Committee of Supply – Head U (Prime Minister's Office)

Sir, Singapore entrusts significant powers and broad discretion to the executive to make decisions on a wide range of matters. These include the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act and the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, which allow Ministers to give directions and make decisions relating to fake news and foreign interference, and the Online Safety Relief and Accountability Bill, which empowers the Online Safety Commission (OSC) to direct takedown of harmful content or restrict online accounts.

Where executive discretion is exercised, and in the absence of a judicial review ouster, the public usually is only able to use judicial review to question that, albeit limited to grounds of legality, procedural propriety and rationality. A recent use was in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2019, when the Supreme Court ruled that then Prime Minister Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and Parliament resumed the next day.

In Singapore, judicial review is rare. Given this, how does Singapore guide and monitor the use of executive discretion and what are the safeguards in place to ensure that these are done judiciously?

I am not saying that there is no place for judicial discretion nor am I calling for judicial micromanagement. Instead, I hope for a better understanding and data about: first, if there is any central tracking of the use of executive powers; and second, what are the principles, if any, guide the use of such oversight?

We should have a central public registry to record Ministerial powers and delegated authorities, allowing Parliament, the media and citizens to better understand who holds what powers and when they apply. Public body should publish periodic reports on how the discretionary powers are exercised. For instance, during a debate on the Online Safety Bill, we proposed that OSC submit annual reports detailing the number and categories of reports received, directions issued and findings of online harms trends.

Finally, the legal principles and thresholds guiding executive discretion should be transparent and made known, providing a clear framework for decision-making and reducing public concern about motives.

Mr Chairman, as we speak about transformation across the Singapore economy, it is also equally important to understand the transformation within the Public Service. I am going to talk about the launch of the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) programme, or the GRIT@Gov, which reflects an important move to attract young Singaporeans to develop them for meaningful careers within Public Service.

As a union representing Public Service, we welcome the efforts to strengthen the pipeline and provide meaningful early exposure to Public Service work. And this is also to help the much-needed experience that they will then be able to better compete in the market as experience is a prerequisite to many jobs and of course, to get better pay.

However, recent news reporting indicates that placements are still building up since the programme started in October 2025. We want to understand how can awareness, matching and role clarity be better strengthened, so that suitable candidates are able to see GRIT@Gov not just as a traineeship but as a credible entry pathway into long-term Public Service careers?

Beyond the placement numbers, it is also important that the quality of experience the trainees have when they are placed at the respective roles within Public Service and it is also important how impactful the roles are so that they not only find purpose but also see clear development pathways within the Public Service.

In addition, this is also important for mid-career officers who require similar guidance on career refresh and job redesign. Ultimately, whether we speak of GRIT@Gov, AI-enabled transformation, career progression or workplace fairness, the central question is: can Public Officers see sustainable and meaningful long-term careers in Public Service?

The next thing is also with the soon-to-come Workplace Fairness Act, which marks an important national step in addressing workplace discrimination. While the Act does not apply directly to Public Officers, the underlying principles remain relevant within the Public Service.

We hope to understand in this context; how will the Government apply the principles of early resolution and mediation that will be reinforced to promote fair and timely handling of workplace grievances?

Chair, I thank Members for their questions on how the Public Service will ensure we continue to meet the needs of Singapore and Singaporeans well.

Let me first address the cut by Mr Foo Cexiang on how we are preparing our public officers for tomorrow’s challenges. We agree, indeed, that the international order and our domestic landscape are fundamentally changing, and changing fast. Singapore must rethink our approaches and seize new opportunities to secure our place in the world.

To keep Singapore exceptional and ready for the future, I believe we must do three things well: understand the world well; understand our people well; and understand technology well.

First, understanding the world is vital to sharpen our clarity on how Singapore and Singaporeans can stay relevant in the new world. Given how small and open Singapore we are and how everything in Singapore is affected by global developments elsewhere, from security to trade, to food and technology access, we need to make sound decisions for Singapore and our officers must understand the new world we operate in.

To help public officers build up their global exposure and connections, we are ramping up overseas postings and exchanges, attachments to international organisations and stints in the private and people sectors. We will also ensure Public Service leaders are globally informed and connected. Today, nearly four out of every 10 officers on our central leadership development programmes have participated in programmes with structured overseas exposure.

By understanding the world, our public officers and leaders can better seize emerging opportunities and safeguard Singapore’s long-term interests.

Second, we will also need to understand our peoples and their expectations well. This will help to shape our purpose.

The work of the Public Service is not just to deliver transactions but to build trust. Singaporeans want to be heard, to be involved and to co-create solutions. Following the Forward Singapore (ForwardSG) exercise, we have strengthened the partnerships with citizens and communities through the Singapore Government Partnerships Office. In 2025, agencies received over 1,600 partnership proposals from citizens, corporates, community groups and organisations.

We also continue to make our services more accessible, inclusive and responsive. Today, 99% of government-to-citizen transactions, like Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers, can be completed digitally. Citizens who need help in person can visit ServiceSG centres, where they can access 600 services from over 25 agencies under one roof. To bring these integrated services closer to more residents, we have set up a 10th ServiceSG Centre in Ang Mo Kio this year.

To serve Singaporeans well, we must also invest in our officers. Mr Sanjeev Tiwari asked how public officers can have a meaningful, sustainable career within our Service. Last year, I announced the launch of a Career Fitness Movement for public officers to prepare for meaningful careers with increasing longevity. To date, more than 4,300 officers from over 69 public agencies have gone through the foundational programme under the movement. Building on this momentum, we are introducing supplementary programmes to provide targeted support for officers at different career life stages. This is only possible through the strong support of our partners, such as the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees, which Mr Sanjeev heads.

Mr Sanjeev Tiwari also asked how the Public Service reinforces fair and timely resolution of any workplace concern. The Public Service is committed not only to invest in career fitness of our officers but also recognises the importance of resolving early any workplace concern from our public officers. We have in place a Grievance Handling Procedure and Internal Disclosure Policy. These strive to ensure early resolution of any concern whilst maintaining confidentiality. We will continue to review them to ensure that they remain relevant and effective, working in partnership with the unions.

On Mr Sanjeev’s question on the GRIT@Gov programme, the Government is committed to invest in the skills of trainees. For trainees with an interest and aptitude to pursue a long-term career in the Public Service, we will also continue to invest in them as part of our Career Fitness Movement.

Third, let me touch on technology. Understanding technology is an essential capability for every public officer and leader. Technological advancement, like Generative AI, is not a good-to-have but a must-have for all of us to thrive in the future. Hence, we are enhancing our capabilities in science, technology and engineering across the Public Service to improve how we deliver services. For example, all public officers are required to undergo compulsory digital and AI training, while digital training for senior Public Service leaders has accelerated over the past years. This goes to every level, from the Permanent Secretary to the last officer.

Let me now conclude. To ensure Singapore is ready for the future, our Public Service will equip our officers to understand the world, understand our people and understand technology.

Understanding the world will sharpen our clarity on how we can maintain Singapore’s relevance. Understanding our people will shape our purpose and enable us to deliver for, and with, Singaporeans. And understanding technology will strengthen our capabilities and enable us to harness the latest advancements to be future-ready. This is how we will continue to deliver as One Public Service and keep Singapore exceptional for all Singaporeans.

Let me now address Ms He Ting Ru’s question on how the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) guides the use of Ministerial powers and discretion. The Prime Minister assigns responsibilities to Ministers, including for statutory functions. All statutory functions must be exercised in accordance with the law. The law confers discretion on Ministers and other officials so that they can exercise their judgement on how best to deal with each case based on the facts, instead of mechanically applying a rigid rule.

The rationale for a discretionary function, its scope and limits, and any applicable safeguards, would have been debated by this House when the legislation was passed. Each Minister is responsible for exercising the statutory functions assigned to him or her.

The most important issues are referred to and discussed by Cabinet before a final decision is taken. Cabinet, in turn, is collectively responsible to Parliament.

Chairman, may I have your permission to take clarifications for the Public Service Division's portion now, and I think we have 100 seconds.

I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. Can I just ask my clarification? Whether the PMO will consider eventually one day publishing more data, so that the public can better understand how the various Ministerial discretions were actually exercised, especially in the example I cited earlier for the Online Safety Commission (OSC), when we actually called for this to be published a bit more.

Chair, we will certainly look into that. But let me assure the House that for every decision made, actually it is carefully recorded and the grounds of the decision made is carefully recorded. And overtime we will build up the corpus of knowledge, just like case law.

Mr Chairman, the Prime Minister has laid out clearly the realities of the world we face. It is more uncertain, more fragmented and more competitive than before. In such a world, innovation is not optional. It is central to Singapore’s long-term economic strength and strategic resilience.

The Government’s $37 billion commitment under Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2030 plan (RIE2030) reflects foresight and discipline. It is a deliberate investment in deepening our capabilities so that Singapore remains competitive, relevant and able to create real opportunities for our people. As we move into the next phase, I would like to focus on two priorities that will determine whether this investment delivers its full impact. First, anchoring and capturing value from innovation. Second, sustaining renewal within our talent system.

Singapore has built strong research and innovation capabilities over decades – in semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, biomedical sciences and artificial intelligence. These were the result of sustained and deliberate choices. As our ecosystem matures, the emphasis must increasingly shift from building capability to anchoring value. In a small and open economy, we will always participate in global value chains. Participation in global value chains is not enough. We must anchor higher-value segments here in Singapore.

Anchoring value means retaining intellectual property (IP), scaling Singapore-headquartered enterprises and creating high value roles for Singaporeans across the innovation chain. Traditional research indicators – publications, patents and grants – remain important measures of quality. But as investment scales up, it is appropriate that we continue sharpening how we track economic impact. This includes attention to IP anchored locally, enterprise growth driven by domestic innovation, productivity gains linked to publicly funded research as well as high-skilled opportunities created for Singaporeans.

We cannot compete on scale. We compete on focus, execution and value capture. This is not a change of direction. It is disciplined refinement. It ensures that our accumulated research depth translates into sustained economic strength. Excellence in research must translate into consequence for our economy.

Innovation ultimately depends on people. Singapore has built strong institutions, attracted global expertise and expanded our local research base. These are significant achievements. As our ecosystem matures, renewal becomes as important as accumulation. Strong systems endure when experience and fresh perspectives reinforce one another.

We can continue strengthening renewal by providing meaningful leadership opportunities for emerging innovators, recognising mentorship and leadership development within our institutions, designing mission-based programmes with structured progression pathways.

These refinements build on existing strengths. When younger Singaporeans see that frontier ideas can be pursued and realised here, and that leadership pathways are real, confidence in our innovation ecosystem deepens. Renewal is not about replacing experience. It is about ensuring succession.

Innovation policy is not about funding levels only. It is about incentives, institutions and value capture. What we measure influences behaviour. Who we empower influences direction. Where value is anchored determines national strength.

The Government has taken a bold and necessary step with RIE2030. If we steward this investment with discipline, anchoring value and renewing talent, Singapore will not merely participate in technological change. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how RIE2030 will continue strengthening value capture and structured renewal pathways as we move into this next phase.

Mr Chairman, Dr Choo Pei Ling highlighted the need to anchor and capture value from innovation and sustain renewal within our talent system. RIE2030 will focus on contributing to our economy and national priorities, and ensuring our research capabilities and talent remain globally competitive.

We will launch a number of new large-scale, cross-cutting RIE Flagships and RIE Grand Challenges. These will focus on research and innovation, which can drive outcomes in major economic sectors and key national strategic priorities.

For example, the Semiconductor RIE Flagship seeks to strengthen Singapore's position as a strategic node in the global semiconductor supply chain, building new research capabilities and advancing the manufacturing of chips and semiconductor equipment in Singapore. The benefits from RIE investments extend beyond the economy to the society at large.

