Saktiandi Supaat
Singapore
“I have two supplementary questions. For my Parliamentary Questions that the Senior Minister of State answered earlier, I thank him for answering them because those are questions that my dialect-speaking seniors in Toa Payoh East and their families have raised to me.”
“As the Review Group has recognised, there is no "silver bullet", a holistic ecosystem-wide approach is required. The implementation of these recommendations appears to have been phased, with announcements across February, July and November 2025.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Three questions. First, given that the Section 301 actions can sometimes be broad-based, how is Singapore engaging with our US counterparts to ensure that our firms are not inadvertently affected by measures aimed at other economies?”
“Many of them do not openly express their difficulties. This is why social and emotional support must go beyond the occasional event. It must be sustained, trusted and easily accessible.”
“Would the Government consider developing a National Master Trades Accreditation framework – a national tiered certification that recognises advanced trade mastery, similar to chartered professionals in other sectors and create a new avenue for career switchers and career transition for segments of our workforce?”
“When the scheme is implemented in 2028, how will the Ministry measure success in terms of participation rates, risk-adjusted returns and improvements in retirement adequacy outcomes for CPF members?”
The complete record
Every one of 992 lines we hold for Saktiandi Supaat, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 20.
“More lower- and middle-income earners enter the tax space, not necessarily because they are significantly better off, but because the system has not been recalibrated. Otherwise, bracket creep becomes a silent shift in the tax burden – one that is not always visible but is nonetheless felt. The point is not to call for tax cuts. It is to consider calibration. A periodic review of such structural thresholds can help ensure that the original policy intent of protecting lower- and middle-income earners remains intact. Any adjustments, if considered, can be calibrated and phased and implemented in a fiscally responsible manner. In this way, we preserve both fairness and sustainability. The Prime Minister already mentioned in his round-up speech that MOF will be looking into it. I really thank him for that. I would therefore encourage the Ministry to, beyond this, periodically assess whether such structural parameters remain appropriately aligned with today's income distribution and tax structure going forward. Mr Chairman, strong fiscal stewardship requires three things – discipline in how we spend, rigour in how we evaluate, and adaptability in how we design our systems. If we continue to strengthen this, we will not only preserve our fiscal position, but also reinforce trust in our system across generations. I look forward to the Minister's response. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“I therefore welcome efforts to support community partnerships and new delivery models, including through the Singapore Government Partnerships Office. In areas such as ageing, mental health and family resilience, early and preventive interventions can reduce significantly higher downstream costs. Could the Minister share how MOF evaluates the long-term fiscal impact of such investments? Are there frameworks that go beyond immediate expenditure to capture medium- and long-term cost avoidance as well as broader social returns? Mr Chairman, as part of responsible fiscal stewardship, we must also periodically review structural features of our tax system. Our system has served us well and we should preserve its fundamental strengths. At the same time, structural parameters should evolve alongside economic realities. During the recent People's Action Party (PAP) Policy Forum discussions, participants suggested reviewing the income tax relief structures against updated median incomes. In that same spirit, let me turn to one specific aspect of our tax system – the long-standing provision that effectively exempts the first $20,000 of chargeable income from tax. This framework was introduced in Budget 2002, at a time when GST-related rebates and personal reliefs were consolidated into the tax system to protect lower- and middle-income Singaporeans as we shifted towards greater reliance on indirect taxation. More than two decades on, the context has changed materially. Median incomes have more than doubled, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has increased and cost structures have shifted significantly. Yet the $20,000 threshold has remained unchanged. In real term, its value has eroded. As incomes rise while thresholds remain static, bracket creep occurs gradually.”
“Mr Chairman, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100." Mr Chairman, in his Budget speech, Prime Minister Wong highlighted that we are entering a post-SG60 chapter of Singapore's development in a world that is becoming more uncertain and more contested. In such an environment, stewardship of our fiscal resources becomes even more critical. Singapore's fiscal credibility remains one of our strongest foundations. Maintaining prudent budgetary policies and effective governance ensures that we preserve a strong financial base not only for ourselves, but for future generations. This is especially important, giving rising structural spending pressures from ageing, healthcare, climate resilience and security. Globally, many governments are also facing increasingly constrained fiscal positions as these pressures build. Mr Chairman, but stewardship is not only about restraint. It is also about ensuring that every dollar is used effectively. Prudent governance must therefore be continuous, not episodic. In this regard, I would like to see clarification from the Minister. How is MOF strengthening scrutiny over high-value projects and deepening programme evaluation frameworks to ensure major initiatives deliver measurable outcomes over time? Beyond the initial approval, are there structured review mechanisms to allow resources to be re-allocated dynamically, particularly where programmes no longer meet intended objectives or where priorities have shifted? It would be useful if the Ministry could share concrete examples of such re-allocations in recent years. Mr Chairman, finance should also be a catalyst for innovation and transformation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have got three supplementary questions. First of all, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for mentioning that he will be releasing fiscal projections beyond 2030. Just wondering whether I can get clarification from Prime Minister whether those projections will be accompanied with economic baseline assumptions, specific scenarios? That will be useful for the public. Within the same domain, thank you to Prime Minister for explaining the reassurance that the fiscal policy has been expansionary. It helps to relieve concerns that it has been extracting and there is opportunity cost on that front. Second supplementary question, Mr Speaker, is on climate transition. I think Prime Minister in his speech and in his opening Budget speech touched a bit on climate and energy transition. But I was wondering whether the Prime Minister can share a bit more about climate transition, especially our plans to have those polders around Singapore. What are those costs on our fiscal needs and our fiscal expenditure going forward, because those will be quite substantial beyond 2030 and beyond 2040 as well. And thirdly, I would like thank the Prime Minister for mentioning my suggestion about changing the income tax thresholds, to help relieve lower-income and middle-income workers and Singaporeans. I was wondering what is the possibility of that suggestion being implemented.”
“And at key life stages, it could support housing stability or CPF top-ups. In this way, we are not just supporting income. We are enabling mobility across the life-cycle. Mr Speaker, this can be implemented without significant new fiscal burden. By integrating existing schemes, targeting support and using capped matching with long-term investment and possibly private sector involvement, we can achieve more impact per dollar. This is an area where further study could strengthen how we design mobility-enhancing policies going forward.”
“The new Central Provident Fund (CPF) life-cycle investment scheme mentioned in Budget 2026 is a step in the right direction. As this is rolled out, it will be important to ensure: first, simplicity; second, strong default options; third, low fees; and fourth, safeguards against behavioural risks. Mr Speaker, we already have strong support across the life-cycle, from the Child Development Account to Edusave and the Post-Secondary Education Account, as well as SkillsFuture. These are important foundations. The next step is whether we can connect and strengthen them within a more explicit life-cycle mobility framework, with a modest asset-building element that compounds over time. Other countries have explored similar approaches. For example, Canada’s education savings system uses government top-ups, including targeted support for lower-income families, to help build education assets over time. This principle is clear – to broaden access through compounding, while keeping support progressive and fiscally disciplined. In our context, we can consider a Singapore Opportunity Account framework: a modest starting stake, progressive top-ups for lower-income households, a safe, low-cost investment structure and restricted uses, such as education, skills upgrading, housing support enhancements or CPF top-ups. This is not redistribution. It is structured participation in asset-building. Let me illustrate briefly. A student from a lower-income household may have the ability to pursue a specialised course or industry attachment but lack the financial buffer. Such an account could support these opportunities. Later in life, the same individual may wish to transition into a growth sector. The account could support reskilling.”
