Gho Sze Kee
Singapore
“Sir, Mr Speaker, I note that the premises at the Goodman Arts Centre are ultimately Government-owned and leased to the Arts House Group, a non-profit under the NAC, which also operates other arts places such as the Aliwal Art Centre and the Stamford Art Centre.”
“I have one supplementary question. In the United Kingdom, the Bankers Automated Clearing Services operates widely used direct debit scheme that includes advance notice of payment amounts, a direct debit guarantee, allowing for immediate refunds in case of error and strong consumer recourse mechanisms.”
“The Government is the stakeholder best sourced to identify future trends, it can anticipate emerging disruptions and map out skills and capabilities that will be needed. It can be seen that the broader patterns, the cross-sector shifts, the systemic risks and opportunities, and the Government can translate them into action.”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. I ask this question because I had many residents who came to see me about the PPHS and they were unsuccessful despite multiple attempts. I understand that the supply of these flats are from vacant Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Schemes (SERS) units. Are there other SERS flats available for the PPHS?”
“Mr Speaker, I noted the Senior Minister of State's answer to my earlier Question No 3. I just wanted to be clear. If there is a compression of available places for non-affiliated students because Direct School Admission (DSA) for non-affiliated students do eat into the minimum quota of 20%, as we have just learnt, is this a contributing f…”
“Mr Speaker, I think it would be very helpful if schools were to publish the number of DSA offers made this year and the number of affiliated students admitted in the previous year, and also, the incoming cohort size.”
The complete record
Every one of 73 lines we hold for Gho Sze Kee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“Even as we embrace frontier technologies and continue our investments in infrastructure, we must remember that others may embrace the same technologies and build the same world-class infrastructure. They can also hire the world class expertise that they cannot develop themselves. But it is the intangibles that we have built that are much harder for others to replicate and follow – the brand name reputation that comes with trusted institutions, a strong Government with good leadership, strong industrial relations, all tied into an ecosystem in which the whole is worth far more than the sum of its parts. These are Singapore's enduring advantages. They are also our enduring responsibilities. We must remember that these intangibles were earned over decades and can erode away quickly. Once lost, they are very difficult to rebuild. Technology will keep changing. Supply chains will too. Even the international order is changing before our eyes. But for Singapore, certain fundamentals must never change. We must remain trusted. We must remain exceptional. Because for Singapore, these are the very conditions for our survival. So, when we ask how do we reinforce Singapore's position as a maritime hub, the real question is not whether to keep investing in future technology like AI or next generation infrastructure. Of course we must. The real question is whether we continue tending to the intangible qualities that underpin our system and make us exceptional. That, Sir, will determine if we can continue to earn our place in the world. I support this Motion.”
“As many players have observed, recent global disruptions have initiated a border shift in supply chains. From focusing on the cheapest and fastest towards the safest and most trusted. In other words, the winds have been blowing towards us. This is an affirmation of the system we have built. We are well positioned to take advantage of that. But the challenge is always to stay ahead. To do this, we must be clear-eyed about what we face. In the sequel to the classic children's novel, Alice in Wonderland, there is a well-known scene where the Red Queen tells Alice that in her country, you must run as fast as you can just to stay where you are. Sir, Singapore is that country. The world around us is not standing still. For us, to stand still is to fall behind. Complacency is fatal. We can never rest on our laurels. Consider a few examples. Right next door, within sight of our new Tuas Port, the Port of Tanjung Pelapas, backed by global giant APM terminals, is currently expanding. And not far away in North Sumatra, Kuala Tanjung is being developed into Indonesia's largest transhipment port and it is backed by DP World, PSA's peer competitor in Dubai. They are not out to complement us, but to compete with us. World-class expertise has quietly arrived at our doorstep. Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong once said that Singapore must always be exceptional just to survive, and I agree. Larger countries can afford to get some things wrong. They have the natural resources and domestic markets to do so. Singapore cannot. For us, the margin for error is exactly zero. But our answer to this challenge is implicit in the earlier part of my speech. Our playbook is never a secret.”
“When trade disputes arise, and take it from a lawyer, they always do, Singapore is a globally recognised hub for maritime law and dispute resolution. We are actually the world's second most preferred arbitration seat globally, second only to London, and number one in Asia. Protection and Indemnity (P&I) clubs, financiers, classification societies and fleet managers all cluster here because our legal and financial system is transparent and trusted. As you can see, we are no longer just a port where ships call. But we have evolved into a place where shipping decisions are made, logistics are arranged, risks are managed, disputes are resolved, contracts concluded and capital deployed. This is what distinguishes us as a real maritime hub from just another successful port. Our integrated maritime ecosystem attracts global players. But what keeps and anchors them here is the trust in the Singapore system. Strip all the physical infrastructure, and trust is what ultimately underpins Singapore's position as a global maritime hub. That trust did not appear overnight. It has been earned over decades through a capable and far-sighted Government, our independent judiciary and the quality and integrity of our public administration, and of course, our unique tripartite partnership between Government, employers and unions that has kept Singapore free from the industrial disruptions seen elsewhere. We may take these things for granted, but they are all factors that global supply chain managers take into account when deciding where to anchor their operations and route their cargo. Taken together, the message to any global operator is simple. Singapore is stable and trustworthy, and you can trust Singapore to deliver.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interests as a maritime lawyer. I am also adviser to the Singapore Maritime Officers Union, the Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Employees Union, and the Singapore Organisation of Seamen. This Motion is about reinforcing our position as a global transport hub and my parliamentary colleagues have spoken well. But as we discuss ideas and innovations, I think it is worthwhile to ask some fundamental questions: what is a true maritime hub? What makes us a hub in the first place? What ultimately underpins our position? Singapore is now the busiest transshipment port in the world, and the second busiest container port. We top the world too, on vessel arrival tonnage. These are impressive statistics and they do matter. But they are not what truly distinguishes us. Sir, our port does not stand alone. It sits at the centre of a deep ecosystem of ancillary and allied maritime industries that draws in and supports one another. The depth of this ecosystem is what makes our position as a global maritime hub so resilient, unique and difficult to displace. It includes services that are critical to shipping interests but are not always visible to the public, such as bunkering, repair, fleet management, crewing, handling, classification societies, surveyors, insurance brokers and so on. Over time, we have grown into major hubs for many of these parallel industries as well. We are the world's largest bunkering hub, accounting for about 40% of global bunker sales. That is reinforced by our position as a major oil trading, storage and refining hub. Our ship registry is the fourth largest in the world by tonnage. We are also a leading ship crewing and marine and trade insurance hub, driven by our excellent global connectivity and banking sector.”
