHCs continue to offer such value meals as centre operators are required to ensure the availability of affordable meal options. It was also revealed last year that stallholders at Bukit Canberra were contractually bound to provide free meals for low-income residents at their expense, although this was subsequently scrapped. Further, the discounts offered to Pioneer Generation (PG), Merdeka Generation and certain the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders are absorbed by the hawkers themselves. Although many Singaporeans feel the pinch of rising hawker food prices, it is unfair for our hawkers to shoulder the direct responsibility for providing affordable meals. As I have shared in my speech on the Hawker Motion in 2024, the Government could provide discounts for lower-income Singaporeans based on their CHAS card type. As it is, cardholders who present their CHAS card at the participating eatery would be able to receive a discount on their food, the quantum of which corresponds to the colour of their CHAS card, whether it is blue, orange or green. Importantly, the cost of this discount should not be imposed on the hawkers, but on the Government instead.”
“This has been done before, such as through the Singtel Special Discounted Shares Scheme in 1993. MAS has taken the lead with the EQDP on the demand side and similarly, I hope Temasek holdings and various other entities can lead by example on the supply side as well. Insurance for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs)”
“Under the Currency Act, businesses have the flexibility to determine their accepted payment modes, which must be indicated to customers via a written notice. Therefore, I hope that the Government would mandate physical merchants to accept cash in payments, in line with other economies such as China and Norway, or at least start with a pilot in existing residential neighbourhoods. In particular, despite the ubiquity of digital payment options such as WeChat and AliPay in China, arguably the most advanced country in cashless payments globally, the Chinese authorities have in fact strengthened regulations recently, such as ensuring that entities that receive payments in person or provide face-to-face services must support cash payments. Sustainability of Equity Market Development Programme In my Adjournment Motion speech earlier this year, I shared that the $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP) funding is an important means to encourage more third-party investments into the Singapore equities market, and I hoped it will not be a one-off measure. While the S$1.5 billion top-up in Budget 2026 is welcome, ensuring long-term sustainability is key. In his Budget Statement, Prime Minister Wong stated that the reason for the top-up is to build on the momentum of the EQDP launch. Can the Government affirm its commitment to regular, sustained EQDP funding and if so, what are the conditions for determining the amount and timing of funding allocated? Further, as I have shared last year, while MAS has taken the lead on the demand side, on the supply side, I urge the Government, via its investment entities to similarly take the lead for its companies to list on the Singapore Exchange.”
“MAS, HDB and banks should collaborate to actively identify underserved communities in existing and future HDB towns and ensure that there are banking facilities within easy reach through regulatory changes, if necessary, rather than simply having it dictated by the free market and banks’ interests. Mandating Acceptance of Cash Chairman, cash may no longer be king. From 2018 to 2024, the total value of Fast and Secure Transfers (FAST) payments has increased by 511% to $662 billion while the total value of credit and debit card payments have increased by 52% to $149 billion. However, as I shared earlier, the value of ATM withdrawals have not declined as much as expected. Despite the proliferation of PayNow, PayWave and various forms of stored value payment options, this suggests that cash continues to be an important medium of exchange to consumers. Unfortunately, there has been an increase in the number of merchants, ranging from cafes to sporting goods stores that have stopped accepting cash payments. While digital payments may be convenient for digitally savvy consumers and businesses, it disadvantages those who experience barriers when going cashless. Some communities, such as seniors and persons with disabilities may find it challenging to adopt technologies such as digital payments as part of their daily lives. Furthermore, some children can only use cash as parents may deem children too young to own a bank card or smartphone. Some adults may also prefer cash to safeguard themselves against scams. For businesses, offering cash as a payment option does help to strengthen business resiliency should a disruption to digital payment services occur as well.”