“In addition to structural support, Budget 2026 continues the trend of providing one-off temporary support – in the form of the Cost-of-Living Special Payment, Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers and utilities rebates – when our fiscal position allows us to do so. (In English): Mr Speaker, I will now continue in English. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) Occasional Paper shows that Singapore has made real progress – real incomes have grown across deciles and, after taxes and transfers, inequality has declined. These are important achievements. But two structural realities remain. Wealth inequality is higher than income inequality and relative mobility may moderate as our economy matures. This is not a crisis, but it is a structural signal. If we take a longer-term view, including insights from economists like Thomas Piketty, the challenge is that wealth compounds faster than wages. And wealth generates optionality: the ability to take risks, invest in education, support transitions and access opportunities. Over time, opportunity can become linked to starting point. Mr Speaker, we must therefore continue strengthening start-line equality. We have made good progress through schemes, such as KidSTART and ComLink+. The next step is to sharpen outcomes. We can consider publishing clearer mobility indicators, such as school readiness, attendance and literacy. We should also strengthen our efforts in terms of access for lower-income youths through internships, mentoring and enrichment opportunities. We already have done so. But because mobility is not only about grades; it is about access. Mr Speaker, if wealth compounding is structural, we must broaden capital participation.”
“While these factors are partly external in nature, that is scant consolation for ordinary Singaporeans. The fact is that every dollar is now yielding progressively diminishing returns. This concern also overlaps with the issue of retirement adequacy – which I will touch on later. If we are to ensure that Singaporeans can retire with confidence, we must mitigate cost of living pressures on a structural level. One of the main expenses for households and retirees is food. As a visible example, the price of a bowl of mee siam or mee soto has gone up from around $2.00 to $2.50 and now around $4.00 in many places today. This is a 50% to 100% increase in less than 10 years! This puts direct pressure on households, especially low-income groups and retirees. In the food and beverage sector, it is imperative for us to strengthen transparency in rental arrangements and assess subletting practices, so that they do not contribute to unreasonable increases in food prices. Additionally, healthcare costs remain a major concern. In the long term, we need to ensure that the healthcare system remains affordable and inclusive. That being said, we must also recognise the Government's efforts. As we have seen over the past five years, the Government will not shy away from providing comprehensive transfer packages, such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) offsets, to cushion the impact for Singaporeans and especially our lower-income households. Structurally, we have also enhanced schemes like MediShield, introduced the Jobseeker Relief Scheme and made the GST Voucher Scheme permanent, in order to give peace of mind to households who need help with their expenses.”
“In preparing for this debate, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Finance and Trade and Industry have engaged widely through, for example, the PAP Policy Forum (PPF), resource panel discussions and industry engagements. I would like to thank the PPF team for facilitating these engagements, which included more than 100 participants in focus groups and over 1,000 survey respondents. The message is clear. Cost of living remains the top concern. Healthcare affordability, job security and retirement adequacy follow closely behind. From my ground engagements, additional concerns have surfaced: rising business costs for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), higher foreign manpower costs, housing affordability for future and current generations, AI-related job anxieties for all ages, including young job seekers, and dealing with carbon transition costs and pressures from an ageing population – as our society ages and in general, live longer, concerns about a comfortable life as one gets older comes with the accompanying concerns. Singaporeans are not only concerned about growth in the abstract. They are concerned about whether growth translates into real improvements in purchasing power and economic activity. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the cost of living has gone up sharply in the past five years, not only due to COVID-19, but also because of global supply chain disruptions and an inclination towards narrower views of national interests. Small business leaders remain cautiously optimistic, but are still concerned about structural cost pressures, rising foreign manpower costs and uneven gains from growth.”
“But the surplus reflects, in part, the volatility of the global environment. Unexpected developments, whether geopolitical tensions or trade disruptions, can quickly affect growth and revenue. While we performed better than expected in 2025, as our economy grew 5% beyond our expectations and multinational companies (MNCs) here did well and paid higher than expected corporate income tax, we cannot assume that such conditions will persist. In fact, latest developments in the past week out of the United States (US) with the new prevailing 15% global tariff and the risk of war in the Middle East adds to unanticipated volatility. Beyond the immediate tariff impact, the deeper concern is the increasing unpredictability of global trade rules and how it could eventually impact global inflation, growth and business sentiment going forward. Globally, beyond the uncertainty of potential refunds, companies must now navigate the specific country- and sector-specific incidences of new import duties. For Singapore, there is still the risk of the semiconductor and pharmaceutical sectors being imposed tariffs. So, it is therefore prudent that we channel today’s windfall towards strengthening resilience for tomorrow, rather than locking in spending that may not be sustainable. We must also not make the mistake of assuming that the profit cycles will always remain in Singapore's favour. Mr Speaker, at the same time, we must remain grounded in the realities faced by Singaporeans. I am certain our People’s Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MPs) are aware of the pain points on the ground and will be sharing their views and concerns in this Budget debate today and over the next few days.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my support for the broad thrust of Budget 2026, delivered by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. This Budget reflects fiscal discipline, strategic foresight and a continued commitment to strengthen our social compact in a more uncertain and fragmented world. It balances long-term investment with immediate support for Singaporeans and businesses. At the same time, in a mature economy like ours, the central question is no longer simply gross domestic product (GDP) growth. What matters is whether growth translates into mobility, fairness and confidence across generations. Increasingly, confidence means this: first, can I sustain my earning power? Can my children do better than me? And can I retire with dignity? I will address this life-cycle economic security of Singaporeans in three parts today. But Mr Speaker, before that, however, it is important to note that we are navigating a changed and uncertain world. Geopolitical shifts are reshaping global trade and weakening the international order we have long relied on. At the same time, technological advances, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI), will profoundly reshape how we work, learn and live. It is therefore heartening that the Government is taking decisive steps to invest for the long term. We see this clearly in the Budget, with development expenditure rising faster than operating revenue and expenditure. This reflects a deliberate choice to strengthen long-term capabilities. But this also raises an important point. Some of my residents in Toa Payoh have asked me, "Why are there not more 'goodies', especially when we had a Budget surplus of $15.1 billion in 2025?" Mr Speaker, this is an understandable question.”