“I would also like to offer a tip for those who decide to do so. For those who have not met the Basic Retirement Sum, please check your eligibility for the Matched Savings Retirement Scheme (MRSS). Under MRSS, every dollar voluntarily topped up to $2,000 a year, will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the Government. So, for shareholders who do not urgently need to utilise all the proceeds immediately, this scheme can significantly stretch the long-term value of the SDS proceeds. With an average shareholding of about $6,800, eligible seniors who make gradual MRSS top-ups over several years could potentially see these savings effectively doubled through Government matching. This could translate to close to $13,600 in retirement savings over time. Now that I have highlighted this possible option, this tip, I would encourage the CPF Board to also help communicate this clearly to eligible members so that they can make informed decision based on their financial circumstances and priorities. Actually, we can go one step further. Can the Government consider automatic MRSS matching for eligible shareholders who voluntarily choose to sweep part of their proceeds into their CPF retirement savings. This would reduce administrative hassles and help strengthen retirement adequacy for lower balanced members. Let us do better for our most vulnerable seniors. Sir, I have recorded my suggestions and reservations. But notwithstanding, I support the Bill.”
“They are already eligible to withdraw a portion of CPF savings at age 55. For those who met their retirement funds, these proceeds are merely an additional bonus. Even if this bonus ends up back into their CPF, they would still have been able to take this additional sum in cash anyway. I understand all these, but I have reservations for the shareholders who have not even met their basic retirement fund. This is really about them. The media reported about 20,000 members with low CPF balances and no CDP accounts. For them, these shares are not simply a "bonus". They may form an important part of their retirement adequacy. By allowing this cash-out waiver, we must ask ourselves: are we unintentionally encouraging those who can least afford it to drawdown on retirement savings too early, especially as the Basic Retirement Sum raises to $110,200 this year. Would it not be safer for sale proceeds to return to CPF by default as has always been the practice. This would continue protecting retirement adequacy for members who have already met their retirement needs could still choose to withdraw their monies in cash. Sir, I fully appreciate that for some seniors, these proceeds may help with immediate daily expenses and household needs. Different households will have different realities and priorities. I also appreciate that some members may prefer to retain flexibility through their Ordinary Account, particularly for housing, healthcare, education or other long-term financial needs. These are entirely understandable consideration. But I strongly encourage those members who have not yet met their Basic Retirement Sum, if their circumstances allow, to consider transferring part or all of their proceeds back into their CPF.”
“This is a significant departure from how we have always approached the CPF, a system built on the tight discipline to ensure long-term retirement adequacy. For years, the fundamental covenant of the CPF system has been clear. Funds utilised from CPF must be returned to the CPF. By allowing a direct cash-out today, we are departing from this long-standing principle. We have upheld CPF principles for decades for good reasons. Are there sufficient reasons to depart from them now? The reason given that the scheme has met its original intent does not fully answer the question. We must remember these Singtel shares are originally purchased using CPF monies. The default expectation has always been clear. Proceeds will be returned to CPF accounts upon sale. That was the understanding from the outset. Nor can we rely on the reasoning of simplifying "direct ownership" under the CDP because even under the transfer plan, specially designated CDP accounts for those who do not already have one. These accounts are under the shareholders' names but restricted in function to only handle transactions and profits from SDS shares and proceeds from those special CDP accounts are automatically channelled back to CPF by default. So, clearly, a path to return funds from CDP to the CPF directly already exists. Sir, I must make clear here. This is not about trying to meddle in what people do with their own money. It is about protecting the rules of the system that has served us well. By opening this door, will there be further calls for waivers and exceptions under other circumstances for cash-out? This is also about protecting our most financially vulnerable senior citizens. I understand that SDS shareholders and now in their 50s and above.”
“Mr Speaker, the People's Action Party (PAP) Government has consistently shared the fruits of our nation's success with our own people. The Singtel SDS scheme, which we are wrapping up today, is one such example. There were others over the years in different forms, such as the New Singapore Shares, the Progress Package and Growth Dividends. These are not simple handouts. They are expressions of a social compact. More than a social distribution, they represent the sharing of the nation's success with our citizens, reminders that we all have a stake in the Singapore story. But our fiscal landscape is changing. We face structural shifts in our society that are both inevitable and expensive: an ageing population, rising healthcare and social spending, massive investments required for climate resilience. This increases structural pressures mean we cannot rely on Budget surpluses to fund this kind of generous redistribution we saw in previous years. Yet, we must recognise this. Each generation, having contributed to this nation in turn, also deserves to partake in the fruits of their labour. I was actually asked this question: what are the Singtel SDS shares of our generation? I leave this as a philosophical question for the House to ponder. Sir, I am convinced that the CPF Board is well prepared for this transfer exercise. On the operational aspects, I believe we are in good hands. Instead of the how, I would like to touch on the why. The amendment before us facilitates the transfer of SDS from the CPF Board to the CDP. There are no issues there. But crucially, for this transfer exercise, CPF withdrawal conditions will be waived and shareholders have the option of withdrawing proceeds in cash.”
“We must teach them grit. If we can align a well-calibrated system with a workforce that is resilient, agile and continuously learning, then we will be in a very strong position to meet the challenges ahead.”
“To that end, I would like to make a suggestion. While some people have not used their SkillsFuture credits at all, others have deeply embraced lifelong learning. Many of them are PMETs, a group significantly impacted by disruption. They take specialised courses, stack micro credentials and pursue professional qualifications. These pathways are more costly, but they are also more impactful. The $4,000 mid-career top-up provides a meaningful baseline, but for these individuals, it may not be enough. We should review our approach to SkillsFuture credit caps. Instead of a one-size fits-all approach, we should consider providing greater support to those who demonstrate a commitment to continuous upgrading. By doing so, we encourage deeper, more purposeful learning and better support workers who take charge of their career health, and strive to remain relevant and competitive. To me, those who are willing to put in more effort to better themselves deserves more support. We should give it to them. Lastly, Sir, I end with an observation. The most critical stakeholder here is the individual worker. Everything that we are doing today – upskilling, AI initiatives, career services – prepares workers for the jobs of tomorrow. But we must also prepare them for the jobs of the day after tomorrow. What would that look like? The truth is, we simply do not know. So, how do we prepare? We foster not just lifelong learning but also resilience and adaptability. The worker who thrives is not just one with the right skills but one with the right mindset, one who is agile, embraces change and is comfortable with uncertainty. This must start in our schools. Our education system must equip our young, not just with knowledge but with the ability to adapt, pivot and confront the unknown.”
