Yip Hon Weng
Singapore
“But we must also keep building our trust. It is the only infrastructure a small country cannot afford to lose. Every generation since Independence has earned our place in the world. Our responsibility is to see that the next generation is given the chance to do the same.”
“It can reinforce Singapore's role as a trusted financial centre, a gateway to Asia and a platform for long-term growth. But at the end of the day, we should also be clear about how success will be measured in practical terms. How much incremental daily trading volume are we seeking to generate?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. While the US dollar remains dominant, some economists have suggested that the global monetary system may gradually become more fragmented and multi-polar over time.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. Given reports that some firms are slowing workforce expansion due to cost pressures due to the situation in the Middle East, has MOM observed any corresponding shift in firms hiring preferences between local workers and our foreign workforce?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Many Singaporeans are already facing rising premiums year after year. As we have seen recently, even with cheaper riders, base premiums continue increasing. So, households may still have to pay more overall.”
“Because this is not just a technology transition, it is a workforce transition. The establishment of the Tripartite Jobs Council is an important step in ensuring that this alignment happens in practice. Technology will move. Markets will adapt. But we must be clear about the future we are building.”
The complete record
Every one of 873 lines we hold for Yip Hon Weng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 18.
“Yet, the cost of veterinary care has become a growing concern. Prices vary widely. There is no clear benchmarking. There is little predictability for families. A consultation may cost $50 to $70. Pre-surgery bloodwork can exceed $300. Hospitalisation can cost hundreds of dollars a night and emergency care can easily exceed $500. For chronic conditions, such as kidney or liver failure, it is not uncommon to see caregivers crowdfunding five-figure sums to save an animal. To be fair, vets face rising costs in commercial rent, diagnostic equipment and imported medicines. But recognising these pressures does not resolve the burden on residents. Affordability was one of the most prominent concerns raised during the public consultation. Yet, veterinary fees fall outside the scope of this Bill. From the resident's perspective, regulating quality without a concrete affordability and transparency roadmap feels incomplete. Pet owners experience quality and price at the same counter, often during a stressful emergency. Why should they wait for a future policy response when this concern is already well-established? If stronger regulations increase compliance and operational costs, what assurance do we have that households will not face even steeper bills? I have four specific questions on this. First, will the Ministry commit to a clear timeline for these separate affordability and transparency measures? Second, while we wait, can we mandate fee transparency immediately? Will the Council require clinics to provide itemised billing, written pre-treatment estimates for non-emergency procedures and clearer financial consent before significant treatments?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, during my house visits, I often meet residents who are deeply devoted to their pets. Ms C, a Yio Chu Kang resident, is one of them. She has even helped to organise pet shows and events in our constituency. A few years ago, when her dog passed away, it was a very difficult time for her. When I visited her again recently, she showed me photos, paintings she had kept and even a tattoo of her dog's name on her arm. For her and for many Singaporeans, animals are no longer just pets. They are family. When a family member falls ill, we do not ask for the bare minimum. We expect care that is modern, professional and accountable. This Bill reflects that shift. It marks an important transition from a licensing regime to a professional regulatory framework, recognising that the veterinary sector has grown in scale, complexity and public expectations. I support this Bill's intent. The establishment of the Veterinary Council, with powers to register vets, set standards, accredit training and enforce discipline, is a significant step towards professionalising the sector. The tiered registration system and continuing professional education requirements will raise standards across the board. However, residents will ultimately judge this Bill not by its structures, but by whether it gives them the confidence at the point of care. I have several clarifications on the Bill. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, vet services must remain affordable and accessible. Pet ownership today is not a luxury. Pets are a source of emotional support for seniors, children and families with special needs. Beyond households, community caregivers, independent rescuers and animal shelters pay out of their own pockets to care for animals which may not even be their own.”
“Are we promoting operational efficiency across our fleets and industries, such as incentivising eco-driving certifications for commercial fleets? Does the Ministry have a playbook for temporary, targeted conservation measures, such as remote work arrangements or speed limit adjustments, should supply disruptions worsen? Because energy security is built not just by policy, but by behaviour, incentives and collective discipline. We began this speech with a world in crisis, where conflict far beyond our shores can disrupt something as fundamental as energy. We cannot control that conflict. We cannot control global prices. We cannot control supply shocks. But we can control how we respond. Today, I have asked four things. Whether this Bill will remain affordable. Whether consumers will be protected in the digital marketplace. Whether implementation will be fair during transition. And whether enforcement powers will be exercised transparently. I have also suggested that beyond regulation, we must act decisively to reduce demand and strengthen efficiency. Because if we get this right, energy conservation will not feel like a burden. It will feel like relief. Relief from rising costs, uncertainty and vulnerability. And let us be reminded that this is not just an energy policy. It is a test of how we prepare Singapore for an uncertain world. Because in a world that we cannot control, the strength of Singapore will depend on what we choose to control, what we choose to conserve and what we choose to secure. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Three months may not be sufficient for households amid renovation, SMEs amid procurement, or businesses with goods already in transit. With the new requirements, importers must register goods, maintain records and potentially provide samples for testing. How onerous will these compliance requirements be, particularly for individuals and SMEs importing for their own use? If compliance is too complex, compliance will fail. Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, transparency and proportionality. The Bill grants the Director-General the power to impose, modify, or revoke conditions even after registration. What principles will guide the exercise of these powers and will they be clearly communicated to businesses? Why do such decisions take effect immediately even when an appeal is filed? As new offences are introduced, including cases where goods are later used in ways that would have made the original import non-compliant, how will the Government distinguish between deliberate circumvention and genuine misunderstanding? Will the Ministry provide regular reporting to Parliament on waivers granted, appeals outcomes and enforcement trends? Strong powers must come with strong accountability. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is necessary but insufficient. Because energy conservation does not begin and end with regulation. The International Energy Agency has outlined practical measures to reduce demand quickly, including working from home, reducing unnecessary travel, improving driving efficiency and encouraging public transport use. The cheapest energy is the energy we do not use. So, we must go further. Will the public sector lead the way by institutionalising air-conditioning temperature standards across Government buildings?”
