Xie Yao Quan
Singapore
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Minister mentioned the incidence rate of bullying behaviour in our schools and I would like to stress that this is based on reported incidences.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I thank MSF for responding to our cuts and I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $5,822,529,800 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.”
“What would be a fair valuation of fairness to current, affected homeowners? The Government will need to use sound and consistent principles for such an exercise, to justify the higher public spending that this implies.”
“My idea of balance that I prompted you on was not so much about keeping versus sharing at the individual level, but about spending and saving at the societal level.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just reiterate two points that I have made in my speech. First, I think it is more meaningful to look at how a term of government balances its collection against spending over its entire term in government.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for both clarifications. My basic response to both clarifications is yes. I accept that surpluses can be transferred into Past Reserves at the end of a term of government.”
The complete record
Every one of 336 lines we hold for Xie Yao Quan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 7.
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Minister mentioned the incidence rate of bullying behaviour in our schools and I would like to stress that this is based on reported incidences. My questions to the Minister are, number one, do MOE and the Minister foresee that there will be an increase in reported incidences and therefore, the rate of bullying behaviour in our schools given the measures to roll out improved reporting and easier reporting of bullying behaviour? And number two, given this backdrop, would bringing down the rate of bullying incidents in our schools be a meaningful measure of effectiveness, in MOE's view?”
“Thank you, Chairman. I thank MSF for responding to our cuts and I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $5,822,529,800 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $259,759,300 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just three buckets of clarifications. The first on the expansion of ComLink+ social health integration pilot. So, this is directed at Minister of State Zhulkarnain. How many more ComLink+ residents is MSF looking to bring onboard this expanded pilot and where, which ComLink+ towns is MSF looking to expand this pilot to? And also, will family coaches and public health institutions be sharing data to support clients to navigate the system and avoid the navigation, like Minister of State Zhulkarnain spoke about? Second bucket of clarifications on the ComLink+ skills upgrading support pilot. Again, directed at Minister of State Zhulkarnain. I just wanted to ask if family coaches will be working with IHLs and the course providers to signpost clients to certain courses and also to help them to enrol and get on board these courses? A third bucket of clarifications on supporting our professionals in the sector to uplift them, even as they care and pour their heart and soul to care for clients. So, this is directed at the Minister. Does MSF have plans to enhance the support to professionals for professional development and career advancement opportunities in the sector?”
“Instead, we need a system of interlocking solutions, across multiple domains – academic, non-academic, social capital formation, financial stability, housing, health – each solution working alongside the others, to collectively close the opportunities gap. Second, we need good solutions at scale, more than excellent pilots that remain as pilots. The harder work – the hardest work – is often in scaling and sustaining at scale. And it is this harder work that we need to do, to have a chance to meaningfully close the opportunities gap. And third, we need solutions throughout life, not just at any one life stage, but across various life stages, to overcome the opportunities gap that compounds through life. Early life matters and we must intervene heavily in the early years, but we cannot stop there. We need interventions beyond, well into adulthood, to close the opportunities gap throughout life. So, on that note, I urge community partners, funders and citizens to all come together to create interventions across domains, add scale and through life to close the opportunities gap for our children. And the Government can play a leadership role here to signpost, coordinate, support, resource and galvanise. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) Fees and Professional Donee Reform”
“It requires adherence to high ethical standards, including privacy standards, that will do no harm to the vulnerable that we are seeking to understand and ultimately uplift. And all these mean it will require considerable and sustained funding. And by the way, such a dataset goes well beyond administrative data. Administrative data is still critical. But the kind of research being contemplated will need much more than administrative data. I urge the Government to consider constructing such a dataset, investing in such a longitudinal dataset, with a view to enabling models that will truly transform our understanding of what drives social mobility, what interventions targeting what drivers may work and work to what extent. But even with such research, by definition, we will only truly know the outcomes of what we do today 35 to 40 years later. Social mobility is that longitudinal by its very nature. Put another way, we cannot wait for longitudinal research to conclude, to tell us what we should we do now, to close the opportunities gap for our children of today. Deciding what to do now to close that opportunities gap will thus be as much art as it is science. We will need to look to whatever evidence base is available and apply judgement, consider ideas thoroughly, try to do no harm if at all possible, but act now. And then, in 35 to 40 years down the road, we will truly find out how we have done. But so, what do we need to do now, systemically, to close the opportunities gap from the start of life and through life? Let me suggest three key principles. First, there is no "magic bullet" solution.”
“To really help us in our work to close the opportunities gap throughout life and keep relative social mobility alive in Singapore, I think we need longitudinal research in Singapore that goes beyond descriptive correlations amongst group averages, to mechanisms that elucidate what actually drives social mobility, at the individual level and models that can predict and simulate how social mobility might change with certain shifts to the drivers of mobility, again at the individual level. In very technical and academic terms, we can use theoretical networking games and micro-founded structural approaches that overcome the reflection problem arising in reduced-form peer effects analysis in econometrics to achieve this. But in simple terms, we should be aiming for models that show how individuals make decisions and assume certain trajectories in life based on intrinsic factors, extrinsic factors and the influence of peers on one another. And all this is possible only if we have the right dataset. So, we must start with data, the right type of data, collected to the right fidelity. We need data on the social networks of Singaporeans at the bottom. We need data on cognitive and behavioural traits, on their participation in the economy, not only in the formal sector, but also, and perhaps especially, in the informal sector. We need data on participation in credit facilities. Again, both formal and informal and we will need such data over a long period of time. To my knowledge, there is no such dataset in Singapore perhaps precisely because it is very challenging to collect such data, to high fidelity. It requires extensive and deep fieldwork, over a long period of time and first, building strong relationships of trust.”
“Children from low-income families have a better chance to become high-income as adults if they get opportunities to interact with peers from higher-income families. This likely holds true in Singapore, too. So, it takes all of us. And indeed, as Teo You Yenn puts it in her book, "This is What Inequality Looks Like", inequality, in opportunities, through life, is not just the result of policies, but also how everyone, at the top and bottom and in between interact and choose to interact with these policies, interact with one another within a social context and do and do not do certain things. So, again, it takes all of us. So, those who have done well must play an active role to create opportunities for those children who start off with much less. This is what a "we first" and mobile society in Singapore can look like. And I think becoming such a society and keeping relative mobility alive in this way, will be a defining challenge of our times. So, what do we need to get there? First, I think we need scientific knowledge and understanding. Ms Sylvia Lim, in the same speech in 2018, called for longitudinal studies that will, "track the fate of families (at the bottom) over time" and indeed, go "beyond numbers to dig deep into the daily lives and evaluate the reasons why they do not seem to be able to catch up with the rest of society." MOF's Occasional Papers in 2015 and 2025 do provide a longitudinal view on how families at the bottom are doing. They are a very good start. But I agree with Ms Lim and today, I want to build on her call.”