“One could argue that wine appreciation may be relevant for some professionals, but I was rather taken aback to learn that such classes are popular because participants can enjoy wine and snacks at lower costs than a wine bar, especially when fees are covered by SkillsFuture credits. There appears to be an attitude that since this is public money, one might as well spend it. Some of these courses are eligible for both subsidies and credit usage. One example is a course on basic washroom cleaning, a useful life skill perhaps. But I was surprised to discover that this course was offered by a provider that specialises in wine appreciation. Sir, I would be very happy to host such lifestyle and wellness classes at Mountbatten Community Club. But as we move forward, some hard questions must be asked. Do these courses truly align with the mission of the SkillsFuture movement and the broader mission of the new agency? Is SkillsFuture the appropriate funding mechanism for them or would agencies like the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth or the People's Association be more suitable platforms? Do such courses consume credits that could be deployed more impactfully elsewhere? Do they dilute the mission and blur our understanding of how successful the scheme really is? We should also ask how courses are curated. Do they genuinely enhance skills employability? Are trainees the intended audience? Are they taking these courses to upgrade themselves meaningfully and are the training providers suitably qualified? Sir, SkillsFuture has been an impactful initiative. My intention is not to criticise but to ask how we can do better. I recognise the challenges of scaling and curating a large ecosystem, but this merger should bring renewed clarity and focus on higher objectives.”
“Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. It is clear that our workforce faces significant challenges today. In the recent Committee of Supply debate on manpower, I highlighted the critical need to refresh our career and employment services ecosystem and the need for a new compact among all the stakeholders. I also noted the critical role of the Government. The Government is uniquely positioned to identify emerging trends, anticipate disruptions and take a macro helicopter view. This perspective allows it to connect the dots across education, training and employment, and to align stakeholders to the evolving needs of our economy. The macro mission of the new SWDA dovetails with what I have outlined, and one can clearly see the potential for great synergy in addressing the challenges faced by both workers and employers. Sir, WSG and SSG have been around for some time and I see this merger as a chance to take stock and recalibrate. There is no better time to ask some hard questions. What is the mission of this new agency? What does success look like? What are the metrics and the KPIs that we are measuring success with? How do we know that public resources are deployed efficiently and impactfully? These are important questions, and I will explain why. Mr Speaker, an entire industry has sprung up around SkillsFuture training since its inception. There are thousands of courses and hundreds of training providers. Let me share some examples. There are courses on Japanese finger painting and finger knitting. There is a course listed titled "武侠小说系列探索", aimed at letting seniors relive their youth. There are courses on mindfulness, well-being and many on wine appreciation.”
“For the general population, adopting healthy lifestyle habits such as a balanced diet, adequate sleep, regular exercise and staying socially engaged remains foundational to maintaining good health.”
“Question No 1. The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Sir, all outpatient medical service providers, including those offering medical services associated with longevity, must be licensed and comply with the requirements under the Healthcare Services Act (HCSA). In addition, medical practitioners are required to adhere to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG). Both HCSA and SMC ECEG require medical service providers and practitioners to provide only safe, rational and evidence-based medical treatments in accordance with accepted clinical practice. Where non-standard medical treatments are considered, they should only be provided in the context of a clinical study. Such studies must comply with the ethical requirements for research studies including prior approval from a local Institutional Research Board. These services are monitored through routine inspections and compliance audits, which may also be triggered by complaints. Providers that fail to meet standards may be subject to regulatory action or enforcement measures including imprisonment and financial penalties. If the Ministry receives information that a medical practitioner has engaged in practices which are not in accordance with the SMC ECEG, the Ministry will lodge a complaint against the medical practitioner to the SMC. The public is encouraged to discuss with their doctor on appropriate and evidence-based tests and treatments recommended in their individual circumstances, to avoid unnecessary interventions and costs.”
“Sir, Mr Speaker, I note that the premises at the Goodman Arts Centre are ultimately Government-owned and leased to the Arts House Group, a non-profit under the NAC, which also operates other arts places such as the Aliwal Art Centre and the Stamford Art Centre. Given this, I would just like to ask if the other centres are facing similar cost pressures or viability challenges, and if so, whether there is a broader review under way to ensure that such government-supported creator spaces remain affordable and sustainable for arts practitioners over the long term?”
“I have one supplementary question. In the United Kingdom, the Bankers Automated Clearing Services operates widely used direct debit scheme that includes advance notice of payment amounts, a direct debit guarantee, allowing for immediate refunds in case of error and strong consumer recourse mechanisms. So, in light of these established safeguards in other countries, could the Minister of State clarify whether Singapore's review of the GIRO framework would move towards incorporating such similar features?”
“Artists need to be empowered to protect their work and negotiate on their own terms so that our arts ecosystem can continue to thrive. The Future is Big-hearted and Young”
“Sir, first, I declare my interests as a practising lawyer. Many of our arts practitioners are self-employed. They work project to project, commission to commission. While that gives them independence, it also means they are often disadvantaged when it comes to negotiating fees, contracts, or usage rights. Too often, they end up being price takers rather than price makers and take the short stick. MCCY has done a lot over the years to support our arts practitioners in funding, talent development, outreach and capability building. That has helped grow the sector and strengthen our arts ecosystem. But there is one area that seems to have been left a little behind: legal support. When you are self-employed, understanding contracts, intellectual property rights, and negotiating commercial terms is not just useful, but essential. However, without guidance and support, talented artists can find themselves underselling their work or signing away rights they should not. Many are particularly disadvantaged when dealing with large commercial organisations. Professional help exists but, as I have noted in this House before, lawyers can be expensive. This affects not just their earnings, but also the sustainability of their careers in the arts. So, I want to ask, would MCCY consider looking at ways to help self-employed arts practitioners navigate the legal aspects of commercialising their art? This could be through legal literacy programmes, templates for contracts, or access to affordable legal advisory services. Assisting them with commercial or legal negotiations would also be of great help for our arts practitioners. Supporting them in this way frees them up to concentrate on their art and strengthen their careers. At the end of the day, talent alone is not enough.”
“Another objection to safety, is that safety might be compromised when carparks are used beyond their designated purpose. Indeed, when Sengkang Town Council proposed this idea to MND, the response begged the question: "The playing of pickleball and any other recreational activities are not an approved use of the HDB carpark currently as HDB multi-storey car parks were designed and built primarily for parking only." But multi-storey car parks are already used for other functions. Temporary office space, such as HDB site offices, is sometimes located at the upper floors. There is also the Courier Hub Scheme that is applicable in select multi-storey car parks. In response to a Parliamentary Question I asked in 2021, then-MND Minister Desmond Lee stated that HDB is, in principle, open to alternative uses of multi-storey car parks for social communal facilities. A third objection is that regulation pickleball courts often call for a five-metre height minimum. But there are multi-storey car parks, including those in Sengkang, that fulfill this requirement. And while the five-metre clearance is preferable for professional courts, causal players may well be content with less. Hence, while not currently approved, there are good reasons why we can have pickleball courts in multi-storey car parks. Let us get this done, for the sake of players and non-players – and perhaps, long-suffering MPs. Free Access to Strength Training for All”
“While many enjoy the physical and social benefits of play, complaints abound. Some grouse about limited availability of shared courts, while others object to the noise. In response to the hundreds of noise complaints received, some Town Councils have chosen to restrict playing time or to ban play altogether. Yet as many have faced intense lobbying efforts for expanded hours. Competing interests make this MP feel knocked around much like a pickleball. I propose that we allow the conversion of underutilised second-to-top floors of multi-storey car park into pickleball courts. There is generally sufficient space for the game and the ceiling will limit upward noise transmission. To further contain noise, retractable sound curtains can be easily installed along the parameter. There is some precedence for conversion of existing infrastructure into pickleball courts. Indoor badminton courts at Community Clubs have pickleball lines drawn to permit dual use. And sections of the Little India bus terminal are to be retrofitted to accommodate eight pickleball courts. One objection is that there is an opportunity cost to forgone income, since such lots may generate potential revenue. This has sometimes been the Ministry of National Development's (MND's) response to requests for converting carpark spaces to other uses, such as community gardens. But in many newer estates, including Sengkang, these lots are already underutilised, and almost always empty. The opportunity cost of forgone income is entirely imaginary. Moreover, even if guest parking needs are elevated in certain periods – such as during holidays, where visitations are more common – swing barricades can easily be installed and opened to allow access on such occasions.”
