Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Mr Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Budget as delivered by the Prime Minister.

What struck me about this Budget is not just the package of measures, but the signal it sends. In a more uncertain, fractured world, it reassures all Singaporeans that we can remain steady, confident and united, it reassures Singaporeans that we are always here to take care of each other. This Budget carries a clear "we first" direction, reminding us that progress is not just about growth in figures, but about shared responsibilities, stronger bonds and a social compact that is real in everyday life.

Mr Speaker, if we take this "we first" direction seriously, then we must pay attention not just to the policy intent, but how these policies land on the ground, especially at transitional points where households and businesses are most exposed. In that spirit, whilst I will touch briefly on ComLink+, measures affecting small and medium enterprises (SMEs), I will focus my main remarks on the revised Preferential Additional Registration Fee (PARF) policies and the issues of transitional fairness.

First, Mr Speaker, I support the enhancement of ComLink+, which is a scheme that helps families progress from public rental towards home ownership. But I want to raise the practical issues on transitional risk. Moving from public rental housing into a new home is not that simple. For some of these families, there is a degree of vulnerability as they encounter moving – there are renovation costs, furniture costs, new travel routines, childcare, school logistics and sometimes, a change in a workplace too.

Some of these families may not yet be stable to absorb a sharp drop in social and financial support if they are immediately treated as having "graduated" out of ComLink+. It is only human nature that if families fear that by buying a home triggers an immediate loss of support, they may delay taking up the step of home purchase that the policy is trying to encourage.

Mr Speaker, this is not a call to keep families dependent. It is the opposite. If we want families genuinely to take the difficult step from rental to ownership, or from assistance to self-reliance, we should make the transition predictable and safe. I hope the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) can share how support is tapered when these families transition out of ComLink+ and whether their family coaches can help with a transition plan, so they do not fall into gaps between schemes at their most vulnerable and most fragile moments of the transition.

Next, Mr Speaker, the Budget also introduces policies that affect a large majority of SMEs. In doing so, the Government typically engage trade associations and chambers to gather feedback of on-the-ground perspectives. However, not all SMEs is required to be part of these bodies. Even the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), as the apex business chamber, only has compulsory membership for companies above the $0.5 million paid-up or authorised capital threshold. This means a substantial segment of the micro-SMEs may not be in the room when these policy feedback are being gathered, even though they are the ones who are most sensitive to cost and compliance changes. I therefore urge the Government to consider opening feedback channels you hear from these small and micro-SMEs, via channels, such as the SME Centers, so that in all fairness, the policy does not get shaped mainly by the larger companies.

Mr Speaker, for the last part of my speech, I will turn to the PARF changes. Since the announcement, I have received ground feedback from residents and people who are concerned about the sudden implementation and the financial hit they may have to take, through no fault of their own.

As announced, the PARF rebate will be reduced by 45% and the cap lowered from $60,000 to $30,000. This change applies to Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) obtained from the second COE bidding exercise in February 2026 onwards.

Mr Speaker, my concern is not about whether the Government has good policy reasons to recalibrate PARF. Policy can and do change all the time. My concern is the effective date and the absence of transition safeguards for buyers who had already committed to a car purchase under the prior framework. One of my Geylang Serai resident shared with me that before Budget Day, he committed to a vehicle purchase and paid a deposit based on the prevailing PARF rules. However, after the announcement, the dealer's position was that the deal will proceed and if the buyer cancelled, this deposit would be forfeited because the dealer did no wrong and any dispute should be taken to the authorities. In reality, for many committed buyers, there is no meaningful option to renegotiate the pricing or cancel their purchase without losing substantial deposits. These buyers bear the downside of an immediate policy shift.

Mr Speaker, what makes this change particularly difficult is the hastiness of the implementation. The next COE cycle started after Budget was announced and before this House got to debate the policy change. When the PARF rebate framework changed with such a short runway, the assumptions that buyers and sellers made at the point of contract no longer stands, yet buyers remain locked in because they cannot back out of the contract without any penalty. I, therefore, have six questions I hope the Ministry for Transport (MOT) can consider.

First, why was there no interim measures for buyers who had already committed and paid deposits before Budget Day, and would the revised PARF framework have started in a later COE cycle or with a longer lead time, so that the buyers have time to react and consider their decision to buy?

Second, in deciding on an immediate start date, did the Government consider industry practices, such as non-refundable deposits, and was it anticipated that some buyers would face the dilemma of either proceeding at a loss or forfeiting their deposits if they cancel their car purchase?

Third, will the Government consider introducing a limited relief mechanism for buyers who entered into purchase agreements and paid deposits before Budget Day? For example, mandating a short grace period, a cancellation-without-penalty window or other measures to prevent immediate hardship to this group?

Fourth, did the Government consider the impact on new-car sellers who typically commit to inventory and order pipelines six to 12 months in advance? For these new car dealers, they are now at risk of holding stock that is much harder to sell and may have a knock-out effect on their business viability and also employees' jobs.

Fifth, did the Government expect these change to increase COE renewals because retaining older cars becomes relatively more attractive and if so, what is the expected impact on the number of COEs available for the new cars and the resulting trajectory of the COE premiums?

Finally, did the Government assess how this policy might raise household costs, including higher used-car prices and the impact on families who need cars for caregiving, disability needs, shift work or caring for elderly family members?

Mr Speaker, some people have also asked my team whether if this is, in substance, an electric vehicle (EV) promotion policy. If so, can the Government clarify whether our infrastructure is ready? For example, is the national power grid ready to support a mass adoption of EVs, and will EV charging, especially in older estates, keep in pace, so Singaporeans will not feel that policy is moving faster than practical realities.

Mr Speaker, the principle is simple. When policy move quickly, transitional safeguards matters. Otherwise, it creates a perception that when Government provides support, there are conditions and waiting period. But when the Government takes away value, it can be immediate. I worry this perception would erode trust, especially if ordinary families are hurt because they are not sophisticated buyers and reasonably expect the rules to remain stable when making big purchases.

So, in closing remarks, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget's "we first" direction. However, I urge the Government to view the issues that I have raised through the lens of transition and in fairness, whether it is social, economical or business in nature.