“But Singapore has never been one to define our values and ideals solely on how we outperform other societies. We chart our own path and we set our own values and ideals. I think we must continue to be a society where relative mobility is alive as much as possible and indeed, strengthened if at all possible. Keep the measure as close to 20% as possible, and lean against the natural pressures of slowing relative mobility with time. In concrete terms, this means pushing against the natural pressures of ever further starting points in life and the pressures of an ever-widening opportunities gap that compounds through life for our children of today. 6.15 pm Our families at the bottom are not stuck – far from it – but we must help their children keep up with families at the top who are pulling away faster. Help children at the bottom keep up from the start of their lives, and through life. Or as Ms Sylvia Lim said in this House back in 2018, children impacted by their parents' circumstances must be "supported or facilitated to break out". However, while we can look to the Government, with its policy levers, to secure broad-based progress for all, in other words, to deliver absolute mobility, it is quite a different story for relative mobility. Keeping relative social mobility alive, essentially, containing that opportunities gap between your children and mine, almost by definition, cannot be left to the Government, or for that matter, the social sector, alone. It takes all of us. Those who have done well and can provide the most to their children must play an active role and become part of the solution, to create opportunities for those children who start off with less. Indeed, well-known researchers, like Raj Chetty and Matt Jackson, are showing that in America at least.”
“The key measure for relative mobility is the income distribution of children, in their 30s, born to fathers who were in the bottom 20% of earners, in their 40s. In other words, the starting condition for these children was, being born into the bottom 20% by income, and the measure is where these children ended up by income in their adult lives. In an ideal world, 20% of these children would themselves end up in the top 20% of earners in their cohorts; 20% will end up being in the bottom 20% of earners – like their fathers, and so on. There would be an equal chance, basically, of moving up to the top, or anywhere in between, or remaining at the bottom, in an ideal world. But the world is obviously not ideal. So, in Singapore,13.8% of those born into the bottom 20% in the 1985 to 1989 cohorts made it to the top 20% of earners while 25.3% ended up in the bottom 20% of earners, like their fathers. So, there is an over-representation. Compared to the 1978 to 1982 cohorts, in other words, those born just seven years earlier, the 1985 to 1989 cohorts have almost one full percentage point less that made it to the top 20% of earners, and one full percentage point more that ended up in the same bottom 20%, like their fathers. So, relative social mobility in Singapore has been slowing even as we sustained broad-based progress for all. And the natural tendency will be for relative mobility to continue slowing, as it has in many other advanced economies. I must point out, though, that we have been doing better than other advanced economies in relative mobility. In France, less than 10% of those born into the bottom 20% ended up in the top 20%. And even in a Nordic society like Denmark, the figure is at 11.7%. We are at 13.8%. So, we are not doing badly at all.”
“Chairman, I move, "That the total sum allocated to Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100." Members on both sides of the House have spoken passionately in this House about social mobility in Singapore. So, there is no monopoly on compassion for the least amongst us and no monopoly on ideas to uplift them. Social mobility is one centre of gravity in MSF's work. So, as Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chair, I thought to use this speech to contribute to the conversation. And here, I would like to declare that I am also working in a foundation focussed on social mobility. But first, let us frame the challenge of social mobility in Singapore precisely. And let me start with this point. Singapore has uplifted lower-income households significantly over the decades. There has been broad-based progress for all. In technical terms, Singapore has kept absolute social mobility very much alive. Each generation has, on the whole, including those in the lowest-income segment, been able to achieve much better life outcomes than the previous generation. Yet, between households, higher-income households are accumulating advantages even more quickly than lower-income household. Therefore, within each generation, the starting points in life between children from higher- and lower-income families are moving further apart, and the opportunities gap throughout life between children from higher- and lower-income families is widening, resulting in larger inequalities in outcomes much later in life. In technical terms, therefore, relative social mobility in Singapore is slowing even as we have kept absolute mobility very much alive. The Ministry of Finance's (MOF's) Occasional Papers, in both 2015 and 2025, bear this out.”
“What would be a fair valuation of fairness to current, affected homeowners? The Government will need to use sound and consistent principles for such an exercise, to justify the higher public spending that this implies. One plausible principle, to my mind, is that there is simply a fair cost to orderly urban renewal, beyond the cost of property. There is a cost to relocating lives, resettling lives, especially because it may well be involuntary for some even if it is voluntary for most. The Government is already paying market value for leases under the Lease Buyback Scheme to homeowners who remain in situ, in their current properties. It stands to reason that there should be additional costs crystalised and compensated for relocation, for resettlement. In this way, the Government will be fair to all homeowners.”
“The Minister said recently, in response to Parliamentary Questions, that VERS should not create a "lottery effect" nor end up becoming a wealth-generating programme for affected homeowners. Today, I would like to advocate for an opposite point. While VERS should not create a windfall for affected homeowners, it should also not short-change them. All affected homeowners should get a fair deal, fair compensation, from VERS. Flats acquired under VERS will be 70 years or older generally. In other words, with leases of 29 years or less remaining. The market value of these leases will be modest and may well turn out to be insufficient to match the price or market value of a replacement flat that is completely new, of similar type and with lease covering the affected homeowner until at least 95 years old. In such a scenario, affected homeowners would ordinarily have to make a cash top-up. But this is hardly ideal for affected homeowners who are most probably senior, no longer working and decumulating wealth to fund retirement life. So, I urge the Ministry to consider making the baseline VERS deal, the baseline VERS compensation package, one in which an affected homeowner will not need to top up cash for a new replacement flat. This, in turn, effectively means that the Government may have to come in and subsidise the cash top-up for affected homeowners instead. And obviously, such a subsidy, such a scheme, will require the Government to utilise more fiscal resources than what is needed to simply acquire property leases at market value. The Government will effectively have to pay a premium beyond market value to achieve fairness for current, affected homeowners. What would be a fair size to this subsidy?”