“Our pickle over pickleball can be a classic case study of the tensions between both. The right to play clashing with the right to peace and quiet. Political scientists will tell you that this is a zero-sum game. In a dense city like ours, neither right can be absolute. We must approach it from a framework of compromise and give-and-take. That is the only way to preserve harmony in our society. Participation in community sports is growing and demand for neighbourhood and precinct level facilities is rising. We should welcome this, but yet, as we have seen, it can also easily become a source of discord, instead of bonding in our communities. So, this cannot be just about trying to meet the demand. It would be very easy to turn many under-utilised spaces in our neighbourhoods into more pickleball courts, or other sports courts for that matter. But the most convenient place may not be the best place, or even the right place. Would noise and human traffic be an issue? Would it disturb the residents in the neighbourhood? Can the noise be contained at the location chosen? We should learn the lessons and we can preamp much of these tensions. The last thing that we want to do is to create more tensions and unhappiness in our communities. In this context, I would appreciate it if MCCY could provide an update on the roll-out of new sports facilities in our neighbourhoods and how are we planning ahead to meet this increasing demand at community level? Is MCCY addressing facilities demand in a way that anticipates and addresses such friction? New Locations for Pickleball Courts Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Pickleball has taken Singapore by storm. The sport now boasts at least 5,000 serious players and many more causal ones. It is likely to become even more popular.”
“Mr Chairman, I am sure every Member of this House is aware of the issues arising from the increasing popularity of pickleball in our neighbourhoods. This growth comes with much friction. 2.45 pm I received some very angry complaints from both players and residents right after I became a Member of Parliament. It is, let us face it, a noisy game. Different wards dealt with it differently. Some restricted playing hours. Others banned it entirely. But the tensions are not limited to our Housing and Development Board (HDB) neighbourhoods too. I have had complaints about pickleball noise from the grounds of a private club. For my ward, I have been pushing for what I call an 80% solution. I met a Mountbatten resident, Ms Pauline Tan, at a house visit and she happens to be a competitive pickleball player. She showed me a set of pickleballs made of foam. She is a very considerate neighbour and had started using them because they reduce noise levels considerably. The difference at our neighbourhood courts were dramatic. We organised a pilot community event to roll these out more widely. We gave out free foam balls to many players and we organised a stealth mode silent pickle ball using these foam balls. But it is only an 80% solution because it is, of course, impossible to please everyone. Some players resisted the foam balls because they felt different and were not competition ready. They were happy to take the free foam balls, they just will not use them. Which is ironic, because our neighbourhood courts are not competition-compliant either. Some residents, on the other hand, feel that this does not go far enough and would prefer pickleball to be banned entirely. In political science, there is the concept of positive and negative rights.”
“The Government is the stakeholder best sourced to identify future trends, it can anticipate emerging disruptions and map out skills and capabilities that will be needed. It can be seen that the broader patterns, the cross-sector shifts, the systemic risks and opportunities, and the Government can translate them into action. It can help other stakeholders in the system stay ahead of the curve and bridge the disconnect between different stakeholders, bringing them together to match and realign resources, demand and skills. Mr Chairman, the buck may stop at the individual, but the Government has a critical role to play and I am keen to hear from the Minister. Strengthening Human Resources Capabilities”
“This means having the right mindset, adaptability, resilience and capability of navigating uncertainty. Beyond the schools, we must ensure that the system also supports continuous upgrading and reskilling throughout working life. The Government has done much in this regard. There are job-matching internship programmes for fresh graduates and mid-career workers. These are programmes to assist those who are keen to pivot to new careers. There are support resources available for our workforce to reskill and upskill, and programmes to help who wish to, or who have to, transition into new roles. There are also resources to cushion the fiscal impact while they do so. Support exists for employers who are caught in the same choppy waters. I personally see the tangible impact of these efforts. I am the Advisor to the Singapore Maritime Officers' Union (SMOU). Last year, SMOU together with the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, and MOM partner agencies, launched the enhanced Tripartite Maritime Training Award (TMTA). The TMTA supports the mid-career transitions into the maritime industry. The trainees receive financial support in the form of a monthly stipend throughout their training. I am glad to note that the first batch of cadets under the enhanced scheme have all progressed to the sailing phase of their training and they will soon be joined by a larger second cohort. This is one example of the work being done to support displaced individuals and better align our workforce with the needs of the economy. I invite the Minister to update Members on other similar initiatives that are supporting our workforce, such as the Career Health SG programme. But I must note that most of these initiatives are by nature, reactive.”
“Firstly, our workforce must, of course, take personal charge of their own career health proactively. This is the baseline, the buck stops at the individual. Secondly, our employers too, should take greater ownership of the career health of their employees. In this new reality, employers should not see their workforce in purely numerical terms, but as stakeholders in the longevity and well-being of their enterprise. An enterprise thrives only when its people thrive. Investing in employees is not a cost, but a long-term investment in resilience and growth. Lastly, I see the Government as having the most central, overarching role. We must recognise that the career health of our workforce underpins the economic health of our nation. It also requires a whole Government effort. The Government must ensure that the ecosystem we have in place is supportive of this effort. It requires a helicopter view and a coordinated, forward-looking approach connecting education, training, employment facilitation and employer engagement. Our unions have a key supporting role in this. The tripartite partnership has long been the cornerstone of our industrial relations and this collaboration will become even more important in a refreshed compact. I think our unions as the ecosystem's transceiver, receiving and sending signals. They act as a vital conduit between stakeholders, amplifying feedback and catalysing action. Mr Chairman, career health must first start in our schools. Our education system must keep pace with the rapidly evolving jobs landscape. The young Singaporeans we prepare today must be ready for the careers of this brave new reality. They must not only be skilled for the jobs of tomorrow but must also be equipped for the jobs of the day after tomorrow.”