“They live with immediate budgets and cash flow constraints. Are we doing enough to help households and businesses bridge the gap between higher upfront costs and lower long-term savings? Are existing schemes such as the Climate Friendly Household Programme, the Energy Efficiency Grant and the Resource Efficiency Grant sufficient for those most affected? If direct imports are currently less than 10%, what is the projected cost impact on households and SMEs when these amendments take effect? Will compliant models remain competitively priced, or will a persistent green premium emerge? How will the Ministry ensure that grants and subsidies remain responsive to market price fluctuations, so that no household or SME is left behind? The right choice must also be the affordable choice. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, consumer protection in the digital marketplace. The Bill empowers the Government to regulate online advertisements, require energy efficiency information and take down non-compliant listings. Will enforcement be proactive rather than reactive? Will platforms be required to screen listings before they appear, rather than only remove them after a breach is reported? Will consumers have a simple and accessible way to verify whether a product is compliant before making a purchase? If a non-compliant listing is removed after payment has been made, what protections will consumers have? Will marketplace operators be required to facilitate refunds or stop deliveries? How will responsibility be allocated among marketplace operators, sellers and importers? Consumer protection must begin before check-out, not after complaints. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, implementation and transition. The transition timeline is short.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, today, as we debate the Bill, the world is being reminded how fragile energy security is. With the escalating war in the Middle East threatening the Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline for nearly one-fifth of global oil, volatile markets and rising prices are not distant news. They are our immediate reality. We cannot control global supply, but we can control our dependence on it. As Chair of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Government Parliamentary Committee, I see energy security as inseparable from national security. Conservation is no longer just climate policy. It is essential cost-of-living and economic policy. Every watt we save is a watt we do not have to import for. I support this Bill because it closes a critical gap. Today, our Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) and Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) apply only to local suppliers, leaving goods imported directly for one's own use unregulated. A gap in policy becomes a liability in a crisis. It allows inefficient equipment to be locked into our system and lets those who bypass the rules undercut compliant businesses. Even if direct imports are less than 10% today, we must close this gap before it grows. What we allow into our system today determines the bills we pay tomorrow. The principles of this Bill are sound, but its success depends on implementation. To ensure it works fairly and affordably on the ground, I have four areas of clarification. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, affordability. We know that energy efficient products are cheaper over time. A commercial refrigerator can have lifecycle costs about 30% lower than a non-compliant one. However, most energy efficient products come with a premium. Households and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) do not live in lifecycle calculations.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the war in the Middle East, there is also the possibility of simultaneous disruptions both at the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait of the Red Sea. Could the Government elaborate whether such a double chokehold situation is explicitly considered and what are the consequences? How do these scenarios translate into pre-emptive measures that safeguard both supply continuity and household affordability?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I declare I work in a global investment firm that has investments in semiconductors and manufacturing companies. Given the US Section 301 investigations reflect a more unilateral approach to trade enforcement, could the Minister of State elaborate on how Singapore is safeguarding its interest within a rules-based trading system that appears to be under strain? What considerations shape our current approach in engaging with the US, and how does this protect Singaporean jobs and economic stability, particularly in sectors such as semiconductors?”
“But there is a difference between then and now. Then, they did not know. Today, we do. In this debate, I have asked three essential questions. First, are we protecting youths with measurable outcomes, fair safeguards and properly resourced rehabilitation? Second, will residents see visible enforcement, accountable powers and clarity on the ground? Third, are we staying ahead of evolving substances through rapid scheduling, predictive monitoring and upstream disruption? If we answer these well, this Bill will not merely add penalties. It will reduce exposure, restore confidence and protect families. The tragedy in 1898 was ignorance. The tragedy today would be hesitation. The device in a schoolbag does not have to become this generation's cough syrup. History warned others too late. It is warning us in time. As lawmakers, we carry that responsibility. And as a father, I take that responsibility to heart. With that resolve, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“On responsible persons, specified premises initially include public entertainment outlets. Will this scope expand? In residential areas, who bears responsibility? Will we be outsourcing enforcement to managing agents and security guards in condominiums? If so, will they understand their limits and obligations? Is notifying authorities sufficient or must responsible persons retain offenders? Will clear standard operational procedures (SOPs) and training be issued? The Bill also introduces liability for owners who allow storage without due diligence. What constitutes due diligence? Will clear guidance and safe harbour frameworks be provided? Strong laws must translate into visible confidence on the ground. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, are we staying ahead of the market? The SPS Schedule is exhaustive. Etomidate and its analogues will be listed and delisted from the MDA. What is the timeline from detection to scheduling? Is there a defined service standard? Will structured horizon scanning and digital monitoring be institutionalised? We cannot fight a fast-moving market with slow-moving processes. On upstream disruption, are we moving beyond intelligence sharing to coordinated operations targeting production hubs? What international partnerships are being strengthened? The Bill also amends the Civil Defence Act, Merchant Shipping Act and Road Traffic Act, expanding liability for individuals under the influence of SPS. How will cross-agency enforcement be coordinated? Are frontline officers trained to detect SPS impairment? Unless we disrupt supply at its source, enforcement becomes cyclical. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1898, heroin was sold as medicine. It was trusted. It was legal. By the time society realised the cost, addiction had taken root.”
