Mark Lee
Singapore
“I understand the intent behind the early notification, to better support displaced workers. I have two clarifications, if I may. Based on past data, most workers take a few months to secure the next job.”
“Lastly, I would also like to ask whether the agency will consider publishing a service charter, setting out expected response times, processing timelines, escalating channels and sector points of contact. For SMEs in particular, delays in approvals or unclear responses can directly affect hiring, training and transformation decisions.”
“Will the Government consider recalibrating existing financing schemes, such as the Enterprise Financing Scheme and where relevant, the Long-Term Investment Fund and the Private Credit Growth Fund to better support SMEs facing such short-term liquidity pressures, particularly those managing volatility driven costs, or even firms that want…”
“I thank the Minister of State for the clarification. I think there are many times that she has mentioned that investigations are still underway and details are still unclear.”
“Thank you, Chairman. The Acting Minister has mentioned about the IPS survey and the survey actually indicates that younger Singaporeans are more likely to report feelings of social isolation, and more than half say that they find it easier to interact online than face-to-face.”
“As such, beyond delivering strong individual initiatives, how is the Ministry intentionally shaping a coherent narrative of what defines us as Singaporeans today, one that builds confidence in our multicultural identity and a shared sense of belonging, especially amongst younger Singaporeans?”
The complete record
Every one of 202 lines we hold for Mark Lee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“Mr Speaker, I would like to seek a clarification from Mr Kenneth Tiong. I believe my speech has put forth my concerns about advancing mandatory notification for businesses. I would like to clarify on his proposed 90-day mandatory notice for AI-driven role elimination. In practice, AI transformation is often gradual and task-based, with roles evolving through redesign, augmentation and changing workflows over time rather than a single identifiable point of elimination. Even in my own company, it starts at 10% of tasks being automated, then 30%. And it is merged with another function; then, the scope changes. The issue is therefore operational reality and definitional ambiguity. So, could the Member clarify how companies, especially many of our SMEs, are expected to determine when this 90-day notice should formally commence? Would the Member also agree that if definitions are too rigid, firms may avoid gradual redesign altogether and may instead move towards sharper restructuring exercises, which may ironically worsen outcomes for workers, and another possibility that this might even inadvertently cause slower AI adoption and weaken business competitiveness?”
“And if that trust is broken, we may inadvertently create a lose-lose outcome where governments step in with more restricted workforce regulations around AI adoption, raising longer-term costs and reducing flexibility for businesses. Trust must, therefore, be built deliberately through how AI is deployed, how jobs are redesigned and how workers are supported through change. Sir, I am a businessman and I join the call to support my union brother Mr Ng in this Motion because I believe this embodies the true spirit of tripartism that has served Singapore well. We cannot say every worker matters and then leave workers to navigate this transition alone. Businesses must lead in redesigning jobs and investing in their people. Workers must step forward and adapt. And Government must ensure the system enables both. Only then can workers and businesses advance together. Mr Speaker, this motion reflects Singapore's determination to get this right. Let us take the proactive path to work together, to build trust early and ensure that AI expands opportunity rather than narrows it. Sir, I strongly support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“The success of AI-enabled growth will not be determined by how many tools we deploy, but also by how many workers we carry through that change. I agree with Mr Ng that workers who are displaced, whether due to AI or industry consolidation, need stronger support during transition. But we should also consider how that support is structured. Today, much of it follows a "train and place" approach, where workers are first retrained and then supported to find a job. In practice, this can be uncertain. No worker wants to be retrenched, spend months in training and still face uncertainty about the next job. We should, therefore, move more deliberately towards a "place and train" model. If another company is prepared to take in a displaced worker, even if the fit is not immediate, we should support that transition directly. This can be done by targeting temporary wage support to the receiving employer, similar to the spirit of Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) but anchored under an industry transition fund so that companies are incentivised to hire first and retrain on the job. This shortens the period of uncertainty for workers, while giving the firms the confidence to take in and develop new talent. This is also where trade associations and chambers, and unions can also play a coordinating role – identifying firms with demand and matching them with workers at risk. Finally, Mr Speaker, the open bridge must be a moral and social contract, and at the heart of that contract is trust. Workers must see AI as enabling, not threatening. If AI is seen as a tool to remove jobs or close off pathways, adoption will slow not because the firms lack technology but because trust is lacking.”
“They operate at the interface between government policy and firm-level behaviour and can translate national AI strategies into sector-specific implementation. They can function as coordinating platforms, identifying common industry problem statements, aggregating demand and working with solution providers and IHLs to develop integrated, deployable solutions aligned to actual workflows and job roles. Let me illustrate. SBF is developing an AI tool to help businesses understand the rules of origin of free trade agreements and how to apply preferential tariff treatment when goods are exported overseas. This is one example of how an industry‑led approach can reduce duplication and improve efficiency. For many SMEs, the challenge is also on applied capability. Firms want to know which problems to prioritise, who can help and how to proceed without excessive cost or risk. The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) AI Experience Programme, launched together with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) in support of the Digital Enterprise Blueprint shows this clearly. It has been heavily oversubscribed because SMEs are looking for guided entry points. Similarly, SCCCI's AI Enablement Programme allows SMEs to define real problems and work with students from Nanyang Polytechnic, Singapore Polytechnic, Temasek Polytechnic and the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) to develop solutions. SMEs gain workable solutions. Students gain relevant experience. And knowledge spreads across the system. With the right support and funding, trade association and chambers can become platforms that accelerate AI adoption across sectors. Finally, Mr Speaker, the fifth and most important dimension is human capital.”
“For SMEs, one area we can consider is to give targeted flexibility to bring in specialised AI expertise beyond existing manpower constraints. This can be time limited and on an application basis, with some checks in place to prevent abuse. The third dimension is through our institutes of higher learning (IHLs). IHLs can be positioned more deliberately as execution platforms for applied AI, especially through Centres of Excellence anchored around postgraduate programmes. Many postgraduate students, including foreign talent, bring prior industry experience and technical depth. When paired with local undergraduates, this creates a practical model for capability transfer. If anchored around real SME and sectoral problem statements, these teams can go beyond proof-of-concept work to develop deployable solutions. This achieves several outcomes. It lowers the cost of experimentation for SMEs while enabling cross-pollination between international and local talent, and it creates a pipeline for startups to emerge, anchored in Singapore and focused on solving real industry demands. This model also helps address to the broken career ladder. As entry-level pathways narrow, embedding students in real problem-solving builds capability earlier. At the same time, it strengthens our students' critical thinking, preparing them to question and validate AI and not just rely on it. The fourth dimension is industry enablement. Today, many firms are attempting to solve similar AI problems in isolation. This leads to duplication of effort, higher experimentation costs and slower adoption. Trade associations and chambers are structurally positioned to address this gap.”