“Many residents have frequently shared feedback with me on the lack of ATMs in the vicinity despite the availability of digital payments for the food and beverage, and shops located. I had sought the help of Sengkang Town Council and the HDB in the past years to seek the support of all three local banks in installing an ATM, but to no avail. The reality is that the provision of ATMs is determined by the business decisions of the banks and their appointed service providers. It is only earlier this year that, with the kind reconsideration of the management team of DBS, that they have responded favourably, sharing that, “We recognise the importance of convenient banking access for Sengkang residents”. I am very grateful to the management team of FairPrice for exploring an ATM solution with DBS, and in particular, the bank of course, for responding to our appeal on behalf of our residents, and also to the HDB commercial team for according this project due consideration and support. Returning to Deputy Prime Minister Gan’s reply to my Parliamentary Question, he said and I quote, “MAS will continue to work with banks to ensure there is enough ATMs and bank branches for the convenience of customers and also encourage customers to use digital banking services as an alternative.” From a commercial point of view, I believe some of the factors considered by banks when locating their ATMs and bank branches include footfall, transaction volume, proximity to public transport nodes etcetera. However, there might be certain locations that may not fully meet these criteria and yet, have a sizeable population of residents that require such facilities. Therefore, I believe that we ought to go further.”
“Thank you, Chairman. First, for my cuts allow me to declare that I am an employee of a financial institution in Singapore. First, in response to a Parliamentary Question I filed earlier this year, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong noted that over the past 10 years, banks in Singapore have been rationalising their off-premise automated teller machines (ATMs) and bank branches at an average rate of 2% annually due to the rise in digital payments. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Chairman, I agree that there is a clear rise in digital payments. However, even as ATM withdrawals fell by 13.6% from 2018 to 2024, dropping to $55 billion, the decline was modest. There continues to be 158 million ATM withdrawals in 2024, despite the proliferation of digital payments today. This suggests very strongly that demand for cash and ATM services continue to be resilient and important to Singaporeans. Yet drawing from my experience in Rivervale Sengkang, an estate with over 18,000 households, ATMs are only found in two locations: Rivervale Mall and Plaza. This has been a challenge for existing residents for many years now and especially for particular communities such as seniors and persons with disabilities. The concern is even more salient in the relatively new BTO cluster at Rivervale Shores, where there is a meaningful proportion of two-room flexi-flats, which typically house elderly residents. We have close to 1,100 two-room flexi-flats out of a total of 2,500 units for this BTO project, the largest HDB BTO project in Singapore to date. Even as there are existing commercial facilities in the project, including supermarkets and shops, the nearest ATMs at Plaza is thus more than a 20-minute walk away, likely much more for the elderly and less mobile.”
“And last but not least, in terms of the TFR, on this front, again, to maybe borrow a phrase from the Ministry for Sustainability and the Environment, are we willing to have ambitious and realistic targets with regards to the TFR, even if for the medium to longer term to guide our policy interventions?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have three clarifications for the Prime Minister. I think the first is on the point he mentioned about the one-off, Sir, that I mentioned in my speech. To me, the question is really, as I have shared in my speech, in light of our surpluses, are we then better off to put in place the structural levers and interventions, rather than having to decide on these on a one-off basis year after year? So, I gave the example of personal income taxes. Are we better off having that updating of the bracket rather than have varying personal income tax rebates year after year? Similarly, on the corporate front, are we better off with revising, maybe some of our Partial Tax Exemption and Startup Tax Exemption schemes, which were last changed in 2018? And I also gave the example of how for the Global Trader Programme, that was extended up till 2031. So, that is the first. The second is in relation to the Occasional Paper that MOF has put out. Just wondering if the Prime Minister has given the MOF team perhaps a timeline as to when recommendations may be put forth to address some of the issues that were brought up, specifically when it comes to the taxing of wealth. I think it has always been mentioned that it is mainly via our system of property taxes. And the report has showed wealth, especially for the top 20%, to the extent that it is under reported. I would say that probably the share of non-property assets is likely to be larger than what we have found. So, in the context, wealth taxes beyond just property taxes.”