“30 pm First, introduce National Service (NS) for new male citizens of working age. This is about enhancing equity between citizens by birth and citizens by choice. The full-time NS can be shorter than two years for pragmatic reasons, but there should also be Operationally Ready National Service (ORNS) obligations. Second, if we expect larger numbers of new citizens and PRs in our workforce, then let us continue to keep the Employment Pass numbers in our workforce largely constant. At the same time, redouble efforts to manage concentration in certain professions and companies and of certain nationalities. This is about enhancing equity in the job market, in professional recognition and in career progression. Third, in our autonomous universities, yes, keep the share of foreign undergraduates constant because it is important for Singaporean undergraduates to learn how to collaborate and compete with peers from all around the world. But at the same time, let us look at reducing the number of locally funded scholarships and tuition grants to these foreign students. This is about enhancing the sense of equity for our young adult Singaporeans as they prepare to start their careers. Finally, let us also look at reducing and managing the concentration of foreign undergraduates in certain courses in our universities. Let us take a whole-of-Government approach to enhance equity for Singaporeans so that we can make immigration work for Singapore and all Singaporeans. Support for Our Senior Youths”
“Chairman, last month, Deputy Prime Minister Gan telegraphed that, our TFR "base has come down further" in 2025. But our first collapse in TFR actually happened 25 years ago in 2001. From 1985 to 2000, we had on average 47,000 live births per year. From 2001 to 2020, this plunged to around 40,000. This shift 25 years ago is now creating a moment of reckoning for the size of our resident workforce today, because these smaller birth cohorts are now starting to enter the workforce 25 years later. So, for the first time in Singapore, the birth cohorts hitting working age are smaller than the cohorts aged 65 to 69, that is, those reaching retirement and re-employment age roughly – smaller by 30,000 persons. Just five years ago, we had almost 20,000 more hitting working age than those aged 65 to 69. From 20,000 more to 30,000 less. A drop of 50,000 over five years. The stark implication is this – to keep our resident workforce growing at the same modest rate as in previous years, we will have to top-up our resident workforce with more new citizens and PRs by around the same number over five years. Even if we assume a discount for AI-driven productivity growth, we will still need to naturalise quite a lot more compared to current levels. That is why, in my view, we are facing a moment of reckoning in our immigration policies. We need to intensify. This was pre-ordained 25 years ago, when our TFR first collapsed, and those birth cohorts are hitting working age today. The Government has been stressing the importance of integration to make immigration work. But beyond enhancing integration, I think we also need enhanced equity to make intensified immigration work. And so, I put forth in good faith the following policy proposals. 4.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for both clarifications. My basic response to both clarifications is yes. I accept that surpluses can be transferred into Past Reserves at the end of a term of government. But surpluses within a term of government serves two purposes: first, it buffers Singapore and Singaporeans against shocks and crises within the term of government, and then at the end of the term of government, if we pass through that term without crisis and we have accumulated surpluses, then that could be transferred out, or that could be transferred into Past Reserves. That is our system of government, and it is, I think, the envy of many countries around the world. It is something that is precious that we should really cherish; something that we should really cherish.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for both clarifications. For the first, I would say, let us go back to the MOF Occasional Paper published in 2023. And it is stated very clearly in that paper that our total spending needs will hit 19% to 20% of GDP by 2030; the midpoint is 19.5%. So, the real question is, how do we get there, from 17.5% 10 years ago? If the Member had listened to my speech and looked at the data, GST even with the increase from 7% to 9% headline rate, is yielding 0.6% of GDP more revenues – from 2% to 2.6% in this Budget. GST alone hardly covers us up to the 19.5% target. And so, the point is, we do need a whole mix of revenue strategies to raise revenues structurally to meet our long-term spending needs. And this Government, the PAP Government, has been taking steps well ahead of time and having the courage to do that so that a future government can have the wherewithal to meet our future needs. So, that is the response to the first question. On the second question, it was about GST progressivity. On that, I think it has been mentioned many times in this House and outside, I think Prime Minister put up a chart two years ago during the round-up speech, on the net GST rate, net of transfers, that Singaporean households at different income deciles will be paying because of our system of collection and offsets. So, I would encourage the Member to refer to that.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just reiterate two points that I have made in my speech. First, I think it is more meaningful to look at how a term of government balances its collection against spending over its entire term in government. Second, if we look at the statistics, Table 3.1(b) of the statistical annex to the analysis of revenue and expenditure for Budget 2026, the figures are all there. I referred to that; the Member can refer to that. The surplus that we had for FY2021 was just 0.3% of GDP. In FY2022, it was 0.2%. In FY2023, we had a deficit of 0.4% of GDP – and I took those to be largely balanced. The point is, large surpluses are not that common in our history at all, over the last 26 years; and to zoom in on those large surpluses in GDP terms and draw conclusions about overcollection, I think, is an overstatement.”
“My idea of balance that I prompted you on was not so much about keeping versus sharing at the individual level, but about spending and saving at the societal level. So, you refine the output?" So, in another one second, GenAI gave me this, "Pohon rimbun emas citranya, gugur sebiji di celah dahan; ambil sekadar perlu sahaja, selebihnya rezeki alam tuhan." Or "The lush tree has a golden aura; a single fruit falls between the branches. Take only what is needed, leave the rest as sustenance for God's nature". But I really liked the second line from the first version, so responding to the Minister of State Jasmin Lau's exhortation yesterday, I exercised my human agency and critical thinking, and I combined the two versions. And so, in conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, "Pohon rimbun emas citranya, buah manis lebat di dahan; ambil sekadar perlu sahaja, selebihnya rezeki alam tuhan." (In English): The lush tree has a golden aura; sweet fruits hang heavy and thick. Take only what is needed, leave the rest as sustenance for God's nature. Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]”
“We have been largely balanced over each past term of Government, and it is really not very meaningful to pass judgement on fiscal marksmanship on a year-to-year basis. When we do have fiscal surpluses, we should count our blessings. Across the OECD countries, the average fiscal position in 2023 is a deficit of 4.6% of GDP. We are in a special position to have surpluses. So, let us not talk of surpluses as if they are a failure in planning or something to be frowned upon. Let us not give surpluses a bad name. We should make surpluses great again. Make "surpluses again" great again. But it does beg the question, what should we do with the surpluses? And I will make just one suggestion today. I say, let us plough back part of the surpluses. Plough back part of the surpluses to extend our transitional GST offsets by one more year for the vast majority of Singaporeans. This will cost the Government probably $1.5 billion – well within what our surpluses can afford. Sir, I am a fan of Malay pantuns. So, I thought to conclude this speech with a pantun. And in the spirit of this Budget, and in line with the zeitgeist, I asked generative AI (GenAI) for help. I prompted for a pantun about balance amid abundance, using a fruit tree as a metaphor. And in one second, literally, GenAI gave me this, "Rimbun dahan pohon bermutu, buah manis lebat di dahan; harta melimpah syukur bersatu, sudi berkongsi tanda iman." Mr Zhulkarnain is smiling. Translated loosely into, "Lush are the branches of a quality tree, sweet fruits hang heavy and thick. When wealth overflows, let it be joined with gratitude; to share willingly is a sign of faith." And then AI asked me if I would like another version, with a more specific fruit metaphor, like the durian tree. I said, "No, no, no.”