The RIE Grand Challenge on Maximising Healthy and Successful Longevity for example, aims to generate research insights and interventions that support healthy ageing and enhance our ability to slow the onset and progression of cognitive and physical decline. On the other hand, our National Precision Medicine Programme aims to develop more targeted treatments based on the genetic make-up of our patients and our population.

RIE2030 will also address sustainability challenges through targeted investments in areas such as decarbonisation, climate adaptation and sustainable urban development. We will develop a comprehensive portfolio of decarbonisation solutions. We will also accelerate Singapore's nuclear safety research through the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Institute (SNRSI) to explore safe, clean energy options for our future energy mix.

For climate science and adaptation, we will develop integrated solutions for flood prevention, urban heat management and coastal protection. We will strengthen Singapore's resource resilience through advanced water treatment, next-generation urban farming and circular waste management systems. Enhanced climate science capabilities will provide more precise weather forecasting and climate projections, strengthening Singapore's competitive advantage in weather-sensitive sectors like aviation and maritime.

We will continue to support the building of strong collaborations between our research institutions and private sector partners to conduct industry-relevant research and development, and to commercialise inventions and technologies from publicly funded research. Through these collaborations, our institutions build up capabilities and know-how while meeting industry needs, enabling our researchers to commercialise their intellectual property with companies, developing innovative products and services. This in turn spurs increased private sector investments in Singapore and the creation of new high-value jobs while further strengthening Singapore's RIE ecosystem.

We are also scaling up platforms that bring together our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), public research institutes and industry to accelerate commercialisation of technological advancements in strategic areas including medical diagnostics and additive manufacturing. For example, we will continue to support the establishment of corporate laboratories between companies and IHLs, to address industry challenges and support their journey to becoming product builders.

Our research and development (R&D) investments have also created good jobs. In 2023, more than 60,000 jobs were associated with R&D activities. Research Scientists and Engineers accounted for over 70% of such jobs.

We will sustain our investments in talent and basic research. RIE2030 will seek to attract top and upcoming researchers while nurturing local talent across research, engineering and innovation domains. Talent schemes such as the National Research Foundation (NRF) Fellowships and Investigatorships, Returning Singapore Scientist Scheme and the NRF Professorship enable awardees to establish strong teams and access advanced facilities needed for ambitious and high-impact research.

NRF has introduced a new Postdoctoral Award to support high potential postdoctoral talents to pursue independent research. International postgraduate scholarships for Singaporeans will also be enhanced to broaden global exposure and open up new avenues for value creation.

These moves will help to strengthen Singapore’s deep tech and commercialisation talent pipeline. We will continue to attract top-tier and promising research talent and enhance links between our researchers and the global community, which will anchor a strong base of scientific capabilities here that will spur future breakthroughs and create value in the long term.

Mr Chairman, climate has two faces and Singapore must deal with both of these with one budget.

First, climate is a global commons. As in so many things for a small and open economy, Singapore is a price taker of global norms of behaviour. We cannot ourselves dictate how fast the sea-levels rise, how much human activity to curtail, how little carbon is emitted into the air. We must instead prepare and protect, as much as we can, this little piece of land, one degree north of the equator.

This is the second face of climate change, that although much happens is a result of all countries acting in concert, the impact on specific countries must be dealt with by each country on its own. No global saviour is going to come and give us a helping hand.

There are very few countries that can say with confidence, and indeed with enough bankability, to say what we are saying with this Budget – that we, as a country and as a people, are prepared to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for generations of the future to protect our sea line, our homes and businesses, because although we are price takers in the global commons, we are not passive. We have the resolution and resources to ensure climate adaptability.

This is in many ways the Singapore Story. As our forebears have done for us, so now, we must do for our future.

Here, I would like to thank the National Climate Change Secretariat for its achievements in 2025, especially at the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference at Belem, Brazil.

Singapore's 2035 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) aim to reduce emissions to 45 to 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide supporting our 2050 net-zero goal. This shows Singapore's commitment, even though we contribute only 0.1% of the world's emissions. Can I ask the Minister, what is the expected impact to Singapore's climate goals from the USA's stance on climate, including most recently its withdrawal from international climate organisations?

Second, in view of the Prime Minister's mention during Budget on Carbon Tax pricing to possibly adopt the lower range of $50 per million tonne of carbon dioxide, I would like to ask what is the progress on Singapore's key domestic mitigation measures to meet our 2030 NDC target? What progress has Singapore made in procuring carbon credits to meet our climate targets? And if we do cut to $50, how do we ensure businesses do not back off on their green transformation plans?

Mr Chairman, the Prime Minister signalled in his Budget speech that the Government is considering the lower end of the planned carbon tax range for 2030, citing weaker global climate momentum. While we still have time before deciding, how does the Government ensure that there is enough pressure on large emitters to decarbonise?

With the recent carbon tax increase, how does the Government evaluate its impact and progress on decarbonisation, given that the allowance system makes the decision-making process more complex, both for firms and for price setters? Is progress fast enough? Have key performance indicators (KPIs) for allowances been met? Which allowance recipients are resisting decarbonisation? What is the Government's evaluation of the carbon taxes effect on the development of domestic renewables projects and projects importing low carbon electricity to Singapore? Has the constrained supply of high-quality international carbon credits pushed Singapore towards higher reliance on low carbon electricity import projects?

These are pertinent questions as our electricity use accelerates, particularly with the expansion of data centre capacity. While the Government should support higher levels of low carbon electricity use in data centres beyond the 50% stated in the second data centre call for application, is the increase in demand for electricity hampering our decarbonisation efforts? Are big tech firms also out competing smaller users, like SMEs and households, for cheaper renewable electricity?

Even without the AI-driven expansion, green electricity is in high demand due to increased electrification. The Government should consider tougher measures on data centres and other key polluters alongside the carbon tax.

Frameworks already exist in the form of efficiency standards and grants to support progress. What is needed is ambition to scale up incentives and disincentives, alongside more clarity on what our emissions roadmap looks like in the industrial sector.

Chairman, in a more fragmented global environment, climate policy is no longer moving in lockstep. The US has pulled back from certain multilateral processes, while Europe and regional partners are progressing at differing speeds.

Singapore, as a small and trade-exposed economy, must navigate this divergence carefully. The business community thanks the Government's position that our carbon tax trajectory is set with a pragmatic and calibrated approach – taking into account international developments, development competitiveness and the progress of decarbonisation technologies. The long-term direction is clear. But in the near term, calibration must remain dynamic.

How does Government continuously assess whether Singapore's carbon pricing remains aligned with major trading partners to minimise carbon leakage and unintended relocation of emissive activities?

Beyond the tax trajectory, coordination is equally important. If decarbonisation is left to firms individually, costs may fragment and SMEs may fall behind. One way is to manage through structured supply chain coordination. Large procurers – our "queen bees" – can lead by setting common reporting standards, sharing tools and co-funding capability building across their supplier networks.

Will Government consider scaling such supply chain-led models, so that decarbonisation becomes coordinated and investable, rather than uneven and burdensome?

Mr Chair, we are in a race to a low-carbon future while I am in a race against time. In his Budget 2026 speech, the Prime Minister acknowledged the decline in global climate momentum, which may see Singapore pegging its carbon tax at the lower end of the $50 to $80 per tonne range by 2030. This would be buffered by other measures, such as developing other energy sources, importing low-carbon electricity and scaling up the use of electric vehicles (EVs).

However, one area of growing concern is the significant carbon footprint incurred by the use of generative AI (GenAI). Singapore is taking much-needed steps forward but also risks leaving a larger environmental footprint with every step.

How can Singapore ensure AI development is climate-aligned? The carbon footprint of GenAI can vary significantly, depending on factors, such as model size, training frequency, cooling systems and the energy mix powering data centres. Given this, does the Ministry have an estimate of the environmental footprint based on the planned AI scale-up? If yes, how does it fare against our existing footprint?

How does the Ministry intend to quantify Singapore-specific emissions arising from AI development? Is there a framework to measure and publicly disclose the carbon footprint associated with large-scale AI infrastructure?

How is the projected energy demand from AI being incorporated into Singapore's long-term carbon modelling and emissions trajectory planning? Are there plans to also implement carbon taxes on AI infrastructure to encourage responsible use? What is the expected carbon tax rates, considering all known factors?

The increase in carbon tax rates will translate into higher costs borne by corporations and communities. What measures will the Government take to alleviate the burden on businesses, households and individuals for a successful race to a low-carbon transition?

Sir, the new global order, AI advancements and climate pressures are reshaping economies, lives and livelihoods. Climate change is not a distant threat. Its impact is already felt. 2024 was one of the warmest years on record, with total rainfall 8.1% above the long-term annual average.

But around the world broadly, the momentum for climate action has slowed. A report by Climate Forecasting Consortium's Inevitable Policy Response showed that decelerating or regressive policy surged by over 500% in 2025.

In Singapore, many companies want to transition, yet some may lack the expertise. Others, particularly large emitters, find it not so easy to pivot and require high capital investments to improve efficiencies and transform their operations.

In some sectors, commercially viable low carbon substitutes are not yet available at scale. In this regard, I seek the Government's views in three areas. In a world where climate action is slowing or increasingly becoming politicised, how will Singapore maintain credibility of our carbon tax policy while ensuring that industries remain competitive and our country is economically viable, especially vis-à-vis other countries in ASEAN.

Last year, I raised a Parliamentary Question regarding the structuring of transition allowances. Sir, we should remain transparent about allowances and committed in our push towards decarbonisation. Could the Ministry share more about future plans for the use of transitional allowances and purchasing of international carbon credits to ease near-term pressures, while ensuring that the integrity of our carbon price signal remains strong?

Beyond carbon policies, the transition will also depend on whether firms and workers can adapt. The recently published Green Skills Report defines what are green jobs and green skills, finding that such competencies are being integrated into mainstream roles, not just specialist jobs, with about 5,000 workers projected to be needed by 2030. It also reviewed more than a hundred existing interventions and programmes which have been implemented by agencies and stakeholders thus far.

How successful have current interventions been, in terms of translating into jobs filled and income growth for Singaporeans? How can Singapore grow into a green skills hub for ASEAN and the wider Asian region?

Finally, amid the evolving technological landscape with increased adoption of AI, advanced manufacturing and digital systems, how is Singapore building a pipeline of hybrid green digital talent? At the heart of it, is how Singapore can sustain credible climate action while remaining competitive and building capabilities needed for the transition. No single country, especially one as small and trade exposed as ours, can solve this alone.

Mr Chairman, Sir, let me thank Members for their interest in the subject of climate change, which has long-term implications for Singapore's competitiveness, our energy security and our resilience. With your permission, I will take clarifications after this speech.

Let me first begin with the fundamentals. Whatever the political debates of the day, the physical reality of climate change will continue its course. In fact, its effects are becoming more pronounced, more frequent and more costly.

Globally, last year was among the hottest on record, with rising ocean temperatures and intensifying extreme weather events driving higher economic losses worldwide. These impacts are especially acute in Southeast Asia, one of the world's most climate-vulnerable regions.

As a highly open economy dependent on regional stability and global supply chains, Singapore is directly exposed to these risks. In short, climate change is no longer a future risk. It is already affecting lives and livelihoods, here and now – and the costs of inaction will only continue to rise.

At the same time, we must acknowledge the reality on the ground, especially on the political front.

Global climate action is under strain. Some countries have slowed down the implementation of climate actions and started to review their climate policies. The recent decision by the United States (US) to withdraw from the Paris Agreement has introduced additional uncertainty into global climate cooperation. At the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), countries could not reach consensus on the phasing out of fossil fuels. Some multinational companies have also scaled back their sustainability commitments.

