Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the past few years have not been calm for the world. We have just emerged from the pandemic, yet global recovery has been hesitant. Businesses have had to reorganise their supply chains and families have had to readjust the rhythms of daily life.

Just as many thought we were entering a new phase of stability, global politics suddenly shifted gears and circumstances changed rapidly. Some commentators have even described this as a kind of "gangster-style" logic in international conduct. Rules have become negotiable. Agreements can be signed and just as easily overturned.

The US Supreme Court struck down the tariff measures and shortly thereafter, a new 15% tariff was announced on all countries, friends and foe alike. This is not the textbook version of globalisation. It is a more direct and raw contest of power. Great power politics has returned. US-China competition continues to intensify. The Middle East remains tense, with the shadow of Iran still looming. Small and middle powers are increasingly pressured to declare positions and choose sides.

When large waves crash against the shore, small boats feel the impact first.

Singapore is not a bystander. We are a small and open economy. When storms arise, we are among the first to feel them. But amidst the storms, what ships fear most is not only the external waves, but also internal friction. Unity cannot be merely a slogan; it is the prerequisite for maintaining strategic resolve in a complex world. Therefore, in such a world, this Budget is not merely about numerical balance, but national assurance.

After the Budget Statement, over the past few days, I have heard some interesting comments. When the Government runs a deficit, it is criticised as fiscally irresponsible. When it runs a surplus, it is said to have miscalculated.

It is like a person who brings an umbrella and is mocked for being excessive, and yet if he does not bring one and gets drenched, he is mocked for being foolish. National finances are not month-end accounts. They are an inter-generational responsibility.

In recent years, our Budgets have not only met fiscal targets, we have won a larger battle. Because today, we have a surplus. Therefore, We have more "ammunition" to face the storms ahead. A surplus does not mean over-taxation. It means that in an uncertain world, we planned using conservative assumptions and reality has turned out better than expected.

If we had planned using optimistic assumptions instead and subsequently found ourselves unable to pay for healthcare, ageing and security, who would bear the cost?

Not the accountants. Not the commentators. It is the people. As the ancient saying goes: "One survives in adversity and perishes in comfort." When a budget aims to be "just enough", it often ends up being "slightly short". In such a world, we must build strength and prepare in advance.

Before troops move, provisions must be ready. The bow must be fully drawn and the arrows well supplied. Only then can we act effectively when the need arises.

We must clarify a basic principle: GST is a long-term structural revenue source. A fiscal surplus is largely cyclical. Long-term responsibilities cannot be funded by short-term fortune. Ageing does not disappear with economic cycles. Healthcare spending does not fluctuate simply because one year is strong and another is weak.

Using cyclical revenue to fund permanent obligations is like using your bonus to pay a mortgage. Of course, no one says they enjoy paying taxes. But what would truly be unfair is not adjusting tax policy today, it would be having to raise taxes suddenly during a downturn tomorrow. The real question is not whether we can spend more in any particular year, but whether we can support Singaporeans sustainably over the coming decades.

Singapore's fiscal philosophy has always been simple: plan early, act prudently, share gains when conditions allow. This is not poor marksmanship. It is long-range targeting. When conditions turn out better than expected, the Government returns support to citizens through various packages. That is precisely the meaning of preparedness.

As an ancient text puts it: "Digging a well when thirsty is inferior to preparing before the rain." We would rather be called conservative today than be forced into hurried tax increases tomorrow. When the world is uncertain, when great power rivalry intensifies, when supply chains and financial systems can shift overnight, a surplus is not a luxury. It is insurance.

If the next storm arrives, we will not need to borrow in haste, raise taxes suddenly, or cut social support.

That is true fiscal responsibility. Let me say candidly: a fiscal surplus does not mean people feel no pressure. Residents do not speak to us about macroeconomic indicators. They speak about daily life. They worry about: (a) whether AI will replace their jobs; (b) whether prices will continue to rise; (c) whether shop rentals will increase again; and (d) whether families can sustain expenses over the long term.

These concerns are real. Therefore, a Budget must be macro-sound and micro-relevant.