“However, today, firms are still navigating multiple schemes, multiple agencies and multiple claims processes, slowing adoption at the point where speed matters most. But I am heartened to hear from Minister Tan last night that the merger of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore into Skills and Workforce Development Agency aims to solve this issue. But can we do more to help businesses? This brings to my first dimension of practicality. One way forward is also for AI grants and schemes to have a more integrated approach where businesses can access this support through a single interface rather than navigating multiple agencies and deploy it flexibly, whether for basic implementation, subscriptions or experimentation, without repeated layers of claims, just like the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit wallet. For larger or more complex customised projects, there may also be a case for more upfront support so that firms are not constrained by cashflow when making longer-term investments. At the same time, we must recognise that AI adoption involves experimentation. Not every project will succeed. If firms are penalised despite genuine effort, we risk discouraging innovation. A reasonable tolerance for failure will be necessary if we want companies to move decisively. The second dimension is capability at scale. The pool of experienced AI professionals remains small and highly competitive. If we are too restrictive on bringing in foreign AI talents, we will slow down capability building across our economy. So, our efforts to build a wide bridge must also mean keeping our talent pipelines open. Not just to bring in talent, but to allow that talent to cross-pollinate skills across firms and sectors.”
“It requires integration into workflows, redesign of processes and alignment with business strategy. This is where many firms, especially SMEs, face challenges in translating AI into implementation. If we do not address this, capability will concentrate among larger firms and among more skilled workers. The gap will widen. That outcome would run directly against the spirit of this Motion. However, we must also be careful about how we respond to these changes. I understand Mr Ng's good intent behind the call for earlier notification of retrenchment to better support workers. But if firms are not yet ready to redesign jobs or absorb workers differently, earlier notification alone will not solve the problem. If AI is re-organising work, perhaps a better solution that matters more is not whether we intervene earlier after displacement occurs but intervening early enough before displacement becomes necessary. We should shift the focus from managing retrenchment to enabling all firms to redesign jobs and retrain workers so that they transform and the workforce adjustment happens alongside transformation, not after it. This brings me to my third point – how do we we build a bridge forward? A bridge that is wide enough for many to cross, not just a select few. The recently introduced Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package is a step in the right direction. With the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) as programme partners, companies can access advisory support to redesign processes and job roles and tap on the SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant for consultancy, workforce technology adoption and capability building. This is a meaningful shift.”
“In customer service, generative AI improves productivity by around 15%, with larger gains among less experienced workers. Firms are also seeing double-digit gains in software engineering while in operations and supply chains, AI is improving forecasting, reducing waste and optimising inventory and logistics. Second, AI does not simply improve jobs. It reconfigures work. Global evidence shows how AI adoption is increasingly concentrated among higher-skilled workers, with firms re-organising work around smaller, more experienced teams supported by AI. This creates a double risk: first, productivity gains may accrue more to those already ahead, widening inequality; second, it risks eroding the bottom of the career ladder. If entry-level roles are reduced too quickly, the traditional pathway where workers build judgement through experience is disrupted. Firms may still require mid-level capability but fewer workers will have had the opportunity to develop it. That is a structural issue. At the same time, new roles are emerging, integrating AI into workflows, validating outputs, redesigning jobs and translating domain knowledge into solutions. Companies like DBS and Mastercard are using AI to handle routine queries and personalise responses at scale, freeing up human agents for higher-value work. We are seeing the same among small and medium enterprises (SMEs). MTM Labo, a skincare company, for example, uses an AI tool called Hana that supports customer enquiries in multiple languages, allowing its team to focus on more complex, high-touch interactions. This is an important point. AI, when deployed thoughtfully, does not just replace jobs. It changes the nature of jobs and can raise the value of human work. But adoption is not plug-and-play.”
“Mr Speaker, building on the earlier speech by my colleague National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Secretary-General Ng made last night, I would like to focus on how this Motion is made real at the enterprise level. Sir, no jobless growth cannot be achieved through worker support alone. It must also be designed into the way enterprises transform, the way jobs are redesigned and the way our system supports firms to move with confidence. History shows that in periods of technological change, the winners are not those who try to protect existing business models but those who understand their underlying strengths well enough to redeploy them into new arenas. Fujifilm is one example. It did not survive the collapse of film by trying to sell more film. It built on capabilities in materials, optics and imaging to move into skincare, diagnostics and healthcare technology. In sectors where Singapore is already strong – advanced manufacturing, logistics and connectivity, finance and healthcare – AI is not replacing the industry itself but changing how value is created within the industry. That is the mindset Singapore needs now. Our task is not to preserve every job exactly as it is. Our task is to help our enterprises and our workforce recognise their strengths, adapt them and move into the next phase of growth together. I will divide my remarks into three parts: first, what AI is actually doing for businesses; second, its impact on jobs and workers; and third, how we can build a clearer enterprise front door and a wider bridge forward so that businesses and workers can cross the transition together. Mr Speaker, businesses adopt AI where it delivers measurable outcomes. The evidence is already emerging.”
“Lastly, I would also like to ask whether the agency will consider publishing a service charter, setting out expected response times, processing timelines, escalating channels and sector points of contact. For SMEs in particular, delays in approvals or unclear responses can directly affect hiring, training and transformation decisions. Mr Speaker, the intent of this Bill is sound. It reflects the need for a more coordinated and integrated workforce system at a time when the pace of economic and technological change is accelerating. As we move into the next phase of transformation, the success of this merger will allow Singaporeans and our businesses to navigate a much more complex and uncertain future with confidence. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“How proactive will these interventions be in practice, and how will businesses be engaged when early signals of workforce disruption are identified? At the same time, many firms would prefer to redesign roles and redeploy workers internally rather than retrench. Will the agency consider strengthening incentives and support for such employer-led redeployment, so that companies are encouraged to build and transition their existing workforce? Finally, Mr Speaker, there is the issue of service standards and transition discipline. As the ecosystem of training, career and employment service providers expands, it will be important to ensure consistency in quality, standards and outcomes across providers. I would like to ask how the agency intends to manage this as the ecosystem grows. Sir, the direction of the merger is clear, but during any integration, there is a risk that existing schemes, applications and commitments to businesses may become disrupted or delayed. Many companies are already participating in ongoing programmes offered by WSG and SSG. These should not be slowed down or require rework simply because the administering structure has changed. I would like to ask whether the Government will provide clear transition assurance that existing schemes, pending applications and ongoing commitments will continue to be honoured under their current terms and timelines, as far as possible? I note that the Bill provides for transitional regulations over a two-year period. Given the scale of integration, I would like to ask what further measures may be considered should issues persist beyond that period?”