“If not, how will criminal records affect education, employment and reintegration? If rehabilitation is our aim, youthful mistakes should not become lifelong barriers. The Bill also empowers urine, hair and oral fluid testing, with presumptions triggered upon positive results. What safeguards ensure laboratory accuracy and prevent wrongful penalisation? Finally, the Bill expands the definition of tobacco products to include nicotine analogues as a preemptive safeguard. Do we have the scientific capacity to detect emerging analogues quickly? Future-proofing must be operational, not merely legislative. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, will residents see real change in their daily lives? Penalties for possession and use of vaporisers increase significantly, with fines up to $10,000. Import and supply now carry mandatory imprisonment. What evidence supports this calibration? How do we deter effectively without disproportionately burdening vulnerable youths? A $10,000 fine may well be a manageable business expense for a lucrative syndicate. For a vulnerable youth, it can be life altering. We must distinguish between masterminds who profit and runners who were coerced or misled. The Bill also expands enforcement powers to search persons, seize vehicles and seize cash. What safeguards ensure proportional use of these powers? Residents experience enforcement in shared spaces. Will response times to estate complaints improve? Can measurable service benchmarks be set? Agencies prioritise syndicates, but residents see daily offences. Will other ground agencies such as the National Environment Agency (NEA), Land Transport Authority (LTA), Town Councils or NParks and so on be empowered to act against blatant vaping offences so enforcement is not overly centralised?”
“I think about exposure, influence and consequence. I ask whether the system will respond proportionately if a young person makes a mistake. The Bill introduces a new category of products containing SPS, with penalties aligned to the MDA. That seriousness is understandable. However, while the Bill speaks of treatment and rehabilitation, we must balance deterrence against vaporiser use, which disproportionately appeals to youths, with offences now benchmarked against the MDA. Are we calibrating this appropriately for a problem that may involve young offenders who may not know or fully appreciate what they are consuming? The Bill introduces presumptions of possession and knowledge. In reality, youths share devices. Some may be misled. What charging guidance will distinguish deliberate abuse from peer pressure or deception? How will discretion be exercised for first-time cases? While deterrence is important, we must ask whether mandatory imprisonment for young offenders may be counterproductive. Will custodial sentences reduce long-term harm, or entrench it? Next, measurable outcomes. What percentage reduction in youth cases is targeted within 12 to 24 months? Will reductions in school incidents and hospital presentations be publicly reported? Arrests are not outcomes. Seizures are not safety. On rehabilitation, community-based orders are introduced, with escalation to institutional treatment in DRCs for repeat offenders. What is the projected impact on DRC capacity? Do we have sufficient counsellors and officers? Will youths caught with psychoactive vapes be segregated from hardened drug offenders? We must also consider the long-term consequences of convictions. Will offences under this Act be treated as spent after a period?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1898, a German pharmaceutical company introduced a product it described as a scientific breakthrough. It was marketed as a non-addictive substitute for morphine and as a remedy for coughs, even for children. It was sold openly in pharmacies. It was endorsed by doctors. It was regarded as modern medicine. It was called heroin. Few imagined then that what was promoted as relief would soon become synonymous with addiction. By the time governments recognised the harm, dependency had already entered homes across continents. The tragedy was not that society refused to act. It was that society understood too late. History teaches us something sobering. Harm does not always look like vice. Sometimes it arrives packaged as innovation. Today, it does not come in glass bottles. It comes in sleek vaporisers and small pods designed to resemble pens and highlighters. It does not sit behind pharmacy counters. It appears on messaging apps. For many residents in our estates, this is no longer abstract. Parents are discovering devices in schoolbags. Teachers are noticing changes in behaviour. Neighbours are raising complaints about vaping in void decks and playgrounds. I support this Bill. It is necessary. But residents will judge it not by how severe its penalties are, but by whether it truly protects families and restores confidence on the ground. As the Deputy Chair of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Health, I believe we must ensure that this legislation is not only tough, but properly calibrated, proportionate and effective in practice. I have several clarifications. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, are we protecting our youths in a way that is firm, fair and effective? As a father of five children, I do not approach this as an abstract policy issue.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I ask this Parliamentary Question because I have been approached by many residents who have asked to use the ActiveSG credits in community facilities, like in the Community Clubs for sports. And I want to ask the Ministry whether it will consider opening it up and ensuring that there is no fragmentation and there are no barriers to continue to help Singaporeans to remain active and healthy.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his response. With the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link, expected to begin operation soon, cross-border travel will become faster and cheaper, making it even easier for consumers to travel across the Causeway and tap on the services there. Coupled with a weaker Singapore dollar, this could significantly reduce demand for local retailers, and food and beverage (F&B) outlets. Will the Government look into forward-looking support measures to help local businesses prepare for this shift, given the potential impact on Singapore jobs and household incomes?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. My clarification is on ageing and the super-aged society. Of the seniors living within the vicinity of the AACs, what proportion of them are actually actively engaged? That is the first clarification. And secondly, I understand that offices, like the SGO, do proactively engage seniors in their premises, but what else are we doing differently to engage seniors who are socially isolated who may not voluntarily step forward to join the AAC activities?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the very good news that it is going to be free. Besides reducing the cost barrier, some members of public, especially seniors who still find it difficult to understand what an LPA is and why it is important to make an LPA, can MSF do more in terms of stepping up public education and awareness of LPA, as well as perhaps making the process easier by having it in different languages and having more support to help seniors?”