“And sometimes, the actual surpluses do turn out larger than expected. But there will be times when they turn out smaller than expected too. It is normal to get a surprise, either on the upside or on the downside. It is part of the real world. It is par for the course. In fact, the surpluses for FY2025 and FY2026 are not unusually large at all in GDP terms. Mr Shawn Loh made the same point yesterday. Going back to FY2007, our fiscal surplus was 2.8% of GDP, I mentioned that. Although it was just $7.7 billion in dollar terms. And further back, in FY2000, we had a surplus of 2.4% of GDP, although it was just $4 billion in dollar terms. And so, in my view, the surplus for FY2025 at 1.9% of GDP is somewhat modest, hardly the greatest fiscal surplus any PAP Government has seen in decades; and the surplus for FY2026 at 1% of GDP is decidedly modest. The accumulated surplus over the last term of Government, including the surplus for FY2025, is at around 0.6% of cumulative GDP, again, decidedly modest in my view. But in dollar terms, the surpluses of $15.1 billion and $8.6 billion can create a sticker shock. Understandably so. But we should be clear that this is not so much an indication of over-collection by the Government as it is simply a reflection of how much our GDP base has grown in nominal dollar terms over the last 26 years. The final point I will make, over the last 26 years, since FY2000, we have had surpluses in only 11 years. Let me say that again. Over the last 26 years, we have had surpluses in only 11 years, including FY2024 and FY2025. Our Budgets were essentially balanced in another 11 years, and we ran deficits in four. So, the bottom line really is: budget surpluses are actually not so common in our fiscal history. Large surpluses in GDP terms, even less so.”
“And economic crises have usually been preceded by very good years – an exuberant economy, strong growth, larger-than-expected fiscal surpluses. But precisely because of over-exuberance, markets eventually corrected and we swung from surplus to crisis overnight. Just look at FY2007. A fiscal surplus of 2.8% of GDP on the back of 7.9% growth in 2006. And then what happened? The Great Financial Crisis. Growth disappeared completely in 2008 and so did our fiscal surplus. Looking at FY2025 and this year with AI investments on an absolute tear and boosting the economy, can we say with certainty that this time will be different? Or might a sharp pullback in AI investments, coupled with a secular slump in external demand due to even sharper tariff uncertainties, not be a real risk? Precisely when we get a larger-than-expected fiscal surplus because of stronger-than-expected growth, I think we should be quietly worried. Not about short-term fiscal marksmanship but about the risks of economic and fiscal correction that are being signalled. And when a crisis does hit, we should not expect the Government to turn to the President, turn to our Past Reserves, in the first instance, to fight the crisis. Each term of Government should be looking, in the first instance, at using its own fiscal resources, within its term in Government to fight crises and protect Singapore and Singaporeans. That is why surpluses in some years within each term of Government is important. Surpluses within a term of Government are a design feature, not a bug, in the PAP system of Government. And these surpluses protect current generations of Singaporeans against shocks. Rather than benefit future generations, they benefit the current generation of Singaporeans.”
“And by design, there is effectively zero GST increase, permanently, for families in the bottom 30% by income. Why? Because alongside GST collection, we have also a system of GST offsets – the GST Voucher Scheme and Assurance Package. GST in itself is regressive, but our GST system of taxation combined with offsets is net-net highly progressive. The only people paying effectively more GST now are the most well-off Singaporeans, expatriates and tourists. So, we cannot say that because of the recent surpluses, the Government has been over-collecting GST in the past few years and not even for the next few years. But beyond GST, it is simply not very meaningful to draw conclusions and pass judgement on over-collections based on fiscal surpluses year-to-year. What is meaningful to look at is whether a term of Government balances its collections against spending, over its entire term in office. A year of surplus can well be followed by crisis, and a budget surplus can swing very quickly into a deficit to overcome crisis the next year. We have swung from surplus to crisis, many times, in the past decades. In FYs 2016 to 2019, we had a pretty good run – Budget surpluses of 1.4%, 2.3% and 0.7% of GDP, successively. Then what happened? COVID-19 happened. And in FY2020, we swung to the greatest fiscal deficit any PAP Government has seen, ever. A deficit of $51.6 billion, 10.8% of GDP, to fight the crisis of a generation. It feels like a bad dream now, but this was just a few years back. We do not quite talk about that in this debate. Or look at the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) – the deficit for FY2003 was 1% of GDP. In other instances, the crisis was not pandemic, but economic.”
“9% of GDP in Budget 2026. Actually, property tax collections went down to 0.6% in FY2020 and has gradually come back up to 0.9%. But not too long ago, in the early 2000s, property tax collections were as high as 1% to 1.1% of GDP. I think we should aim to raise property tax collections to 1.2% of GDP in the long term and focus on the top tier of residential properties. Stamp duty collections stand at 0.8% of GDP in Budget 2026 and have largely been so for the past 10 years. I think we should make stamp duty much more progressive in the long term with, for example, a new tier for residential properties above $5 million, at marginal rate of 15%, 2.5 times the current top marginal rate. In short, for me, the real story coming out of Budget 2026 in terms of long-term fiscal marksmanship is that we can and should raise asset-related taxes quite a bit more, to meet our long-term future spending needs. Sir, some also say our recent budget surpluses show that the Government is over-collecting now, in advance of spending needs later. Let me make a few points on this. First, while we can say that the Government may be over-collecting in certain areas, for example, in asset-related revenues which have been revised upwards by $4.5 billion in FY2025, and this is not so much by design, but due to cyclical factors, we absolutely cannot say that the Government has been over-collecting in GST. In GST, by design, the Government is absolutely not over-collecting. Because by design, the GST increase has effectively not started yet for most families and will effectively start only in 2028, five years after the increase in headline rate. By design, the GST increase for families below median income will effectively start only in 2033, 10 years after the headline increase.”
“And unless consumption contracts suddenly, we can expect GST revenues as a percentage of GDP to continue at this level. This makes a big difference. In other words, raising GST has been essential in helping us achieve fiscal marksmanship for the long term. The real failure in fiscal marksmanship would have been if we dropped the ball, or lost the gumption to raise GST to secure our long-term fiscal future – because it was too difficult. Second, on corporate income tax. Budget 2026 estimates corporate income tax revenues to come in at 4.5% of GDP. This is quite remarkable. It has gone up to 4% of GDP in FY2023 and FY2024, and then gone up further to 4.5% in FY2025. Coming out of the COVID-19 years, who could have seen this sharp uptick coming? But the key question going forward is: can we confidently assume that this will continue? How much of it is a secular increase in corporate profitability? How much of it is cyclical? I think we should be conservative and we should also be sanguine about the revenue upside of BEPS Pillars 1 and 2 combined. Indeed, a real failure of long-term fiscal marksmanship will be if we bet on something as new and uncertain as BEPS for our long-term fiscal future. So, taken together, we can probably revise our long-term assumption for corporate income tax revenues upwards to 4% of GDP, not 4.5% as in Budget 2026, but 4%. That in turn means a difference of 0.5 percentage point of GDP. And so, where do we raise another 0.5% of GDP, reliably, structurally, from other revenue sources? Which brings me to the third point, asset-related taxes. To my mind, we need to look at taxing assets more, much more. In effect, increasing wealth taxes significantly. In this regard, I agree very much with hon Member Mr Shawn Loh. Property taxes are estimated at 0.”