In the North West District, we run Little Steps @ North West, supporting families participating in KidSTART. Children aged zero to six receive $500 in annual support, with additional essentials provided in partnership with businesses.

From early childhood education to parent-child bonding and nutrition, we walk step by step with families. This is not a large-scale subsidy. It is a long-term investment. These measures may not be large in scale, but they are concrete. The meaning of policy lies not only in national figures, but in the small sigh of relief in everyday life.

A Budget is not merely a fiscal document. It paints a picture of the society we want. Let me use a New Year metaphor: the Yusheng. Yesterday was the seventh day of the Lunar New Year, we all did "lohei".

The fish represents the economic foundation. If the fish is not fresh, nothing else matters. AI adoption, enterprise transformation, and industry upgrading ensure that the fish remains fresh. And may our Budgets always have surplus. The shredded vegetables represent skills and education. Future security comes from adaptable capabilities, not fixed positions. Peanuts and sesame represent social support. Support for families, seniors and the vulnerable ensures that society can move forward together over the long term. This is no small matter.

The sauce represents our we-first spirit. Not "what do I get?" But "how far can we go together?" Each ingredient alone seems ordinary. But combined together, they create the flavour of the New Year. Fiscal discipline is like the golden crackers simple in appearance, yet holding the entire structure together.

Coming to the earlier topic, as great power rivalry intensifies and international law and trade rules come under strain, small and middle powers must cooperate more closely. Singapore has a responsibility to strengthen ties with other middle powers, uphold the multilateral system, and stabilise trade networks. When rules are challenged, we must stand up to defend them. This too is part of the purpose of the Budget’s support for diplomacy and international engagement.

Singapore has never grown amidst an environment of certainty. Our independence was uncertain. Financial crises were uncertain. The pandemic was uncertain. Yet each time, we relied on two things: resilience and unity. When the next wave rises, we will have the resources, societal trust and capable people. As long as we continue to move forward together, Singapore will continue to rise!

Today is the eighth Day of the Lunar New Year, I wish for favourable weather and good harvests and peace and prosperity for the country and its people.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Speaker, I support this Budget. This Budget covers a great many areas and as in previous years, supports Singaporeans in a range of thoughtful ways: providing support for young families who wish to have children, working adults who need support to get better jobs, seniors to have better healthcare and quality of life in their later years and businesses as they cope with a range of disruptions.

These are all welcome measures and are possible because of Singapore’s strong fiscal position, thanks to decades of prudent financial management by successive generations of leaders.

In my speech though, I wish to focus on one area that troubles me most – the breakdown of the international world order that provided a stable backdrop for Singapore’s success since Independence.

For decades, an international rules-based order grounded in international law has underpinned global peace and prosperity. For small states like Singapore, this framework better ensured that sovereignty was respected, disputes are resolved peacefully and trade flowed freely. It gives small states like Singapore a measure of protection in a world which may otherwise have been dominated by power politics. Over the years, Singapore has consistently advocated for a rules-based multilateral system and respect for international law.

However, the global environment is rapidly evolving. We are witnessing heightened geopolitical rivalry, economic fragmentation and a growing willingness by some states to prioritise what they believe to be national interests over collective commitments. While international law remains indispensable, we must also be realistic and prepare for a world in which non-compliance is going to be more common and where major powers may not always abide by either the letter or the spirit of international commitments.

Recent events underscore this reality. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents a clear violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and the principle of territorial integrity. In the Middle East, the conflict triggered by Hamas’ attacks on Israel on and the subsequent war in Gaza have intensified regional instability and humanitarian crises and the findings of breaches of international law. In our own region, tensions in the South China Sea continue to test the strength of international maritime law.

The most dramatic changes in the last two years have probably been the position of the US. The main concern last year was the imposition of tariffs on allies and competitors alike. This year, the capture of the Venezuelan President was contrary to the peremptory norms against the use of force. The US plans to take Greenland put it on a collision course with its European allies and threatened to fracture the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), especially when it appeared that the US was considering the use of force to take Greenland in its earlier statements.

Together, these statements suggest that while international law remains vital, compliance can no longer be assumed or taken for granted. For small countries like Singapore, it is especially important for us to stay vigilant and prepared to deal with emerging threats and challenges.