“Will MOH review respite care so it becomes a standard, easily claimable entitlement? As Age Well SG rolls out integrated community models, how will caregiver burden and coordination outcomes be measured to ensure families experience relief? Fourth, palliative care. Living well includes dying well. Though many prefer to pass on at home, many still die in hospitals because families lack support. What steps are being taken to expand home-based palliative capacity and equip GPs to provide sustained medical and psychosocial support? Finally, with the expanded EASE scheme allowing seniors in private homes to tap subsidies for age-friendly fittings, how does this complement Age Well SG's ageing-in-place strategy, and how uptake and impact be tracked? Mr Chairman, we must now build a community of care that ensures every senior lives not only longer, but with dignity at the end. Supporting and Recognising Caregivers”
“Mr Chairman, Singaporeans enjoy a long-life expectancy. But are we adding life to years or merely years to life? As healthcare shifts from hospital to home, the real test lies not only in infrastructure, but in the relationships we nurture, the support we organise and the dignity we uphold. First, social isolation. In our dense estates, many seniors live in loneliness, surrounded by neighbours, yet separated by silence. Countries, like the Netherlands and Denmark, embed social prescribing into primary care, recognising that a prescription can be a person, a purpose and a place to belong. Mental health support for depression, anxiety and grief remains under-resourced. Suffering in old age is often invisible, yet deeply felt. Can MOH update us on formalising social prescribing in primary care and outcomes under Healthier SG? How are we integrating routine mental health screening into community eldercare, so distress is detected early? Under Age Well SG, Active Ageing Centres are expanding to anchor seniors in their communities. Can the Ministry share whether reductions in social isolation and improvements in well-being are being observed? Second, dementia. Families still struggle to access dementia-specific day care and respite services. Dementia-friendly communities, where confusion is met with compassion rather than stigma, remains uneven. How will MOH accelerate dementia day care and respite capacity? How are we strengthening public education, so stigma recedes and inclusion grows? If we are to age well, we must care well for those who can no longer remember for themselves. Third, caregivers. Many caregivers face financial strain and burnout despite subsidies. Caregiving should not mean declining health, depleted savings or isolation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. My question pertains to seniors. Many retirees may downgrade or drop private coverage due to premium increases, even as MediShield Life premium also rises. Will the Ministry consider establishing a pricing council or having broader regulatory guardrails that helps in terms of financial security and access options for seniors as well as middle-income households?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. The recent United States (US) Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) hesitation over Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine suggests that regulators around the world can have differing views on assessments. So, can the Senior Minister of State explain how HSA ensures its decisions are not simply aligned to some of these US or United Kingdom (UK) regulators? This matters because Singaporeans must have confidence that approvals are based on what is best and safest for our population.”
“Chairman, I thank the Minister, the Senior Minister of State, the Minister of State, and the men and women of MINDEF and SAF, especially our NSmen, for securing the peace and stability we often take for granted. We must keep SAF credible and forward-looking. At the same time, we must strengthen total defence because a capable SAF and a resilient society go hand in hand. Chairman, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $23,343,497,600 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $2,454,719,600 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“I have a clarification for the Minister. It is clear that the international environment we are used to operating in is at a turning point. As strategic competition between the US and China intensifies, other countries and middle powers are also repositioning themselves. So, what is our strategy for navigating this increasingly complex geopolitical landscape? And as Singaporeans, how can individuals and the broader society stay prepared and play a part?”
“Thank you, Chairman. Minister highlighted that strong, conventional capabilities remain central to a credible deterrence. We have also heard about how the SAF is adapting to emerging threats. Can MINDEF also provide an update on how the SAF plans to stay capable and technologically advanced, particularly in terms of its higher end capabilities?”
“Defence is not about fear. It is about agency. It is about ensuring that future generations inherit a country that decides for itself. Dr Goh chose to build this before danger was obvious. He chose to prepare before crisis struck. Now it is our turn, our turn to prepare before we are forced to, our turn to build before we are tested, our turn to choose strength over drift, responsibility over dependence, resolve over resignation. If we do that, we honour more than his legacy. We secure our agency. We defend our dignity. We ensure that Singapore's future remains decided by Singaporeans. That was the standard he set. Let us meet it with confidence. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Defence Partnerships”
“Fighters must secure our skies. Ships must protect our sealines. Army units must prevail in complex terrain. Without this conventional core, deterrence weakens and risk rises. SAF 2040 recognises that technological change is compressing decision cycles and expanding the battlespace. The contest spans physical, digital and cognitive domains. Our response must be integrated and forward-looking. Counter drone systems must be layered. Cyber defence must be hardened. Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled decision support must be embedded from the outset. The SAF's digital and intelligence arm reflects this shift. Its value lies in integration, whether sensors and shooters operate as one network, whether commanders share a coherent real time picture, whether decisions are made with speed, discipline and unity of effort. I ask four further questions. Are we on track in integrating sensors, shooters and digital systems into a unified operational network? Are we building layered defences against unmanned threats around critical infrastructure? Are acquisition strategies flexible enough to cope with rapid technological cycles and supply chain disruptions? And what is the state of preparation of the SAF for asymmetrical warfare across drone and cyber domains? These operational details reflect a deeper necessity. Our strategic depth is not measured in kilometres. It is measured in foresight, adaptability and resolve, in being early, not late, prepared, not surprised, steady, not reactive. And so, we return to Dr Goh. In the early years, some thought he was overly cautious. Some thought he was overly prepared. But time has delivered the verdict. What looked like over preparation was prudence, what looked like caution was clarity, what looked like pessimism was responsibility.”