“In many other countries, this bitterness at “what could have been” has led to the rise of far-right movements and politics. These ideologies, which encompass xenophobia and identity politics, are deeply divisive and have triggered violence many a times. In this regard, I have a few suggestions. One, can we give more weight to the role of these international organisations and Singapore’s relationship with them in our national education syllabus? Speaking to Singaporeans today, some of them are surprised or unaware that Singapore had actually been a huge beneficiary of World Bank assistance when we were building from Third World to First. Second, we can celebrate these organisations and the work they do in more public roadshows or commemorative events. This is especially since we host many of these international organisations in Singapore, such as the IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute and the IMF Resident Representative Office. Mr Deputy Speaker, today, Singapore is in a privileged position to be able to contribute to help lower-income countries in their development. But beyond contributing financial resources in a prudent manner, we should also consider how Singaporeans can participate in the development and implementation of international assistance programmes on the ground. More and more Singaporeans are in fact interested in making a real difference to our world, as exemplified by Singapore charity Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation’s efforts for Gaza. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications, I support both Motions.”
“Finally, can the Minister of State confirm whether these contributions fully comply with our constitutional and statutory framework governing Singapore’s reserves, including the protection of past reserves? Mr Deputy Speaker, in addition, MAS' recent media release on 28 January noted that Singapore will also support the IMF’s Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST) through a loan arrangement, rather than a grant, which is separate from what is requested from this Motion. But as the RST is designed to provide longer-term financing for climate and structural resilience, can the Minister also clarify whether MAS expects Singapore’s loan exposure under the RST to grow over time and what internal limits or review mechanisms are applied to ensure that such commitments remain consistent with our overall reserves-management framework? These clarifications would help assure Singaporeans and Members of this House that while we remain a responsible global citizen, we continue to exercise prudence and discipline in managing our national resources. Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must heighten awareness among Singaporeans of our international assistance efforts – what we are doing, why do we do it and how are we doing it. This is especially since not many people would read the Government Gazette, where the Government is required to publish the key information of the assistance provided to the IMF under our Bretton Woods Agreements Act. While MAS would issue media releases for each of our contributions to ensure greater transparency and accountability, I am not sure how effective these media releases would be in reaching ordinary Singaporeans. Getting our citizens’ buy-in is important because there may be sentiments that we should help ourselves before helping others.”
“The present Motions propose that the maximum amount of grants that MAS may give to the PRGT is 21 million SDR, or approximately US$28.6 million. Is this limit inclusive of the previous amount of 14.5 million SDR, approximately US$20 million, that this House passed in a 2016 Motion? More broadly, how have Singapore’s past contributions been utilised and how does our cumulative contribution compare with countries of similar size or income levels? Does our support translate into enhanced participation or influence in IMF committees, programme design, or technical assistance priorities? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, given that these grants are ultimately made through the MAS, I would also like to seek clarification on how such contributions are treated from a reserves-management and balance-sheet perspective. I am aware that Minister of State Alvin Tan has shared some parts of it earlier, but please indulge me in some questions on this front. First, can the Minister of State clarify whether these grants are funded from MAS’ investment income or operating surpluses, and I think Minister of State Alvin Tan has mentioned that they do involve some direct draw, may not involve draw from Singapore’s OFR. This may need further clarification from Minister of State. Second is, how are these contributions accounted for within MAS’ balance sheet and what safeguards are in place to ensure that repeated contributions do not lead to structural erosion over time? Third, at what point, if any, would the cumulative size or frequency of such contributions be considered material from a reserves-management perspective, and does MAS apply internal thresholds or stress scenarios in this regard?”
“Commentators have observed that Gaza may just be a pretext for setting up a corporate version of the United Nations, where countries may buy themselves a permanent seat at the table for US$1 billion payable in case within the first year. How will we decide which organisations and international development efforts going forward to support as well? Mr Deputy Speaker, second, we must also carefully assess the sustainability of Singapore’s efforts to contribute to international development efforts. This applies especially when Singapore is asked to contribute monetary resources, in addition to the other specialised capacity building programmes that we run for government officials, representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other organisations. The Enhanced Technical Assistance Package for the Palestinian Authority is one example of the latter programmes that Singapore provides and has been useful. When countries including Singapore made a round of pledges to the IMF’s PRGT back in 2012, the IMF estimated that these additional resources would be able to sustain the PRGT lending to impoverished countries for two decades. Yet, today we need another injection into the PRGT. Would the PRGT eventually reach an amount that is self-sustaining, or will continual injections be required? In a 2024 IMF policy paper, one of the reasons given for the fundraising need is that there has been a post-COVID-19 surge in requests and demand for financial assistance by countries. Has this post-COVID-19 demand abated? When do we expect it to abate? Or do we expect this to set a new norm for the level of financial assistance expected by developing countries?”
“First, I wonder how much our world view has evolved, or needs to evolve, amidst the changing world order that we see today. The IMF is founded upon the United Nations and Bretton Woods system which has underpinned international economic relations for decades since World War II. On that basis, I am aligned with Minister Ong Ye Kung’s statement when we moved similar Motions in this House back in 2021, that “it is in Singapore's interest to be part of this international community where we work together, where we cooperate, where there are rules, there are norms, there are best practices that hold every country into account to ensure that we live peacefully together in a global village”. However, today we see that old multilateral world order is under threat, if not already consigned to history. Many countries are turning protectionist and focusing on narrow conceptions of national interest. So, the question I have is, do Minister Ong’s words in 2021 still hold true? It has been five years since. Do they still justify our continued contribution of significant amounts to uplift other countries in need? One of the safeguards that Parliament had implemented on our loans and grants to the IMF is that our contribution must be part of a multilateral effort. In the latest round of collective fundraising for the PRGT and for supporting Sudan’s debt relief efforts, how many countries are joining the efforts and who are they? Are there any notable omissions? The increasing fragmentation of the global world order also poses interesting questions for us. Just recently, we have seen news that the US has invited Singapore to join its “Board of Peace” to supervise the next phase of the Gaza peace plan.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that I work in a foreign bank. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Finance, and Trade and Industry Members and I have worked to discuss on these two Motions. Our GPC Members for Finance, and Trade and Industry – Member Victor Lye, Shaun Loh, Ng Shi Xuan and Lee Hong Chuang – come from varied backgrounds including finance and investments, local business and industry. We will be sharing our concerns and clarifications as well as some suggestions on these two Motions. Mr Victor Lye will touch on global stability, prudence and Singapore’s national interest. Member Ng Shi Xuan will focus on careful examination of safeguards, proportionality and accountability in Singapore’s IMF contributions. Mr Lee Hong Chuang aims to provide a strategic, values-based case for multilateral engagement grounded in Singapore’s economic interests. Member Shawn Loh will touch on the longer-term picture of multilateral institutions like the IMF and asking what our strategy would be. Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of both Motions. Singapore has always affirmed that contributing as a responsible member of the international community is in our national interest. Having once been a beneficiary of World Bank financing that supported our early infrastructure development between 1963 and 1975, we recognise that promoting stability, growth and debt sustainability in lower-income and vulnerable economies contributes to a more resilient global system, one that ultimately benefits a small and open economy like Singapore. However, I do have some clarifications and suggestions, which I would put in three main buckets.