“Sir, some say our recent Budget surpluses indicate a failure in fiscal marksmanship. But what truly matters is not our fiscal marksmanship year to year, but rather, our fiscal marksmanship for the long term, our fiscal marksmanship 10 years down the road, in 2030 and beyond. MOF's Occasional Paper on Medium-Term Fiscal Projections in 2023 sends a very clear signal – our total spending will go up to around 19.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030, driven by healthcare for an ageing population. This is basically two full percentage points of GDP higher than the spending of around 17.5% of GDP 10 years ago. In FY2025, we are spending 17.9% of GDP. For FY2026, we are budgeting 18.4%. So, we are spending more structurally. The trend is clear. And so, our fundamental challenge, the fundamental mission when it comes to fiscal marksmanship is really about raising revenues structurally to around 19.5% of GDP by 2030 to meet our spending needs in the long term. It is fiscal marksmanship not year-to-year, but over many years, on the revenue side, to make sure we cover our needs many years out. So, where are we at today? Budget 2026 is a milestone in the sense that it is the first Budget since the Occasional Paper to hit that 19.5% of GDP in total revenues. The key question however is, looking at the revenue mix in Budget 2026, can the mix be sustained? Can it become a reliable blueprint for our fiscal security in subsequent Budgets? That is the key question for our fiscal marksmanship for the long term. And to answer this question, I will focus on GST, corporate income tax and asset-related taxes. First, GST. With the increase in headline GST rate from 7% to 9%, GST collection has gone up from around 2% of GDP to 2.6% in Budget 2026.”
“May this ethos of collaboration and partnership with the sector, in all its diversity, continue to animate NCSS, as it presses on to build a future-ready and sustainable social service sector, with the sector, to improve the lives of Singaporeans.”
“Ms Lee Hui Ying, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Ms Elysa Chen, Mr David Hoe, Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Melvin Yong will all address this issue in their speeches. Second, compliance burden, especially for smaller member organisations. Ms Denise Phua, Mr David Hoe and Dr Hamid Razak will touch on this in their speeches. Third, the overall outcomes, impact and NCSS' measures of success going forward. Ms Elysa Chen, Mr David Hoe and Mr Yip Hon Weng will be speaking on this aspect. And finally, on the sector workforce and the heart-work that they do, every day, for every case, every client. Dr Wan Rizal, our labour Member of Parliament (MP), will dive deep into this topic and cover workforce development, wages and welfare. Mr Melvin Yong, also our labour MP, will also raise a point on sector wages, while Ms Lee Hui Ying will touch on workers' welfare and well-being in the sector. Beyond the substance of the debate on this Bill, let me conclude by making a point on the process that has undergirded this Bill. And here, I wish to commend NCSS and MSF, for undertaking a really thorough and extensive consultation process with the sector and stakeholders. NCSS has not only listened to the sector but also responded to the feedback by actually making meaningful, substantive changes to the draft Bill. The best example of this is NCSS' decision to expand the range of the Board size after consultation with the sector. NCSS has demonstrated, through its consultation process for this Bill, the very spirit of collaboration and partnership with the sector that it says underpins this Bill.”
“Sir, let me first declare that I am working in a philanthropic organisation that is an associate member of NCSS. I stand in support of this Bill. The Social and Family Development Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) also strongly supports this Bill. A number of GPC Members and other colleagues from the People's Action Party (PAP) will be speaking on this Bill, contributing their views and suggestions. What is most noteworthy is that almost all of the Members speaking are involved in some way in the social service sector themselves. Some, in particular, are running, or have run, SSAs or social enterprises, for years. Members like Ms Denise Phua, our sector veteran or, as we would called it, one of the old OGs. Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Ms Elysa Chen and Mr Cai Yinzhou have been in the trenches, and have a ringside view of working with and alongside NCSS. They will be sharing their views on what ought to be NCSS' development priorities as a sector developer. But more generally, all Members speaking on this Bill speak with a deep understanding of the sector and from a diversity of perspectives. I am thus looking forward to a very substantive and constructive debate, which can only strengthen this Bill, NCSS and ultimately, the sector. The debate will focus on a few key themes. First, the new Council appointment regime. This is the part of the Bill that represents the most significant change from current practice for the sector. The Board sets the direction for NCSS and by extension, the sector. The new appointment framework must therefore produce Boards that will continue to serve the sector well and reflect the diversity of the sector well.”
“And then, we can look to codify these service levels and standards at the right time. Because as what the Minister alluded to, we have very few precedents to refer to and OSC has to pretty much create its own playbook. So, the best way to set OSC up for success, borrowing the hon Member, Mr Sharael Taha's words, "the best way to set it up for success is to give it the time and space to build itself up properly." In the meantime, like I said, let us trust that the Government will go about implementing OSC with the same verve and in the same thoughtful, thorough, yet calibrated and pragmatic manner that it has architected our laws to secure the online commons. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“MDDI's survey has found that one-third of respondents experienced online harm in the past year. We have more than three million Singaporeans alone in our population. And so, if the MDDI survey is representative of the general population, we could well be looking at hundreds of thousands of potentially reportable online harms every year. How might we be able to resource OSC to deal with a potential workload like this? I am going to posit that we may never be able to resource it enough, because, fundamentally, there will be, to a large degree, what we call supply-induced demand for the OSC's services. Meaning, the more services the OSC supplies, the more demand it may actually induce and therefore, demand will likely keep running ahead of supply. And so, beyond doing our level best to resource OSC to keep up with demand, the central task of implementation, in my mind, is to keep the gap between supply by OSC and demand for OSC tight. This means we must also find a way to manage demand, to manage expectations – manage our expectations – on OSC. On service levels, report to relief times and having clear guidelines and standards at the outset, especially given the Australians' experience with operationalising their eSafety Commission, I, myself, have thought about this issue a fair bit and I have come to the conclusion that it may be better for us to not impose definitive performance guidelines on OSC at this stage, as we are building it up. Rather, I say, let us give time and space for OSC to establish a baseline, to establish its rhythm and give time and space for supply and demand to find an equilibrium and most importantly, give time and space for all of us to go through the necessary discovery process on relief standards collectively – as a society.”