“For Singapore, the implications are immediate. When sanctions expand, our trade dependent economy feels it. When multilateral forums stall, small states lose room to manoeuvre. When norms weaken, might presses against right. When rules fragment, uncertainty multiplies. These are not distant headlines. They define our operating environment. Recent conflicts have revealed hard lessons. Emerging technologies have lowered the barriers of conflict. Drones and precision capabilities can offset traditional advantages. Cyber operations can disrupt systems without warning. Information campaigns can divide societies before a single shot is fired. Modern conflict tests more than armies. It tests energy grids, digital infrastructure and food security. Above all, it tests national cohesion. For hyper connected Singapore, the frontline is no longer distant. It is the phone in a young person's hand, the data centre powering our economy and the port anchoring our supply lines. Security today demands resilience in systems, clarity in command and confidence in society. Mr Chairman, I seek the Minister's update on three fronts. First, how has MINDEF's assessment of security conflicts and risks evolved over the past five years? How has that translated into force posture and operational readiness? Second, how are we strengthening Total Defence as a whole to prepare Singaporeans for crises and contingencies? Third, how is defence diplomacy widening our strategic space while safeguarding our Independence? Are we working with more partners? How do we remain trusted by all, yet subordinate to none? These questions lead directly to SAF 2040. A strong SAF is the bedrock of deterrence. Credible strength deters miscalculation, prevents adventurism and preserves peace.”
“Mr Chairman, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Estimates be reduced by $100". There is a story about Dr Goh Keng Swee in the early years of our Independence. When Singapore began building up its armed forces, some thought we were overreacting. We were small. We had limited resources. Why spend scarce funds on defence? Dr Goh's answer was simple. If we did not take our own security seriously, no one else would. If we did not prepare early, we would prepare too late. If we did not build strength ourselves, we would depend on the strength of others. That clarity shaped the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) we know today. In 1967, he moved the National Service Bill with a stark question: why defend Singapore at all, if this island was said to be indefensible? It was not rhetorical. It was a test of will. He warned that the real danger was not vulnerability but neglect. Without defence, we would drift into becoming a colony or a satellite, exposed to pressure and ransom. That was the choice then. It remains the choice now. We do not choose our size. We do not choose our geography. We do not choose the ambitions of larger powers. But we choose whether we face reality squarely, prepare seriously and shape our own future. Today, the global order is entering a more uncertain phase. The belief that economic integration would soften rivalry has frayed. The assumption that international rules protect small states is under strain. Major power competition is sharpening across technology, supply chains, energy and data. Strategic mistrust is deepening. Influence is contested across domains. At the recent Munich Security Conference, the conclusion was sobering. Strategic stability can no longer be assumed. It must be sustained and defended.”
“Chairman, I express my sincere appreciation to the Minister, Senior Minister State, Ministers of State and MFA officers, both in Singapore and across our overseas missions for their dedicated service in advancing national interests amidst a more complex and uncertain global environment. I also want to thank my Government Parliamentary Committee colleagues as well as Members in this House for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. The discussion highlights the significant shifts in the global landscape and the growing need for discipline and clarity in our approach. Singapore must remain principled, steady in diplomacy and united as one people, upholding the rule of law over the law of power, and recognising that foreign policy begins at home where unity forms the bedrock of our credibility abroad. With that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $614,402,500 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $46,700,000 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Minister spoke about supporting the rule-based multilateral system in the architecture of norms and institutions that gives small states like Singapore some measure of protection. In this context, can the Minister elaborate further why our nomination of Ambassador Rena Lee, as a candidate for Judge in the International Court of Justice matters for Singapore and the global community? If elected, how can Ambassador Lee contribute?”
“How can we deepen connectivity and strengthen the ASEAN core so that ASEAN remains central in our region's stability? Beyond our immediate neighbourhood, diversification is strategic necessity. How are we advancing partnerships with middle powers, like India, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand? Are we exploring the Gulf, Latin America and Africa so that our economy has multiple engines of growth and our diplomacy has multiple pillars of support? In conclusion, Mr Chairman, Odysseus did not calm the sea or slay the monsters. He survived because he understood the dangers, disciplined the crew and held the course. Singapore must take heed. We cannot control the currents of history. We cannot stop the rivalry of giants. But we can control our response. We must be firm in principle, pragmatic in execution. We must be steady in diplomacy, agile in adaptation. We must be united as a people to defend our sovereignty and we must ensure that the power of the law prevails over the law of power. Like Odysseus steering between Scylla and Charybdis, we cannot eliminate every danger. But with judgment in strategy, discipline in execution and unity in purpose, we can hold our course, and we will emerge stronger on the other side. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Changing World Order”
“How do we contribute meaningfully to humanitarian relief and a credible path toward peace, without being drawn into the politics of others? Third, Mr Chairman, on domestic resilience and shaping global norms. Foreign policy no longer operates only beyond our shores. In an age of polarised narratives, it reaches into our information space and our social cohesion. How do we strengthen the home front? How can we deepen public understanding that foreign policy shapes our food security, our energy resilience, our jobs and our safety abroad? How can we strengthen trust, unity and resilience at home? If we are to be steady abroad, we must be united at home. Meanwhile, how can Singapore strengthen its role in protecting frontier domains? In cyber governance and artificial intelligence (AI), how can we help shape norms that are inclusive and safe? How are we strengthening cooperation on climate action and biodiversity to safeguard our seas, skies and digital space? And looking ahead, how will Singapore help write the rules for the new frontiers? How will we ensure that small states retain voice and agency in global rule-making? Fourth, Mr Chairman, on bilateral relationships and strategic diversification. With the United States (US) and China, the challenge is enduring. How will we engage both constructively while remaining independent? We must cooperate where we can and stand firm where we must. The balance is delicate. How do we maintain trust with both without becoming bound to either? How do we keep principled positions without becoming predictable instruments? How do we preserve strategic autonomy without drifting into isolation? With Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, our destinies are intertwined.”