“Thirdly, addressing wealth inequality has become urgent, as emphasised by the MOF’s recent Occasional Paper on this challenge. We need to adopt bold measures, such as re-introducing NAV tax, reconsidering estate tax and exploring innovative wealth tax models like those in Switzerland. We cannot allow the middle class, who are "rooted here and cannot flee" to bear a disproportionate burden due to fears that "the ultra-wealthy might withdraw their capital and leave", making them casualties of the wealth divide. Finally, we must address the challenge of extremely low fertility rates with the same urgency as we approach economic challenges like artificial intelligence. Drawing from international experience, we must formulate comprehensive and structural solutions that give Singaporeans the confidence and capability to start families. The Government may argue that these measures are too risky or that we must maintain a conservative approach. But I ask: what constitutes the greater risk? Is it collecting a few percentage points less in taxes from our record-breaking surplus or allowing the nation's demographic foundation to wither whilst wealth concentrates in the hands of a select few, leaving middle-class Singaporeans to foot the bill? Let us build a more equitable, resilient and sustainable social contract.”
“Moreover, single mothers are not eligible for the WMCR, and even if we cannot raise their children on their behalf, the least we can do is to ensure that our tax policies do not discriminate against them. The bottom line is that structural issues to our low TFR such as work life balance, societal expectations and the high cost of raising children must be comprehensively addressed. We must learn from international experiences and our own experiences to further tailor our policies to our unique context, ensuring that we create an environment where Singaporeans truly feel supported and confident in starting and raising families. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, my speech today focuses on four areas requiring urgent attention in the 2026 Budget. Firstly, the persistent problem of fiscal marksmanship. The Government's continuous over-collection of taxes compels us to question the necessity of raising tax rates and their impact on Singaporeans. The projected surplus for 2025 stands at $15.1 billion, more than double the initial estimate of $6.8 billion. This pattern of "annual over-collection" has become the norm rather than an exception. Looking back at 2022, the Government predicted that the comprehensive GST increase would generate approximately $3.5 billion in additional revenue annually. The estimated total GST revenue then was $12.8 billion, whilst this year, this figure is projected to soar to $22.3 billion, an increase of nearly $10 billion. Secondly, we must prioritise structural tax reforms rather than relying year after year on one-off measures. This includes adjusting personal income tax brackets according to inflation and updating various tax reliefs.”
“However, given that parenthood is a massive undertaking that lasts decades, I believe that more can be done across the spectrum. As of the 2020 census, 53% of married couples were dual income. While not all dual income couples have children, those who have often need to balance their parenting and work duties. Hence, I have previously suggested that the Government implement the statutory right to request for flexible work arrangements as well as increase statutory childcare leave. Moreover, the caregiving burden is often unequally shared as the odds are usually stacked against the mother's favour. Recent Nobel Prize winning economist Claudia Golden observed that this motherhood penalty usually arises from mothers halting their careers right after childbirth and as their child gets older, they would turn to jobs that offer greater flexibility, but lesser pay. Hence, our policy should aim to recalibrate this imbalance, such as via tax incentives. Even if the Government does not wish to take the Hungarian approach, the least we can do is not make mothers pay more taxes. And I have shared on many occasions in this House, I hope the Government would revert back to the previous iteration of the Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR), which is applicable only to mothers with children born before 2024. While there could be a small group of lower-income working mothers who would benefit from this change, the majority of would be working mothers will be worse off with the change in methodology. For lower-income working mothers, a tax rebate can be given, and even if the tax rebates granted exceeds the tax payable, tax credits can be paid out in cash to ensure the reliefs are not lost.”
“Mr Speaker, there is no denying that the vibrant fabric of Singaporean society is largely woven by immigrants, and this is something we must cherish and continue to uphold. However, I also believe that the Government must do more to nurture fertile environment for parents to grow their families. Instead of taking the path of least resistance, we must be bold and innovative in our approach to raising our TFR. I wish to draw attention to Hungary's aggressive pro-nationalist policies, which offer a case study in comprehensive, albeit sometimes controversial interventions, where its TFR rose meaningfully from around 1.2 in 2011 to 1.6 in 2020. While some may point out that Hungary's TFR declined to 1.39 in 2024, arguably macro economic factors may also have a significant role to play. The point here is this, that Hungary is fully exempting mothers with three children from paying personal income tax regardless of age and starting this year, even mothers under 30 with at least one child will be fully exempt. Are we willing to be this bold in our approach and exempt mothers from personal income taxes? For sure, money is not the be all and end all when it comes to having children, but according to a 2024 Nanyang Technological University survey of 230 young Singaporeans, financial considerations were raised by 70% of respondents as a reason why they do not wish to have children. This reason was also mentioned by the majority of married respondents to 2021's Marriage and Parenthood Survey as the biggest hurdle that prevents them from having children. As part of this year's Budget package, the household income ceiling for childcare subsidies was increased from $12,000 to $15,000, while families with children below 12 years old will receive $500 in LifeSG Credits.”