“Mr Chairman, in my maiden speech less than a year ago, I noted that in this age of AI-driven disruption, conventional assumptions about career progressions and trajectories will fly out of the window. This observation is becoming more urgent. Technology cycles are getting shorter. Business models and roles are evolving rapidly. Entire jobs and industries are being disrupted. The old patterns of career stability no longer apply. New graduates are having a harder time landing their first jobs. Mid-career PMETs have to contend with greater career uncertainties. Agility and resilience are the key words. We must all assume that there are no "safe" jobs anymore. Our workforce, up and down the value chain, must expect to not only upskill, but to reskill continuously throughout their working lives. Lifelong learning is no longer just another buzzword, but a default in the new reality we are in. We must keep moving forward with our chin up and be ready to pivot and transition to new careers and industries, when necessary. But that is only half the picture. While some jobs and sectors are disappearing, entire new industries are also being born and many jobs are being redesigned and given new scopes. And employers are now struggling to find enough manpower with the skillset to match. This is the dichotomy that we are facing today. What we are seeing today is not just displacement, but a misalignment of our workforce. To empower our workers and businesses to navigate this fast-evolving jobs market, there is a critical need for us to refresh our career and employment services ecosystem. For that to happen, we need to take a holistic, big picture view of the whole ecosystem, and strike a new compact among all the stakeholders. I see three parts to this.”
“SME Intellectual Property (IP) Commercialisation”
“Over the years, Singapore has positioned itself as a global destination for major sporting and cultural entertainment events, hosting the Singapore Grand Prix, the Women's Tennis Association and most recently, the World Aquatics Championships, alongside major concerts and entertainment productions. As we build on this trajectory, there may be scope to consider how our legal and land-use architecture can further support Singapore's evolution into a regional sports and entertainment hub. First, on event hosting. As we continue attracting global competitions and productions, are there plans to periodically review whether our legal and intellectual property frameworks remain fully competitive and fit for purpose? Legal certainty is often a key consideration for organisers and rights holders. Second, on dispute resolution. Singapore is already a respected arbitration centre. Could we further develop specialised capabilities in sports and entertainment arbitration and mediation, positioning Singapore as a regional hub for related commercial disputes? But global ambition must ultimately rest on strong local participation. In a land-scarce and tropical environment, usability is often constrained by heat and rain. Working with agencies such as the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), could we explore greater tenure certainty for organisations that demonstrate clear community impact? And could structural shading or lightweight roofing for open-air spaces be more systematically considered to enhance climate resilience and expand all-day, all-weather use? If we want world-class events, we must also ensure world-class everyday access. Both events and daily access are essential to a thriving sports, arts and cultural entertainment ecosystem.”
“Mr Chairman, I declare my interest that I am a practising lawyer. In March 2025, a report was jointly commissioned by MinLaw, the Economic Development Board and Enterprise Singapore, and independently researched by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), titled "Sustainability Ready Singapore Lawyers". It identified environmental, social and governance (ESG) as a key area of growth in our legal sector. 8.15 pm In response, the Ministry introduced the ESG Legal Secondment Programme, allowing Singapore-qualified lawyers to be seconded into corporate sustainability teams to gain hands-on experience. This is timely as ESG advisory is becoming increasingly relevant in green finance, carbon markets and sustainability reporting. However, secondments may not be feasible for all firms, particularly small and medium-sized practices. I would therefore like to seek an update on the development of ESG capabilities within our legal sector. Would the Minister provide a snapshot of this programme, including the level of uptake and feedback thus far? It would also be helpful to understand where these lawyers have been seconded to, given that this remains a nascent area of growth. In addition, what other pathways are being developed to support lawyers who are unable to participate in secondments? For example, are there structured ESG training frameworks, accreditation programmes, short industry attachments or collaboration platforms with financial institutions and sustainability professionals? Advancing Singapore as a Trusted Hub Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Chair, I start by declaring my interest as the president of a National Sport Association.”
“However, I certainly do not think it should continue in its current form and there are certainly things that we can change structurally to ensure a more equitable system. One of the suggestions I made to the Ministry of Education (MOE) in my supplementary question was to ask MOE to consider setting aside a separate, hard quota for non-affiliated and non-DSA students. It is unfair for these students to find themselves crowded out from the race for a particular school even before they get to the starting line. This will preserve an open pathway to some popular schools for them and I think it will be at least a good interim measure. I am glad to note that MOE will study my suggestion and that the Ministry is taking a look at the DSA scheme as part of a more comprehensive review. I look forward to the outcome. Sir, as life, as we all know, is inherently unfair. We cannot promise equal outcomes for everyone. But what we can and must do is to ensure equal opportunity and equal pathways to everyone. This is the promise of equality as enshrined in our Pledge and the essence of our meritocracy. Singapore was built on this simple but powerful promise. Meritocracy requires active maintenance in this imperfect world and we must be prepared to review, recalibrate and where necessary, restrain policies that bring about negative outcomes. This is especially so in education, because this is where the trajectory of a life is first shaped. Sir, I support the Budget.”
“Many fork out large sums for private lessons in sports, music and coding, all carefully curated to maximise their children's chances in the DSA exercise. There are now coaching academies tailored for entry to the Gifted Education Programme and aptitude tests of specific schools for maths, science and technology DSA. I was surprised to discover that there are even coaches for DSA-oriented leadership development, entrepreneurship and portfolio preparation. Every single lacuna has been filled. What this all means is the DSA scheme is now just an uneven battleground in the education arms race, where those with the advantage of parental resources enjoy a leg up over their less privileged peers. Sir, I can understand that DSA is meant to recognise a diversity of talents, create alternative pathways and to break away from over-reliance on exam scores. But we cannot ignore the unintended negative consequences of the DSA in its current form. A little while back, I posted a set of oral Parliamentary Questions, to see how DSA and affiliation admissions intersect and what it means for non-affiliated students who are unable to DSA in. These were motivated by direct feedback from the ground. I heard that some popular brand name schools only had a few places left after DSA and affiliated admissions, and the children who had made the cut-off points at some of these schools had to fight for a small number of remaining places. Some were balloted out despite meeting the even more stringent cut-off points for non-affiliated students. Personally, I think that the arguments for DSA are sound and there are valid reasons for it to continue in some form.”