“Elsewhere, internal crises and external pressures test the principles of non-intervention and territorial integrity. For a small state, sovereignty is our lifeblood, our legitimacy, our survival. If might makes right, small states pay the highest price. The question for the Minister is this: how will Singapore uphold a rules-based order consistently and credibly? How will we defend principle not only in word, but in deed – ensuring the same standards apply regardless of who breaches them? We are also witnessing the erosion of multilateralism. Rising tariffs, expanding industrial policies and strains within the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) weaken global commerce. For a trade-dependent nation, fragmentation hits our ports, our factories and our households. In this environment, what more must we do? What more can we do to strengthen high-quality trade agreements? How do we advance digital and green economy partnerships and push meaningful reform so that rules, not raw power, govern global commerce? Second, Mr Chairman, on regional stability and conflict management. Geopolitical tensions in the Asia Pacific remain acute. From the China-Japan row to flashpoints in the South China Sea, maritime incidents carry risks of miscalculation and escalation. How then is Singapore reducing these risks? How do we uphold freedom of navigation while avoiding binary alignments? And how do we reinforce the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) Centrality so that ASEAN remains the anchor for dialogue and peaceful dispute resolution? On Gaza, amidst immense humanitarian suffering, how will Singapore combine moral clarity with diplomatic effectiveness? We have stated our support for a negotiated two-state solution, yet the pathway appears fragile. What role can Singapore play?”
“Mr Chairman, I seek to move, “That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Estimates be reduced by $100”. In Greek mythology in Homer’s “Odyssey”, after years of war and wandering, Odysseus faced one of his most perilous trials. To return home, he had to steer his ship through a narrow strait from which there is no turning back. On one side loomed Scylla, a six-headed monster perched upon the cliffs, each head striking with deadly precision to seize a sailor from the deck. On the other roared Charybdis, a vast whirlpool that swallowed the sea itself and dragged entire ships into the depths. Sail too close to one and man would be taken one by one. Drift to the other, the whole vessel will be lost. One danger was immediate and targeted; the other was systemic and consuming. Odysseus could defeat neither. To attempt the impossible meant ruin. So, he steadied his crew and held his course. He preserved his vessel, surviving by judgment, discipline and resolve. For small states like Singapore, this remains the eternal test – not to overpower giants but to navigate safely between them. Today, the waters are narrowing again. The post-Cold War order is giving way to sharper rivalry and deeper fragmentation. Norms are contested. Institutions are strained. The power of the law risks being replaced by the law of power. Mr Chairman, I have several questions. First, Mr Chairman, on the evolving global order and the defence of rules. As major powers compete across security, technology and trade, how will we preserve Singapore’s strategic space? When pressure mounts and blocs harden, how do we remain sovereign in decision, secure in defence and stable in prosperity? 11.00 am On sovereignty, Russia's invasion of Ukraine remains a grave breach of the UN Charter.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. I have two supplementary questions. Has MSF studied the relationship between wage non-compliance and staff turnover, vacancy rates or case load pressures? Because these issues as a whole, may cause workforce instability, which may in turn pose a risk to service delivery to beneficiaries. And secondly, how is MSF ensuring that smaller community-based SSAs are not disproportionately affected, given that they may have a weaker fundraising capability compared to the larger agencies?”
“Should we publish indicators or define soft thresholds to intervene before clustering becomes entrenched? We must tighten levies, where necessary, and enforce fair workplace practises rigorously, including in hiring outcomes. We must be able to see that locals are being hired, promoted and developed. Integration must be a deliberate and well-resourced effort to protect our social fabric. Venice's lesson is that hesitation without renewal is fatal. A great city that fails to replenish its people fades through miscalibration. Singapore must not fade. We must renew deliberately, grow steadily and integrate cohesively. Let us remain not a monument to past success, but a living city that continues to matter. Immigration, Integration and Equity”
“Deputy Chairman, in the 15th century, Venice was a wealthy global hub, but as its population weakened, it grew cautious, protecting privilege rather than renewing itself. Venice did not collapse in a single moment. It simply faded as it became smaller than the world around it. Today, with a TFR of 0.97, Singapore faces a similar precipice. We must continue supporting families, but we cannot assume fertility will rebound fast enough to offset structural ageing. To maintain vitality, a calibrated intake of new residents remain a difficult but necessary reality. But society cannot change faster than it can absorb. I ask the Minister, what is the Government's planning range for annual population growth over the next decade? What rate is socially and infrastructurally sustainable before housing, transport and healthcare are strained? Are there defined triggers for additional mitigation? And what are the projected parameters toward 2030, so this House can debate numbers alongside principles? Growth must match provision. If growth outruns infrastructure, if trains are crowded, flats are expensive and competition for jobs intensifies, it breeds deep seated resentment as Singaporeans feel squeezed at home. But if services and jobs expand in lockstep, we replace friction with confidence. Regarding non-resident manpower, we need a more granular approach. Construction manpower is surge capacity that builds our home and infrastructure. Since their interaction with the local workforce is limited, should we give the sector calibrated leeway to meet build targets while holding firms to higher standards of housing, safety and healthcare? For S Pass and Employment Pass holders, the anxiety is often about concentration by source, by sector and within specific firms, not absolute numbers.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. The focus of my supplementary question is on seniors. For older Singaporeans who may own valuable property but have limited or no income, how does the Ministry assess the impact of the higher property taxes on the cost-of-living pressures? I note the Minister had earlier mentioned that there are current initiatives. But will there be additional safeguards to ensure that the measures aimed at reducing wealth inequality do not unintentionally strain retirees?”