During the Budget debate in 2022, I said that we need to remain committed to defence spending even during times of peace, and while there will be many demands for our spending and it will always be tempting to say we should cut defence spending in times of peace, that will be a mistake. I also said that we must continue to maintain and build good and deep relations as well as mutually beneficial economic and defence ties with as many countries as possible.

I remain firmly of that view. In this connection, I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to invest in Singapore’s defence, including physical warfare capabilities as well as cyber defence and counter-terrorism capabilities. A credible and technologically advanced defence force remains the bedrock of our sovereignty.

Beyond its defence capabilities, however, Singapore has very sensibly also adopted the strategy of diversifying its foreign relationships and defence relationships. On the security front, we maintain strong and longstanding defence ties with the US, including close training and operational cooperation. At the same time, we engage constructively with other nations, including China and ASEAN partners.

As for economic trade, Singapore currently has 28 Free Trade Agreements spanning Asia, Europe and the Americas. We are part of major regional agreements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which bind countries to common standards and open markets. These agreements provide multiple avenues for growth and reduce over-dependence on any one market. They also signal Singapore’s continued commitment to open, rules-based trade despite global protectionist trends.

Going forward, we must continue to champion international law and multilateralism while widening and deepening our network of partnerships. I wish to make the following observations.

First, while we continue to advocate multilateralism, it is equally important to recognise that many international institutions were established in an era where great powers were more willing to cooperate consistently within established frameworks. Today, the legitimacy and effectiveness of these institutions are increasingly being challenged due to divergent national interests and competition.

Consider the United Nations. Although the UN Charter remains the foundational framework for international peace and security, the UN Security Council has been hampered by geopolitical divisions. When permanent members are in conflict or have opposing interests, collective action can be difficult to achieve. Collective action under the UN banner has not been possible in most of the conflicts today.

For a small nation like Singapore, we must recognise that when large powers do not cooperate within multilateral fora, the system becomes weaker and the norms which such international institutions uphold become more vulnerable. Small states have the most to lose when rules are eroded.

This leads me to my second observation which is about minilateralism. As the World Economic Forum puts it, minilateralism typically involves small groups of countries or organisations collaborating to solve shared problems. While multilateral institutions remain essential, and we must continue to support them, smaller groupings of like-minded states can move faster and more pragmatically when progress stalls at the global levels through smaller agreements.

Singapore has already demonstrated this approach. For example, in the digital domain, Singapore has pioneered the Digital Economy Agreements with trusted partners to establish common rules on cross-border data flows, cybersecurity and digital trade. Such agreements help shape global norms and position Singapore as a trusted digital hub.

Going forward, Singapore can continue to champion issue-based coalitions in areas such as green and sustainable finance, carbon markets and emerging technologies. Such coalitions complement and not replace the broader multilateral system.

Third, as a small nation, it is important that Singapore strengthen its capacity in emerging domains of competition.

Today, security is multi-dimensional and extends well beyond conventional military threats. Strategic contest between nations increasingly play out in domains such as cyberspace, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, space assets and the resilience of critical infrastructure. For example, cyberattacks can disrupt essential services including power generation and banking. Disinformation can erode social cohesion.

Singapore must therefore invest decisively in these emerging domains. Strengthening cyber defence capabilities, enhancing digital resilience across both public and private sectors, and building trusted AI governance frameworks which will be essential and which is envisioned by this Budget. By doing so, we not only protect ourselves but also enhance our relevance in the international arena.

Fourth, Singapore is in a unique position to play a bridging role in the new world order. In a world of intensifying major power rivalry, countries that can maintain credibility across divides become increasingly valuable. Singapore has long cultivated a reputation as a consistent, honest and trusted partner. We maintain strong defence and economic ties with the US, engage constructively with China, and remain firmly anchored in ASEAN. This balanced posture allows us to facilitate dialogue. Our consistency and credibility are our strategic assets.

Singapore’s role is not to choose sides in power competition. It is to maintain open channels with all while remaining firmly grounded in principles of sovereignty, peaceful dispute resolution, open trade and international law.