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Minister of State for his answer. I have three supplementary questions. One is for the granular data that the Minister of State mentioned the Government does not collect, whether there is a possibility going forward that there will be the collecting granular data, in particularly in mature heartland estates, so that we can have a feel of the shifts? Second is whether the Ministry has observed whether the closures disproportionately affect independent operators compared with chain outlets and how this may shape the character of neighbourhood centres over time? The last supplementary question is in relation to the independent operators, if they face difficulty, is it possible for SME Centres and maybe the consultants within these SME Centres to be more proactive to help these independent operators before they fold, especially some of those who are heritage independent operators?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three quick supplementary questions. I thank the Minister for the answers. The first supplementary question is whether the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) intends to publish overseas graduate employment outcomes separately on a regular basis and how the Ministry ensures that these graduates are not systematically under-represented in headline fresh graduate statistics. The second supplementary question is whether existing graduate employment support schemes – I think Minister shared some of the schemes nationally – are adequately calibrated for overseas educated Singaporeans? And whether MOM has observed different placement or wage outcomes, compared to locally educated graduates? The third one is mainly from a sectoral perspective. Whether weaker hiring conditions in certain sectors have disproportionately affected overseas educated graduates, who typically return to Singapore later or maybe earlier in the hiring cycle and separate from the autonomous universities graduates?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not want to belabour the point that was raised earlier by earlier Members about the support for heritage-linked small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to balance between sustainability and market forces. It is especially so, with the closure of Pariaman, because a lot in the Malay community are very sad to hear about the closure of Pariaman. Many of us go there over the past decades. So, it is the multi-year food and beverage (F&B) businesses, such as those in the area, being affected, which affects some of those in the Malay community. My question is, Mr Speaker, beyond this, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about the Kampong Gelam Alliance, my main question is, in terms of support for businesses – not just F&B businesses around the Sultan Mosque area, but also, in general, heritage businesses – but in particular, for example, around the Sultan Mosque, some of the non-F&B businesses around the area provide a distinctive feel to the area around the Sultan Mosque. My question is whether there will be further support, going forward, to work with the Kampong Gelam Alliance, or other alliances for that matter, in other heritage areas, and possibly with the SME Centres to make sure that we find out the issues that they face – whether it is non-rental or rental or manpower issues – so that they can be addressed beforehand. And whether there can be more proactive action to be done together with the Government and non-governmental consulting services to help them before they reach a situation where there is no turning back, so that we can maintain the distinctive feel of those businesses.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. First of all, I would like to declare that I am an employee of a financial institution. Mr Speaker, the income from the Reserves play an important role in the Government's revenue, but as the Senior Minister of State has mentioned, the environment has become more volatile. Global markets have become more volatile. In the previous PQ, we have actually discussed about expenditure on healthcare and others being more demanding. So, my two supplementary questions, Mr Speaker: first, how will the Ministry model the impact of a prolonged global resolve cycle on sovereign investment returns and the resulting implications for the Budget stability and social spending sustainability? My second supplementary question is whether the Government plans to enhance long-term public reporting on portfolio risks? I think the Acting Minister mentioned the Sharpe ratio and others as well. But in terms of public reporting on portfolio risks, volatility and drawdowns for Singapore's foreign investment entities to strengthen public confidence, as reliance on investment income increases?”
“If we continue to pair global alignment with domestic inclusion, we will preserve Singapore's fiscal strength and social solidarity for businesses, families and future generations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Third, while Ministerial discretion allows flexibility, it should be balanced by regular public reporting to ensure accountability and Parliamentary oversight. And finally, as global tax norms evolve under the OECD's 15% minimum tax framework, we should move beyond rate-based incentives and prioritise productivity- and innovation-driven measures in research and development (R&D), workforce skills and digital capability. This will safeguard fiscal integrity and sustain Singapore's competitiveness. Mr Deputy Speaker, some may ask what all this means for the average Singaporean. When our businesses stay competitive, they invest and hire. When compliance is simple, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can focus on growth instead of paperwork. When revenues are stable, Government can fund programmes that uplift Singaporeans – from Workfare and SkillsFuture to the Majulah Package's Earn and Save Bonus. I note that this Bill also ensures these social payouts remain tax-exempt, providing direct help to lower-income workers and seniors. Looking ahead, we should continue simplifying compliance through digital tools, expanding tax education in partnership with trade associations and community groups and reviewing new rules annually to stay both competitive and far. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill fortifies the architecture of Singapore's fiscal system – combining prudence, fairness and adaptability. Taxation is not only about numbers. It is about trust – trust that our regime is fair, that growth benefits all and that compliance is manageable for every taxpayer. Sir, as we align with global standards, we must ensure no resident, freelancer or SME feels left behind.”
“Assuming Singapore proceeds with Pillar Two, can the new Listing Corporate Income Tax Rebate under section 92K remain effective once the global minimum tax rules take full effect? How often will these incentives be reviewed for effectiveness? I also note that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Equity Market Review Group are exploring non-tax measures to boost market vibrancy. I look forward to further announcements on these initiatives and their timelines. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while I support the direction of the Bill, there are a few areas that could be refined for greater fairness and long-term effectiveness. First, the new Listing Tax Rebate may not be easily accessible to smaller issuers. Its short eligibility window and administrative requirements could discourage participation, especially among emerging or innovative firms. A more flexible framework with consistent criteria would help broaden the base of Singapore-listed companies Second, the growing number of overlapping incentive schemes adds compliance burden and complexity. Although our headline corporate tax rate remains 17%, multiple concessionary regimes co-exist under different rules and timelines. In addition, the amendments to sections 105L and 105K of the Income Tax Act are in preparation for the implementation of the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), for the automatic exchange of information on crypto-assets for tax purposes. Is there a projected timeline for any update of reporting requirements that IRAS may be carrying out, and for the release of any guidance or training to ensure that affected entities will be in a position to comply with updated requirements? So, a more integrated and transparent structure would improve clarity and efficiency.”
“Large multinational groups will now be subject to a global minimum effective tax rate of 15%. These changes ensure Singapore remains trusted, competitive and compliant as global rules evolve. Given that the US has withdrawn from Pillar Two, does MOF foresee any adjustment to Singapore's implementation timeline or commitments under BEPS 2.0, and how will we maintain our competitiveness if other major jurisdictions slow or reverse their adoption? So, I encourage MOF to continue providing clear guidance and transition support to affected firms, ensuring that the implementation remains proportionate and predictable. The Bill also refines our fund-management regime, reinforcing Singapore's position as a trusted global financial centre. It enhances the tax exemption scheme for fund managers that launch and manage funds investing substantially, at least 30%, in Singapore-listed equities. A 5% concessionary rate will apply for qualifying new fund manager listings, alongside a listing tax rebate to encourage more companies to list and grow here. While deductions for listing expenses remain non-deductible as they are capital in nature, Singapore supports enterprises through non-tax measures, such as the GEMS Listing Grant Scheme, which co-funds up to 70% of eligible Singapore Exchange (SGX) Mainboard listing costs. These measures reflect that Singapore's appeal rests not on low rates, but on stability, transparency and innovation in our ecosystem of global capital. They also strengthen emerging areas, such as sustainable finance and wealth management, which create skilled jobs and long-term opportunities for Singapore.”