“” “I realised,” Amir said, “that I needed to level up.” Mr Speaker, that is the future we must design. Not a future where workers are discarded. Not a future where productivity rises but trust falls. But a future where productivity funds mobility and automation finances upgrading. If we prepare honestly, govern wisely and act courageously, Singapore will not merely endure this wave of change. We will rise with it. If we get this right, Singapore will not merely adopt AI. We will guide it. We will shape it. We will humanise it. And together, we will shape the future of Singapore. I support the Budget.”
“The looms did not destroy prosperity, they transformed it. Industrialisation was painful and disruptive, but the societies that adapted built new industries, new skills and eventually a broader middle class. The lesson is not that technological change is painless. It is that refusing to prepare does not preserve dignity, preparing does. AI is technological change. It is not to be feared. It is not to be ignored. It is to be governed. But AI moves at digital speed. The Luddites had decades. We may only have years, perhaps only months. History also warns us that when ownership concentrates and meaningful work disappears, inequality hardens. If AI disruption results in productive assets concentrated in a few hands while working people are excluded from opportunity, social strain follows. But that outcome is not inevitable. Every major technological disruption has also created renewal. AI can expand opportunity if directed wisely. That means preparing our workforce today. It means equipping our workforce tomorrow. It means being prepared to recalibrate policy as the technology evolves. The future will remain uncertain. But this Government does not sugar-coat reality. The PAP has never shied away from harsh truths. We will be honest about the challenges on the ground. We will be honest that some jobs will change. We will be honest that some roles will disappear. And we will be honest that the transition will not be easy. But we will also be clear about this: we are here to walk with Singaporeans through the tough times. Let me return to Amir. When I saw him again, he had enrolled in a course. He was no longer asking what AI could do for him. He was asking what he could become. “The tool is not the point,” his instructor told him. “Learning how to think is the point.”
“If gains flow only to the margins and management, social cohesion erodes. Six months of premium AI tools must not become tokenism. Access is not mastery. How will we measure demonstrable skill acquisition through portfolios, assessed projects and recognised credentials. Workers need employability, not just exposure. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, build shared capability and trust. Do SMEs have sufficient compute and infrastructure? Will we provide shared credits, secure data environments and reference architectures so that they can compete responsibly? Without shared capability, we risk an AI divide. In regulatory sandboxes, who bears the liability? When AI affects hiring or evaluation, what is the audit framework? Speed without accountability breeds backlash. And how do we remain trusted without slowing deployment? What is the AI Council’s explicit speed-with-safety model? This should include: tiered risk categories, standardised evaluation, fast-track approvals for low-risk use. Trust must not become friction. Speed must not become recklessness. Will the Government lead by example? Will the public sector pair AI adoption with systematic job redesign and publish measurable outcomes? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, two centuries ago, in the English Midlands, groups of skilled textile workers gathered at night. They broke into mills and smashed the mechanical looms, the industrial weaving machines that automated the production of cloth, because they believed those machines would destroy their livelihoods. These workers came to be known as the Luddites. They were not ignorant men. They were craftsmen, fathers and providers who feared that mechanisation would render their skills obsolete. History remembers them as opponents of progress. But here is the twist.”
“Allow me to group my proposals into three themes. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, measure what matters. AI Missions deserve praise, but alongside ambition, we need measurable labour outcomes. What three to five key performance indicators will be published annually that are explicitly job linked? For example, net new roles created, wage uplift achieved, time to redeployment, share of SMEs scaling AI beyond pilots. If this transformation is national, its scorecard must be national and human. AI Champions must not become theatre. What is the gating bar? It should include data readiness, genuine process redesign, measurable productivity gains and meaningful workforce upgrading. And if firms cannot demonstrate transformation beyond pilot projects within a defined period, support should be reviewed and if necessary, withdrawn. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, protect pathways. Globally, the first wave is not mass layoffs but junior tasks disappearing: drafting, summarising, first-pass analysis. Will AI Mission partners redesign entry-level pathways so that young Singaporeans still get a real first job, real mentorship and real responsibility, even as AI takes over routine tasks? The future belongs to “AI conductors”, not merely “AI users”. Our juniors must learn to curate, steer and verify AI outputs. The competitive advantage is not pressing “generate.” It is about asking the right questions and judging the answers. If we lose the first job pathway and if our juniors never get the chance to learn how to be "AI conductors", we lose the future workforce. For mid-career Singaporeans, the fear is not only unemployment, but stagnation and even decline. Will AI support be conditional on job redesign and wage progression commitments?”
“It even suggested interview answers.” Then he paused. “But if AI can write my CV better than I can,” he said quietly, “what happens when it can do my job better than me?” He was not dramatic, he was also not angry. He was simply uncertain. That uncertainty is what many Singaporeans feel. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates roughly 40% of jobs globally are exposed to AI. In advanced economies, exposure approaches 60%. Goldman Sachs estimates generative AI could affect work equivalent to 300 million full-time roles. These are not alarmist numbers. These are structural signals. Stanford Prof Erik Brynjolfsson recently argued that the long-awaited AI productivity take-off may now be visible. In the US, payroll growth was revised downward by over 400,000 jobs even as GDP grew 3.7% in the fourth quarter. Output held steady while labour input declined. That is the hallmark of productivity growth. Productivity rose about 2.7% in 2025, nearly double the previous decade’s pace. First comes investment, then re-organisation, then, if we get it right, harvest. But harvest is uneven. Some firms adapt faster, some sectors benefit earlier, others face displacement sooner. And here is the elephant in the room. Mid-career workers are already feeling automation’s pressure. The accountant whose reconciliation tasks are automated, the marketing manager whose drafting work is compressed into minutes, the operations executive whose reporting is replaced by dashboards. These are not statistics. These are parents, caregivers and Singaporeans with responsibilities. They want to remain useful, valued and respected in their work. Productivity can rise even as some workers experience displacement. Our task is not to deny disruption. It is to govern it.”