“This approach could be explored to ensure that those who benefit most from Singapore's security and conducive environment contribute their fair share even if their declared income or assets are difficult to fully ascertain. Some may argue against wealth taxes, citing fears of capital flights. However, Singapore's unique value proposition, similar to Switzerland, remains a powerful draw for global talent and capital. Many wealthy individuals would still prefer to reside and operate here, especially in the context of what Prime Minister Wong said about the weakening of the multilateral system, where countries everywhere have less confidence that common rules will protect their interests. Finally, let me touch on the second major issue which I believe is missing from the strategic focus of Budget 2026 – that is our record low TFR. If we can establish an AI Council to provide strategic direction and to drive Singapore's AI agenda, where is the equivalent council or dedicated high level focus to act with clarity and resolve on our existential demographic challenge? Our TFR fell below 1.0 in 2023 and remained there in 2024, a trajectory that poses a profound threat to our long-term sustainability. The truth we must confront is whether the Government is genuinely committed to structural solutions for our fertility crisis, or whether it is increasingly leaning on immigration as an easier way out. At the recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Singapore Perspectives 2026 conference, Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow described our TFR of 0.97 as abysmal, but simultaneously argued that we need to do more integration so that we can do more immigration.”
“Consider the recent changes to the Preferential Additional Registration Fee (PARF) rebates in Budget 2026, which saw a 45-percentage point cut and a cap reduction. I had welcomed the Government's move in 2023 to further adjust the Additional Registration Fee (ARF) and cap the PARF rebates at $60,000. This time round however, while ostensibly aimed at luxury cars, the impact of the PARF changes is felt across the spectrum. A BMW 5-series, listed for around $370,000 will see its PARF rebate slashed from around $40,000 to $4,000. But even an entry level Suzuki Swift, which is one of the cheapest cars in Singapore at a so-called mere $152,000, we will see its PARF rebate slash from $6,600 to $660, resulting in an increase to its annual depreciation to about $15,000. This demonstrates how policies intended to target the affluent can also impact the middle-income segment while the truly wealthy, like those who rent high-end properties, remain largely unaffected. We must ensure our tax policies are truly progressive and do not inadvertently burden the middle class. We should therefore also study wealth tax issues in other nations, such as Norway and Switzerland, where they are present. The Government might point to Norway as a cautionary tale, claiming that the increase in the rate of wealth taxes had resulted in an exodus of wealth. Ironically, many of the wealthy turn to Switzerland, which has a wealth tax, instead of other jurisdictions without the wealth tax. The Swiss model which, with its "forfait fiscal" or lump sum taxation based on lifestyle expenditure or multiple of living expenses, offers an interesting alternative to traditional wealth taxes based solely on asset valuation.”
“I reiterate my proposal from my Budget 2023 for a Net Annual Value (NAV) tax on properties to be reinstated, particularly targeting high-end properties such as Good Class Bungalows or those who own secondary residences. Property is already a preferred means by the Government to tax wealth, such as via progressive property taxes and stamp duties. Bringing back the NAV tax would serve as an effective complement to our system of taxing wealth, ensuring that those who benefit most from our economic growth contribute proportionally to our collective well-being. Furthermore, we must seriously consider bringing back estate duty, which was abolished in 2008. As with the estate duty pre-2008, exemption thresholds can be set such that only those who are truly wealthy will be affected. For example, the exemption threshold for dwelling houses was set at S$9 million from 1996 to 2008 and an updated threshold adjusted for inflation can be determined as with other asset classes. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) 2021 report titled "Inheritance Taxation in OECD Countries", states that, and I quote, "an inheritance tax, particularly one that targets relatively high levels of wealth transfers, can be an important tool to enhance equality of opportunity and reduce wealth concentration. The case for inheritance taxes might be strongest where the effective taxation of personal capital income and wealth tends to be low". As we all know, there is no capital gains nor dividend taxes in Singapore. The challenge with taxing wealth via property tax, stamp duty and motor vehicle-related taxes is that the middle-income and upper-middle-income groups end up suffering too.”