This means we must speak clearly when rules are violated, but avoid rhetoric which will unnecessarily escalate tensions. We must continue to deepen ties broadly, so that no single relationship defines our position in international relations.

Mr Speaker, while we cannot control the direction of the global order, our preparedness to navigate the global order is within our control. By combining principle with pragmatism, and openness with resilience, Singapore can continue to thrive, even in a more uncertain world.

Mr Henry Kwek.

Mr Speaker, over Chinese New Year, I spoke with residents in Kebun Baru about the Budget and the year ahead. What struck me about this year was how central AI has become in my conversation to them. Young graduates told me that good entry-level jobs and internships are now harder to come as companies re-organise themselves around AI.

A young academic volunteer told me a story he wanted to build a simple application. He got a quote from a local IT service company for $70,000 to build the application. He got frustrated, hired somebody from Vietnam at $10 per hour and spent the weekend to build that same application using AI agents.

I also spoke to a tech savvy SME entrepreneur who spent his breaks in between Chinese New Year house visits, building, orchestrating AI agents to automate many parts his back-office for his SME.

I met an accountant in her 50s, after watching a clip on the robotic wushu performance, turned to her family and asked, "What happens to my job?"

And I met an investor who told me that correlation between Nasdaq and AI is now very close. He would notice a big drop in one segment of the Nasdaq stock market and that usually comes after Anthropic introduces a new part, a new module, a new feature in the systems.

So, our people have sensed that AI has matured quickly and is now reshaping lives in ways that felt theoretical just a year ago.

Prime Minister Wong has decisively centered our Budget on AI, outlining a bold vision for Singapore in a changed, AI-charged world. I want to build on this vision by speaking on three areas where I believe we can move even faster: how the Government itself builds digital services with the world's leading AI firms helping us, how we can accelerate the IT service industry, and how we ensure our SME support reach more layers of our enterprise base.

First, how can the Government build more digital services with the world's leading AI companies' support.

Today, I believe that the Government e-services are still largely procured through traditional IT methods – where AI, if used at all, is bolted on rather than embedded from the outset. AI-centric development is fundamentally different: AI is integral to design, coding, testing and continuous improvement process. Services are faster to build, cheaper to maintain and adaptive rather than ageing between upgrade cycles.

I propose that this becomes the default methodology for all new Government services and to scale it as a whole-of-Government over time.

And we should not build this alone. Over 60 companies, including Google and Microsoft, have established AI Centres of Excellence here. These firms should not only help Singapore enterprises adopt AI; they should also be co-developing our AI-centric stacked deck itself, building together with the Public Service.

This is how we build a sovereign national AI system – something I spoke about in the last Budget debate – not from scratch at prohibitive cost, but through structured co-development with the world’s best, on our terms, anchored in our values. When the Government is merely a customer, our leverage is limited. When the Government is a sophisticated co-development partner – bringing deep domain knowledge expertise of public service delivery and regulatory complexity – we deepen their commitment to Singapore and build internal capability that stays here.

Beyond our own services, Government should revive the spirit of the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) with an AI-centric lens – working together with Prime Minister Wong’s four AI Mission sectors to identify common problems solvable through AI across different sectors and building shared solutions together with the industry.

Next, how we accelerate the IT services industry. Singapore's IT services industry – the firms that actually deliver technology projects across the public and private sectors – may not be adopting AI-centric development fast enough. These firms are the delivery layers between AI strategy and real world outcomes. If they do not transform, the strategy stays on paper.

This is not a talent problem. Our tech workers are ready – curious, hungry and well-educated. The bottleneck could be structural inertia within the IT services firms, compounded by the complexity of making AI-centric development enterprise-grade. Large companies have found it easier to continue with familiar methods while adding AI as a cosmetic layer.

Therefore, I propose a phased mandate: Government IT contracts should progressively require AI-centric development methods. New projects first, legacy contracts given longer runways and a clear three-to-five-year transition pathway.

This is not without precedent – we mandated Building Information Modeling (BIM) adoption in the construction industry and we can transform that. When the Singapore Government becomes the driver of demand, industry follows.