“For SMEs, this creates real cashflow strains, as firms often have to carry training and wage costs for extended periods while awaiting reimbursement. In this regard, can the agency move towards a more risk-based approach? Can we differentiate between employers with established compliance histories and higher-risk cases? Can audits be more targeted and reliance placed more on post-disbursement or exception-based checks? Related to this is how sensitive business information will be handled. Businesses understand the need for verification but may want clearer safeguards when requests touch on customer confidentiality, intellectual property or regulated information. A fourth area is capability translation. For many SMEs, the constraint is not access to training, but the ability to translate training into productivity. What SMEs need is more applied support, contextualised training, embedded learning and project-based approaches tied to real operational challenges. In this regard, will the agency place greater emphasis on applied, firm-level capability so that training is more directly linked to measurable business outcomes? A fifth area is speed and responsiveness. As AI accelerates, workforce disruption may become more frequent and more compressed in time. From a worker's perspective, the key issue is not just whether training is available, but how quickly that translates into re-employment. Will the agency place a stronger emphasis on what we may call the "rebound"? How quickly and effectively workers are supported from displacement back into meaningful employment? The use of integrated intelligence to identify at-risk workers earlier is a promising development.”
“In this regard, while not suggesting further structural changes, it is important that the jobs and skills system remains closely anchored to enterprise transformation efforts led by Enterprise Singapore and supported by the trade associations and chambers (TACs), which are closest to business needs. A second area of responsiveness is sector-specific realities. Different sectors face very different workforce dynamics. Manufacturing firms are upgrading automation. Digital firms are competing globally for talent. Healthcare providers are managing acute manpower shortages. Sustainability-focused sectors are adapting to new regulatory demands. Each requires distinct workforce strategies. Feedback from the Singapore Manufacturing Federation suggests that sector-embedded models, such as the SkillsFuture Queen Bee approach, have been effective precisely because they are grounded in industry practice and supported by TACs. Even after the merger, it will be important to preserve and deepen this sector responsiveness. I would, therefore, like to ask how the agency intends to retain and strengthen sector-specific expertise. Will industry-led frameworks, co-developed with TACs, continue to shape programme design? And will support remain differentiated for SMEs and large enterprises, given that the majority of our workforce is employed by SMEs? A third area is the funding and compliance framework. The Bill introduces stronger powers around verification, inspection and recovery of funding. These are necessary, particularly considering past abuses. But in recent years, the cumulative effect of tighter controls had been longer reimbursement timelines, heavier documentation requirements and increased administrative burden even for firms with strong track records.”
“Similar programmes, such as WSG's Career Conversion Programmes and SSG's Career Transition Programmes, operate with different rules, funding structures and employer touchpoints. SMEs do not have the internal capacity to interpret policy intent, design training pathways and manage compliance across multiple schemes. In a fast-moving environment, these delays directly affect competitiveness and workforce outcomes. I would like to ask how the agency intends to operationalise this user-centric model so that it delivers a genuinely simpler and more intuitive experience where workers and businesses can navigate a single, coherent pathway, rather than multiple disconnected ones? And beyond the front-end experience, how will the agency address the underlying system design? Today, many programmes are designed to achieve similar outcomes but operate in parallel. Even if access is streamlined, fragmentation can persist behind the scenes. Will the agency use this merger to rationalise and align these overlapping schemes into a more coherent, employer-facing system so that a firm pursuing a single objective, such as redeployment or upskilling, does not have to operate across multiple tracks? A related point is preserving a strong employer focus. While the merger brings jobs and skills together, the third leg is business demand, which ultimately generates those jobs. Businesses are not just consumers of programmes; they are the source of job creation and the drivers of skills demand. How will the agency ensure it remains deeply employer-responsive and not primarily programme-driven? In particular, how will it prioritise skills that employers need now rather than courses that are easier to scale or administer?”
“Mr Speaker, over the past decade, SSG and WSG have each delivered important outcomes. SSG has built a culture of lifelong learning and expanded access to training. WSG has evolved from a placement agency into one that supports career guidance, transitions and employability. Taken together, they have supported many workers and firms, and have laid the foundation for a more resilient workforce. At the same time, AI and other technologies are already reshaping how work is done. This is affecting hiring decisions, job design and workforce structures. In this environment, the link between growth, jobs and skills is becoming less direct. Sir, a worker does not experience the system in two parts. He experiences it as one journey, from training to employment, to career and wage progression. And the same is true from a business perspective. A business does not think in terms of training policy versus employment policy. It thinks in terms of whether it can access the right skills, at the right time and at a cost it can sustain. This is where the rationale for the merger becomes clear. The intention is to create a more coordinated system, one that connects skills to jobs and jobs back to skills in a continuous loop. It signals a shift towards a user-centric system, where support is organised around the journey of workers and the workforce needs of businesses, rather than around individual programmes. I support this. However, the key question is how this translates into a better experience for businesses on the ground. I have six areas of clarifications. First, companies today trying to reskill and redeploy workers must navigate multiple schemes, portals and processes. Even where support exists, it is not always clear how the different pieces fit together.”
“I understand the intent behind the early notification, to better support displaced workers. I have two clarifications, if I may. Based on past data, most workers take a few months to secure the next job. In that context, may I ask whether there is evidence that advancing notification by a short period materially improves re-employment outcomes beyond providing just earlier visibility? At the same time, many employers have actually shared that restructuring decisions are often iterative and only finalised when all options to preserve jobs have been exhausted. Given these trade-offs, could the Minister elaborate on whether tripartite discussions are considering an alternative approach, one that focuses less on mandating earlier notification, but more on strengthening immediate post-notification support, such as rapid job matching, industry redeployment and place-and-train mechanism, which I believe may have more direct impact on worker outcomes?”
“Will the Government consider recalibrating existing financing schemes, such as the Enterprise Financing Scheme and where relevant, the Long-Term Investment Fund and the Private Credit Growth Fund to better support SMEs facing such short-term liquidity pressures, particularly those managing volatility driven costs, or even firms that want to take this chance to basically do more mergers and acquisitions? Finally, if U-Save helps household manage unavoidable utility costs, can the Government consider a targeted equivalent for energy-exposed SMEs where utilities are similarly non-discretionary?”