“Implementation is policy, and the focus will turn towards implementation. Minister Josephine alluded to this in her speech as well. And so, the point I wish to make is this: that in implementation, let us have trust that the Government will go about this implementation in the same thoughtful, thorough, yet calibrated and pragmatic way as it had architected our laws for the online commons. Being a later speaker in this debate, I have had the privilege to hear many colleagues who spoke earlier. Most called for sufficient resourcing of OSC to handle workload and do its job, and most also called for clear service levels – time taken between reporting and relief – to give Singaporeans certainty and assurance of the relief they can expect when they report to OSC. I understand where colleagues are coming from. Speed of relief is, indeed, so crucial for victims of online harm. And this Bill, which provides for the establishment of a dedicated agency to deliver such relief to victims of online harm, could not have come soon enough. And so our natural instincts will be to say, "Let us get the relief out to the victims who need it today, who needed it yesterday. Let us get this relief out quickly." But the reality is that building up an organisation, building up capabilities, especially fast-cycle capabilities, takes time. We cannot rush the building of fast-cycle capabilities, paradoxically. So, I hope all of us, including and, perhaps, starting from this House, can give the Government the time and space needed to build up OSC properly, so that it can deliver the quick, effective, on-point relief that we, ultimately, are all seeking out for victims, present and future. On workload and resourcing of OSC, my thoughts are as follows.”
“Sir, it is worthwhile to take a step back and see where we are as a jurisdiction today in securing the online commons for our people, and where we will be if we pass OSRA today. It was opportune that we debated and passed the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act yesterday. That Bill provided enhanced penalties under our criminal laws for many of the same online harms that are the subject of this Bill. Online harms, such as image abuse, circulation of obscene materials, including child abuse materials, AI-generated images, doxxing and so on. Previously, Parliament had also passed other Acts, like OCHA, to deal with online scams, hate speech and so on. In other words, we have been keeping our criminal laws up to date and fit for purpose, and these updated laws provide our people the assurance of statutory retribution for online harms. Operating alongside our criminal laws, OSRA, before us today, will provide statutory relief, including injunctive relief and statutory torts and civil remedies for online harms. Taken together, this body of laws, while providing justice to our people experiencing online harms, can also help deter online harmful actors, thus further protecting our people in the online commons. I will say that on the whole, the Government has done a tremendous job architecting our laws to protect and secure the online commons for our people, in a very thoughtful, thorough, yet calibrated and pragmatic manner. This is an important thought, because after OSRA is passed today, if it is passed, the focus will increasingly turn towards the enforcement of these laws, the implementation of policy and the painstaking work of building up organisations, capabilities and practice to deliver on the intended legislative and policy outcomes.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, I thank the Minister and Minister of State for their heartfelt and comprehensive replies. I welcome, in particular, the groundbreaking step that all child losses, in future, will be independently reviewed. Yet, we must also do so in a way that sensitively protects the officers directly involved in each child loss case, because they bear the emotional brunt of these cases. And so I think the only way we can do so is if we have, first, in the child protection ecosystem, a culture of collective ownership, and this must go beyond taking collective responsibility when things go bad. It must mean a culture of ever more equal partnership when things are not bad, so that when things do go bad, we have the capacity to first, band together, grief together, cope together and support each other first. So, beyond system enhancements, my question is how does the Ministry plan to build up and strengthen this culture of collective ownership in our child protective ecosystem? Sir, my second supplementary question is on Megan's case and the independent review into Megan's case. The decision was taken after MSF's first statement on the case on 8 April 2025, so may I seek the Minister's clarifications on the timeline and how the decision to independently review Megan's case was made only after 8 April 2025?”
“So, I suggest more proportionate penalties for all types of scam mules: discretionary caning with a maximum of six strokes instead of 12 and maximum imprisonment of five years but, also, I would like to suggest a minimum of two years, to bring these penalties more in line with those for trafficking Class C drugs. I believe these suggested penalties, especially the minimum imprisonment of two years, will sufficiently deter specific offenders and would-be offenders from offending in future. Sir, notwithstanding the above suggestions, I support the Bill.”
“If scammers are as harmful to our society as manufacturers of Class A drugs, in my mind, scam syndicate members and recruiters are as harmful as traffickers of Class A drugs. The amendments before us today introduce, again, mandatory caning for such scam syndicate members and recruiters, minimum six strokes. But the law also provides for maximum imprisonment of only five years. So, for scam syndicate members and recruiters, I would like to suggest much stiffer penalties, again: a minimum of six strokes and five years; and the maximum of 15 strokes and 20 years, to bring these penalties in line with those for traffickers of Class A drugs in most instances. Sir, the third level, scam mules who enable scammers by laundering scam proceeds, providing SIM cards and/or providing Singpass credentials. To my mind, these are the lowest levels of the scam crime production chain. Yes, they do harm, they have culpability, but they are the lowest levels. I will peg them closer to traffickers of Class C drugs. And therefore, in my view, the penalties introduced by the amendments before us today for scam mules appear somewhat disproportionately harsh, compared to the penalties being introduced for scammers and scam syndicate members and recruiters higher up the scam crime chain. For example, if the Bill today is passed, a mule who provides accounts or arrangements to launder scam proceeds, in particular, will face discretionary caning of up to 12 strokes and also maximum imprisonment of 10 years, compared to, as I said before, maximum imprisonment of five years for being a scam syndicate member or recruiter.”
“Scams cause immense harm to society, just like drugs. And so, our criminal laws should deal with scams just like they deal with drugs. I suggest that penalties for scams and scam-related offences should be brought more in line with those for drug-related offences, at three levels. At the first level, the scammers. In other words, the masterminds, the key operators, the most culpable, those at the highest level in the chain. Scammers manufacture schemes on an industrial level to cheat victims of their life savings. In my mind, scammers are, therefore, no less harmful to our society than manufacturers of controlled Class A drugs. The amendments before us today introduce mandatory caning for scammers, minimum six strokes, which I fully support. But the law also provides for maximum imprisonment of only 10 years for scammers. I would like to suggest much stiffer penalties: a minimum of six strokes and 10 years; and a maximum of 15 strokes and 30 years or life imprisonment for scammers, to bring these penalties in line with those for illegal manufacturers of controlled Class A drugs, including New Psychoactive Substances. I will stop short of calling for capital punishment for the most egregious scammers, which should be in line with the penalty for manufacturers of specific Class A drugs, like morphine, cocaine and methamphetamine. We know the scammers, masterminds and key operators, are mostly based overseas; just like the masterminds and key manufacturers of illicit drugs. But having very stiff penalties for scammers is an important and necessary marker, in my view. Sir, the second level, members and recruiters of scam syndicates. Many of these members and recruiters of scam syndicates are based in, or come through, Singapore, unlike the scammers.”