These developments do present cause for concern. But we must be clear that while global progress has been uneven, it would be a mistake to conclude that climate action is no longer relevant.

Some developed countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU) members continue to make sustained emissions cuts towards their 2030 NDC targets. Over 130 countries have set NDC targets for 2035. In total, these targets cover around 80% of global emissions, including the US before it withdrew from the Paris Agreement.

China, the world's largest emitter, has committed for the first time to absolute emissions reductions beyond its peak. Malaysia has done so too. South Korea's 2035 NDC target range is aligned to a linear pathway to net zero, with room to improve.

Major economies are also continuing to make sustained investments in clean energy and technology. Clean energy now attracts around two thirds of global energy investment. In many countries, technologies such as solar and wind are already cheaper than some fossil fuel alternatives.

For many countries and companies, investing in clean technologies is increasingly the rational choice – improving energy security, lowering long-term costs and creating growth and good jobs.

Overall, while the current global picture is mixed and political momentum is uneven, economics, technology and nature will eventually drive the global transformation towards a low-carbon future.

Against this backdrop, Singapore approaches climate change as a climate realist. We begin with three hard realities. First, climate change is real, worsening, and will shape the operating environment for our economy and society. Second, Singapore contributes only 0.1% of global emissions. While what we do alone cannot solve this global crisis, we must make our contributions as a responsible member of the international community. This spurs others to do likewise and helps us secure our own long-term competitiveness and resilience in a carbon-constrained world. Third, Singapore is alternative-energy disadvantaged. Mature and easily deployable decarbonisation options are simply not available to us. Our transition will be more challenging and will require more lead time. Therefore, Singapore needs to prepare early for a world that will become increasingly carbon-constrained and climate-impaired. If we delay action, the eventual adjustment will be sharper, more costly and more disruptive for us.

At the same time, we must calibrate our climate actions carefully, taking into consideration global developments to manage near-term costs and competitiveness for our households and our industries.

Let me outline now our approach.

First, sending the right signal through carbon pricing. As we announced earlier, we have increased the carbon tax to $45 per tonne this year. As the world decarbonises, businesses and economies that are more emission-intensive will become less attractive to carbon-conscious investors and consumers. Carbon pricing sends a clear economy-wide signal that emissions carry a cost and that cleaner solutions have a value.

Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms He Ting Ru asked about the carbon tax and how the carbon tax can encourage sustainable AI usage and adoption of renewable energy respectively. Carbon tax plays an important role through the right-pricing signal. Power generation companies pass on their carbon tax burden to end users through higher electricity prices. This increase, which is small for households but more significant for energy-intensive companies, leads to two effects. First, this drives end-consumers such as data centre operators to be more energy efficient, which helps to promote more sustainable adoption of AI. Second, this narrows the difference in costs between cleaner energy alternatives and fossil-fuel based options.

Carbon pricing is gaining traction globally. Carbon pricing adoption continues to expand, driven in part by measures such as the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which started this year. The UK will introduce theirs next year.

In our region, Thailand introduced a carbon tax last year, Malaysia plans to do so this year and Japan will make its national emissions trading system mandatory this year. For Singapore, decarbonisation will be more costly than for many other economies because of our resource constraints and lack of alternatives. This means our carbon tax must be right-priced to spur companies to invest in low-carbon technologies and reduce their emissions.

But pacing also matters. As Mr Mark Lee and Ms Lee Hui Ying have noted, we must manage the near- to medium-term cost impact on our households and businesses, relative to our regional competitors.

We are therefore reviewing the carbon tax trajectory for 2028 and beyond, and will announce future rates in advance. If the global push for climate action slows down significantly, we may need to position ourselves toward the lower end of the previously announced range of 50 to 80 dollars per tonne by 2030. We will support our households and businesses through this transition.

It may be challenging for some companies in emission-intensive and trade-exposed sectors to decarbonise in the near term. This makes it difficult for them to compete with firms operating in locations with low or no carbon tax. We are engaging these affected companies to support their transition.

We will also support households to manage energy costs through additional U-Save rebates as we have announced.

Ms Poh Li San and Mr Azhar Othman asked about progress towards our climate goals. We are making steady progress on various fronts. For example, we have reached our 2030 solar deployment target of two gigawatt-peak ahead of schedule and will raise our 2030 target to two gigawatt-peak, as announced by the Prime Minister in his Budget speech earlier. The Ministry of Trade and Industry will provide more details on clean energy during its Committee of Supply.

We have also made good progress in the built environment and land transport. We have greened 66% of our buildings as of last year, up from 61% the year before. We are on track to reach 80% by 2030, reducing emissions while helping businesses to save cost on energy.

We are also progressing well towards our goal of having all vehicles run on cleaner energy by 2040. Last year, 85% of newly registered cars were cleaner energy models, up from 82% in 2024. EVs were the top-selling new cars registered last year.

Every effort matters. Together, they form the backbone of our domestic mitigation effort.

Because our domestic options are limited, cross-border solutions are essential. Carbon credits is one example. Carbon credits allow us to decarbonise by financing emission reductions in overseas sites where there is greater potential for decarbonisation. To date, we have signed 10 Implementation Agreements with countries such as Vietnam, Thailand and Peru. We have successfully operationalised four of these agreements so far. Building on this momentum, we will operationalise our fifth agreement on 31 March with Thailand, with a call for projects under our partnership. This marks our first operationalised agreement with an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member.

We are creating clear demand signals for carbon credits. Last September, we announced the award for about two million tonnes of high-integrity, nature-based credits from projects in Ghana, Paraguay and Peru. A second Request for Proposal for both technology and nature-based carbon credits is currently in progress.

Looking ahead, we are exploring novel solutions such as biomethane, low-carbon hydrogen solutions and nuclear in the longer term.

Not all pathways will succeed. But we must continue to study our options and create more options for Singapore.

The climate transition will create new growth opportunities in areas such as green manufacturing, carbon services and trading, and sustainable finance. We will help our enterprises navigate this transition and thrive in this future economy.

We have a suite of support schemes that businesses, particularly SMEs, can tap on. This includes the Enterprise Sustainability Programme and the Enterprise Development Grant. In addition, we are supporting companies to build capabilities, including in sustainability reporting through schemes such as the Sustainability Reporting Grant. This helps them remain integrated into the global supply chains.

As Mr Mark Lee noted, green procurement is another important enabler for the transition. Green procurement stimulates demand and revenue for companies that can operate more sustainably and offer lower-carbon products.

Since last year, the Government has set aside up to 4% of tender evaluation criteria for environmentally sustainable considerations for large construction, and information and communications technology (ICT) hardware tenders. [Please refer to clarification later in the debate.] This provides opportunities for our businesses to build a track record to meet the demands of other buyers and investors who are seeking green goods and services.

For example, large companies with significant purchasing power such as Siemens and Schneider Electric have their own green procurement frameworks globally. We continue to support greener procurement choices in a manner that takes into account industry readiness and international developments.

Most importantly, as Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin have said, we will support our workers to capture opportunities in this green transition. For example, we are implementing new training programmes in sustainability reporting and in the energy sector, two priority areas identified by the Green Skills Committee.

To pull together the many strands of work, the Singapore Business Federation has recommended establishing a public-private Carbon Transition Council to support companies in transition planning and seize green opportunities. We are assessing the proposal and will provide an update in due course.

Climate change cannot be solved by any single country. It requires collective action. Even as we press on domestically, we are working with international partners to push ahead with global climate action. Singapore contributes by catalysing flows of finance and shaping credible frameworks.

At the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), we launched the Financing Asia's Transition Partnership (FAST-P) to bring together public, private and philanthropic partners to finance Asia's green transition. Singapore has pledged up to US$500 million to FAST-P, with the aim of crowding in up to US$5 billion of commercial capital. The Green Investments Partnership under FAST-P has achieved its first close with US$510 million in committed capital – 10 times the Government's initial contribution of US$50 million. This will be deployed to support green and sustainable infrastructure projects.

We are also doing our part to support the development of high-integrity carbon markets and rolling out novel types of carbon credits such as energy transition credits to support early coal phase-outs in the region. These efforts reduce regional climate risks, strengthen economic resilience and reinforce Singapore's role as a trusted and credible partner.

Finally, mitigation alone is not enough. Even under optimistic scenarios, the world will face increasingly severe climate impacts. We must undertake adaptation as a core pillar of our long-term climate resilience. We are developing a National Adaptation Plan to strengthen resilience across infrastructure, public health, water, food and coastal protection. We are ramping up targeted measures, particularly to address heat stress. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment will elaborate on this.

Mr Chairman, the road ahead will be bumpy. Global climate action will remain uneven. Technologies will mature at uncertain speeds. The cost impact will need to be managed carefully. But the direction towards a low-carbon future is clear and we are heartened that the world has made meaningful progress. The annual increase in global carbon emissions is now at 0.3% – one-fifth that in the decade before the Paris Agreement was signed – although this is still not enough to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Singapore's task is not to posture, but to prepare and to act. We are a climate realist. We will watch developments in global climate action and key technologies that will inform the pace at which we ought to move. We will do what we must, to secure our survival and prosperity in the low-carbon and climate-impaired world of the future. By decarbonising steadily and adapting decisively, we will ensure that Singapore remains competitive, liveable and resilient for many decades ahead.

Thank you, Chairman and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his speech as well. I have two clarification questions. The first is really in the acknowledgement that Singapore is a small player and at the same time, we continue to be a trusted partner to others who are on the same journey as us.

Could Deputy Prime Minister please share more, whether there are plans, especially if the recent Green Skills Report and opportunities for us to expand to really provide talent to wider Asia, beyond just creating good jobs for our people, this will also allow us to build closer relationships regionally for greater effort. And my second clarification is on transparency and plans for transition allowances, moving forward.

Thank you, Chairman. On the carbon allowance, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) will respond to that issue during MTI's Committee of Supply. On the regional cooperation, indeed, we are working with international partners to reach out to our regional contacts, especially in the developing countries, to help to train professionals and to help to train skills development to do capacity building, so that we can come together and move forward together in this journey towards climate action. So, I think we are indeed doing this, together with our international partners.

Thank you, Chairman. As far as I made aware that we are planning to import green energy from different countries – being vulnerable to these kinds of power sources, can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify how do we mitigate the risk of importing such power from these countries? As we all know, certain position or a certain situation can happen that this may be blocked or disrupted?

Thank you, Chairman. We adopt a multi-pronged approach to ensure our energy supply and security. Today, we rely primarily on natural gas and even our natural gas supplies are imported. We do not produce our own natural gas, so there is a certain need to ensure supply resilience, and this is something that we always think about, we always consider and we need to invest.

To some extent, we build storage system for the natural gas. We have long-term contracts and we also have multiple contracts with multiple suppliers and that will ensure our supply chain resilience.

And similarly, as we explore alternative energy sources, we must also keep in mind this is energy security. Whether it is an import of electricity, whether it is import of other possible energy sources, we will always have to bear in mind this energy security. And one strategy is really diversification. The other way is to make sure that you have long-term contracts, you have secured contracts and you have alternatives.

So, we would not be able to rely on any single particular source, any single particular form of energy. So, I think diversification is our key strategy in ensuring energy security. Of course, we need to do as much as we can internally and that is why we are maximising our solar deployment and explore other alternatives, including the possibility of a nuclear at some point in time.

Thank you, Sir. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong was a great hype-man for Minister Indranee so I am really looking forward to her speech. In my past speeches, I have made calls for better fertility health support, including on subsidies, immune deficiency foundation (IDF) treatments and health screenings. In my Budget speech yesterday, I spoke about how our super-aged society status and low TFR presents an existential challenge.