“I thank the Ministers for their very encouraging response. It is heartening to actually know that the Government has the resources and ability to manoeuvre and assist, as compared to many countries. Sir, I have four supplementary questions. The first, many SMEs, particular, those with fixed price or longer-term contracts, lack the bargaining power to reprice quickly, even as energy, freight and material costs rise. I am glad to hear that Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow said the Government is taking steps to adjust pricing in major infrastructure and BTO projects. This is an important signal to the private sector. Building on this approach and as a businessman, with the importance of preserving contract sanctity, if the conflict continues to indefinitely and oil prices remain elevated, whether the Government can work with and support trade associations and chambers by providing guidance, reference frameworks or industry signals that facilitate fair and timely commercial re-negotiation in exceptional circumstances. Second, many businesses should make use of this time to accelerate their shift to energy efficient equipment. I am glad to hear that the Energy Efficient Grant is expanded to all sectors, and this is the right direction. By increasing the Energy Efficient Grant quantum will help businesses move further as pricing on the ground has changed significantly. Also, can we expand the Business Adaptation Grant to include advisory services that can help businesses rethink and replan their business and processes to be more energy efficient? My third supplementary question is in relation to tightening credit conditions and rising working capital needs.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the clarification. I think there are many times that she has mentioned that investigations are still underway and details are still unclear. But I would still like to ask the Minister of State to comment on whether the Government has assessed the extent that Singapore exports and also our re-exports into the US are exposed to heightened forced labour scrutiny, particularly where upstream inputs are originating from higher-risk jurisdictions.”
“Thank you, Chairman. The Acting Minister has mentioned about the IPS survey and the survey actually indicates that younger Singaporeans are more likely to report feelings of social isolation, and more than half say that they find it easier to interact online than face-to-face. But at the same time, museums around the world are evolving beyond quiet exhibition spaces into social venues, hosting after-hours programmes that combine arts, music and interactive activities to attract younger audiences. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether MCCY and NHB would consider piloting museum-after-dark programmes designed for young adults, perhaps working with the NYC to design formats that resonate with how young people socialise today?”
“As such, beyond delivering strong individual initiatives, how is the Ministry intentionally shaping a coherent narrative of what defines us as Singaporeans today, one that builds confidence in our multicultural identity and a shared sense of belonging, especially amongst younger Singaporeans? And how does the Ministry assess whether its work is strengthening this deep foundational long-term social cohesion?”
“Chairman, when we speak about social cohesion today, the deeper question is not just how well we get along, but how confident Singaporeans feel about who we are becoming. Singapore is undergoing two shifts. Externally, the world is becoming more uncertain, contested and polarised. Internally, Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporeans, are thinking more actively about identity, voice, fairness and belonging. Together, these shifts mean that social cohesion today is no longer just about co-existence, but about whether people feel anchored in a shared sense of who we are. In this context, I welcome MCCY's clear decision to position multiculturalism as an anchor of our Singapore identity. It recognises that Singapore has always been open and evolving, and that with a strong sense of self, we can remain open without insecurity. But if multiculturalism is our anchor, then the key question is how Singaporeans experience and live that anchor in everyday terms. What does it mean today to be a Singaporean Chinese, a Singaporean Malay, a Singaporean Indian, Eurasian – not as fixed categories from the past, but as identities shaped by shared experiences, common values and participation in modern Singapore? How do our arts, sports, heritage spaces and youth platforms help people internalise this rather than just leaving identity to be shaped implicitly by fragmented or external narratives? This matters. When identity is under-articulated or not felt, it creates space for pessimism and quiet social distancing even if surface harmony remains.”
“If viability weakens, the very workers we seek to uplift may face slower hiring and progression. On LQS, let me be clear: uplifting lower-wage Singaporeans is a national priority, and employers support this direction. The Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) helps. The issue is not principle, but pace and calibration, especially when multiple levers move concurrently. There is also a structural tension. Firms are encouraged to upgrade foreign manpower quality. Yet, levy increases across skill tiers mean that both upgrading and retention are becoming more expensive. When cost differentials narrow, the incentive to upgrade may weaken. The question, therefore, is how we preserve three objectives simultaneously: safeguarding the social compact, preserving Singapore's competitiveness and sustaining long-term employment opportunities for Singaporeans. How does MOM assess whether cumulative qualifying salary and LQS adjustments are strengthening the Singaporean core without eroding competitiveness? Is there a structured framework to assess sectoral sensitivity, particularly in industries with thin margins or limited automation pathways? And are there mechanisms to recalibrate if unintended economic effects begin to emerge? If we calibrate carefully, Singapore can remain both competitive and cohesive, a place where businesses grow, investments anchor and Singaporeans thrive. 2.30 pm Being Pro-business to be Pro-worker”
“Chairman, businesses support the principle of a strong Singaporean core. Foreign manpower must remain complementary, not a substitute. That social compact is fundamental and must be upheld. However, what we are seeing is not a marginal adjustment. It is a structural reset of labour cost baselines. Since 2020, the Employment Pass (EP) qualifying salary will rise from $4,500 to $6,000 next year, roughly a one-third increase in just over six years. Over the same period, the S Pass qualifying salary has moved from $2,500 to $3,600 in 2027, about a 44% uplift. Tier-1 S Pass levies are now $650. The LQS will increase to $1,800 in July. Individually, each move may be defensible. But taken together, they represent a meaningful shift in cost structure, particularly for sectors where the local manpower pool remains limited despite best efforts. At the higher end, Singapore competes to anchor regional headquarters and specialised mandates. Location decisions are increasingly marginal between Singapore and other hubs. When higher EP thresholds are layered onto elevated rentals, energy and compliance costs, the cumulative effect matters. Relocations are visible. Investments that never materialise are not. Missed mandates and unanchored teams can quietly narrow future job creation for Singaporeans. At the S Pass, the pressure is even more immediate. Domestic-oriented sectors, such as food and beverages (F&B), retail and other labour-intensive sectors, operate on thin margins. Many have already digitised and streamlined. Further cost escalation leaves two paths: raise prices, contributing to cost-of-living pressures; or compress operations, reducing service levels and employment scale. Importantly, these same sectors are supporting wage uplifts for lower-wage Singaporean workers.”