“Would the Ministry consider an automatic refund instead, and share how many individuals and how much tax collected, since 2013, will be affected by this retrospective exemption? Mr Speaker, in my conversations with residents and business owners, many appreciate these rebates but remain concerned about complexity. Small enterprises often lack dedicated accounting staff and self-employed workers. Our freelancers, drivers, tutors and hawkers manage their own filing. They can deduct legitimate business expenses. Yet, many remain unfamiliar with the process. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair] I urge Ministry of Finance (MOF) and IRAS to pair legislative reform with practical support: clearer guidance, simpler e-forms and accessible digital tools. Tax compliance should be simple, not stressful; and reliefs should be inclusive, not confined to those who can afford professional help. For companies, I note that those not profitable will receive a $2,000 cash grant if they made Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for at least one local employee in 2024. May I confirm that this CPF contribution requirement applies only to the cash grant component, not a precondition to get the corporate income tax rebate? If so, what is the reason for this distinction? And what situations would the Comptroller regard as "just and equitable" to waive this condition under section 92L(5)? Mr Deputy Speaker, my third point is on enhancing transparency and global alignment. The Bill also amends the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act to allow the Board of Review to publish case details with consent, a small but meaningful step that enhances transparency and consistency in tax administration. More broadly, the Bill aligns Singapore with the OECD's BEPS 2.0 framework.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill 2025. While the Bill may appear technical, its implications are wide-ranging. It keeps Singapore's tax system fair, forward-looking and aligned with global developments and it affects the daily lives of our families, small businesses and workers. This Bill delivers on the intent of Budget 2025: to strengthen fiscal sustainability while easing cost pressures on Singaporeans. It provides immediate relief through a 60%personal income tax rebate, capped at $200; and a 50% corporate tax rebate, capped at $40,000, to help both households and firms manage near-term costs. For individuals, this rebate will especially benefit lower- and middle-income households. Mr Speaker, I have a few questions to ask. First, may I ask how many Singaporeans are expected to face zero income tax liability this year, and how much less personal income tax revenue the Government expects to collect overall? In the longer term, could the Ministry study whether the lowest income tax brackets might also be reduced? We can make our system more progressive not only by raising rates at the top, but by easing them at the bottom if fiscal space permits. Another welcome change is the tax exemption for allowances under the Workfare Training Support Scheme, the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme and the Workfare Skills Support (Level-Up) Scheme. This rightly ensures that training and upskilling benefits are not taxed. However, I note that individuals who previously paid tax on these payments must apply to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) for refunds before 31 December 2029.”
“Three, we can publish simple illustrations and infographics to educate workers on how to calculate their claimed losses, all centralised in one accessible location. Related to this is another suggestion that I raised when we debated the first part of WFA back in January 2025. Would the Ministry publish and consolidate WFA decisions on a publicly accessible website, as done by the Personal Data Protection Commission? This would help employees understand how damages have been assessed and serve the goals of deterrence and open justice as errant employers are named and taken to task. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, as the Minister had stated when we passed the first part of WFA, he mentioned, "we have only just begun", and I am sure we will continue to fine-tune and strengthen our workplace fairness legislation as we put it in place and practice. But for now, I thank MOM for their immense work in giving Singapore our own version of anti-discrimination laws which have been promulgated in most developed countries and which I have had to cite in my 2019 and 2021 Adjournment Motions on fair employment practices. Today, we have our own, if passed, to operate and improve in years to come for the benefit of Singaporeans. Notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I fully support the Bill, Mr Speaker.”
“From past cases which have been determined by the ECT or dealt with by the TADM, may I know how many cases actually saw the reinstatement and re-establishment of the employer-employee relationship at the end of the process? And what proportion of these were voluntarily agreed by the parties and how many were foisted on the parties by an order? The proposed additions to the WFA and the Employment Claims Act 2016 also suggest, but do not detail, that a monetary limit will be set for claims of discriminatory hiring under section 5(1) of WFA. What is the rationale for such a claim limit when no similar limit is suggested for discriminatory employment decisions during employment or in respect of termination? How will such a limit be calculated? Will there be one limit or multiple limits for different scenarios? Another concern is that it may be difficult to quantify the precise loss or damages that flow from a discriminatory employment decision. For example, what would be the precise loss for someone who was passed over for a promotion because of a protected characteristic, besides any bonus or pay increment that he or she should have gotten? Even for the pay increment, what is the number of months or years that should be used to calculate the total loss? There are a few ways that we can possibly fill this gap, based on existing solutions used elsewhere. One, we can stipulate a default amount or rate of statutory damages where actual loss need not be proven, as already done for intellectual property infringement under the Trade Marks Act or Copyright Act. Two, we can allow the ECT or Court to appoint a single joint expert to determine damages if a discriminatory decision is established.”
“Hence, I would like to seek a clarification — must workers actually have union representation, or is it enough that they are eligible for union representation in order to allow employers to also have union representatives? Finally, what is the rationale of the policy allowing representation by trade unions, but not allowing representation by lawyers for claims amounting to S$250,000 or less? (In English): The need for legal representation is underscored by the need to navigate alternative avenues of recourse for unfair dismissal, such as bringing a claim in the Industrial Arbitration Court or making representations to the Minister under the Industrial Relations Act 1960 or the Retirement and Re-employment Act 1993. The new sections 36L and 36M deal with this. From my layman reading, it appears that you cannot commence a WFA claim after making representations to the Minister, but you can maintain both if you commence the WFA claim first before making representations to the Minister. That seems complicated and confusing for an individual to navigate without a lawyer. And in terms of remedies, Mr Speaker, the new clause 36N to be introduced in the WFA, as well as the new section 12A to be introduced in the Employment Claims Act 2016, stipulate the remedies that an individual can obtain in a WFA claim. In essence, the general relief that the claimant can obtain is damages and for discriminatory dismissal claims, there is an additional option of ordering reinstatement of the claimant in his or her previous employment. How practical is such an option for reinstatement, especially when trust and confidence would have broken down between the employer and the employee?”
“At the third and final stage, any workplace fairness claims that cannot be resolved through the company's internal processes or through mediation may be brought to the General Division of the High Court, or to the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) if the claim amount is S$250,000 or less. For cases brought to the ECT, individuals are not permitted to be represented by lawyers, whether during mediation or during tribunal proceedings. This is in line with the ECT's objective to maintain a simple, personal and judge-led process. However, I would like to ask — has any satisfaction survey or study ever been conducted on individuals and employers regarding the process and outcomes of ECT proceedings, given that legal representation is generally not permitted? This situation could create an inequality of opportunity, as companies, partnerships or organisations can still be represented by in-house counsel who are their full-time officers or employees. I understand that this is the current rule for ECT proceedings. However, does the Ministry have data on how many cases involve employers being represented by full-time in-house lawyers? To maintain the principle of equality of arms, could aggrieved individuals be permitted to be accompanied by lawyer friends during mediation sessions or tribunal proceedings — provided that the lawyer does not act as their legal representative? If so, I hope this matter can be clarified in the subsidiary legislation to be introduced under Section 36I(3) in this Bill. This principle of equality also exists in other regulations, where employers may only be represented by trade union representatives if workers are also represented by their own union.”