Over the past few years, the Government has made significant efforts, including our Made for Families plan. These are deeply personal decisions, and we must frame it sensitively and optimistically for younger Singaporeans to feel hopeful about having someone to have and to hold through good and bad times in life.

I urge the Government to continue to respond meaningfully, not incrementally, and consider what are the most meaningful ways between direct cash transfers to offset costs, provision of services, such as childcare, or even tax measures.

Today I will focus on forming and flourishing families. Sir, love cannot be legislated, but more conducive environments perhaps can be designed. Many youths share how a lack of time and opportunities to meet people as well as economic and social anxieties are some barriers to romance.

Facilitating intentional opportunities to meet new people once youth have left school outside of the grind of work and repeated proximity in shared context, for example, through hobby communities or even volunteering, could ignite a spark. Could we weave some of this into our design of schemes to gently create opportunities for social interaction?

For example, a version of the culture pass to encourage shared experiences. By bundling special tickets for two and encourage bringing someone else along. How can active SG credits help people find new pickleball doubles partners, try a badminton class together? And could mentoring programs for young professionals have mentors who guide their mentees in small groups or industry fellowships, which do the same?

Next, as informal family care remains central, how can we better support couples and families who want to stay near family members? Beyond broadening housing typologies, which I will speak about in the Ministry of National Development Committee of Supply, some seniors now hesitate to move in with their children as it could affect eligibility criteria of certain schemes, such as healthcare subsidies – the Home Care Giving Grant – where seniors adult children's incomes will be factored in if they are living together. Given the cost pressures on family today, especially for those with young children, could we review mean-testing thresholds for certain support schemes?

A final point. Not everyone may be so fortunate to have family support. I reiterate my call to form parenting circles within neighbourhoods where parents can opt in to share baby items and figure out this phase of life together. This can be done in a systematic way, for example, through SMSes sent out by the Government at certain milestones – six months or one year. This time period is important as social isolation within the early years of parenthood correlates with lower fertility intentions for a second child.

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. 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.

Chairman, Singapore's TFR fell below one in 2023. The year 2024 was the Year of the Dragon, which typically gives us a boost in the yearly TFR rate. However, the dragon could only hold the fort for us by keeping the number steady at 0.97 in 2024.

Chairman, I still remain hopeful. Recently, South Korea's birth rate rose for a straight second year in 2025. Its marriage rates also went up. I hope we will soon welcome the same good news for Singapore. In this regard, I would like to ask the PMO what is the TFR for 2025.

In light of Singapore's demographic challenges, it is more important than ever before that we keep those in our current labour force resilient and supported. To do so, we must strengthen workplace support for families.

Housework and caregiving remains one of the main reasons for persons to remain outside the workforce. This was cited in the report on Labour Force in Singapore 2025. The majority of caregivers outside the labour force are mothers taking care of children aged 12 and below. When you add in the caregivers caring for children above age 12, the number grows by more than one third.

Three in four of such caregivers are in their 40s or younger, and 66.5% held tertiary qualifications, including degrees. Caregivers have shared that flexible work arrangements and practices for more progressive and inclusive workplaces would encourage them to continue working.

From supporting employees who are undergoing fertility treatment, to understanding the pregnant mother and providing that flexibility to the working parent – workplace support for families would go a long way to ensure Singapore is truly Made For Families.

The Government has made commendable efforts in recent years to step up support through a multi‑pronged support framework, such as the introduction and enhancements of Government‑Paid Parental Leave and the tripartite guidelines on flexible work arrangement requests.

The private sector has also started leaning forward and the community has seen ground-up efforts. I would like to highlight the work done by Fertility Support Singapore, a non-profit social advocacy group started by a group of women in 2020. In 2025, they launched a guidebook as a practical resource to help company leaders understand and implement fertility support in the workplace and create a workplace culture that empathises with employees facing fertility challenges. Their aim for this is also to contribute towards a Singapore where "no employee has to choose between career and family". I ask that we do the same for all working parents. Guide the employers on what to do, how to be supportive.

To create a truly resilient workforce, a mindset shift is especially important amongst SMEs, which form the backbone of Singapore's economy, contributing around 50% of our GDP and employing about 70% of our workforce. The capacity to adopt progressive workplace practices varies across businesses and industries, given differences in industry characteristics, stage of growth, cost considerations and manpower needs. Larger and better‑resourced organisations, often MNCs, tend to have more established HR functions and larger teams, allowing them to implement family‑friendly measures more comprehensively.

In contrast, SMEs often operate with tighter resources and leaner teams. These structural realities mean that SMEs may find it more challenging to implement such practices and retain talent. This is precisely why additional support for SMEs is crucial, so that progressive workplace practices can take root more evenly across the whole economy. To do this, we should focus on shifting mindsets and reshaping HR practices. Beyond policy and legislative scaffolding, let us invest in changing how employers think about workplace support for families.

This is not to say that working parents should be given preferential treatment. We must also balance the needs of other employees at different life stages, including those who may not be planning to start families, those who are single and those who are caregivers to their parents. Each employee has their own needs. So, too, do employers, and we need to meet their business considerations and operational requirements. Fairness, for employers and employees, must remain a core principle.

How can we do this? I propose that we do this starting with human resources (HR0 practices. I believe that HR practitioners play a significant role in shaping workplace culture and norms. They are often the ones who translate policy into day-to-day practices and guide supervisors on how these policies should be applied.

The tripartite Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP), which administers our national IHRP Certification framework, has played an important role in shaping HR standards across industries. We can leverage this framework to further strengthen HR professionals and their management capacity, by placing greater emphasis on the consistent and fair implementation of family-friendly workplace practices.

For example, how should performance appraisals be conducted fairly for employees returning from maternity leave? How should managers respond appropriately to urgent childcare leave? How should supervisors support employees undergoing fertility treatment? How should HR facilitate conversations and present options to employees navigate challenging family situations?

For the longest time, Chairman, we have left it to private market forces to deal with a national issue. I ask the Government to take national action at a scale commensurate with the seriousness of the problem. A national problem needs actions to be taken at a national level.

Mr Chairman, supporting parents of young children is key to making Singapore a home for families and addressing our population decline. Strong postpartum and caregiver's support can make a real difference.

The founder of Safe Place, Ms Jennifer Heng, who works with women in unsupported pregnancies, shared that many consider abortion because they feel they lack the help to raise a child.

I was also deeply saddened by reports of mothers with postpartum depression who took not only their own lives but also those of their newborns, feeling overwhelmed and alone.

While we already have follow-up healthcare after delivery, I propose enhancing this with structured in-home postpartum visits in the first year. Trained maternity nurses could provide guidance on newborn care, breastfeeding, physiotherapy and mental health screening. They could also identify signs of family stress, isolation or financial difficulty and coordinate follow-up support with health and social services.

What are the PMO's plans to further address the concerns of parents in having more children? Has the PMO considered plans to enhance postpartum care for parents as a means to support parenthood and address our TFR? Are there plans to consider such comprehensive and coordinated support programmes or expand community-based support programmes of young children?

Supporting parents does not end with the first year. Some parents leave the workforce to care for their children during these formative years. Many intend to return once their children are older, but career gaps often become barriers. Employers cite skills obsolescence, and for those contemplating parenthood, this risk can influence their decision on whether to have children at all.

These parents have already adjusted to a single income and simpler lifestyle. They should not be penalised a second time when they seek to return. In truth, stay-home parents possess highly employable skills – they manage budgets, coordinate complex schedules, resolve conflicts and navigate crises daily. They are resilient, adaptable and resourceful.

A country in the region has instituted a Career Comeback Programme, providing mothers returning to work with job databases, career coaching and a 12-month income tax exemption. Companies hiring returnees may qualify for a 50% tax deduction on the employee's salary for up to 12 months.

May I ask PMO: what measures are being considered to support the economic reintegration of stay-home parents and caregivers? Will the PMO explore a career comeback tax incentive to provide relief for employers who intentionally hire them, signalling that both society and Government support their return?

Just as parents care for our next generation, it is our responsibility to care for them – with support at home, guidance in their journey,and opportunities to return to work. When we do, we strengthen families, nurture children and secure Singapore's future.

Sir, earlier I spoke about the urgent realities of climate change. Now, I turn to a challenge equally fundamental to Singapore's future – our population.

Our people are our primary resource. In the early years of our independence, demographics worked in our favour.

While many of our forefathers were new immigrants, most had become citizens. We had a young and growing citizen population then, which helped grow our economy, build up our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and develop our nation.

Fast forward 60 years, this is no longer the case today. Birth rates are falling at an unprecedented pace and our population is ageing rapidly. We are not alone in facing these trends. Many developed and even developing countries are grappling with these same issues and I certainly hope we can learn from Korea, as Ms Cassandra Lee mentioned. However, Singapore's small size makes us exceptionally sensitive to demographic shifts. We must proactively manage these changes, to continue to thrive as a nation.

Last year, we welcomed around 27,500 resident babies. Every one, a precious gift and we celebrate with each and every child born to us. They are the future of our country.

I meet many of them when I join Punggol activities. For a short while, I thought we had solved our problem! Unfortunately, that was because Punggol was a new town.

This is, in fact, the lowest birth number ever in our recorded history. The overall trend is also of grave concern. Marriage rates have come down. Those who are married have fewer or no children.

Our birth rate has reached a new low. Our preliminary resident TFR for 2025 is 0.87. This is a significant drop from the TFR of 0.97 many of you quoted for the year before, and much lower than the TFR of 1.24 just a decade ago.

At the same time, our population is ageing faster than ever, with the Baby Boomer generation now in their 60s and beyond, and I am one of them. Last year, one in five citizens was aged 65 and above, compared to one in eight in 2015, just 10 years ago.

This is an existential challenge.

What does 0.87 mean? Well, let me try to illustrate. Assuming our TFR stays at 0.87 or thereabout, based on a simplistic calculation, just to keep it simple and illustrate, for every 100 residents today, we will have just 44 children, and we will just have a mere 19 grandchildren. That is the third generation. That is the effect of 0.87.

Or put it in another way, this room when we fill it up, it is about 100. In the next generation, it will be less than half of us around, around the optics that we had during COVID-19 when we had to have safe distancing. And the next generation is just about the front row, one row. Not two rows. One of front rows; 19 of us will be left. So, that is what 0.87 means.

Over time, it will be practically impossible to reverse the trend because we will have fewer and fewer women who can bear children. The Prime Minister said we have not given up and he emphasised that we will not give up. Let me add one more. We cannot give up. [Applause.]

Low birth rates and an ageing population will profoundly reshape our nation, our society and our economy in the years ahead of us. Even with immigration, the growth of our citizen population has slowed over the decade – falling from an average of 0.9% per annum over 2015 to 2020, five years, to 0.8% per annum over 2020 to 2025; 0.9% to 0.8% in the last five years. Last year, it grew just 0.7%.

So, just to recap – 0.9% in the first five years, 0.8% in the next five years, 0.7% last year.

That is our citizen population growth rate. If no new measures are taken, our citizen population will start to shrink by the early part of 2040s.

Fewer births today mean fewer young people over the next two to three decades. You cannot overnight give birth to young people. So, if you have fewer births, it means you have fewer young people for the next two or three decades. A smaller working-age base will have to support a rapidly growing elderly population. Familial support networks will weaken as family sizes shrink and each family member in the younger generation will have to carry a heavier load.

At the macro level, a declining population means less vitality in our city and our economy. Our economic growth and, correspondingly, our income growth will slow. At the same time, our healthcare and social spending will have to increase to support our growing population of seniors. This tremendous strain will be felt at the national level but also at the individual households. And with fewer citizens, it will become increasingly difficult to meet our national security and national defence needs.