“Our education system is the single greatest equaliser in our meritocratic society. It is here that meritocracy must be most staunchly defended, because it is here that privilege and divisions will strike first and, I think, strike the hardest. We must ensure that our educational pathways, especially at the starting points, remain fair and equitable. Sir, our education system is very much admired around the world for its outcomes. We have built in different pathways to success into the system. Over the years we have also introduced broader definitions of merit, to recognise diverse strengths and reduce the over-reliance on exam scores. And we have many examples of successes of the system in this House. There are Members of this House who grew up in very unprivileged circumstances, studied hard, won scholarships and did very well for themselves. And there are those who faltered at different stages of their educational journey, picked themselves up and came back fighting, succeeded in their goals. These are classic underdog success stories of our meritocratic system, and we should be proud of all of them. But we must be careful here. We must look not only at individual success stories, but at broader trends. A few inspiring examples do not automatically mean that outcomes are as equitable for everyone. And generational privilege is already happening. Parents with higher disposable incomes are better positioned to invest in their children's development, whether through extra tuition and enrichment classes. These advantages give children from more affluent backgrounds a head start over their peers. And under the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme, designed with the best of intentions, is not immune.”
“They operate primarily as catalyst investors, as opposed to being wholly focused on shareholder returns, like Temasek Holdings. What I am proposing is a tweaking of our approach. When taxpayer funds absorb the early-stage risks of spin-offs and startups from our RIE ecosystem, we can also ensure that we share more meaningfully in the direct upsides. We want to retain a more tangible and meaningful share in the ventures that we help build. This means evolving the roles of these Government vehicles from being purely catalyst investors, which seek an exit to move into the next big thing, to becoming strategic partners and long-term shareholders. However, we should have no illusions that this will produce quick returns. It will require generational thinking. The returns would only be substantial only if we can grow a few more unicorns. But if we succeed, we will do more than just create high-value jobs or strengthen our global relevance. We will generate enduring national value, create a new and sustainable revenue tap and provide long-term economic benefits for our future generations. Sir, I would like to share some thoughts on divisions and equitable outcomes. The Occasional Paper on Income Growth, Inequality and Social Mobility Trends in Singapore, released not long ago by MOF, underscores both our achievements and our vulnerabilities. We continue to do well in most areas relative to other developed countries. Our social policies, public housing framework and so on have helped keep inequality in check and supported upward mobility. But the paper also highlights pressure points that we must not ignore. Our system operates under meritocratic principles. But meritocracy, if left alone, can create entrenched privilege and inequitable outcomes.”
“But direct fiscal returns, in the form of Government equity stakes, licensing of IP, or long-term sovereign income, while they exist, have always been a secondary objective and remain small. Yet as public R&D spending grows, I wonder if we may be missing an opportunity to capture a more deliberate share of the upside? Is there more direct value that we can capture? By taking a different approach, could we enhance public returns while continuing to nurture private sector dynamism? I would like to take Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) as an example. TSMC was spun off from a Taiwanese government research institute as a joint venture with international partners. Today, it is the world’s second most valuable semiconductor company with a valuation about three times the size of Singapore’s GDP. The Taiwanese Government remains the single biggest shareholder and TSMC returns more than one billion dollars annually to the Taiwanese Government. This demonstrates that R&D efforts can create spin-offs that deliver substantial long-term sovereign value. In contrast, I looked up two success stories listed in the RIE 2030 brochure: Advance Micro Foundries (AMF) and Mirxes. I discovered that we no longer have any shares in AMF, while in the case of Mirxes, Singapore's first biomedical unicorn, EDB International now holds a less than 2% stake after it was floated, ironically, on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Let me be clear. This is not about turning Singapore into a Government-run innovation economy. The private sector must remain the primary driver of innovation and entrepreneurship. Nor am I suggesting that the Government has been careless in deploying funds. I understand that our vehicles, such as SG Growth Capital and SGInnovate, have a different mandates.”
“These two revenue taps have served us well but they are not unlimited. We cannot raise taxes indiscriminately without imposing social and economic costs. Our economy cannot sustain high growth indefinitely. And our investment returns are subject to market cycles, global shocks and other uncertainties. To me, the key challenges for our Budget is not how and where we can spend more money, but how we can grow more revenue taps. I would like to share my thoughts on this. Sir, the Government has committed to make our R&D efforts a key pillar of our efforts to remake our economy and maintain our competitiveness. With the RIE 2030 Plan, Singapore commits significant resources to strengthen our capabilities in research and innovation frontiers. But this is not a recent undertaking. Over the years, we have invested heavily in research, development, building world-class universities, research institutes and labs, translational platforms, incubators and funding mechanisms. These efforts have created an environment that nurtures and supports startups and anchor global companies here. These investments have borne much fruit, creating jobs, strengthening our economy and positioning Singapore as a knowledge-based hub. Today, Singapore is the second most competitive and the fifth most innovative economy globally. Sir, Singapore’s R&D ecosystem already generates world-class IP. Startups emerging from these ecosystems often attract global venture funding. Yet Singapore’s sovereign stake in these successes is typically modest. The primary goals of our R&D and innovation framework have been to spur economic activity, create high value jobs and anchor industries. In that, we have been very successful.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to start by sharing a Mandarin saying: “居安思危”. Literally, it means to think of dangers when you are dwelling in safety. It is a good reminder for us to always be mindful of future storms and adversities even when we are in peaceful and prosperous times. I wanted to share this with the House because I think that it is a fitting framework for this year’s Budget. It also encapsulates the thinking of the PAP Government very well. One of the hallmarks of the PAP Government is fiscal prudence, thinking far ahead, always with an eye to the challenges of tomorrow. It is this and good governance that got us to where we are today. We must not forget this discipline, for it is our strength and has enabled us to ride through many previous storms together. But the world around us is changing. As the Prime Minister noted in his Budget opening, the old international order that enabled our current prosperity is fading away. The global balance of power, trade patterns and economic structures are all shifting. Geopolitical tensions, technological disruption and climate risks are no longer distant concerns, but challenges that directly affect Singapore. We simply cannot ignore them. Against this backdrop, Singapore too, is changing. Our demographics are shifting. We are maturing as an economy and aging as a society. Social and healthcare needs are increasing. Infrastructure must be maintained and renewed. We need to prepare our people and economy for the disruptions ahead. The demands on our Budget will only grow in the years to come. At the same time, our fiscal levers face real constraints. Today, our revenue rests mainly on two pillars: taxes and statutory collections, and our Net Investment Returns Contributions (NIRC).”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. I ask this question because I had many residents who came to see me about the PPHS and they were unsuccessful despite multiple attempts. I understand that the supply of these flats are from vacant Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Schemes (SERS) units. Are there other SERS flats available for the PPHS? Would the Ministry consider tapping other available supply of flats, such as returned units from Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS), to help alleviate the queue?”
“Mr Speaker, I noted the Senior Minister of State's answer to my earlier Question No 3. I just wanted to be clear. If there is a compression of available places for non-affiliated students because Direct School Admission (DSA) for non-affiliated students do eat into the minimum quota of 20%, as we have just learnt, is this a contributing factor to student who have just met the cut-off point and nevertheless still be balloted out? That is my first question. The second question: would MOE consider setting up a hard quota for non-affiliated and non-DSA admissions? So, this would ensure a meaningful and predictable number of places that remain available to students applying through the Secondary 1 admissions exercise.”