“Is any and all recourse precluded, such that the claimant cannot pursue the workplace fairness claim in mediation or in Court? I believe this has been raised by others as well before me. It also appears difficult for a claimant to determine the expiry of the time bar if the employer does not give notice of the employment decision. In the new section 36E, how does the Ministry expect the time bars in limbs (2)(b) and (3)(b) to work? Where a claim for a discriminatory hiring decision is concerned, is section 36E(2)(b) even meaningful since there are express provisions on deemed notice and implied notice where a prospective employer has "ghosted" the employee after the employment application, interview or test? The prescribed time bars also make reasonable concessions for pregnant individuals. In relation to the new section 36E(4)(a) of the Bill, must there be formal certification of pregnancy or is a clinical diagnosis by a registered medical practitioner enough? Is it truly the intent to subject pregnant women, for example, to dispute resolution under the WFA, prior to the end of their confinement, just because they only got their pregnancy confirmed by a doctor after the employer's alleged discriminatory dismissal or termination? Mr Speaker, my next point on claims procedure on ECT or High Court, but will be made in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to state for the record my appreciation to the Government for the amendments to the Workplace Fairness Act that aim to protect Singapore workers from any form of discrimination. However, I have a few questions.”
“In a similar vein, would the Ministry and/or its agencies roll out training on how to institute or improve an acceptable grievance handling process before the WFA goes live, and as mentioned, end 2027 – so, we still have a few years to go before then. So, when will this be done? Next, Mr Speaker, claims, procedure and mediation. I think many in this room have shared about their concerns on the mediation front. Second, an aggrieved individual would have to attempt mediation as a precondition to filing a claim against the employer or firm. The Bill provides that this will be evidenced by a "claim referral certificate", issued by an approved mediator if the dispute cannot be settled by mediation. What is the duration that the individual has to commence a claim after receiving a "claim referral certificate"? Will each certificate stipulate a bespoke time limit for that particular claim to be brought in the High Court or the ECT? If so, what should an individual claimant do if his or her "claim referral certificate" lapses or expires? A bit of a technical question that I have. So, we must have mediators, if other Members have spoken, mediators who are sensitive to the context of our unique system, emphasising tripartism and harmonious labour relations. What is the size of the pool of approved mediators that will be maintained? Where will they be drawn from? Practising lawyers, HR specialists or Public Service officers? The new section 36E to be introduced by this Bill, provides that a mediation request must be made within one, two or six months of the alleged discriminatory employment decision, depending on the nature of the claim and whether the employer gave notice of the employment decision or not. What is the consequence if a claimant is out of time?”
“My question, therefore, on TAFEP, would be, as Minister Tan has shared earlier, he has elaborated in his opening speech about the role that TAFEP will play. My question is, after hearing what Minister Tan has asked, is given the range of work to be done by TAFEP, would TAFEP's budget and resources be scaled up or down, or maintained, following the implementation of the WFA? I think TAFEP will play a significant role, going forward, from what I have heard from Minister Tan, given the expectations also from the Members in the Chamber, especially in the need to simplify things and in particular, possibly making things in vernacular so that our employees can understand it further, including employers. Second point, Mr Speaker, is on the claims procedure and internal grievance handling processes. As I understand it, an aggrieved individual would need to go through three sequential stages to pursue a claim against an employer or firm. First, the employee must resort to the firm's internal grievance handling process at the first instance. Would there be minimum standards that such internal processes would have to meet and would they be subject to audit by supervising agencies? I think this is the first hurdle before things get progressive. This is important, especially if you are also subjecting an individual who is complaining about a discriminatory decision not to hire him or her under section 5 of the WFA. Unlike individuals complaining about discriminatory employment decisions during employment, or in respect of dismissal, retrenchment or termination, such an individual would not have signed a contract with the firm where he or she might have agreed to the firm's internal grievance handling process.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as a member of the TAFEP Committee. The Bill marks a landmark first for Singapore – the establishment of a comprehensive, statutory framework for workplace fairness and anti-discrimination. It represents one of the most structured and progressive statutory frameworks of its kind in our region in past. For me personally, this has been a long-awaited milestone. Ten years ago, in my maiden speech, I spoke about fair employment practices and the need for enhanced anti-discrimination protections. Other MPs have also spoken about it over the years. After we passed the first part of the WFA in January this year, this Bill now stands between us and finally having statutory anti-discrimination protections that employees can avail themselves of. This is more than a legal reform; it is a social compact for the future of work in Singapore, one that balances fairness, accountability and economic competitiveness. Singapore's approach, grounded in tripartism and trust between Government, unions and employers, makes this framework uniquely Singaporean and regionally possibly distinctive. Mr Speaker, Sir, I actually wanted to ask a few questions about the implementation of the timeline and the role of TAFEP, but I think Minister Tan, in his opening speech, already answered my question. He mentioned about it being scheduled by end of 2027. But what I want to reiterate here is the fact that for employers to plan ahead, a clear timeline and transparent update ahead of implementation will be useful, especially in the current economic and trading environment that we are seeing globally.”
“Mr Speaker, I have a clarification with the Minister. But before that, I would like to thank the Minister for his speech where he mentioned the historical fact that the Malay is being offered land back in the 1960s and none has actually gone over during the 1960s. I think it that sort of brings out the fact about our older generation of the Malay community being part of the Singapore's identity. So, I thank Minister for highlighting that. Mr Speaker, my clarification is in relation to the discussion earlier. I have been hearing the issue about what the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. I find it hard to believe that the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat suggesting that the Vice Chairman Mr Faisal Manap did not know who Mr Deros is and what were the implications of his endorsement, given that his reach is quite significant online and his positions have been quite clear. And I think it is on both sides – the PAP Malay MPs and of course, the WP Malay MPs, would know Mr Deros back then. So, my clarification is somewhat related to that, in some ways in terms of the guidelines and framework. Can the Minister share a bit more about the guidelines and framework pre- and, I think, because the situation happened during the heat of the GEs, how can we be more clear, going forward, in terms of how the guidelines and framework that he has shared. And I truly support the fact that having a very clear guideline and framework as he has shared during his Ministerial Statement, will go a long way in in bringing a bit more clear direction into how we should deal with issues in relation to race and religion going forward.”
“If we hold fast to this spirit of partnership – recognising that putting “we first” does not mean neglecting “me first” – that our personal success is strengthened when our community succeeds. We can forge a new compact: one where growth is inclusive, every Singaporean has a stake and our youths are inspired to lead the future. Together, let us carry Singapore forward with confidence, courage, unity, equality so that social mobility is always a possibility. [Applause.]”