This raises the deeper question of what Singapore will be 50 or 100 years from now. Will we remain vibrant, liveable and relevant? Will we exist?

Our first and top priority is to continue to support Singaporeans in forming families. Over the years, we have consistently invested in our families. We have steadily enhanced support for families in housing, preschool, education and healthcare. To better support working parents in managing their work and caregiving responsibilities, we also recently introduced the new Shared Parental Leave scheme and doubled the mandatory Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two weeks to four weeks.

But we will need to do even more. The decline in fertility is a multi-faceted challenge. It reflects broader generational shifts in life priorities and mindsets. Attitudes towards marriage and parenthood are shaped by many factors – workplace norms, employer practices, availability of familial and community support and social attitudes towards having and raising children. We need to address these issues holistically and not simply blame it on any particular single factor.

We will do more to strengthen support for Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood journey. Minister Indranee Rajah will speak later about the whole-of-nation reset needed to support Singaporeans in starting families.

Let me speak plainly about the realities before us. Even as we redouble our efforts to support Singaporeans in starting families and having more children, we will still need a carefully managed immigration flow to augment our low birth rates.

Most Singaporeans recognise the case for immigration. A 2021 Institute of Policy Studies survey found that over 75% of Singaporeans agreed that immigrants are generally good for Singapore’s economy and 62% agreed that immigrants improve Singapore society by bringing in new ideas and culture.

But we know that is not the full picture. While Singaporeans can accept the need for immigration in the abstract, they also have personal concerns and anxieties. Will bringing in immigrants mean fewer job opportunities for us? Will the Singapore that my children grow up in feel vastly different from the one that I grew up in? I understand these concerns, and we take these concerns over competition and our social fabric seriously. We will continue taking steps to address them.

We will maintain the broad ethnic balance of our citizen population and continue to carefully manage the impact of immigration on our population composition to preserve the overall texture of our society. We will carefully manage the pace of immigration and ensure we do not bring in immigrants faster than we can accommodate. This means making sure the development of public infrastructure, like housing, transport and services, keeps pace with the growth of our population.

We will also continue to be selective about who we bring in. As Mr Edward Chia noted, many of the immigrants we take in today either share family ties with Singaporeans or have studied, worked or lived in Singapore for quite some time. The majority of our immigrants are also of working age, contributing to our economy. We will continue to explore further ways to ensure that immigrants are committed to Singapore.

Mr Shawn Loh spoke about how we must place greater emphasis on integration, and we agree. We will step up integration efforts, creating more opportunities for citizens and immigrants to interact, connect and build relationships and trust.

There are ongoing efforts to help immigrants integrate and become familiar with local culture. All new citizens between the ages of 16 and 60 go through the Singapore Citizenship Journey, so that they understand our history, our norms, our values and build stronger ties with the local community. We also piloted a new Permanent Resident (PR) Journey programme last year to help new PRs settle in and integrate, and we intend to scale it up shortly.

The People’s Association is also working through its network of over 1,500 Integration and Naturalisation Champions to drive integration in local communities and foster good relations between new citizens and their Singaporean neighbours.

Our immigrants came from different cultures and traditions. It will take time for them to integrate. First-generation immigrants will need to adapt to our norms and customs, but their children are likely to integrate more easily, especially if they grow up in Singapore.

Take, for example, Bipule Jain, who arrived in Singapore in 2007 with his wife and six-month-old son on a work assignment. What began as a temporary relocation became permanent, as his Singaporean colleagues welcomed him and introduced him to our local culture. Bipule actively immersed himself in the local community – trying local food, picking up Singlish, volunteering at his son’s school and in the community, and making new friends along the way. In 2017, he took a significant step by enlisting in the SAF Volunteer Corps, initially to teach his sons about National Service but he soon developed a deep passion for defending Singapore. Today, Bipule’s elder son, that six-month-old baby who arrived in 2007, is following in his father’s footsteps and proudly serving his National Service. Bipule, his wife and his two sons are PRs, and have applied for citizenship.

Their story shows us what is possible when we open up our doors and hearts to newcomers. Over time, many of them become our friends and eventually fellow citizens, working together in one Singapore team to build a brighter, better home for all of us.

It is critical that we maintain a stable citizen core, hopefully one that is growing modestly over time, to keep our society and our economy dynamic and vibrant.

Last year, we granted around 25,000 citizenships. We expect to take in between 25,000 and 30,000 new citizens annually, over the next five years, depending on our demographic trends including our TFR.

We will also have to adjust our PR intake, as permanent residence is the pathway to work towards citizenship. Our PR population has remained stable over the past few years, at around 540,000. We estimate an intake of about 40,000 PRs annually in the next five years, slightly higher than the 35,000 PRs we granted last year.

That said, we will adjust the actual number of immigrants we take in year by year, depending on our TFR trends, other demographic factors and the number and suitability of applicants. We will also keep in mind our infrastructure and the society’s capacity to take in these immigrants.

With these adjustments, we hope to maintain a stable citizen population and, perhaps, with a modest growth. Like I mentioned earlier, our citizen population growth has slowed down from 0.9% to 0.8%, to 0.7% last year, if you recall what I said just a while ago. Going forward, the citizen population will likely grow even more slowly, maybe about half a percent; that is what we are thinking about. But even at half a percent, this is going to be hard because it would depend on the TFR being held up. That is why we cannot give up. We will review again by 2030, taking into account further changes in our TFR and other demographic trends.

Our local workforce growth has also slowed. We will continue to need a diverse foreign workforce to supplement the local workforce and support our economic and social needs.

In the past five years, our foreign workforce grew at an average of 3.3% per annum, primarily driven by post-COVID-19 catch-up in construction. Excluding Construction Work Permit Holders, the foreign workforce grew more slowly, at an average of 2.5% per annum. But as our citizen population grows more slowly, we will keep a close watch on the growth of the non-resident population, which include foreign workers, to ensure that Singapore citizens remain the majority of our population. As we bring in foreign workers, our policies are designed to ensure they complement our Singaporean core.

As announced at Budget, we will increase our Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass qualifying salaries to keep pace with local wage benchmarks. The Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) also ensures that firms bring in EP workers that contribute to our economy while the firms continue to build up their local talent pipeline. We will continue to carefully manage the numbers and concentrations of EP and S Pass holders and ensure that they complement rather than compete with locals.

We will also carefully manage the number of Work Permit Holders using levy and quota systems.

We need skilled foreign workers to help fill critical manpower gaps, to help our companies build up new capabilities and to support the growth of our economy. This ultimately creates more jobs and opportunities for our people.

Take for example, aerospace company Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited (SAESL). This is Rolls-Royce’s largest global maintenance, repair and operations facility for Trent engines, which currently employs 1,300 local staff. With a $242 million expansion and a new training academy supporting its growth plans, SAESL expects to create 500 additional jobs for local skilled engine technicians over the next five years. SAESL is working with Singapore Polytechnic to align its training curriculum with industry needs to better prepare our students to take up these jobs. This expansion will be complemented by a foreign workforce undertaking specialised roles, such as non-destructive testing and plasma treatment.

There are many other companies like SAESL whose growth has generated new opportunities for Singaporean workers. Overall, in the past 10 years, the number of Singaporeans in professional, managerial, executive and technical (PMET) jobs has increased by 308,000 while the number of Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders increased by 24,000. This is over 10 years.

But we understand the job anxieties Singaporeans have, especially in this time of global uncertainty.

The number of EP and S Pass holders is small, making up less than a quarter of our foreign workforce. The issue, therefore, is less about total numbers, but about the issue of job competition and fair treatment at the workplace, as raised by Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Yip Hon Weng.

We are stepping up our efforts not only to create good jobs for Singaporeans, but to upskill Singaporeans so they can take up these high-value jobs. At the same time, we will strengthen measures to ensure fair hiring and employment practices and to ensure fair opportunities for Singaporeans. Last year, we passed the Workplace Fairness Act to strengthen protections against workplace discrimination.

Lastly, beyond legislative and policy safeguards, we can do more to make the workplace more conducive for all. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has partnered the business community via the Alliance for Action on the Integration of Foreign Professionals, to develop initiatives to better integrate foreign professionals into the workplace and the community. MCCY and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will elaborate further on some of these initiatives at their own Committee of Supply debates.

As Mr Edward Chia and Mr Yip Hon Weng noted, we also need foreign workers to meet our social needs, and they ask if we can have more flexibility. For example, migrant domestic workers help look after our young children and our aged parents, giving us peace of mind while we are out at work. We also need migrant construction workers for major infrastructure projects – they help build our flats, hospitals, roads, mass rapid transit (MRT) lines and critical projects like Changi Airport Terminal 5 and the Tuas Port. These workers make up almost half of our foreign workforce population.

Demand for these groups will fluctuate, depending on economic and construction cycles. For example, post-COVID19, we had to catch up on a series of important construction projects, including Build-To-Order flats. This strong demand led to a 6% annual growth, or a 36% growth cumulatively, in the number of Construction Work Permit Holders over the last five years.

These migrant workers are transient and do not compete with Singaporeans for jobs. But it is important that we plan ahead to support their presence here, including catering for dormitories and housing, transport and recreational spaces. If we can do this well, it will give us more flexibility and capacity to allow for temporary surges in their numbers while minimising the impact felt by Singaporeans. At the same time, we will press hard to raise productivity in construction. The Ministry of National Development (MND) set up an action team earlier this month to work with industry players to improve productivity and help companies save time, save costs and save manpower.

Across the board, we will do what we can to raise productivity to reduce our reliance on foreign manpower. The recent moves to simplify the levy framework, expand sources and raise the maximum age and period of employment for work permit holders, will nudge businesses to hire and retain higher-skilled workers so that they can do more with less manpower.

Looking ahead, our total population for the next five years will hopefully still grow but most likely at a slower rate than over the past five years. And our total population will still be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030, as we have said earlier. Beyond 2030, if present trends continue, it will take us a considerable time to reach 6.9 million.

Let me be clear that we are not chasing growth for the sake of growth. Economic growth is the means to an end, which is to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Our overarching goal has been and will always remain to serve the interests of Singaporeans. We will keep close track of the population size and composition to ensure that the trends are sustainable, that infrastructure needs are met in a timely and adequate manner and that ultimately, Singaporeans benefit from our population policies.

To conclude, our falling TFR presents a serious and profound existential challenge to our society, our economy and our security. The Government must and will do its utmost to address this challenge. This is our commitment to all Singaporeans.

We will redouble our efforts to support Singaporeans to aspire to marriage and parenthood, and to realise their dream. This has always been and will continue to be our fundamental policy and priority. We must never let up in supporting Singaporeans to have families. We will also continue to review our immigration intake and approach, making sure to address the concerns of Singaporeans.

We will continue to study how we can further strengthen our investment in key areas for Singaporeans – education, housing, healthcare and jobs. This way, every Singaporean will have the assurances, opportunities and support needed to realise his or her aspiration in our shared vision.

But the existential challenge of our low TFR is not something that the Government can tackle on our own. Earlier someone asked the Prime Minister whether we have a target for TFR. It is extremely difficult to set a target on something that we do not control ourselves. We ask Singaporeans to partner us in this effort. We welcome all debate and fresh ideas on how we can do so.

Our path ahead will not be straightforward, but I am confident in our ability to adapt and thrive. Together, we will build a vibrant and resilient Singapore for present and future generations. [Applause.]

Chairman, as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated earlier, our preliminary resident TFR for 2025 was 0.87, lower than 0.97 in 2024. It is our lowest TFR to date.