“Such a model aligns public spending with real productivity gains and gives SMEs the confidence to commit. We must also be careful about how we frame AI nationally. Public discourse often centres on GenAI and digital tools. But in labour-intensive sectors – logistics, F&B, facilities management, manufacturing – robotics and advanced automation may deliver more immediate productivity gains. MDDI plays a critical role in shaping that narrative. Transformation is not just dashboards and chatbots. It is robotics, process redesign and job redesign. Finally, coordination matters. AI-related schemes span multiple agencies. From an SME's perspective, the landscape can feel fragmented. Would MDDI consider strengthening a unified communication architecture, so enterprises see one coherent transformation pathway, rather than through multiple agencies? In a structurally tight labour market, productivity is existential. Transformation must therefore be: clear in definition; coherent in communication; and commercially rational in incentive design. If we get this right – de-risk early and reward real outcomes decisively – we can achieve economy-wide transformation, not isolated pilot processes. AI Opportunities for Growth”
“Chairman, Budget 2026 rightly places AI and automation at the centre of enterprise transformation. But if we want broad-based adoption, clarity and commercial realism matter as much as funding. Many SMEs are not short of ambition, they are short of certainty. Uncertainty about what qualifies as AI or automation expenditure; how bundled digital costs are treated; how robotics hardware and software layers are classified; and what documentation withstands audit scrutiny? When definitions are ambiguous, firms hesitate. In a tight cashflow environment, hesitation becomes inaction. Would MDDI work with MTI and other agencies to ensure that "AI and automation expenditure" is defined clearly in operational terms? Without clarity, we risk two outcomes. First, AI-washing. Spending labelled as AI without measurable productivity impact. Second, under-adoption, with firms delaying genuine transformation due to compliance risk. Both weaken credibility. Clarity alone, however, will not shift behaviour. For SMEs, the issue is risk asymmetry. Integration, deployment, robotics installation and workflow redesign costs are immediate. Productivity gains are gradual and uncertain. If we want transformation beyond leading enterprises, the model must be simple – de-risk early, reward outcomes strongly. Would the Government consider strengthening upfront support to meaningfully reduce early-stage exposure, and then introduce performance-linked incentives where firms that demonstrate sustained productivity gains receive enhanced support, potentially up to 80% to 90% of qualifying transformation costs? This would not subsidise spending. It would subsidise results – measurable improvements in output per worker, value-add per employee or cost efficiencies.”
“Chairman, I have spoken earlier about how Singapore and our businesses cannot compete on costs alone but must continue to focus on innovation. As such, I would like to ask Minister Tan to share how the Government assess the economic outcomes of our R&D and the commercialisation of public-funded IP, in terms of enterprise formation, licensing to local firms, contribution to GDP and higher value jobs.”
“Could existing schemes be restructured more explicitly to support consortium-based international bids, including shared financing and coordinated market entry? Finally, as firms from Northeast Asia and Europe increasingly view Singapore as a gateway into Southeast Asia, our ecosystem must deepen its regional fluency – regulatory expertise, multilingual advisory capability and strong in-market partnerships anchored through our trade associations and chambers. We must strengthen not just financing support, but market intelligence, corridor expertise and in-market execution platforms. In a more uncertain world, the answer is not retreat. It is a calibrated expansion backed by credible risk-sharing and a confident ecosystem —”
“Chairman, in a tighter Singapore, domestic scale alone will not sustain enterprise growth. For Singapore businesses, internationalisation is essential for long-term competitiveness and resilience. The Middle East conflict that unfolded over the weekend reflects how quickly geopolitical conditions can shift. Energy markets react, insurance premiums adjust, shipping routes are reassessed and payment and compliance risks increase. In such an environment, uncertainty can cause firms to hesitate. How will MTI continue to send a strong and consistent message that despite heightened geopolitical risks, Singapore firms must press on with internationalisation and that the Government will stand behind them as they do so? At the same time, we must recognise internationalisation risk is not uniform. It varies sharply by market. Parts of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America often carry elevated political, regulatory and receivable risks. Working capital cycles are longer. Payment discipline can also be less predictable. Could MTI consider differentiating internationalisation support not only by firm size, but also by market risk profile, with enhanced working capital guarantees, political risk coverage or expanded risk-sharing mechanisms in higher-risk corridors? Second, many overseas projects today are too large or too complex for individual SMEs. Procurement frameworks favour scale, track record and integrated capability. Encouraging consortium-led bids, enabling firms to "hunt as a pack", would allow complementary Singapore companies to pool capabilities, share risk and compete for projects none could secure alone.”
“Sir, I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Murali that IPOS is actually studying recommendations on IP financing. I think in this day and age, businesses will need as many financing options in their arsenal. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if IPOS has an indicative or targeted timeline, and whether we will be piloting initiatives in this area?”
“Chairman, beyond the broader discussion on enterprise competitiveness, I would like to raise two specific issues – accelerating intellectual property (IP) commercialisation for SMEs and strengthening IP financing. On commercialisation, many SMEs struggle to translate publicly funded research into market-ready products. The gap is often not invention, but execution – bridging laboratory innovation to deployable solutions. There have been recommendations to strengthen structured attachments of scientists and researchers to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) – not merely short-term consultancy, but deeper co-development partnerships. Such models can accelerate technology transfer, reduce execution risk and build internal innovation capability within enterprises. Could the Government elaborate on whether there are plans to expand and scale such attachment schemes, particularly for growth-oriented SMEs seeking to commercialise IP? On financing, IP remains difficult to value and underwrite. Without tangible collateral, SMEs often struggle to leverage their IP for expansion capital. Would the Government consider calibrated state-backed risk-sharing mechanisms to catalyse IP financing so that financial institutions are more willing to lend against viable IP assets while risks remain prudently managed? If we want to move from research excellence to enterprise scale, commercialisation pathways and financing frameworks must evolve alongside IP creation. Expanding Singapore Civil Legal Aid and IP Hub”
“Will the Government consider: (a) Sector-based manpower pools to help firms manage parental leave coverage; (b) Structured re-entry and transitional support for employees returning from extended caregiving; (c) Clearer frameworks and tripartite guidance for fractional and part-time employment models; and (d) Calibrated support for job redesign to make senior employment more productive and less administratively complex? If we want Singapore to remain competitive in a structurally tight labour market, workplace design cannot be left to evolve slowly. It must become a deliberate national effort. How are we measuring and rewarding companies for the progress, not only in take-up of schemes, but in whether workplaces are becoming genuinely family-supportive and age-inclusive in practice? Supporting Marriage and Parenthood”
“Chairman, we often speak about population sustainability in terms of birth rates and ageing statistics, but one of the real levers lies in our workplace, in how our workplaces are designed. Our TFR remains around 0.97, our median age exceeds 42. Labour force growth will slow structurally over the coming decade. These are long-term realities. If workforce tightens but workplace practices do not evolve, growth narrows and opportunity compresses, especially for younger Singaporeans and consequently, our SMEs. Increasingly, young couples' decision to marry and have children is shaped less by direct costs and more by workplace realities. They ask: will taking parental leave slow my progression? Will flexible work reduce my visibility? Will returning after a caregiving break affect my career trajectory? In many SME-heavy sectors, where manpower buffers are thin, extended leave creates operational strain. Employers may be supportive in principle, but without structural solutions, implementation becomes difficult. At the same time, we must also look at the other end of the workforce. Many seniors today are healthier and able to contribute meaningfully, but businesses still face practical frictions around job redesign, fractional employment, training support and rising employment costs. Today, workplace flexibility is often negotiated informally. If we are serious about long-term workforce sustainability, flexibility must become structurally supported. This suggests a broader question – how is PMO coordinating across the Ministries to drive systemic workplace reform so that both parenthood and extended employment become operationally viable for businesses, especially SMEs?”