“Mr Speaker, I think it would be very helpful if schools were to publish the number of DSA offers made this year and the number of affiliated students admitted in the previous year, and also, the incoming cohort size. With these three metrics, I think it would allow parents and students to make better informed choices when deciding which school the students should apply for, for the Secondary 1 admission exercise. Will MOE consider this suggestion?”
“At the same time, this must not become an excuse for platforms to shift responsibility or cost onto their workers. Our delivery workers deserve to be compensated fairly and sustainably. For their efforts, a system that pressurises riders to take risks just to earn a decent income is neither fair nor acceptable and I am glad to hear from the hon Member Ms Yeo Wan Ling that the NDCA is in discussion with such delivery platforms for a fairer deal. I look forward to hearing more about the outcome. Our delivery workers should not have to choose between earning a viable living and obeying the law and everyone deserves safety on our roads and public paths. We all deserve to return home safely to our loved ones at the end of the day.”
“It is time to hold platform companies more accountable for the safety of their workers and the communities that they serve. Without the delivery platform stepping up and taking greater responsibility, the powerful motivation and incentive to unsafe behaviour will always be present. The problem of errant AMDs on our public spaces will remain intractable. I am particularly pleased to note that sections 23E and 23J of the Bill, which will hold platform companies responsible for their workers using a mobility vehicle without a valid Certificate of Medical Need. It seems we have finally started to address the elephant in the room. But there is so much more that the platforms can do and should do. It is clear that the platforms already have the technological means to flag unsafe behaviour. We know that platforms can and do track riders in real time and track distance travelled. Simple matrix, such as distance over time and turnaround time between delivery and pick-up, can easily flag excessive speed or unsafe behaviour. These simple measures could address much of the problem and platforms clearly have the means to significantly improve safety for both their riders and the public. Mr Speaker, delivery platforms must recognise that they also have a civic duty. They are stakeholders in the communities that they operate in. We must recognise that safety on the roads and public paths is a shared responsibility. While the Government can make and enforce rules, platforms should ensure that their operational models do not systematically reward unsafe riding at the expense of public safety. Their systems should protect their workers from unreasonable pressure and protect the public from unnecessary risk.”
“Mr Speaker, for many PMD and PAB users, their devices are not simply a means of commute but a tool to make a living. Indeed, I believe performing platform delivery is the primary reason why people acquire these devices. For these users, public and personal safety becomes not just an issue of personal responsibility but also systemic pressures. In reality, platform riders operate under constant time pressures driven by targets, bonuses and performance-based incentives. Earnings are linked to the number of orders completed, delivery speed and acceptance rates. It also rises non-linearly, with significant jumps once certain quotas are met. Platform riders are under pressure to hit these time limited quotas to substantially boost their earnings. For many of them, the only path to a viable income is by hitting these targets. This pressure cooker environment in which riders are driven to move faster and faster, under such models, speed and output are rewarded while safety is left to individual discretion. A device illegally and unsafely modified to go faster translates directly into faster deliveries, shorter turnaround times and more completed orders and higher earnings. In this context, risky behaviour may not be explicitly encouraged, but it is effectively incentivised. All this represents a challenging dynamic. The Government enacts and enforces rules to protect public safety, including the safety of the rider themselves, yet the riders run the risk and bear the effect of these rules. The Government gets the blame for trying to keep everyone safe, meanwhile platform companies reap the rewards. Mr Speaker, this must change. Public safety cannot be the Government's concern alone.”
“Mr Speaker, any piece of legislation without effective enforcement is meaningless and becomes a mere suggestion. Allow me to share a quote from Cesare Beccaria, one of the founding figures of modern criminology and criminal law, "Crimes are more effectively prevented by certainty than severity of punishment." While I am in no way equating possession of an illegal modified PMD to say rape and robbery, this truism is universally applicable. Punishment and sanctions are only half of the deterrence, and the other half is the certainty of getting caught. I commend the LTA wardens that I and my activists work at the Tanjong Rhu bridge. They are excellent at their job. But the problem we have with bicycles and PMDs persist despite their efforts. Simply put, they could not be everywhere all the time. Errant PMDs and PABs are still a sight in our neighbourhoods, especially at night. For this Bill to be meaningful and to make our shared spaces safer, the enforcement efforts must be sustained, persistent and adequately resourced. But I do not think that enforcement alone is enough to comprehensively address this issue. While enforcement is critical, we must also examine why risky behaviour persists. Why do so many still obtain illegal devices, modify them and travel at unsafe speeds on our public paths? So far, most of our previous efforts at addressing this problem have been focused on enforcement and the throttling of the supply of equipment. We have not quite succeeded, otherwise we would not be here debating this Bill. But it is certainly not for lack of trying. I believe we did not succeed because we have never really addressed the root of what drives such unsafe behaviour. It is time that we address the elephant in the room.”
“The momentum of a person holding down at this speed on our shared paths, whether he be on two legs or a bicycle, or even a PMD, has the potential to make any accidents a serious and even a very deadly one. Someone dashing and crashing into you at 25 kilometres per hour is no joking matter. This is an issue in my ward, and I have received many residents feedback on speeding bicycles and SMVs in the Tanjong Rhu area. Our shared paths are used by many of our elderly residents, young children and even pets. Mr Speaker, I credit the progressive steps taken by LTA previously, including the banning of PMD and PABs from footpaths, and lowering bicycle speeds from five to 10 kilometres per hour. It did much to improve public safety. But in the same interest of public safety, I must also call on LTA to review the speed limit for these devices on our shared paths. Next, I turn to enforcement. I am glad to know that expanded powers that will be given to LTA officers under this new Bill. Currently, the active mobility act allows LTA enforcement officers to enter and inspect business premises suspected of committing offences, such as illegally modifying devices and selling non-compliant devices, and to seize such devices. But yet, I cannot help but note that majority of the AMD-related fires occurred not in commercial and business premises but private residential homes. With this Bill, mere possession of non-UL2272 PMDs will also be an offence. I would like to clarify with the Minister of Sate if the intent of this portion of the amendment was also informed by fire safety considerations in private homes and, if so, how does the Ministry plan to exercise enforcement in this context?”