Alongside the mandate, the Government should also transfer its frameworks and playbooks to polytechnics, universities and IT service firms. And over time, Singapore's AI-centric methodology will not just become a public sector asset but something that will drive industry capability.

Third, our SME support can be more differentiated. When it comes to AI, two groups are ready to move, and they need different support.

The first group are SMEs led by founders with strong technology backgrounds like the SME entrepreneur I mentioned about – programming using AI agents over Chinese New Year. For these founders, the barriers to scale have collapsed. They understand understand AI and can now grow at speeds previously requiring the capital and headcount of a much larger enterprise.

Yet our bespoke innovation grants have traditionally been reserved for larger companies. And I urge the Government to open these grants to tech-capable SMEs – these are Singapore's next generation of high-tech growth.

The second group are conventional SMEs that need help adopting AI in day-to-day operations. Here, Prime Minister Wong's expanded PSG is the right instrument. But the approved vendor list today are very traditional tech companies. Over time, there will be a growing tier of AI-centric firms delivering accounting, payroll, marketing services or products. I hope the Government can consider actively onboarding these firms as PSG-approved vendors and co-fund the transition cost so that conventional SMEs can access them quickly.

Taken altogether, some will argue that the AI levels the playing field against Singapore. In a narrow sense, they are right – a talented developer anywhere, armed with enough AI tools and call code credits, can generate entire applications overnight. On a pure cost, we were never going to win this race. But this is the wrong race to run.

The Economic Development Board (EDB) has long described Singapore's value proposition as Trust, Knowledge and Connectivity. AI-centric development does not erode this advantage – it amplifies them.

On trust: in an AI-centric world, where AI agents transact and AI systems make decisions, trust becomes the most precious commodity in the digital economy. Businesses will site AI operations where they trust the legal framework and the Government behind them and Singapore has spent decades building exactly this trust.

On knowledge: the tacit knowledge – the kind that cannot be Googled or prompted – lives in the relationships and expertise of the people based here. AI can accelerate the application of our knowledge.

On connectivity: we have at least seven distinct global hubs – aviation, shipping, regional headquarters, advanced manufacturing, biotech, chemicals, electronics, and finance – co-located on 700 square kilometres.

The collaboration density, between the hubs themselves and the world they connect to, is something no amount of digital connectivity can replicate. In an AI-centric economy, where the most valuable innovations emerge at the intersection of industries, this co-location is a profound and durable.

If we move fast enough, if we adopt AI-centric development in Government, bring our IT services industry with us and equip many layers of our SME industry, AI gives us the chance to not just manage our constraints but re-invent our economy on foundations that took decades to build, and that no competitor can replicate overnight.

Mr Speaker, let me now speak briefly on our Public Service Media. The advantages I have described – Trust, Knowledge and Connectivity – do not sustain themselves. They require institutions to uphold them.

Sometime ago, I had a chat with our Minister Josephine Teo who leads Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), she describes our Public Service Media as Singapore's truth infrastructure. I would go further than that. I would say that our Public Service Media are not just Singapore's truth infrastructure but also our trust infrastructure. The Straits Times has a place in the hearts of most of our people. Zaobao is already the most respected international Chinese-language outlet globally. CNA commands with credibility far beyond our shores and with strategic investment, The Business Times could become the Financial Times of Southeast Asia. In an age of AI-generated disinformation, they stand between our people and a manipulated information space. I urge the Government to make sure that they are adequately and sustainably funded, and that our media professionals find a compelling future in them. Because our media is a source of our trust, and is a key voice of our soft power.

My last point is about a home for every family. A nation's ambition is not only credible if people feel secure in the most basic of things and I commend the Ministry of National Development (MND) for continuing to build housing quickly.

There is one group that I would like to speak up for today, which is the sandwiched-class families with decent incomes who could comfortably service a mortgage but cannot secure loans from banks and Housing and Development Board (HDB).

Their incomes are too high for public rental, and Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) requires a waiting Build-To-Order (BTO). They are left paying high rental rates, with no clear pathways of getting their roof over their heads somewhere.