“Chairman, in a more fragmented global environment, climate policy is no longer moving in lockstep. The US has pulled back from certain multilateral processes, while Europe and regional partners are progressing at differing speeds. Singapore, as a small and trade-exposed economy, must navigate this divergence carefully. The business community thanks the Government's position that our carbon tax trajectory is set with a pragmatic and calibrated approach – taking into account international developments, development competitiveness and the progress of decarbonisation technologies. The long-term direction is clear. But in the near term, calibration must remain dynamic. How does Government continuously assess whether Singapore's carbon pricing remains aligned with major trading partners to minimise carbon leakage and unintended relocation of emissive activities? Beyond the tax trajectory, coordination is equally important. If decarbonisation is left to firms individually, costs may fragment and SMEs may fall behind. One way is to manage through structured supply chain coordination. Large procurers – our "queen bees" – can lead by setting common reporting standards, sharing tools and co-funding capability building across their supplier networks. Will Government consider scaling such supply chain-led models, so that decarbonisation becomes coordinated and investable, rather than uneven and burdensome? The Race to a Low-carbon Future”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Prime Minister. When tariff shocks escalated last year, businesses were certainly genuinely uncertain. It was the Government's swift and credible response that stabilised sentiment and positioned Singapore as a trusted base amid fragmentation. However, as the tariff situation becomes uncertain again and supply chains continue to readjust, could the Prime Minister give assurance to businesses that we will have the fiscal space to support them, to respond decisively if volatility intensifies? At the same time as we move decisively into frontier industries like AI, quantum and space technologies, these are energy intensive and capital heavy sectors. Could the Prime Minister clarify how the Government assesses our long-term fiscal headroom to support both frontier industry development and the sustainable energy infrastructure required to power it?”
“Schemes, such as the Market Readiness Assistance and Enterprise Financing schemes, could be adapted to provide explicit incentives for consortium-led bids, enabling firms to "hunt as a pack" and pool complementary strengths to pursue opportunities that no single company could realistically secure alone. And as firms from Northeast Asia and Europe increasingly view Singapore as a gateway into Southeast Asia, we must ask whether our ecosystem has sufficient regional fluency, multilingual advisory capability, regulatory expertise, deep local partnerships, to anchor these flows here. If we want to capture these investment and trade flows, we must strengthen not just financing, but market intelligence and in-market advisory platforms, working closely with trade associations and chambers. Mr Speaker, Garry Kasparov, one of the world's greatest Grandmaster of Chess, once said, "The point of modern chess is not to wait for mistakes. It is to force your opponent to make one." Budget 2026 recognises that Singapore cannot afford to wait, especially in an increasingly uncertain and volatile world. It gives us the tools and sets the direction. But forcing the move forward cannot be done by Government alone. Businesses must invest, not delay. Management must redesign, not defend the past. Workers must upskill and not stand still. In a structurally tighter Singapore, hesitation is not caution. It is decline. If we take the offensive with discipline and conviction, we will not merely respond to structural change. We will shape it. For these reasons, I support the Budget. 2.41 pm”
“Many SMEs hold valuable IP but lack access to financing instruments that recognise intangible asset value. There may be merit in strengthening state-backed risk-sharing measures to catalyse IP-backed financing, reducing collateral constraints and encouraging financial institutions to participate more actively in this space. And finally, internationalisation. If Budget 2026 is a positioning Budget, then internationalisation is one of its most important instruments. The Government has taken important steps: enhanced Market Readiness Assistance support of up to 70% for SMEs, the raised Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation cap to $400,000 and expanded Enterprise Financing Scheme limits materially reduce the financial burden of overseas expansion. For companies prepared to reposition and compete regionally or globally, these measures are helpful. However, emerging markets across Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America offer growth, but they also carry higher political, regulatory and receivables risk. While existing financing schemes provide access to capital, the binding constraint for many SMEs is working capital resilience in higher-risk markets. Would the Government therefore consider calibrating risk-sharing mechanisms more explicitly by market risk, for example, enhanced trade credit coverage or working capital guarantees in markets where the opportunity is real, but the uncertainty deters participation? Scale is the second constraint. Many overseas projects are too large or complex for individual SMEs. Procurement frameworks favour size, track record and integrated capability. If we want our firms to compete meaningfully, we must move beyond supporting individual expansion towards structured collaboration.”
“Mr Speaker, if labour supply is structurally tight, senior employment must be treated as a core component of our labour strategy. The extension of the Senior Employment Credit is welcome. However, wage offsets alone do not address the operational realities employers face. Older workers often require role redesign, modular reskilling and workplace adjustments to remain productive over a longer career horizon. SMEs, in particular, face volatility in medical and insurance costs as their workforce ages. If unmanaged, these uncertainties can become deterrents to hiring and retention. If we want businesses to employ seniors with confidence, can the Government examine whether pooled insurance mechanisms, calibrated risk-sharing arrangements and structured workplace redesign support can reduce that uncertainty? I had previously suggested that senior and special needs employment be more directly linked to dependency ratio ceiling adjustments. It may also be timely to revisit whether such alignment can better incentivise inclusive workforce participation while maintaining overall labour discipline. Let me turn to innovation. If Singapore is to move ahead of structural tightening, we cannot rely solely on cost efficiency alone. We must strengthen value creation. That requires accelerating commercialisation of IP, particularly among SMEs. Large firms often have internal R&D pipelines. SMEs do not. We should therefore consider enhancing schemes that embed scientists and research talent directly within SMEs, not only as affordable project-based consultants, but through structured industry attachments that can shorten the path from lab to market. At the same time, IP financing remains underdeveloped.”