Resident births across all ethnic groups decreased, with the decrease in Chinese births being proportionately larger, at a drop of 15% compared to 2024. This is due in part to the typical post-Dragon Year decrease.

The declining TFR means our citizen population growth has slowed. This is an existential challenge for us. Trying to raise our TFR has always been a priority but with the latest figures, this has acquired a new urgency. The Government is wholly committed to addressing this issue head on and we will spare no effort to arrest and reverse this decline. However, it cannot be the work of Government alone. We need all of society to play their part.

To ensure that our plans are targeted and effective, we must first understand the drivers and factors that are inhibiting marriage and family formation.

Declining TFR is not an issue unique to just Singapore. It is a global phenomenon. All over the world, more people are choosing to remain single or marry later, and those who marry are choosing to have fewer or no children at all.

As the Prime Minister pointed out earlier today, this issue is not simply economic. Some countries have spent a lot on a whole range of support schemes. Others provide very generous welfare systems. These measures can help at the margins, but they have not fundamentally reversed the trend.

Countries like France and the Nordic countries, which have long been held up as exemplars of higher TFR, continue to see declines in their birth rates. In China, the number of deaths now exceed the number of births. Even in the region, the TFRs of Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are on the downtrend.

South Korea, which currently has the world’s lowest TFR, recently saw an increase in marriages and births. This could be due in part to the large cohort of children born to South Korea’s Baby Boomers who are now entering child-bearing age. It remains to be seen if their recent more family-friendly policies will have a lasting impact. However, it still gives us hope that fertility trends could shift and sustained efforts across multiple fronts may yield results over time.

But what is really striking is if you look at the TFR of cities. As a city-state, Singapore's TFR may be more comparable to that of other metropolitan cities rather than other countries. In fact, the TFR of major cities tend to be much lower than their countries' overall TFR. In 2024, France's TFR was 1.62 but Paris's was 1.27. Japan's TFR was 1.15 but Tokyo's was 0.96. China's TFR was around 1.00 but Hong Kong's was 0.84 and Shanghai's was less than 0.8.

Without over-generalising, cities typically have a faster, more intense pace of life and greater competition and stress. As a small city-state, Singapore experiences these effects more acutely. This is reflected in our Marriage and Parenthood surveys, where besides financial cost, other concerns such as the stress of raising children and difficulties in managing work and family demands are the most common reasons cited by married respondents when considering whether to have children. But there are other factors at play too.

To unpack this further, I engaged various groups of Singaporeans at different life stages to hear their thoughts on this issue. And today I want to share with you what I have learned from them. First, there are the singles. The Millennials and Gen Zs shared that dating and marriage often took a backseat to their many other interests and goals. Some wanted to establish themselves in their careers before seeking a life partner. Others were looking for the right marriage partner but had yet to find the right person. Many shared they were looking for deeper and more meaningful connections but sometimes had difficulty meeting others and forging authentic in-person relationships after leaving school and entering the workforce.

Next, there were those who are married but hesitant to have children. This group felt anxious about becoming parents. They were worried about not being able to live up to the expectations of being a good parent. Some feared that having children meant trading off their careers and other life goals. Others were concerned about the financial, emotional and mental demands of parenthood. Some women were anxious about how they would cope with the physical and emotional changes that come with pregnancy.

Then, next there were the married, who want children but have fertility issues. On the flip side, these were married couples who very much want children but are unable to conceive. They spoke candidly about the challenges encountered in their fertility journey, including only realising the problem very late, not knowing where to get help, the fear of stigma, limited workplace support and difficulty in getting time off for fertility treatments, and the cost of fertility treatments.

Then we have the parents with young children. Without exception, everyone in this group spoke about the joy their children had brought to their lives. They did not sugarcoat the challenges and sacrifices of parenthood, but when they weighed these against the love and happiness they experienced, they were glad they had chosen to have children.

However, they also expressed their hope for more support for families and better balance between work and family responsibilities. This was especially so for those caring for both young children and ageing parents.

If we are to change our trajectory, these are the issues we must tackle. They cannot be addressed by policy measures alone. What we need is a Marriage and Parenthood Reset, by which I mean a reset across society on the following.

First, how marriage and parenthood are viewed and supported. Second, how workplaces can evolve to better align work and family. And third, how everyone can play their part.

To achieve this, we will form a new Workgroup with the relevant agencies to look into these issues holistically and engage widely across members of the public, businesses and the people sector. I will chair this Workgroup and will share more details in due course.

But for now, let me set out the broad four-pronged approach that we will take. First, we will build on current efforts to enhance government support for marriage and parenthood. Second, we will cultivate positive mindsets about marriage and parenthood. Third, we will work with employers to foster workplace cultures and practices that are family friendly. And fourth, we will engage the whole of society in this effort.

On the first one, the Government will build on current efforts to enhance support for marriage and parenthood. In recent years, we have significantly enhanced our Marriage and Parenthood Package. These include: (a) the enhanced Baby Bonus Scheme and MediSave Grant for Newborns; (b) doubling paternity leave and making it mandatory; (c) the new 10-week Shared Parental Leave (SPL); (d) the Large Families Scheme (LFS); and (e) this year, we will provide another $500 of Child LifeSG Credits for every Singaporean child aged 12 and below.

Going forward, we will do more.

Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Andre Low and Ms Hany Soh raised concerns and gave their suggestions about the costs of raising children. The Government is committed to helping parents with the cost of child-raising. Four years ago, parents received up to $32,000 per child under the Baby Bonus Scheme and MediSave Grant for Newborns. Today, with the addition of the Large Families Scheme, it is up to $54,000 per child. On the education front, every Singaporean child can receive over $200,000 in subsidies from preschool through to secondary school. We will look into enhancing this further and consider the different ideas that Members have suggested.

On housing, as Mr David Hoe raised in his Budget debate speech and as Ms Hany Soh highlighted, we will enable couples who are ready to build a life together to secure and afford their own home. We are increasing the supply of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, with more Shorter Waiting Time (SWT) flats so couples and young families can get their flats more quickly. MND has also reviewed how it can better support growing families who may need more space. We will share more at the MND Committee of Supply.

For preschool and caregiving, MSF has progressively lowered fee caps at Government-supported preschools and expanded preschool places. These moves have improved accessibility and affordability.

In Budget 2026, the Prime Minister announced that the income thresholds for preschool and student care subsidies will be revised so more families can benefit. Government agencies are also undertaking a review of the student care sector to better meet the caregiving needs of families with primary school-aged children.

On work-life support, while take-up rates for the new Shared Parental Leave scheme are not yet available, initial feedback from parents has been positive. They appreciate being able to spend more time with their newborns. Some said that this has encouraged them to consider having another child.

But we know that beyond infancy, parents require additional time-off from work to care for their children. Many parents and Members in this House like Ms Valerie Lee and Mr David Hoe have asked for more childcare leave. Ms Lee Hui Ying also asked how we can better support the sandwich generation who are caring for their children as well as their ageing parents or other family dependents.

We will study the childcare leave suggestions carefully, bearing in mind the needs of employers, who are still adjusting to the recent parental leave enhancements. Even without any legislated requirement, many progressive employers have stepped up to introduce caregiving-related leave provisions as part of their strategy to attract and retain talent, such as adopting the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs. Beyond leave, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) are another sustainable way to provide employees with greater flexibility in meeting their diverse caregiving needs.

We also want to better support parents as they re-enter the workforce after taking a career break, as Mr Mark Lee and Ms Elysa Chen highlighted. Today, these parents can tap on broad-based employment facilitation and skills training as well as career guidance programmes, such as Workforce Singapore's Mid-Career Pathways Programme and Career Conversion Programmes, to gain industry-relevant skills and support their transition into suitable job roles.

The Government is also helping companies redesign jobs through initiatives like the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package. Such support can help lower the barrier of re-entry for caregivers who wish to return to the workforce by helping companies strengthen organisational capability to offer more adaptable workforce models, including various forms of FWAs for employees.

MOM is also reviewing how we can better support job fractionalisation under the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment. Having more fractionalised jobs will be helpful to parents seeking part-time work.

Another important area spoken about is fertility health, as highlighted by several Members earlier, including Ms Kuah Boon Theng. Later marriages and births are becoming more common. In 2024, the median age of mothers at first birth was around 32 years old. As both male and female fertility declines with age, more couples may face fertility challenges. Today, about one in six people globally experience infertility. Many do not know where to seek help or are fearful of stigma attached to doing so.

To help those with fertility issues we will work with other agencies to raise awareness of fertility health, including improving accessibility of information on existing support, encouraging fertility checks and normalising the seeking of medical attention for fertility issues. Those in need can refer to the Made For Families website for current support measures.

We will review the financial and non-financial support couples receive throughout their fertility journeys and work with employers to improve workplace support for employees undergoing fertility treatments. For a start, I encourage employers and HR departments to refer to the Workplace Fertility Support Guide produced by Fertility Support SG, which Ms Cassandra Lee highlighted.

On Ms Valerie Lee's suggestion on support through miscarriages, psychosocial support like counselling is available in public healthcare institutions, but we agree that more can be done, and will study her suggestions to see how we can better support those who experienced miscarriages.

On Ms Elysa Chen's suggestion to enhance postpartum support for parents, there are ongoing initiatives at the public maternity hospitals and polyclinics to provide perinatal and postpartum support, such as scheduled telephone check-ins and follow-ups post-discharge.

Mothers who require breastfeeding and lactation support can tap on services offered in polyclinics, such as the Breastfeeding Triple Support @NUHS polyclinics. They can also visit Family Nexus sites to find out more about parent-child bonding programmes and parenting support services.

To identify women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus for timely management, the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) has also updated the ACE Clinical Guideline to help healthcare professionals to assess the onset of pre-diabetes or diabetes post-partum.

Mr Foo Cexiang also highlighted in his Budget Debate speech the need to better support adoptive parents. Today, adoptive parents receive benefits like biological parents such as parental leave provisions. Nonetheless, we recognise that more can be done to improve and streamline the adoption processes. We will work with agencies to look into this.

The areas I just shared are part of the Government's broader efforts to better support Singaporeans through their marriage and parenthood journey. Besides consultations that the Workgroup will have with members of the public, businesses and the people sector, we will also enhance our Marriage and Parenthood Survey this year to gain deeper insights on how attitudes and perceptions towards marriage and parenthood have evolved. The feedback and suggestions will inform the Workgroup's recommendations and shape the next bound of marriage and parenthood enhancements.

Next, we will cultivate positive mindsets towards marriage and parenthood. Decisions on whether to get married and start a family are deeply personal. And as we have found in our engagements, mindsets matter a great deal when making these decisions.

When we say we want to change mindsets, it is not about pushing a single "correct" path. Rather, as Ms Nadia Samdin shared, it is about creating an environment where decisions surrounding marriage and parenthood can be viewed optimistically and positively rather than with fear and anxiety.

Mindset change has many aspects. But let me touch on two.

There was a marked difference in mindsets between those who were still weighing whether or not to have children, and those who had already decided to have children. Those who were hesitant looked at parenthood through the lens of what they might lose – being held back in their careers, inability to pursue other life goals and loss of personal freedom. Those with children or intending to have them, on the other hand, saw parenthood in terms of what they had gained – the joy of family and the fulfilment and personal growth that come with being parents.

In reality, finding a life partner, getting married and starting a family are major milestones that require time, energy and change. It is understandable and rightfully so, that entering into these commitments should be carefully considered. However, many Singaporean couples have demonstrated that having family and careers can coexist alongside other life goals.

Parenthood does take real effort and commitment, and while there will inevitably be compromises along the way, what is gained in terms of family relationships, love and fulfilment is both precious and priceless. We hope that as many Singaporeans as possible can experience the joys of marriage and parenthood. Ultimately, it is a personal choice. But we need a mindset change to encourage couples to consider a more balanced picture when exercising this choice.