“Mr Speaker, the biggest part of this Bill is about making our roads, public paths and neighbourhood, safer. Public safety is of utmost importance and I welcome and support the Bill. Some of the measures introduced in this Bill, I feel are long overdue. There are, however, a few points I would like to raise. Firstly, speed limits. So, the Bill will cap PMAs at six kilometres per hour on public paths. That is only about brisk walking speed. While I share the same reservations with my Parliamentary colleagues, that this may penalise some PMA users, specifically those who make use of their device to make a living as platform delivery workers, I can understand this from a perspective of public policy. While we have restrained that one group of people with real medical needs to this relaxed pace, I must note that on our shared paths, bicycles, PMDs and PABs are still allowed to go 25 kilometres per hour, and I wonder why. I had raised a Parliamentary question on this issue previously and had an exchange with the hon Minister of State for Transport before. I remember, I noted in that exchange that 25 kilometres per hour is essentially a fit person running at full throttle or sprinting all out. To give a more easily perceived perspective, that is about a 100-metre sprint in 14.4 seconds. Mr Speaker, both yourself and the hon Minister of State for Transport acknowledged then that speed was beyond the both of you. Indeed, I doubt that there is anyone in this House who could have done so. And I know that there are some very fit Members in this House. And this reinforces my point – 25 kilometres per hour is a very fast speed on our shared paths.”
“Similar to the hon Member, Dr Chen, I also receive feedback from residents of RiverEdge, a condominium that is situated in Tanjong Rhu. The lived experience on the ground appears to differ materially from what average equivalent continuous sound level (LEq) measurements suggest, with the Tanjong Rhu Build-To-Order construction site located less than 150 metres of existing residential block, residents have informed me that these repeated short bursts of intense construction noise that are technically compliant when averaged over five minutes – but nonetheless, they are quite disruptive. So, I have two questions for the Senior Minister of State. In such close proximity situations, how does NEA assess whether the current averaging based approach adequately reflects the actual disturbance experienced by the residents? And will the Ministry consider using Lmax instead in assessing compliance and addressing residents' complaints?”
“Too many others have already done so but allow me to float an idea. With respect to the work of SNOC and the National Paralympic Council, I propose that these two bodies can be merged. This Bill essentially recognises the Singapore National Paralympic Council as a key partner to SportSG, similar to SNOC. A merger between them will be the natural next step. There are many advantages to such a merger. At a minimum, it would reduce duplication of effort and allow the sharing of common resources, saving costs. More importantly, a merged body will make corporate funding easier and strategic by presenting a large and unified front to sponsors. It will also have more clout. It offers greater value to corporate sponsors and prevents the cannibalisation of each Council's share of Singapore's already limited sponsorship pool. Such a merger sends a strong and unequivocal message about equality and inclusion, signalling that we value and support all Team Singapore athletes, abled or differently abled, equally. Within this unified entity, we shall no longer see two separate and different sized and medal sized pools. Countries, such as South Africa, Denmark and the Netherlands, have already done so. Furthermore, such a merger already has a public face. There already exists a unified corporate identity in Team Singapore, which brings Olympics and Paralympics athletes together under one marketing banner. Mr Speaker, I recognise that they are two independent bodies, but the Government and SportSG can do much to encourage and facilitate the realisation of this idea. I hope MCCY, SportSG and the respective councils can give this idea some serious consideration. I support the Bill.”
“To me, the benchmark of our support of our athletes should never be the number of medals they have won. Instead, it should be measured by how well we stand by them after the stadium lights dim and how we help them, regardless of their sporting success, to succeed in life beyond sport. I note that SportSG has already does this. Its support ecosystem that provides holistic education and career transition assistance to athletes is especially commendable. To me, the most important sub programmes within the spex framework are spexEducation and spexCareer because these programmes are designed to equip our athletes with the qualifications, skills and pathways to successfully transition into post sports life. I look forward to further announcements on such holistic support for our athletes that will be forthcoming in the Committee of Supply debates. A common theme that often arises in this House when we discuss support for sports and athletes is that it takes a village. When it comes to funding and resources, that village naturally includes the corporate world. Another invariable point is the disparity in medal prize money awarded for the Olympics and the Paralympics. I do not disagree. Our corporate world can and should do much more. But since we have been on hard truths and harsh realities, I would like to offer up more of them. The hard truth is that we are a tiny country. Our size translates to a small commercial audience and domestic market. That makes the commercialisation of professional sports and athletes difficult. The struggles of the S League demonstrate this. Our corporate world, too, despite our outsized economy, is quite small, with a correspondingly small sponsorship pie. Mr Speaker, I shall not belabour the point on prize money disparity.”
“Next, we must also keep in mind that SportSG's mandate is not just limited to high performance sports and medal tallies alone. SportSG also has the larger social and community mission of fostering inclusion, cohesion and bonding through sports, as well as encouraging personal character building and fostering an active, healthy lifestyle in the larger community. The payout to our society from this mission is just as meaningful and important to our society as nurturing medal winning athletes, if not more so. Intra community sporting events such as the Pesta Sukan and the Singapore Urban Sports and Fitness Festival, our ActiveSG framework, public sports facilities like our neighbourhood swimming pools and stadiums are all part of this mission. The other point is the cold hard reality of elite competitive sports. It is brutal and unforgiving. The calculus is Darwinian. For every podium finisher and every gold medal, many more would have fallen short by the wayside. This is something that we must confront honestly. Elite sporting careers are also inherently short. Physical ageing is a reality for every one of us, athletes included. The hard truth is that the majority of our sportsmen and sportswomen will not succeed in reaching the pinnacle of their sport, nor will they succeed in making sports a viable long-term career. This is the reality many of our athletes face. Yet many postpone, disrupt or forgo education and career development during their peak years in order to pursue excellence in sports. It is an enormous personal sacrifice and takes grit and courage. Our focus therefore cannot be limited to how athletes perform during their competitive years alone but also must extend to how they emerge after them.”
“Non-full-time athletes can receive spexTraining Assistance Grants and tap into spexGLOW, which provides monetary offsets for loss of income for athletes taking time off in the run up to Major Games. There is also spexEducation for athletes to pursue tertiary studies during or after their sports career and spexCareer to help athletes transition into new careers after sports. In the past two years, more than $500 million dollars was allocated annually to SportSG to support our sports ecosystem. This underscores the Government's commitment and resolve to support our sports ecosystem. And yet, there have been many calls for the Government to do more, more and yet more for sports in Singapore. To show more commitment, to provide further support to sports and our athletes. Much has been said about how Singapore can win more medals. There are a few thoughts that I must share. Firstly, it is easy to dismiss that $500 plus million dollars a year is not enough and that we can always do more. But then so too would $1 billion, $2 billion, or $4 billion be not enough. It costs nothing to ask for more. But this is a zero-sum game. We must always keep in mind the big picture. Our national resources are finite and there are many competing priorities of Government that are essential to our nation: defence, education, healthcare, transport, homeland security, national infrastructure, housing, the environment and so on. Indeed, even for MCCY itself, sports is just one aspect of their broader remit that also includes our arts scene, community and youths. While support for sports is important, it must be balanced against the broader national responsibilities and prudent allocation of resources.”