“And many a times, the criminal force inflicted is probably even more severe, due to the multiplicity and simultaneity of the outrage on modesty made possible by electronic means to assault a victim at scale and at speed. Discretionary caning for administrators of online locations circulating obscene material is, therefore, proportionate and fits the crime. Given the prevalence and extreme ease to become an administrator of such online locations, discretionary caning is also needed as a deterrent. Therefore, the nature of the offence of administering online locations to circulate obscene materials fits both the functions of proportionality and deterrence that judicial caning today serves. Sir, I move on to my second point, on scams and scam-related offences, and I start with the following premise – that scams are a national law-and-order priority, like drugs. Scams are operated in a way, basically, like drugs are. Scams are perpetrated by organised crime syndicates, like drugs. And scams are masterminded and commandeered remotely, from overseas, with the most downstream part of the production chain of criminal activities sited onshore, in Singapore – just like drugs are. Scams cause immense harm to society, just like drugs. If drugs destroy lives, scams destroy life savings. Scams harm both the young and old. And because scammers often impersonate Government agencies, scams can also erode the trust of our society at-large, in our key institutions, like the Police, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, and so on. In other words, scams do not just affect victims, they impact the whole of society. Our key institutions have to react, put up defences and these defences come at a cost. So, scams extract a cost on the whole of our society, every day.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to weigh in on two categories of amendments. First, the amendments regarding the large-scale electronic circulation of obscene objects; and second, the amendments regarding scams and scam-related offences. First, on the large-scale electronic circulation of obscene objects. I fully agree with and applaud the Government for creating a new offence to target administrators who set up or manage online locations to facilitate the large-scale circulation of obscene material. I believe this will allow the Government to better go after the source of the problem and deal with the problem at its source and hopefully, deter the problem at its source as well. I also agree with the Government that such administrators who set up or manage online locations to facilitate the large-scale circulation of obscene material have a higher level of culpability compared to members of the online location who share obscene content. But I wish to suggest even stiffer penalties for such administrators. The current amendments introduce mandatory imprisonment of up to five years, with a higher maximum if the obscene materials circulated depict minors. We can and should go further, to introduce discretionary caning for administrators of online locations circulating obscene material, to bring the penalties for such offences in line with those for assault or use of criminal force to a person with the intent to outrage modesty, under section 354 of the Penal Code. Because the criminal force inflicted through electronic means by administrators of online locations on their victims is certainly no less severe than the criminal force inflicted in person by a physical perpetrator.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for reminding us all of the absolutely fundamental principles with regard to identity politics. But I would also like to ask the Minister to clarify if he is also saying that it would be wrong for any political party to appeal to voters based on what the party can offer to any specific community? Or is he also saying that it would be wrong for an individual to question whether the Government has done enough for any community or to demand the Government to do more for a specific community?”
“Speaker, I just have a question for the Senior Minister of State. I heard in his reply that MinLaw is planning to work with HDB and MND to refer more cases for directed mediation. So, if the Senior Minister of State could share in more concrete detail how the Ministry plans to get more cases referred for directed mediation, because I do agree with the Senior Minister of State that this must be one of the centres of gravity for the CDMF framework going forward.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I thank Mr Fadli for that affirmation and indeed for an agreement. Just to make one more point of order. Mr Fadli referred to me just now as Deputy Speaker. Just want to be sure that I am speaking in my capacity as a MP now. Thank you.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me just say a couple of things. First, I think all of us care about those who are left behind. And on this, I just want to say, I think no one has a monopoly on compassion and on those who are left behind in society. I think all of us in this House we care about those who are left behind and we have been speaking up passionately on both sides of the House about those who have been left behind, so that is the first thing I would like to point out. The second is that as I said before, meritocracy is not perfect. The meritocracy in Singapore, in our system is not perfect. And, indeed, Members on both sides of the House as well have in the previous terms of Parliament, in this term of Parliament made critiques about our meritocracy and suggested ways to improve our meritocracy. So, to answer Mr Fadli, am I satisfied with the state of meritocracy in Singapore? Of course, we can do better and I would just suggest to Mr Fadli that in the spirit of constructive debate in this house, let us focus on specific alternatives and suggestions on how we can improve our meritocracy to make sure that it continues to serve Singaporeans, now and in the future, and that it remains fit for purpose.”
“Singapore has an increasingly diverse society, but also stronger national identity, stronger social cohesion and resilience. For 60 years since independence, we have achievements, but we must also have gratitude and humility, and even more importantly, we must not be content with the status quo and must strive for excellence. We have challenges, but we should also have confidence. We have no reason to feel dejected or discouraged. Different from the early days of independence, many of our current challenges have no other countries' experiences for reference, no other countries' precedents to rely on. Many of our current challenges have no answer sheets. But we have a good Government with far-sighted vision and strategic planning. We have people, united as one. I firmly believe that as long as the Government, the people, and both ruling and opposition parties work together, there is no battle Singapore cannot win. We have strategy, resources, and even more importantly, determination, courage and capability. We will certainly be able to build on the past and open up the future, continue writing Singapore's nation-building miracle, and open a new chapter in Singapore's brilliant future!”
“And in an era of rapid economic transformation and re-transformation, these challenges will become increasingly frequent. We must better empathise with workers and support them with greater effort and more comprehensive systems. Helping workers find employment and change careers must become one of our major social safety nets. (In English): Job-seeking, job matching support has to become one of our key pillars, going forward, for our social security and a new major social safety net. (In Mandarin): We must also further reform our education system, to better nurture the next generation of workforce, to thrive in the new economic era. Besides learning how to do things from a young age, what our children need more is to learn how to behave properly from a young age. For our education system to successfully achieve this, besides continuing to reform the system, we must also reform everyone's mindset and definition of success. What else does Singapore have and not have? Third, Singapore has an increasingly diverse society. It also faces greater risks of social division and fragmentation. In an information age, truth and falsehood become increasingly difficult to tell. Hence, in resisting foreign interference and in promoting mutual understanding and trust domestically, we must do better and go deeper. What else does Singapore have and not have? Overall, Singapore has a rapidly ageing population, but also opportunities to better care for the elderly. In terms of economic development, Singapore has no time to slack off and no room to relax, but we have opportunities to integrate with technology, and opportunities to deeply reform our labour system and education system.”