“This would reassure talented artists that they can pursue their craft with confidence, while also having academic and career options to fall back on. It would make a career in the arts not just inspiring, but also sustainable. And fourth, prioritise mental well-being. With one in three youths facing severe stress or anxiety, we must normalise seeking help, expanding counselling access and create safe spaces. Mr Deputy Speaker, research from the National Institute of Education at the Nanyang Technological University and others finds that many young Singaporeans perceive our meritocracy as too narrowly focused on early academic performance – narrowing definitions of success and straining student well-being. We must broaden our pathways if equality of opportunity is to remain real. At the same time, vices like vaping pose risks. Enforcement alone is insufficient. So, we must guide youths back through positive communities – in gaming, arts, social causes or professional networks. Our youths are our future and our promise for the next 60 years. Mr Deputy Speaker, whether facing global storms or domestic challenges, we must keep our social compact strong. As the President reminded us, fairness is never finished. It must be renewed in every generation. And if fairness is never finished, then equality and meritocracy are also work never finished. It is not enough to reward effort – we must also level the playing field, so that every Singaporean, regardless of birth or background, has a true chance to rise. Singapore’s story has never been written by Government alone. It has always been co-authored by our people – families, workers, entrepreneurs, communities alike.”
“Explore a combined MediSave retirement plan, setting aside part of payouts for healthcare, with an opt-out for those already well-covered, where part of payouts are automatically set aside for healthcare expenditure in excess of what is covered by MediShield Life. This would reduce anxiety for seniors, who often fear that a single hospital bill, a single hospital bill, could wipe out their retirement savings. This can be implemented with an opt-out mechanism for seniors who are adequately secured by hospitalisation or accident insurance. Mr Deputy Speaker, these proposed refinements will together boost confidence in our retirement system and its ability to see each of us through life. They will give assurance that no Singaporean, after a lifetime of work, will be left to face old age amidst insecurity. Mr Deputy Speaker, as the President also noted, we must give every citizen confidence about their place in society and that begins with our youths. They must be co-pilots of our journey and not passengers. Youth unemployment is higher than national average and many worry about employability in an age of AI. So, first, evolve SkillsFuture into a family credit system: more credits when more family members upskill together. Second, the suggestion will be to expand the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to Singaporeans below 40, so that younger workers can also upgrade and pivot. Third, broaden the definition of success. Let us celebrate entrepreneurship, trades, the arts and sports, not just traditional jobs. For the arts, perhaps, the expanded National Arts Council scholarships could also explore a "dual career" pathway, similar to what spexEducation provides for our Team Singapore athletes.”
“The Matched Retirement Savings Scheme has helped seniors with smaller CPF balances, but its income ceiling and eligibility criteria are presently narrow. We could, perhaps, expand it to include part-time workers, caregivers re-entering the workforce and even selected groups of younger workers in their 30s and 40s, so that interest compounding works in their favour earlier in life. Third, protection. To protect retirees from spikes in inflation, I propose an inflation-linked CPF LIFE options, so payouts rise in line with the cost of living. Currently, CPF LIFE only offers lifelong monthly payouts on the decreasing Basic plan, the constant Standard plan or the increasing Escalating plan. Under my proposal, the base payouts may start slightly lower, but they will rise in tandem with the CPI. As with the other plans, this would be on a voluntary opt-in basis and it should assuage members who fear the erosion of purchasing power after they stop working. Fourth, equity. It may also be time to review the 4% interest floor on Retirement Accounts, which was set back in 2008. A modest increase, or alternatively, on a tiered floor for the first $60,000, would especially benefit lower-income seniors who have smaller CPF balances. Fifth, Mr Deputy Speaker, flexibility. Simplify the Lease Buyback Scheme and create a family buyback option, letting children co-purchase part of the lease to provide parents retirement cashflow, for example. Sixth, dignity in work. Enhance re-employment incentives, longer contracts and phased-down roles for seniors, while keeping CPF contributions meaningful. And finally, seventh, Mr Deputy Speaker, healthcare assurance.”
“Beyond helping families manage today's cost pressures, we must also think long-term, about retirement adequacy and how Singaporeans can age with dignity. The President reminded us that fairness is a work never finished. One of the key tests of fairness is how we care for seniors after a lifetime of work. By 2030, one in four citizens will be aged 65 and above. We must ensure retirement adequacy for all. We should be prepared for more elderly couples living on their own, as more and more young Singaporeans aspire to live independently sooner. Ensuring the retirement adequacy of each and every Singaporean is, therefore, critical in our goal for our seniors to age actively with dignity and purpose. Our CPF system is rightly regarded as one of the most sustainable in the world. Having previously been involved in the earlier round of CPF changes as a member of the CPF advisory panel, there is broad consensus that our CPF system works, even as we try to figure how we can tweak it to make it better. In contrast, rising life expectancies, inflationary pressures and changing work patterns have caused many pension systems abroad to falter because benefits have not kept pace with inflation, or because public finances are overstretched. We must act early to guard against these risks. I have some suggestions. First, predictability. While MOM has announced that it will raise the Basic Retirement Sum for future cohorts, can we give Singaporeans more certainty by setting out a 10- to 15-year path of increase? This way, families can plan ahead with confidence and each increment will hopefully be less politicised or face less sceptical questioning of its motives. Second, inclusivity. We should further strengthen CPF top-ups and matching schemes.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware that Singapore's inflation rate is on average, low, around 2%, and now below 1%. But what matters more is our people’s actual experience when food or utility prices increase much faster than the average CPI. For families living on tight budgets, even moderate inflation feels very burdensome. This is why a targeted COLA mechanism can provide assurance where it is most needed. I also acknowledge concerns that such a mechanism might be seen as fiscally unsustainable, seemingly creating unlimited liability when inflation spikes. But that is not my proposal. Singapore's version must be targeted, capped and reviewed annually. It would only apply to certain basic schemes, activated only when clear thresholds are exceeded, and assistance provided according to need. In this way, we balance compassion with fiscal discipline, building a safety net for the most vulnerable, while maintaining Singapore's traditional prudence. Additionally, we should also consider a Caregiver Credit or Support, similar to the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme, to recognise and provide better support to those who temporarily need to exit the workforce to care for children, elderly parents or relatives with disabilities or chronic illnesses. Such a scheme could provide CPF contributions or direct financial support, so that caregivers do not have to sacrifice their long-term security while caring for family. I heard all these during the M3 post-National Day Rally dialogue last year, where I received appeals from caregivers requesting improvements, for instance, on the issues of caregiver leave and financial assistance for them. (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now continue in English.”