“We should embed the same level, if not higher level of stability into our personal and corporate income tax regime, moving away from discretionary rebates towards a more transparent and consistent framework that truly supports our Singaporean base. Next, let me touch on two issues, which I believe were missing from the strategic focus of Budget 2026. The first of which is the issue of wealth inequality. As I have shared in my Budget speech last year, I believe the deepest divisions in our society today are not based on race, language or religion, but based on socio-economic status which is closely tied to wealth inequality. If we do not take a concerted effort to address this issue head on, as we have done with race and religion, these divisions will only deepen. I was initially hopeful, when the recently released the Ministry of Finance's (MOF's) Occasional Paper on "Income Growth, Inequality and Social Mobility Trends in Singapore" was published on 9 February, ahead of Prime Minister Wong's Budget Statement. This paper provided the first-ever public release of Singapore's wealth data, which revealed that Singapore's wealth inequality, with a Gini coefficient of 0.55, exceeds that of income inequality. Unsurprisingly, to the extent that wealth at the top of the distribution is under-reported, measured wealth inequality is likely to be underestimated. While the paper notes broad-based improvements in income mobility, it is also highlighting a "gradual moderation" in social mobility as our economy matures. This data underscores the urgency of implementing robust measures to address wealth disparities.”
“The Earned Income Relief is another example of a structural feature that is long overdue for adjustment. The relief for workers under 55 years old has remained at S$1,000 for many, many years. And worse still, the personal income tax rebates from the last two years were discontinued in Budget 2026. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong spoke at length about AI in his Budget speech, where AI is recognised as a critical driver of economic transformation. It is incongruous that personal expenditure on AI-related tools and education does not receive the same tax relief consideration as corporate AI investments. If we are serious about fostering a future-ready workforce, we must incentivise individual upskilling and adoption of new technologies through our tax policies. As I shared last year, it would be wise for us to introduce a broad-based "Skills Investment Relief", allowing individuals to claim a capped deduction for out-of-pocket training expenses. This would be an expansion of the existing Course Fees Relief, which only provides relief for specific approved academic, professional or vocational qualification. Similarly, for businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs), the current system of fluctuating corporate income tax rebates, varying from 20% to 50% over the last decade, lacks the certainty and predictability needed for a long-term planning. To underscore my point, the corporate income tax rebate for Budget 2026 was reduced to 40%, compared to 50% for 2024 and 2025. Ironically, in the face of the Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0, the concessionary corporate income tax rates for approved global trading companies of as low as 5% on income from qualifying transactions in qualifying commodities, was extended from 2016 to 2031.”
“It begs the question of whether the urgency behind tax increases, such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike, was truly justified when the state consistently finds itself with more resources than initially projected. And also, based on my checks, when announced in 2022, the GST hike was projected to bring about $3.5 billion annually when the full hike is in place by 2024. GST revenue was initially estimated at $12.8 billion in Budget 2022. This year, GST revenue is estimated at $22.3 billion, an almost $10 billion increase. And let us also not forget that Singapore's way of accounting differs from international norms, such as that of the International Monetary Fund. The most notable of which is the exclusion of land sale proceeds, amounting to $21 billion in 2025 and estimated at $21 billion in 2026. Including these receipts would reveal a much larger fiscal surplus, reinforcing the argument that the Government is extracting more resources from the economy than is necessary at the time. In the face of these record surpluses, the Government's primary response remains a reliance on one-off handouts and ad hoc vouchers. As I have argued previously, we need better structural levers that automatically adjust to reflect the economic realities Singaporeans face, instead of uncertain one-off handouts that may or may not be renewed each year. Let me briefly recap the measures that I have proposed in my Finance Bill speech from November 2025. The personal income tax brackets in Singapore have not been updated for over 24 years. Since 2001, nominal wages and the cost of living have risen significantly, leading to "bracket creep," where taxpayers are pushed into higher marginal tax brackets, even if their real purchasing power has stagnated.”
