Assessment of Tariff-impact on Singapore's Trade Sectors following US' Section 301 Investigations

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what assessment has the Government made of the potential economic impact on Singapore arising from the US Section 301 investigation into alleged excess industrial capacity among several economies including Singapore; and (b) whether this could affect key export sectors such as electronics, semiconductors and precision engineering.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry following the US Section 301 investigation into Singapore’s semiconductor capacity (a) how is the Ministry addressing US concerns and highlighting Singapore’s bilateral trade deficit with the US; and (b) what strategies are being deployed to diversify Singapore’s trade relations and mitigate the economic impact of potential US punitive tariffs.

Mr Mark Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the expanding Section 301 investigations by the US into forced labour risks across global supply chains (a) how does the Government assess potential implications for Singapore-based companies and our foreign workforce framework; (b) whether domestic sectors reliant on migrant workers may face increased scrutiny; and (c) what guidance will be provided to local companies for compliance and supply-chain due diligence.

Mr Mark Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the US initiating Section 301 investigations into structural excess industrial capacity in manufacturing sectors across several economies including Singapore (a) what is the Government’s assessment of potential implications for Singapore’s trade-oriented industries; (b) which sectors may face heightened scrutiny or trade risks; and (c) what guidance will be provided to help businesses prepare for possible actions arising from such investigations.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in consultations with the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to correct the significant discrepancy between the reported US$27 billion bilateral trade surplus in the USTR Federal Register Notice and the US$27 billion deficit recorded by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.

On 11 and 12 March 2026, the Office of the US Trade Representative initiated two investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The first investigation involves 16 economies for structural excess capacity and production in certain manufacturing sectors, while the second investigation involves 60 economies for not adopting or effectively enforcing a ban on the importation of goods produced wholly or in part with forced labour. Singapore and all the other 15 economies involved in the first investigation are subject to both investigations.

The US Trade Representative's Federal Register Notice on the investigation into structural excess capacity had highlighted that Singapore enjoyed a bilateral trade surplus with the US in both goods and services amounting to US$27 billion in 2024. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has clarified that it was the US which ran a trade surplus of US$27 billion with Singapore in 2024. The US Trade Representative has since removed this inaccurate statement from its Federal Register Notice.

As the US Trade Representative's investigations are ongoing, we should not speculate on the basis for or outcomes of these investigations. It would also be premature to comment on the potential impact on our export sectors or workers at this juncture, as the details are not yet available.

The Singapore Government will continue to engage the US constructively in the course of these investigations and will provide further updates when ready.

In the meantime, the Section 122 tariff of 10% imposed on Singapore's exports to the US since 24 February 2026 remains unchanged.

The Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce will continue to gather feedback on how businesses are affected and address specific concerns as they arise. The Government will also strengthen resilience of our trade-exposed sectors by helping companies diversify the markets that they serve and deepening Singapore's trade and investment linkages with like-minded partners.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know the Minister of State indicated that while it is still undergoing investigation, we should not speculate. I know also from her reply that they have removed the wrong classification of our trade deficit with the US. Having done so, has the trade team on the US side provided any indications to MTI on the reasons for our inclusion?

The second question is, moving beyond the particular issue of Section 301, beyond our existing agreements with actors like the US, are there plans for MTI to also accelerate diversification into emerging markets or strengthening our regional supply chain so that we reduce our exposure to unilateral trade actions such as this?

My last supplementary question is, given Singapore's inclusion despite the trade deficit, does the Ministry assess that the traditional indicators of trade imbalance are no longer the primary basis for such investigations? And what precedent does this set for future act actions against economies, such as ours, which are small and open?

To the first and also the third question, the US has not given us reasons on why they have included Singapore under the Section 301 investigations and neither do we know if other countries might have similar perspective. It is, I think, too early for us to speculate on the reasons as well as the outcomes of the investigations.

To the Member's second question, indeed, Singapore has been and will continue to strengthen the diversification of our trade linkages. This was covered at great length at the recent Committee of Supply debate under MTI.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Three questions.

First, given that the Section 301 actions can sometimes be broad-based, how is Singapore engaging with our US counterparts to ensure that our firms are not inadvertently affected by measures aimed at other economies?

The second clarification is, given Singapore's role as a regional base for multinational corporations, has the Government observed any early shifts in investment decisions or supply chain strategies arising from these developments?

And lastly, beyond tariffs, could the Minister of State comment whether firms in Singapore actually face increased compliance costs or increased administrative burdens arising from such investigations now or going forward? And how are we supporting them, possibly in the future, in navigating these complexities?

It is actually premature for us to give any meaningful and useful advice to companies that may potentially be affected by the Section 301 investigations. We are following up with the US authorities to try to better understand the reasons as well as the coverage of these Section 301 investigations.

And in the meantime, for firms that require support, we ask that they give the feedback direct to MTI or through the trade associations and chambers, the Singapore Business Federation, for example. We have been keeping in touch with them. Also, there is a Business Adaptation Grant, which remains available to help companies understand the implications of the US tariffs on their businesses.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I declare I work in a global investment firm that has investments in semiconductors and manufacturing companies.

Given the US Section 301 investigations reflect a more unilateral approach to trade enforcement, could the Minister of State elaborate on how Singapore is safeguarding its interest within a rules-based trading system that appears to be under strain? What considerations shape our current approach in engaging with the US, and how does this protect Singaporean jobs and economic stability, particularly in sectors such as semiconductors?

This has been covered extensively at the recent Committee of Supply. It is still very relevant and current. In the interest of time, I ask that the Member refer to the details that were covered back then.

I thank the Minister of State for the clarification. I think there are many times that she has mentioned that investigations are still underway and details are still unclear. But I would still like to ask the Minister of State to comment on whether the Government has assessed the extent that Singapore exports and also our re-exports into the US are exposed to heightened forced labour scrutiny, particularly where upstream inputs are originating from higher-risk jurisdictions.

On Singapore being investigated for import of goods passing through Singapore made for wholly or partially with forced labour, I would like to emphasise a few points. First, Singapore takes a strong stance – we also criminalise forced labour in Singapore under various laws, including the Penal Code and the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act. Forced labour is also prohibited under the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Relevant Government Ministries and agencies, such as the Ministry of Manpower, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Singapore Police Force, play their part in investigating complaints of suspected breaches in these domestic laws.

Preventing the importation of goods produced with forced labour requires an effective international regulatory framework to investigate and positively identify such goods. This issue is transnational in nature, and there is no international agreed available framework for such investigations at the moment. Singapore will continue to work with international communities through appropriate international platforms like the International Labour Organization, as well as bilaterally with like-minded partners, including the US, to address this issue.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In light of the Minister of State's reply just now, can I ask whether the Government is able to reply to my written Question No 67, and update on whether the Government will be represented at the upcoming public hearings for the US Trade Representative's investigations into overcapacity and forced labour under Section 301?

Economies that are subject to Section 301 investigations may choose to submit written comments, participate in public hearings and engage in bilateral consultation with the US Trade Representative. We also note the deadline for submission of written comments and requests to appear at public hearings for both the investigations will be coming up soon.

To the question of whether companies will be attending or participating: no, they are not required to participate in the hearings. But we do encourage companies who have feedback or inputs to provide that to MTI so that we can represent them sufficiently.

Thank you, Speaker. Just a clarification. Will the Government be represented at the upcoming hearing, bearing in mind the submission deadlines?

The answer is yes; we will be attending the hearings.