“Prices today are much higher compared to three years ago. However, Government measures, such as the Assurance Package and CDC vouchers, have helped significantly. But as the Prime Minister reminded us, these are not long-term solutions. While inflation affects everyone, its impact is most keenly felt by low-income families. Meritocracy only works when basic needs are met and opportunities are distributed fairly. Equality of opportunity does not come naturally. It must be pursued through policies that provide protection to those most affected. Therefore, I would like to propose an automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) mechanism. Additional relief to schemes, like ComCare or Silver Support, can be activated when inflation for essential goods exceeds a certain threshold. With smart monitoring using artificial intelligence, this relief can be delivered accurately in a timely, targeted and predictable manner. To make this proposal more practical, I recommend three key features. First, essential basket trigger based on inflation in food, utilities, transport and healthcare. Second, automatic activation. When inflation exceeds 3% to 4% on an annual average, assistance is adjusted in the next cycle. Third, scaled and controlled. More assistance is given to those who are less fortunate, with limits to ensure fiscal sustainability. This is not something new. In the US, social security benefits are automatically adjusted according to inflation. Canada and many European countries also adjust pensions and social welfare annually. Even Japan links pensions to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), despite experiencing periods of low inflation. This shows that COLA mechanisms are not excessive promises, but prudent measures to protect dignity and stability.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the President for his Address and I support the Motion. As the President reminded us, we are living in "a more unsettled and chaotic world". These external uncertainties are beyond our control. But what we can control is how we strengthen our social compact at home. That is how we ensure peace, security and prosperity for our people. Mr Deputy Speaker, as the President also reminded us, fairness is a work never finished. Singapore has long held meritocracy as a core value, that effort and ability should determine success, not birth or background. While aggregate inequality measures have not worsened materially in recent years, the lived experience tells a different story. Basic costs, housing and education opportunities still weigh more heavily on some households, and perceptions of unfairness remain real. This is what academics call the gap between macro trends and lived realities. If left unaddressed, it can weaken trust in our social compact. Equality, like fairness, is never absolute but our duty is to keep narrowing the gaps so that opportunities and security are shared across society. So, I will focus on three areas: protecting livelihoods, ensuring retirement adequacy and empowering every Singaporean, young and old, to co-pilot our shared future. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As the President has reminded us, Singapore must always uphold the principle of "we first" – ensuring that economic growth benefits everyone and that no one is left behind. The inflation rate has declined from 6.1% in 2022 to 0.8% in June this year. Nevertheless, families still feel the pressure at the market, at clinics and when paying utility bills.”
“Mr Speaker, I would not be asking three supplementary questions. But I have one clarification to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is in relation to the sanctions. The Minister shared that shift in position on the targeted sanctions on the settler groups and individuals. In fact, I am thankful to the Minister for sharing that slight change, because if you look at the European Union (EU), the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the United Kingdom (UK), they also did similar targeted sanctions back in 2024. So, Singapore shifting in 2025 is, in some ways, not taken very lightly and probably a very principled move, especially when Singapore is a financial hub and seen as a financial centre. But my clarification is, Minister, in a broader perspective, the threshold of taking broader sanctions on Israel, the entity or the country itself, can the Minister share how Singapore would assess the actions of other countries, going forward, that have imposed financial or economic sanctions on Israel and whether there is scope for us to consider similar enhancement measures in a calibrated way? Only in a situation where the Gaza situation does not abate, how would we take that into consideration and how would be our principled assessment be? So, my question is, in fact, about the thresholds: what would be our principled guidelines to shift to a different threshold on broader sanctions?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for sharing his thoughts and highlighting to us about the setting up the task group. I have got three clarifications, Mr Speaker. One is whether the Prime Minister can share with us a bit more about his negotiations within ASEAN, because the Prime Minister mentioned that he had a chat with the Prime Minister of Malaysia, and how the ASEAN negotiations would go ahead in terms of dispute resolution or in terms of the trade tariffs that have been introduced. Second, I know the situation is still fluid, but there are concerns about the semi-conductor tariffs that might come onstream. Given that Singapore is a re-export hub, semi-conductor is a significant proportion of our manufacturing sector, can the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister Gan share, on a sectoral basis, the impact of the semi-conductor tariffs, if they do come in, its impact on jobs and GDP in Singapore? And the last clarification is whether the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister Gan can share, at the interim and at the start, whether there has been macro counterfactual simulations of existing tariffs that have been introduced and whether if there is an addition of 5% or 10% tariffs or semi-conductor tariffs, the impact on growth and jobs for Singapore?”
“Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his answer. I got two supplementary questions. Mr Speaker, first, it is sad to hear that 80% of the fatalities are mostly seniors, so my first supplementary question, or maybe a suggestion, is whether we can expedite the planned implementation of the Bus Safety Tripartite Task Force recommendations, especially in terms of the safety features? Second is, as our society ages, I think we will have a lot more of our seniors who are aged above 80, and maybe even 90 or 100, taking buses if they are physically fit. How can we enhance our safety features on our buses even more going forward? For example, how we can enhance our safety features, such that the seats are closer and with really strong guardrails and a lot more guardrails, so that they can actually have a safer ride. So, could the Minister of State share on that?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have two supplementary questions to add to what Member Mr Mark Lee has spoken about. I thank the Minister of State and also Member Mark Lee for highlighting the innovation that we want to encourage in Singapore in the financial sector and the trust element. The first supplementary question is, what more can MAS do to strengthen consumer financial literacy, which was highlighted just now by the Minister of State. But I think my question is, there is going to be more of these going forward as we push towards innovation in the financial sector, so whether we can streamline the complaints channel for retail investors and especially for fintech-related grievances. Because this is going to get a bit more complex as we allow some innovation space. Second, in terms of the increasing use of digital platforms and artificial intelligence (AI)-based marketing by financial institutions and fintech companies, is there a way that MAS can share how it can enhance its oversight to ensure such technologies are not used to exploit consumer biases or obscure risks going forward? I think it is going to get a bit more complex. The Minister of State shared it somewhat just now, but I think with AI-based marketing, especially on the fintech side, how can we enhance our oversight?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to ask. I got two quick clarifications. The first clarification is for Senior Minister of State Zaqy about Quantedge. The Senior Minister of State mentioned about Quantedge partnership and the MOU, whether he can share a bit more about what the MOU means, because he did not give much details and in what way will students benefit. The second clarification is in terms of the Dian expansion, for Minister Maliki. I am very happy that the Minister is expanding it to the other M3@Towns fully. Can the Minister mention how it will segue with ComLink+? I think the Minister mentioned about all the other things that ComLink and ComLink+ have done. But what other resources will there be for these other new towns when Dian is expanded? Would there be additional resources? Because we are talking about Budget and COS, whether there will be any additional resources.”
“Mr Chairman, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We celebrate SG60 this year. I am sure many of us are proud of what we have achieved in these 60 years since Singapore became independent, as a multiracial society in the middle of a region with a Malay and Muslim majority. We should use SG60 to remind ourselves that we have gotten here because of the contributions of every community. Can the Minister share more about the Malay/Muslim community's contributions to the SG60 celebrations this year? Moving forward, I think there are at least two areas that our Malay/Muslim community can play an outsized role in the world and shape Singapore’s future on the world stage. First, we can be the shining example of how the Malay/Muslim community can progress in harmony with other groups. The calibrated manner in which we handled the tudung issue over the years, the mature way in which we accepted the closure of mosques during the COVID-19 pandemic and how MUIS addressed various issues – all these are not as easily achieved in many other countries. Second, we should take the lead in developing global thought leadership in growth areas, such as Islamic finance, Shariah-compliant medical treatments and bio-medicine, sustainable finance, as well as climate change. How can our community contribute to building a shared Singapore future together in a sustained way?”