“If adjustment is delayed until distress becomes acute, closures are sharper and workers more exposed. Sector-level mapping can identify fragmented industries where consolidation strengthens resilience. Structured advisory support for mergers and joint ventures, as proposed in SBF's Budget recommendations, can help SMEs scale non-organically before financial stress escalates. Strategic consolidation can be treated as repositioning and not failure. At the same time, worker transitions must remain swift and credible. As structural cost pressures and technological change increase the frequency of adjustment, we should approach procedural changes carefully. Retrenchment incidence remains below the long-term average and re-entry rates remain relatively strong. Most employers comply with the existing five-day notification requirement. In that context, before introducing additional procedural rigidity, such as mandatory advance retrenchment notification, we should ask whether shorter timelines would materially improve worker outcomes, or whether they may instead constrain firms during critical restructuring periods. Businesses do not take retrenchment decisions lightly. Most exhaust every option to stabilise operations before acting. The more constructive question is how to enable early and more orderly adjustment. Confidential early engagement channels could allow firms to signal emerging restructuring risks while recovery efforts are still ongoing, enabling agencies to prepare redeployment support without compromising commercial sensitivity. The objective should be responsible restructuring, preserving business viability while safeguarding workers through timely and effective support.”
“On the Employment Pass front, higher thresholds raise the cost of specialised expertise, particularly for multinational firms considering Singapore as a regional headquarters (HQ) or Centre of Excellence. Combined with elevated rental and operating costs, this can influence marginal location decisions. We have already seen instances of HQ relocations with downstream job losses, and these signals warrant close attention. On the S Pass front, domestic sectors, such as F&B and retail operate on thin margins and face immediate pressure. Qualifying salaries are intended to nudge productivity upgrading, but many firms in these sectors have already digitalised and streamlined operations. In sectors where productivity headroom is structurally limited, further cost escalation leaves little room to adjust. Firms are effectively left with two options: raise prices, affecting consumers and cost of living, or compress operations, reducing service levels and employment scale. That is the economic reality we must acknowledge. At the same time, there are narratives suggesting future excess manpower in some service sectors. Yet, on the ground, many businesses remain acutely short of workers for operational and frontline roles. Backend productivity gains do not eliminate the need for human service at the front-end. As such, where productivity headroom is limited and local supply gaps persist, would the Government consider a more granular, sector-calibrated approach, whether through refinement of the Non-Traditional Source Occupation List or conditional flexibility mechanisms tied to demonstrated upgrading efforts? Mr Speaker, when margin compression becomes structural, firms cannot absorb it indefinitely.”
“In practical terms, that could include accelerated capital allowances for robotics to improve early-stage cashflow, green-linked automation incentives where AI deployment also reduces energy intensity, and co-investment platforms or shared automation hubs to lower entry barriers for SMEs. Can the Government, therefore, consider layering outcome-linked incentives on top of entry support? Where firms demonstrate sustained productivity improvements – whether through higher output per worker, value-add per employee or reduced energy intensity – enhanced rebates or credits, potentially up to 90% of qualifying outlay, could reinforce genuine transformation. But technology is only half the equation. Management capability is the multiplier. Without structured managerial uplift, AI support will concentrate in already capable firms and widen the competitive gap. Can the Government consider working with the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and other trade associations to strengthen sector-specific management upgrading programmes tied directly to AI integration, job redesign and workforce planning? If we professionalise transformation management, adoption will become more even and less risky. I now turn to manpower and labour. Recent increases in qualifying salary thresholds and adjustments to Local Qualifying Salary reflect a legitimate objective: strengthening the Singaporean core and reinforcing the social compact. Businesses understand and support that principle. However, in SBF's latest National Business Survey, 63% of firms continue to cite manpower costs as a top challenge.”
“Big firms have both the talent and financial muscle to spread this fixed cost. SMEs often cannot – if transformation succeeds, gains are gradual; if it fails, losses are immediate. Through the Champions of AI programme, expanded Enterprise Innovation Scheme (EIS) for AI expenditure and broader PSG support, Budget 2026 seeks to change the risk equation. That is welcome. But execution hinges also on clarity. The definition of "qualifying AI expenditure" must be unambiguous. If not, SMEs will misjudge eligibility, misallocate resources and struggle to justify bundled AI costs embedded in broader systems. Without precision, we risk entrenching a two-speed economy – where large firms execute full transformation while SMEs are left with isolated tools and superficial adoption. In sectors, such as logistics, F&B, facilities management and manufacturing, robotics may deliver more immediate productivity gains than abstract AI tools. The rapid deployment of advanced robotics and humanoid systems in China is already reshaping production economics. However, the cost equation is misaligned. Robotics requires high upfront capital and long payback periods, while labour remains the cheaper short-term substitute. As long as that remains true, firms will default to hiring than automating. If we want AI and robotics to meaningfully raise productivity and preserve competitiveness, the investment signal must decisively shift behaviour at scale. That suggests a different incentive logic – one that first reduces risk at the point of adoption, and then rewards firms that deliver measurable productivity gains.”
“Mr Speaker, earlier this year, Parliament recognised chess as a sport in Singapore. Chess rewards foresight and discipline. It punishes hesitation. Budget 2026 reflects that mindset. It is not a defensive Budget. It is a positioning Budget. Let us first acknowledge the board we are playing on. Externally, the world economy is becoming more fragmented and less predictable. Tariff shocks, supply chain re-routing and geopolitical alignment pressures are shortening planning processes and horizons for businesses. At home, Singapore's total fertility rate remains around 0.97, our median age exceeds 42, labour force growth will slow structurally over the coming decade. At the same time, remuneration per worker rose by about 3.4%, with wage growth outpacing productivity in several labour-intensive domestic sectors. Budget 2026 recognises these shifts. The business community welcome the measures to mitigate rising business costs – including the 40% Corporate Income Tax rebate, expanded internationalisation support, enhanced enterprise financing and the expansion of the PSG. The direction is correct. But execution at scale will determine whether this repositioning succeeds. Take productivity. Budget 2026 elevates AI as a national priority to boost productivity. The Prime Minister will chair a new National AI Council to drive the agenda, and specific sectors have been identified for coordinated AI transformation. This sectoral focus is appropriate. But enabling transformation for SMEs will be the real test. Most SMEs do not lack awareness. They lack integration capacity. AI implementation is expensive – not just software, but data restructuring, cybersecurity, workforce redesign, up-skilling costs of workers and managerial capability.”
“For that reason, Mr Speaker, having considered both the principle at stake and the responsibilities attached to Parliamentary leadership, I support the Motion. It reflects fidelity to the role I was appointed to play and to the responsibility this House bears – to uphold the integrity and standing of Parliament. Mr Speaker, when I was sworn in just three days ago, my son was watching from the gallery above. That moment reminded me that what we do in this House must stand not only for today, but for the next generation of Singaporeans who will inherit these institutions. [Applause.]”