“This is not to question earlier fiscal decisions. It is simply to say: where space exists, we should use it to cushion households and strengthen trust. Because trust in fiscal policy underpins trust in everything else. And trust must also underpin our AI transition. The AI transformation is not theoretical. It is structural, it is global and it is accelerating. Recent analysis from technologists observing the frontier makes this clear. Model performance is not merely improving incrementally, it is compounding. Tasks that required research teams a year ago can now be done in weeks. Tasks that required weeks can now be done in hours. What appears gradual suddenly crosses a threshold and becomes transformational. AI is no longer assisting humans at the edges. AI is helping to build the next AI. Engineers use AI to write code, debug systems, test approaches and accelerate research cycles. But the recent AI coding revolution does not stop at engineers and programmers, because code is essentially logic and workflow. And it is enterprise logic and workflow that is the fundamental basis of many knowledge jobs. This means that AI's ability to generate code and write software autonomously could eventually have greater implications on all knowledge workers, not just programmers. When improvements accelerate the next round of improvements, change does not move in a straight line. It begins to move like a wave. Last week, I met a young Singaporean named Amir outside a tuition centre in Yio Chu Kang. He was waiting for his sister. In his hand was a neatly printed curriculum vitae (CV). Three pages. Strong verbs. Clean formatting. I asked whether he had hired a professional writer. He laughed and said, “No, I used an AI tool to help me. It rewrote my CV. It drafted cover letters.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm looking at human capital ecosystem strategies. In my work, I have seen how capital relocates amidst volatility, how labour markets adjust when technology shifts and how nations either manage transition wisely or struggle when they do not. My reaction to Budget 2026 is this: Singapore’s budget surplus reflects global volatility and our strategic credibility. In a fractured world, capital flows toward stability, predictability and the rule of law. That is a vote of confidence for Singapore. I welcome the Government’s steady fiscal discipline. At a time when many countries wrestle with debts and deficits, Singapore’s prudence is an asset. It gives us room to act, credibility to lead and options in uncertainty. But volatility-driven gains are not permanent gains. Cyclical surpluses are not structural revenues. In a more dangerous world, fiscal strength is national defence. Our buffers are not excesses, they are strategic insurance. They safeguard our sovereignty, resilience and freedom of action. As Chair of the Defence and Foreign Affairs GPC, I say this with conviction: fiscal resilience is strategic capability. It ensures we are not forced into decisions by constraints. It preserves our strategic autonomy when circumstances demand it. At the same time, given the current surplus position, perhaps we can signal stability by avoiding further tax increases in the near term. I recognise that Government will, when necessary, need to raise revenue. But where new measures are introduced, they should be calibrated carefully and remain progressive. Perhaps there should be no additional effective burden on lower-income households and revenue adjustments should be designed with cost pressures firmly in mind.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I understand that drugs included on the Cancer Drug List (CDL) are based on cost effectiveness thresholds. Can the Ministry clarify how these thresholds are set and how often are they reviewed? And secondly, has the Ministry assessed whether the access gap between patients relying on subsidies and those who can pay privately, is widening and what would it cost to narrow the gap.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. As a parent of five kids, I can attest that gaming is indeed very addictive for school-going children. Once they are given the devices and screens, they can be gaming for hours. I just have two short supplementary questions, which are: can I clarify that MOE is indeed the lead agency involved because there are many Ministries involved in this area and MOE has clear lead ownership and outcome accountability on this particular issue? And has the Government engaged gaming platforms on addictive design features?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply that there is an indirect impact. The Ministry of Trade and Industry regularly assesses macro price pressures, but does the Ministry use indicators to identify disproportionate effects on lower-income households, such as changes in the cost of basic food, transport and utilities?”
“But laws alone do not make communities safe. The choices we make in implementation do. If we choose compassion alongside enforcement, clarity alongside regulation and care alongside accountability, the measure of this Bill will not be found in the number of offences recorded. It will be found in fewer fires; in safer footpaths; in the vulnerable amongst us, who can move through their estates without fear. And for residents in Yio Chu Kang and for all Singaporeans across this island, that is not just good policy. It is the kind of society we are building together. With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Only when enforcement is visible, consistent and credible will behaviour truly change. Otherwise, even well-designed laws risk becoming paper tigers. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me end with a moment that many of my residents will recognise from lived experience. On 4 November 2025, close to midnight, a fire broke out in the lift lobby of Block 641 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4, involving a PMD. About 200 of my residents were evacuated. Four were taken to hospital. Electrical supply was disrupted and lifts were damaged. These disruptions were avoidable and they underline why prevention and enforcement matter. In such incidents, it is not just the user who pays the price. Entire blocks are disrupted. Neighbouring units suffer damage. Some families even lose beloved pets, or in the worst case scenario, their loved ones. This brings us to the heart of this Bill. On the Certificate of Medical Need, safety must never come at the cost of dignity. On mandatory registration, accountability must be paired with fairness. On unsafe devices, fire risks must be removed, not hidden. And on delivery riders and enforcement, safety must be real on the ground, not just written in law. This Bill matters because safety is not an abstract concept. It is not a statistic. It is the quiet confidence of a senior walking home. It is the assurance that a charging device will not put homes and livelihoods at risk. It is the belief that shared spaces belong to all of us and must protect the most vulnerable amongst us. My residents are not asking for perfection. They are asking for reassurance. They are asking for rules that are firm, but fair. For systems that protect, not intimidate. For enforcement that is real, consistent and visible. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill gives us the tools.”