“Our workforce is of high quality, and Singaporeans are capable, so if Singaporeans can have greater space to choose when, where and how to do their work well, we can certainly do good work whilst also achieving better harmony with life. I hope the Government can continue to promote flexible work arrangements and work more closely with employers, not only supporting employers in adjusting their operating models, but also helping employers change their mindset. Furthermore, our entire workforce must better embrace technology, make good use of technology and integrate technology into every position in the economy. We have no time to slack off, no room to relax, we must fight, but we absolutely cannot rely on ourselves to fight blindly in the same place. Instead, we must rely on technology to help us fight, to fight for us. Let technology be by our side, become our most effective tools and weapons, and fight alongside us to achieve possibilities that, perhaps, even we ourselves cannot yet imagine. This is the potential brought by the integration of humans and technology, and it is also one of our nation's greatest opportunities in continued economic transformation. Besides the pressure being too great and the pace being too fast, more and more Singaporeans are also saying: “it is not that I do not want to fight or work, but I cannot find work, cannot find employers who want to hire me.” Moreover, it is not just middle-aged workers facing this concern – perhaps more and more young graduates entering the workforce are also facing this concern. Unemployment, career changes, repeated rejections – these challenges faced by our workers deeply affect their daily living, and even their dignity.”
“Currently, when children do not live with the elderly, the elderly can receive many benefits, but when children live with the elderly, they cannot get as much. Therefore, the entire eligibility criteria framework for Government benefits to the elderly could be more reasonable. What else does Singapore have and not have? Secondly, in terms of economic development, Singapore has no time to slack off or relax. In this era of endless technological innovation, where regional countries are rising and using technology to develop rapidly, standing still means being left behind. Singapore cannot be content with standing still. Singapore must forge ahead courageously. We have no natural resources, only people, manpower and talent, so everyone must continue to strive and fight. "Those who dare to fight will win." We must work very hard. Of course, some people say Singapore is under too much pressure and moving too fast. I believe we must strive hard, whilst also creating space to take care of ourselves and our loved ones around us. We want harmony between the two, not “either/or”. How can we achieve work-life harmony? Pursue what you love, do what you are passionate about. When a person engages in their interests and does what they love, work naturally becomes not just work, but part of life. I hope the Government can increase efforts to support Singaporeans in pursuing their interests, passions and dreams at all stages of life, including entrepreneurship. Additionally, flexible work arrangements must become the new normal in our economy and workplace.”
“So we have an obligation to give back to them. Families, communities and the Government must all work together to better care for and support our elderly, to enable them to shine brightly in their golden years. How should we do this? I have several suggestions, continue to expand and enhance our healthcare system. Ideally, our elderly would not need to see doctors or seek medical care, but when they do need medical care, the elderly must be able to receive timely service without waiting too long. Therefore, we must continue to expand and enhance our healthcare system. But we must also continue to manage healthcare costs well. Currently, one MRI scan costs $600, with a Government subsidy of $300, the elderly need to pay $300 themselves. Sometimes when their annual MediSave limit is reached, the elderly must pay the $300 in cash. The same applies to chronic diseases – the annual MediSave limit of $400 to $700 is often quickly exhausted. Hence, the elderly face too heavy a cash burden in dealing with healthcare costs. Of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch – healthcare costs ultimately needs to be paid by Singaporeans. If we want higher healthcare subsidies, the Government may inevitably have to collect higher taxes, so I hope the Government can continue to govern wisely and maintain the political courage and responsibility to do what must be done. The elderly should also have better retirement security. Better retirement security requires not only more resource investment, but also better resource allocation. I again call on the Government to review the eligibility criteria framework for the various benefits distributed to the elderly.”
“This word was deliberately chosen. As we continue to work on our meritocracy to make it work ever better for everyone, we must first put everyone on that same "Escalator of Progress", and we must ensure that this escalator is always moving towards progress. The Government must ensure this escalator is always moving towards progress, for everyone. It is crucial for us to ensure the success of this meritocracy, and it becomes the fundamental condition for improving our meritocracy. May I end my speech with a Malay quatrain: Jasmines bloom where butterflies play Jellyfish together swimming away Through life and death we stay together Our meritocracy lasts forever Let us continue to move forward together on the "Escalator of Progress"! (In Mandarin): In 2011, my Parliamentary colleague, Ms Sim Ann, delivered a brilliant speech on Singapore's "haves and have-nots". She used a more relaxed, colloquial approach to discuss, in depth, a very important issue: what strategic advantages and opportunities Singapore possesses, what conditions and trade-offs we lack, and how Singapore should forge a path forward from this position. At that time, I had not yet entered politics, she had just entered politics, and Singapore was 46 years old. Today, on the occasion of Singapore's 60th anniversary, I want to revisit Singapore's "haves and have-nots" and discuss our nation's future path. What does Singapore have, and what does it not have? Let me raise three points. Firstly, Singapore has a rapidly ageing population, with more and more elderly people. Singapore's achievements today are all due to the foundation laid by the Pioneer and Merdeka generations. Without the dedication, sacrifice and contributions of these people, there would be no glorious Singapore today.”
“Sir, I stand in support of the Motion. In Malay, please. (In Malay): It has been an honour for me to serve the Jurong Central constituents over the past five years, and to be given the opportunity to serve the Jurong Central community once again. Over these five years, there are so many residents who I now consider friends. So, to my friends and all residents, I wish to say, the President's speech at the Opening of Parliament reminds us that there is still much more that the Government, together with our people, must do. And in Singapore, the Government is deeply committed to working together, to do more, and to make life better. Similarly, we want to provide the best opportunities for our children to develop and reach the peak of their God-given talents and potential. To support everyone in raising our children to be honest citizens and people of faith, to celebrate and cultivate our traditional languages and cultural arts, and to develop our society into one that is stronger, more united, more caring and more excellent. We will do all this within our meritocracy. Our meritocracy is not perfect. It may never be perfect, but it remains a vital principle for social harmony and for achieving success as one people. For years, in fact, for decades, we have built and developed our meritocracy. And we must continue to do so, to ensure that our meritocracy continues to work for everyone and makes life better for all our people. Above all, I wish to remind everyone that in any meritocracy, at any time, there may be some who will be ahead, and some who may be behind. But there will be progress for everyone. Everyone must be on this "Escalator of Progress". Everyone moves forward together to ensure this meritocracy works. The President used the word "escalator" in his speech.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would just like to ask the Minister if, beyond cyclical factors, the Ministry also assesses that there are structural factors driving the graduate employment situation, including, for example, the displacement of entry level jobs by artificial intelligence (AI)? And would the Ministry consider traineeships as a solution to some of these structural factors driving graduate employment?”