“As my fellow former NMP, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, has observed in past debates, truthfulness is not a mere procedural requirement; it is what gives legitimacy to our laws and moral authority to our decisions. At this point, Mr Speaker, I reflected on a simple litmus test – not as a lawyer, but drawing on leadership experience, institutional stewardship and my role as an NMP. NMPs are appointed, not elected. We serve without party affiliation and without an electoral mandate. Our legitimacy rests entirely on the trust and confidence of those who appointed us, and of this House. If an NMP were to lie to Parliament, be tried in a Court of law, and be convicted, the first question he or she must confront is not a legal one, but an institutional one: do I still hold the trust and confidence of those who appointed me? I believe the answer, in such circumstances, would almost invariably be "no". The proper course would be to step aside from any position of responsibility within this House – not as a matter of punishment, but as a matter of integrity. That duty is amplified when the offence itself is dishonesty directed at the very institution one serves. Trust cannot be compartmentalised; it is either present, or it is not. Applying that same standard consistently, I find it difficult to argue that lesser expectations should apply where the office in question is a Parliamentarian leadership position, carrying defined responsibilities, duties and privileges. This is, of course, a matter of judgement. And I state my judgement unreservedly as an NMP, exercising the responsibility entrusted to me by this House – to bring an independent, non-partisan perspective grounded in the national interest.”
“As former NMP Ms Janet Ang, once observed in this House, institutional credibility is hard won but easily lost, and once lost, extremely difficult to restore. In a small, open economy like Singapore, trust is not just a moral value – it is a strategic asset. From the perspective of business and investment, this is not theoretical. Investors assess not only tax regimes or incentives, but whether a country's institutions are reliable, predictable and principled. Trust lowers risk. Distrust raises it. Where trust falls, political risks rise. Investors and businesses price in uncertainty and growth slows. This reinforces a simple reality: trust is not an abstract ideal. It is a foundational economic asset. Singapore's attractiveness as an investment hub, and as a hub for trade and innovation, rests on the confidence that our institutions are fair, reliable and accountable. It is because of this centrality of trust that I feel compelled to speak today, even though this matter lies outside my usual substantive terrain. At the same time, Mr Speaker, I approach this Motion with care. This debate arises from a matter that has been tested through due process and adjudicated by the Courts. The conviction and the findings of the COP now form part of the public and legal record, and they must be respected. The question before this House is therefore not to revisit the facts, but to reflect on what these findings mean for a Parliamentary leadership position that carries distinct responsibilities and expectations. I affirm, without reservation, the principle that no Member of this House stands above the law and that honesty before Parliament and its Committees is non-negotiable.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise with some hesitation. I did not come into Parliament to speak on matters of political conduct or party leadership. My instinct and my focus, as an NMP, has always been on the practical challenges facing our economy – on business competitiveness, jobs, costs and how Singapore continues to thrive in an increasingly uncertain world. I want to state clearly at the outset: I have respect for the Leader of the Opposition. From my study of his speeches and my limited personal interactions, I believe that his heart, like that of many Members in this House, is for Singapore. Differing views, even strong disagreement, are not a weakness in a political system. They are often a source of renewal, correction and long-term resilience. Mr Speaker, as I thought through this Motion, two considerations weighed most heavily on me. Let me address them in turn. Singapore has no natural resources. What we have and what we have always relied upon is trust. Trust in our institutions. Trust in the rule of law. Trust that truth matters, especially when it is uncomfortable. At the apex of these institutions stands Parliament. History is unambiguous on this point. The historian Arnold Toynbee, in his extensive study of civilisations, observed that civilisations rarely collapse because of external attack; they collapse because of internal failure. As he put it succinctly, "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder." This lesson is sobering. Nations unravel not when they face challenges, but when their core institutions fail to respond with honesty, discipline and moral clarity. When standards are bent, when truth becomes negotiable, truth erodes quietly at first, and then decisively.”
“Thank you. The Prime Minister has rightly pointed out that global conditions are turning increasingly uncertain and many businesses are now bracing for a downturn. I just want to highlight three key concerns that have surfaced in recent engagements before my supplementary question. The first is that there is a clear anticipation of a drop in global demand. Some US-based consumer brands are already advising their supply chain partners to prepare for a mid-term volume reduction of up to 30%. Long term, no one knows for certain; and this will have a ripple effect on Singapore-based companies. Second, Singapore businesses are facing margin erosion, especially with clients requesting their supply chain partners to absorb part of the cost shock from the new tariffs because these tariffs are too large to pass through via pricing adjustments in the short term. This will hit cash flow for our businesses. And third, Singapore firms have adopted a "China plus one" strategy investing in Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia but now, they are even hit with tariffs higher than the baseline of 10%. So, these companies are now under renewed pressure to diversify further, adding another base to stay competitive and it is costly and complex. I hope Deputy Prime Minister Gan's task force will be looking at the near-term support and would like to clarify if this support will include measures to help Singapore companies in cash flow, relocating or reshoring their supply chains, as well as taking a longer-term view to seize new opportunities arising from these global supply chain shifts.”
“I thank the Minister of State Alvin Tan for the detailed reply and MAS' ongoing efforts to uphold trust while supporting innovation in our financial ecosystem. I think the recent fintech incident illustrates that even when a platform is MAS-licensed, many retail users may not clearly understand the regulatory boundaries or even the product risk, particularly in relation to liquidity and withdrawal expectations. It is not necessarily a regulatory lapse, but I think a communication and perception challenge. And like what the Minister of State Alvin Tan has said, the provider did include disclaimers, but retail users still conflated the offering with bank-like products. And I understand, like what the Minister of State Alvin Tan has said, MAS has worked through initiatives, like MoneySENSE, to promote financial literacy. But as fintech products evolve and marketing strategies become more sophisticated, some consumers may be drawn in by branding promotional hooks or platform design despite the presence of legally accurate disclosure. To address this, can I suggest the Ministry consider the following: first, requiring a mandatory plain language risk summary before investors proceed and with the user's acknowledgement; second, strengthening public education on such products; and third, encouraging perhaps tighter industry-led codes of conduct on marketing and promotions?”
“Chairman, workforce transformation presents a valuable opportunity for businesses to address manpower challenges while tapping into a diverse and skilled labour pool. The extension of the Senior Employment Credit and Enabling Employment Credit is a welcome move, as it enables businesses to tap into underutilised labour pools such as seniors and persons with disabilities. To build on this momentum, will the Ministry consider supporting job fractionalisation, allowing seniors and persons with disabilities to contribute meaningfully through FWAs tailored to their needs? Additionally, can the Ministry explore tripartite standards for fractional employment, funding support for part-time workers undergoing training, and the creation of official platforms, working alongside trade associations and chambers, to facilitate and manage a fractional workforce? These measures would not only expand Singapore' workforce capacity but also provide businesses with more adaptable and sustainable manpower solutions. Fostering Inclusive Growth”