Mindset number two. In our engagements, another prevailing mindset was the immense pressure couples put on themselves to be the perfect parent. One young father, a doctor, felt guilty that he could not spend more time with his son because of his work schedule. He felt he was not being a good father. Another young woman, newly-wed, was hesitant to have a child because she was not sure if she could provide the best possible resources to ensure that her child would succeed in life.

Wanting more time to spend with your children or providing them with the right resources stem from good intentions. However, in hindsight, many parents reflected that parenthood was not about providing the best for their children or having all the answers right from the start. Rather, it was about being willing to learn, adapt and grow alongside their children, doing the best that they can within their circumstances and relying on community support where possible, as Ms Nadia Samdin noted.

For instance, the Families for Life Parents Telegram groups have enabled thriving online communities of parents within each local town. Through these local networks, parents can connect and exchange parenting tips, share about local family events and exchange pre-loved items with other parents in the community to help them better navigate parenting challenges.

Practical resources and programmes to support families on their parenting journey from birth to growing through adolescence are also available on platforms, including Health Promotion Board's Parent Hub, the Parenting For Wellness Toolbox, parenting resources in the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) Parent's Gateway and the Families for Life Parenting website. We will work with various agencies and partners to regularly update and refine the resources on the platforms to ensure they meet parents' evolving needs.

This pressure to be the perfect parent is perhaps most evident in the child's education. Many parents feel pressure to help their children excel academically, for fear that they may otherwise not succeed in life. They worry about coaching their children for major exams or finding the financial means to send their children to private tuition and enrichment programmes. If they are unable to do so, they feel that they have fallen short as parents.

I understand that this pressure largely stems from the fear that there is only a narrow gate to success and if their children do not make it through that gate, they will have poor life outcomes. These are real anxieties that we want to help address.

To cater to students' varied abilities and talents and help our children develop more holistically, MOE has been making progressive changes over the years to develop multiple pathways. MOE has also made multiple shifts to reduce over-emphasis on academic results. MOE will also conduct a series of Education Conversations with students, parents, educators, researchers and academics to explore ways to mitigate the education "arms race", including by reducing the stakes of examinations.

But these structural reforms will only work if cultural attitudes towards competition and success shift in tandem. We must move away from viewing education in Singapore as a competition for limited prizes and instead see it as an open highway with many lanes and many different prizes suited to each child's unique talents and abilities.

Parents who have high expectations of their children's academic performance may urge them to achieve good grades or over-react when they fall short of expectations, but such actions may cause unintended consequences, as a National University of Singapore (NUS) study found in 2016. Children with intrusive parents tended to be overly critical of themselves and were at increased risk of developing depression and anxiety symptoms. Such pressure can therefore be detrimental to a child's well-being.

Some competition and stress is natural but we should do our best to remove unrealistic expectations or social pressures which add unnecessary stress on parenthood.

Third, we will work with employers to foster family-friendly workplace cultures and practices.

As Ms Yeo Wan Ling noted, one of the top stressors for parents is trying to achieve a balance between work and family responsibilities. One parent described how frequent work travel made it difficult for her to be there for her children in their formative years. But not travelling would affect her career. Some found it difficult to request for flexible work arrangements, despite the Tripartite Guidelines. Others related having to choose between being present for important meetings or their child's key milestones, and difficulty in leaving work on time to pick their children up from childcare.

Despite the mandatory leave provisions we have introduced and employment protections, we still hear anecdotes of how some employees are subtly discouraged from taking leave or how female employees are nudged to resign once they are pregnant.

We fully recognise that employers have business objectives and financial bottom lines to meet. However, there is much more we can do to build progressive workplace cultures to align business priorities with family-friendly practices.

Having supportive employers and workplaces makes a big difference to parents. But being a family-friendly workplace is not just good for employees; it also makes good business sense. When people feel supported at work, they are more motivated, more engaged and more likely to stay.

An example is Mr Edmund Seah, whose employer allowed him to take his paternity leave in weekly blocks. Edmund took two weeks during his child's first month to support his wife's confinement and took the remaining two weeks of paternity leave together with his three weeks of Shared Parental Leave. This flexibility allowed him to be present for his wife and baby when it mattered. Having benefited from this flexibility, Mr Seah has paid it forward by covering his colleague's workload when she went on maternity leave.

There was also a Straits Times article last month on Hsinchu City in Taiwan. It houses Hsinchu Science Park and is often known as the Silicon Valley of Taiwan. While Taiwan's TFR is projected to have fallen below 0.8 in 2025, Hsinchu's has stayed stable at 1.0 for several years. Experts attribute the higher birth rates to more family-friendly benefits provided by employers, rather than the Government, to attract and retain the best employees in a competitive environment. These include hybrid work arrangements, onsite baby care, baby bonuses and hampers for employees with newborns. This sends a strong signal that having children is supported and encouraged and will not be negative for one's career.

There are many other ways in which employers can be supportive, such as providing lactation rooms for nursing mothers, instituting systematic covering arrangements when an employee has to take time-off and holding regular dialogues with employees on how the workplace can be improved. I fully agree with Ms Cassandra Lee on the importance of investing in HR as they shape workplace norms and culture and support the last-mile implementation of family-friendly workplace practices, so that employees feel safe and supported to use these provisions.

The Institute for Human Resource Professionals Body of Competencies already includes a key component of holistic well-being which entails HR's ability to drive best practices that support employees to thrive, such as the design of flexible work options and family-related leave. We want a family-friendly workplace culture to become part of the DNA of all local companies. It should also be a shared responsibility – from senior management and HR managers to line managers, co-workers and the parent-employees themselves.

We will continue to review ways to foster workplace cultures and societal norms that value and support families, including Dr Haresh Singaraju's suggestion of piloting a tiered workplace certification.

Beyond workplaces, we will encourage neighbourhoods, communities and businesses to be supportive of families.

There are ground-up efforts to create conducive community spaces for families. The Caterpillar Library at the Taman Jurong Community Club established by the Ong family is one such example, where residents donate a book for every book they take. Starting out with just 100 books, the Caterpillar Library has now facilitated the circulation of over 10,000 books, creating connections between neighbours while helping children discover the joy of reading. I encourage more neighbourhoods to create such family-friendly spaces.

Community organisations and businesses also contribute by organising a wide range of activities – from the arts to sports – for families. The Families for Life website provides a list of such resources for families. Most of the activities are free or charge nominal fees. In addition, Families for Life has gathered corporate partners, like GetGo, Sofitel Singapore Sentosa and ABC Cooking Studio, to offer Large Families Deals with exclusive discounts and offers. I encourage more partners to come onboard to celebrate families.

Mr Chairman, in conclusion, the latest TFR figures have not deterred us from our quest to boost marriage and parenthood. If anything, it underscores the urgency of the task before us and it has made us even more determined to turn things around. The Government will redouble our efforts to address this existential challenge.

However, to buck the trend, everyone – parents, employers, businesses and community partners – need to be part of this endeavour. In the months ahead, we will work with stakeholders to develop concrete plans for the four-pronged approach I laid out earlier. We welcome all suggestions and fresh ideas on how we can better support Singaporeans' marriage and parenthood aspirations.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. In my COS speech, I had suggested that we should try to defer the day in which the number of new citizen immigrants exceeds the number of citizen babies born in Singapore. It looks like that day is fast upon us, from what the Deputy Prime Minister Gan mentioned.

To that end, given the update on the immigration rates, would the Deputy Prime Minister agree that any increase in the number of immigrants should focus more on assimilation, specifically, for example, prioritising families with young children so that the young children, who may not be born in Singapore, grow up in Singapore as citizens and can assimilate better into Singapore to build that next Singapore core?

The short answer is, yes, we will, of course, encourage younger new citizens to come and join us. But also, bearing in mind that many of them by the time they are well established, when they are looking at a place where they can trust to settle down, they may have been here working for some years and they have been here as a PR for some years, so they may no longer be that young. But hopefully, they have their own children here.

But sometimes, their children may not be born in Singapore: they will be new citizen babies, so I think we just have to strike a balance. At the end of the day. I think the ability to assimilate is one very important factor in our consideration, both for PRs as well as for citizenship.

Thank you, Chairman. I understand from Minister Indranee's speech that there will be a work group that will be formed to engage and to come up with some recommendations on how to boost our marriage and parenthood. In this regard, I wish to find out, do we have some specific timelines in mind on when the engagements will take place and eventually, some implementations of the suggestions?

Bearing in mind that actually time is of the essence for us as we understand from the Deputy Prime Minister's speech that we will be doing a review in 2030, which is just a few years away from now. In the meantime, my suggestion is that we should emphasise and prioritise our resources towards those that, as Minister Indranee has mentioned, are actually keen to embrace marriage and parenthood, but at the same time are constrained by resources.

So, in regard to the marriage component, I wish to ask whether the Government is keen to consider reviving the Social Development Network to encourage more opportunities for young Singaporeans to network and find future partners. And two, in relation to those couples that are keen to be a parent in terms of the suggestions that we have put forward earlier, and those that have been highlighted by Fertility Support Singapore, whether the Ministry of Health is already in a pipeline to roll out some of this support initiatives?

Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for her clarification. In terms of timeline, let me put it this way, we will share details of the work group shortly. But the work group will be looking at the four areas that I covered and as the Member can see, those four areas are quite broad.

So, it is not going to be that we have to wait for everything to be ready in order to implement or put in place. I think where we can have some low hanging fruit, which can be ready to implement early, we should do that as soon as possible. Because the Member is right, time is of the essence. It is an existential issue; we cannot afford to sit back and wait.

But some things, particularly, if they are more complex policies, or which may need to engage more stakeholders, those might take a little longer. But really, in this term of Government, you can be assured that we will be preoccupied with trying to make sure that we have more Singaporean babies born.

Deputy Prime Minister Gan was just referring to the higher number of new citizens that the Government is looking to bring on board for at least the next five years. Is the Government keen on looking at EP holders, for example, or individuals or PRs who have been applying for many, many years for citizenship, but have not succeeded at the first instance, second instance and third. We see them all at our Meet-the-People Sessions. Is that a strategy specifically to relook at some of these applicants? Because they may have actually assimilated into Singapore society quite well by now.

Again, the short answer is, yes. We are keeping all options open, so we will take a fresh look at many of these applicants. But some of them do have reasons why we had not granted them PRs or citizenship. So, I think we will continue to look at, but I think we take a fresh look this. We are quite serious about having to make sure that we are able to bring in more new citizens and new PRs.

With new citizens, we need to have more new PRs, because that is a pipeline the citizens will come through. So, this is something that we will continue to look at and we will also look at different sources, a variety of sources of these potential immigrants. But the key is really assimilability and there is a whole series of factors that we will need to consider, including our ethnic composition balance. We also want to make sure that we maintain certain balance among our population composition.

So those are factors that we have to take into consideration when we evaluate the applications.

Just on the ethnic compositions to the Deputy Prime Minister. I mean, is there a deviation that the Government is prepared to look at in view of the nature of the problem?

Thank you. Again, the answer is yes. We will need to be flexible. But I think it is very important for us to ensure that we maintain the broad balance. I am not talking about the decimal digits, but it is important to maintain the balance so that we do not change the overall texture of the society. I think that is the main consideration.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Chairman, I agree that there is a clear rise in digital payments. However, even as ATM withdrawals fell by 13.6% from 2018 to 2024, dropping to $55 billion, the decline was modest. There continues to be 158 million ATM withdrawals in 2024, despite the proliferation of digital payments today. This suggests very strongly that demand for cash and ATM services continue to be resilient and important to Singaporeans.