“Mr Speaker, as I was preparing my speech for the Budget debates for this year, I cannot help but feel a sense of déjà vu as I revisited the speech I made last year. Our national coffers are fuller than ever, yet the structural burdens on the average Singaporean household remain stubbornly heavy. There are many recurring themes and issues that continue to be not just relevant but also increasingly pressing for Singapore and Singaporeans, and I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance can seriously consider my suggestions for the current term. Mr Speaker, the recent revelation regarding our fiscal position for FY2025 warrants serious scrutiny. The projected surplus of $15 billion, more than double the earlier estimate of $7 billion, is a stark reminder of a recurring pattern. This is not an isolated incident and as I highlighted in my Budget 2025 speech, higher-than-expected surpluses have been a consistent feature of our public finances since at least 2021, often following initial estimates of deficits. This persistent issue of fiscal marksmanship raises fundamental questions. Is the Government consistently taking more from the economy than it truly needs? And what are the implications of this for our private sector? When a government persistently runs a budget surplus, it is effectively withdrawing liquidity from the economy and reducing the net savings of households and businesses. Persistent government surpluses are, by definition, private sector deficits. While the Government may argue that these surpluses are necessary for long-term planning and unforeseen contingencies, the sheer magnitude and regularity of these upward revisions suggest a systemic issue.”
“In 2022, after years of investigation into Noble's disclosures, MAS imposed a $12.6 million civil penalty. Although the case was undoubtedly complicated, one cannot help but feel that the penalties handed out were noticeably disproportionate to the billions that investors lost alongside the company's downfall. Section 199 of the Securities and Futures Act requires not merely that a material statement or information was false or misleading, but that the wrongdoer either does not care whether it was true or false or knows or ought reasonably to have known that the statement of information is false or misleading in a material way. Firstly, this is a high bar; and secondly, perhaps as the Noble Group case has shown and as I have shared in my Parliamentary Question in 2022, there perhaps ought to be more robust disclosure obligations and enforcement actions relating to false and misleading statements, and breaches of disclosure requirements. Allow me now to pass the time to my colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, who will take us through his thoughts on a third pillar premised on macro-financial reform.”
“Regulators should not micromanage, but regulators have to maintain standards that protect investors' confidence, ensure fair and timely disclosure and enforce meaningfully against wrongdoers. To quote remarks by Mr Lim Tuang Lee, Assistant Managing Director at the MAS at the SSGI Forum in 2025, "too many companies here limit themselves to the bare minimum disclosure requirements and in doing so, miss the opportunity to articulate strategic visions and plans." My concern is that even when minimum requirements exist, companies ignore them. SGX rules require disclosure of directors and chief executive officers' remuneration since January 2023. Yet, only 68% of companies disclose exact remuneration by December 2024. Without consequences for non-compliance, why would companies comply? And it is hard to blame companies for refusing to comply on this. After all, the stewards of our national reserves, Temasek Holdings and GIC do not have mandatory remuneration disclosures at all. I welcome the MAS announcement in May 2025 that a committee is reviewing the Code of Corporate Governance. I hope that refreshed code can hold companies accountable for disclosure lapses to instil investor confidence in our governance regime. On a related note, the review group advocates for a decisive shift towards a disclosure-based regime, streamlining prospectus requirements and consolidating listing reviews under SGX RegCo to improve time to market. While reducing regulatory fiction is pro-enterprise, it raises concerns about investor protection. I am reminded of my own experience being a sell-side analyst covering Noble Group, back when Iceberg Research wrote an exposé on alleged accounting fraud at the commodities trader.”