Yet drawing from my experience in Rivervale Sengkang, an estate with over 18,000 households, ATMs are only found in two locations: Rivervale Mall and Plaza. This has been a challenge for existing residents for many years now and especially for particular communities such as seniors and persons with disabilities.

The concern is even more salient in the relatively new BTO cluster at Rivervale Shores, where there is a meaningful proportion of two-room flexi-flats, which typically house elderly residents. We have close to 1,100 two-room flexi-flats out of a total of 2,500 units for this BTO project, the largest HDB BTO project in Singapore to date. Even as there are existing commercial facilities in the project, including supermarkets and shops, the nearest ATMs at Plaza is thus more than a 20-minute walk away, likely much more for the elderly and less mobile.

Many residents have frequently shared feedback with me on the lack of ATMs in the vicinity despite the availability of digital payments for the food and beverage, and shops located. I had sought the help of Sengkang Town Council and the HDB in the past years to seek the support of all three local banks in installing an ATM, but to no avail. The reality is that the provision of ATMs is determined by the business decisions of the banks and their appointed service providers.

It is only earlier this year that, with the kind reconsideration of the management team of DBS, that they have responded favourably, sharing that, “We recognise the importance of convenient banking access for Sengkang residents”.

I am very grateful to the management team of FairPrice for exploring an ATM solution with DBS, and in particular, the bank of course, for responding to our appeal on behalf of our residents, and also to the HDB commercial team for according this project due consideration and support.

Returning to Deputy Prime Minister Gan’s reply to my Parliamentary Question, he said and I quote, “MAS will continue to work with banks to ensure there is enough ATMs and bank branches for the convenience of customers and also encourage customers to use digital banking services as an alternative.”

From a commercial point of view, I believe some of the factors considered by banks when locating their ATMs and bank branches include footfall, transaction volume, proximity to public transport nodes etcetera. However, there might be certain locations that may not fully meet these criteria and yet, have a sizeable population of residents that require such facilities.

Therefore, I believe that we ought to go further. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), HDB and banks should collaborate to actively identify underserved communities in existing and future HDB towns and ensure that there are banking facilities within easy reach through regulatory changes, if necessary, rather than simply having it dictated by the free market and banks’ interests.

Chairman, cash may no longer be king. From 2018 to 2024, the total value of Fast and Secure Transfers (FAST) payments has increased by 511% to $662 billion while the total value of credit and debit card payments have increased by 52% to $149 billion. However, as I shared earlier, the value of ATM withdrawals have not declined as much as expected.

Despite the proliferation of PayNow, PayWave and various forms of stored value payment options, this suggests that cash continues to be an important medium of exchange to consumers. Unfortunately, there has been an increase in the number of merchants, ranging from cafes to sporting goods stores that have stopped accepting cash payments.

While digital payments may be convenient for digitally savvy consumers and businesses, it disadvantages those who experience barriers when going cashless.

Some communities, such as seniors and persons with disabilities may find it challenging to adopt technologies such as digital payments as part of their daily lives. Furthermore, some children can only use cash as parents may deem children too young to own a bank card or smartphone. Some adults may also prefer cash to safeguard themselves against scams. For businesses, offering cash as a payment option does help to strengthen business resiliency should a disruption to digital payment services occur as well.

Under the Currency Act, businesses have the flexibility to determine their accepted payment modes, which must be indicated to customers via a written notice. Therefore, I hope that the Government would mandate physical merchants to accept cash in payments, in line with other economies such as China and Norway, or at least start with a pilot in existing residential neighbourhoods.

In particular, despite the ubiquity of digital payment options such as WeChat and AliPay in China, arguably the most advanced country in cashless payments globally, the Chinese authorities have in fact strengthened regulations recently, such as ensuring that entities that receive payments in person or provide face-to-face services must support cash payments.

In my Adjournment Motion speech earlier this year, I shared that the $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP) funding is an important means to encourage more third-party investments into the Singapore equities market, and I hoped it will not be a one-off measure. While the S$1.5 billion top-up in Budget 2026 is welcome, ensuring long-term sustainability is key.

In his Budget Statement, Prime Minister Wong stated that the reason for the top-up is to build on the momentum of the EQDP launch. Can the Government affirm its commitment to regular, sustained EQDP funding and if so, what are the conditions for determining the amount and timing of funding allocated?

Further, as I have shared last year, while MAS has taken the lead on the demand side, on the supply side, I urge the Government, via its investment entities to similarly take the lead for its companies to list on the Singapore Exchange.

This has been done before, such as through the Singtel Special Discounted Shares Scheme in 1993. MAS has taken the lead with the EQDP on the demand side and similarly, I hope Temasek holdings and various other entities can lead by example on the supply side as well.

Mr Chairman, I previously asked about private insurance rejections affecting persons with disabilities, mental health conditions including autism. The Government’s reply was that this data is not tracked and that beyond MediShield Life, access to coverage depends on insurers’ own assessments.

I recognise that insurance works by assessing risk and insurers must be able to price their policies accordingly.

As we move towards a more inclusive society, families also need assurance that access to protection is fair. In 2024, MAS and the Life Insurance Association issued guidance on fair underwriting and clearer communication of exclusions. This is a positive step, but guidelines alone do not always change people’s experiences.

Families still report exclusions, higher premiums or rejection when adults with developmental conditions apply for life or critical illness insurance. Some are asked for assessments such as IQ or language reports, and often they do not receive clear explanations based on the data. Without better information, it is difficult to know whether these families are being fairly treated.

I have three questions.

First, will the Government work with MAS and insurers to track anonymised data on disability-related rejections and exclusions, so we have a clearer picture of what is happening?

Second, when exclusions or higher premiums are applied, will MAS require insurers, if challenged, to show that these decisions are backed by evidence and linked to real risk, as is already required in places like the UK, Australia and parts of the European Union?

Third, will there be an independent and accessible channel for families who believe decisions are unfair? At present, they are mostly told to appeal directly to the insurer, which often feels insufficient.

Mr Chairman, I will start by addressing Mr Louis Chua’s cuts on maintaining cash acceptance and accessibility. My response will also address a similar Parliamentary Question raised by Mr Abdul Muhaimin for the Sitting on 3 March.

Sir, while digital payments bring efficiency and are more widely adopted, they do not fully replace cash. Our goal is to build a "cash-lite" society, not a cashless society.

Due to increasing adoption of digital payments, ATM withdrawals have declined by more than 30% from 2015 to 2024. ATMs with consistently low utilisation have gradually been removed, so banks could prioritise their ATMs for areas with higher utilisation.

To meet the needs of consumers, including the elderly and those who are less mobile, MAS also works with banks to ensure sufficient cash withdrawal points in the community. ATM locations include the vicinity of major town centres, transport hubs and key amenities such as supermarkets.

Banks will consider proximity to residential estates when siting their ATMs. New ATMs have been installed in areas with growing demand, for instance, at community nodes in new towns. Earlier, Mr Chua mentioned about the ATM that he has asked for on behalf of his residents. This is, I believe, the one at Rivervale Shores. And on 13 February, DBS submitted an application and I am pleased to inform Mr Chua that HDB has given the go-ahead for DBS to proceed to set up this ATM.

Sir, consumers can also withdraw cash when they shop at certain retail stores such as 7-Eleven, Giant and Sheng Siong. A small number of merchants, such as some food and beverage outlets that target younger customers, may decide to accept only digital payments. This is a commercial decision by the business owner.

Most merchants, based on our observations, including supermarkets and heartland businesses, continue to accept cash because there is demand from their customers to pay in cash. They do not want to lose customers by refusing to accept cash.

Our policy position is clear: cash should remain an accessible payment option for consumers in Singapore, even as digital payments gain popularity and acceptance.

MAS is monitoring the trends and developments in this area and will carefully assess if and when intervention is needed. This includes the possibility of making cash acceptance mandatory by law. At the same time, we have to carefully consider the impact on small businesses, as a mandatory requirement may impose additional handling costs for them.

Mr Chairman, Mr Chua also asked about the EQDP. The EQDP aims to develop the local fund management capabilities and it is designed to broaden investor participation and catalyse third party capital flows into Singapore-listed equities. It is one component of a broader suite of measures, including having a pro-enterprise regulatory stance, enhanced investor recourse, a Value Unlock programme and the upcoming Singapore Exchange (SGX)-Nasdaq Global Listing Board.

We want to see sustainable outcomes. The current EQDP top-up reinforces the positive momentum and it enables us to support more strategies that invest in Singapore equities including in the small and mid caps. But, Sir, we should not rely solely on Government measures or EQDP top-ups. Growing the equities market is a multi-year effort that requires discipline, sensible innovation and also all market participants to play their part. We think of EQDP as a catalyst to get the momentum of the flywheel going. And the early market reception has been positive, and we should allow time for these different measures to work.

Mr Chairman, this morning, Mr Kenneth Tiong spoke about the need to take calculated risks so that we can make bold moves and do so with greater speed. I share these objectives and that is in line with the approach that we took for the equities market review together with our industry partners. And I shall do the same for the growth capital work group.

Sir, if we want Singapore as a country and society to take more risks, and for our people to be willing to take calculated risks to try new ideas, this must be a collective effort by all of us as Singaporeans, including Members of this House.

Importantly, how do we react and respond when we take risks and we try something new and some of the initiatives fail and when something goes wrong? Do we take the approach of learning from the experience and then picking ourselves up and try again? Or do we come down on the people involved like a tonne of bricks and look for somebody to blame?

I think how we respond makes a difference to whether we can set up this culture of risk taking in our society.

My experience as a Minister at the Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Finance previously, and now Ministry of National Development and MAS, is that many of our public officers, including our younger colleagues, are supportive of taking risks and trying new ideas. They are also very open to working with industry partners and with fellow Singaporeans on this endeavour.

Many of the positive policy moves and also the pro-enterprise rules and reviewed changes could not have been done without the ideas and the hard work of our public officers.

Mr Chairman, I see our public officers as valued partners in our efforts to build a world-class Public Service for Singapore – one which is responsive and open to taking calculated risks while being anchored on integrity, service and excellence.

Let me now turn to Miss Rachel Ong's cut. Miss Ong asked about insurance accessibility for persons with disabilities. She has been championing this and advocating for this consistently.

MAS expects insurers to make objective assessments of insurance applications based on reliable information or data relevant to the risks, in line with MAS' Guidelines on Fair Dealing. We have reminded insurers that they should give due care to assessing applications from persons with disabilities and to base their decisions on coverage, pricing or exclusions on objective information and data pertaining to risk. Insurers should also clearly communicate and explain their decisions to the applicants.

The circumstances of each case has to be looked into to ascertain if the insurer has followed a data and risk-based process to assess the application. The key is to ensure that the insurer had followed the proper process in conducting its assessment before deciding whether to approve or turn down an application.

In the past three years, MAS received one complaint relating to insurance coverage for persons with disabilities, compared to a total of eight complaints in 2021 and 2022. This is a positive development. MAS has carefully reviewed all the nine cases and we have not found unfair underwriting practices to date for the nine cases. In some instances, the insurers could have better communicated the rationale of their underwriting decisions and they have since followed up with the applicants to explain their position.

MAS will study Miss Ong's suggestion to collect and monitor relevant data from the insurers.

Sir, persons with disabilities with concerns about the outcome of their insurance application can appeal through their insurer's feedback channel. Insurers need to maintain robust processes for handling customer complaints independently and effectively.

But I recognise the point that Miss Ong mentioned earlier, that from the applicant's point of view, this may not be adequate. So, should customers remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the review, they can write to MAS and we will investigate. Where there are lapses, MAS will take the appropriate supervisory actions against the insurer.