I understand that this group have a lot of complexities and it is not due to any one source of difficulty that they face, but I hope the Government can consider a targeted programme, like how we invented Fresh Start for people in rental estate but the targeted programme helps this group that I mentioned with some of the following features: selective offering of HDB loans, Government-backed mortgage guarantees with maybe a bank like DBS, a structured pathway for BTOs where demonstrated income stability unlocks eligibility, or access to long-term affordable rental while they rebuild credit.

The gap is real, and these families deserve a pathway.

Let me conclude. Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 reminds me of the many Budget discussions and debates we had during COVID. Then, the rest of the world were dealing with COVID. But our Budget not just helped us deal with COVID but also prepared Singapore to emerge stronger together from COVID.

Today, just look at the headlines. The world, and even the major powers, are bogged down by geopolitical conflict, internal disputes and disarrays, and trade or even economic wars. In marked contrast, here in this Parliament, we are discussing a future forward Budget that not just responds to a changed world but also prepare ourselves to emerge stronger together in this AI-charged world. Therefore, Mr Speaker, this Budget deserves our full support.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Victor Lye.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of Budget 2026. I will speak about Singapore as a networked economy with trust as our new factor of production.

Economists have studied the classic factors of production, land, labour, capital and later adding entrepreneurship in the 1800s. In this uncertain fragmenting world and AI acceleration, I see a new factor of production – trust.

Trust is intangible. Yet, it behaves like infrastructure. Trust enables flows – capital, data, talent, goods, decisions. Trust increases resilience to shocks. Trust is the reliability premium that allows counterparties to transact, coordinate and commit to actions at scale, even in the face of uncertainty. For Singapore, as a small city-state, this is and should be our competitive advantage.

In 1965, our population was a mere 1.9 million. Today, as a first world nation, we have 3.7 million Singaporeans, 4.2 million if we include Permanent Residents. Singapore is small. Compare this to Tokyo, a city, 37 million people; Delhi, 36 million people; Shanghai, 21 million people; London, 10 million people; New York, eight million people – you get the picture. Even Kuala Lumpur and many of our Asian capitals/cities have a few times multiple, more people than Singapore. Large countries within hinterlands can rely on internal markets, domestic, resources, national industrial stacks.

Singapore has no hinterland. Instead, our hinterland must be how deeply we connect to the rest of the world. I see Singapore therefore as a networked economy, where trust becomes the connective tissue that allows a small node like Singapore to orchestrate value across a much larger space. To be a successful networked economy in this globally fragmented and accelerating AI world, trust becomes our factor of production, our competitive advantage.

Budget 2026 identifies four AI missions – finance, health, advanced manufacturing and connectivity. Seen through the lens of trust, these missions are strategic growth pathways.

In finance, AI can position Singapore as the world's most trusted digital custodian enabling secure asset verification, counterparty validation and trusted trading ecosystems. In health, Singapore can be a trusted hub for clinical trials, diagnostics and genomic innovation. In advanced manufacturing, by anchoring intellectual property with trust, Singapore can embed itself in high value global supply chains. Lastly, connectivity. For example, as a port, we cannot just compete by the number of boxes we move. We must use AI to pivot from moving boxes to become trusted coordinator, the operating system that optimises flows across ports, even across geopolitical boundaries.

Mr Speaker, ultimately, Budget 2026 AI Missions must translate into real benefits for our people. When we are the trusted node in supply chains, essential good for Singaporeans continue to flow even during crises. We can create trust-centric jobs, coordinating systems, validating data, ensuring digital security. In an AI driven world, Singaporeans can become that human layer of trust, providing empathy and compassion, on top of credibility and judgement which AI cannot.

Trust can be our new fact of production, our competitive advantage for a small city state, a network economy. Budget 2026 begins this journey. I propose three areas for consideration.

One, institutionalise trust infrastructure. Why not develop regulatory sandboxes where AI innovations are tested and centered in Singapore using our trusted governance frameworks? In this way, Singapore exports trusted governance alongside technology.

Two, create global trust credentials to enable not just Singaporeans or Singapore firms but also foreign companies and professionals to carry trusted Singapore verified credentials, demonstrating compliance, skills and experience.

Three, develop trusted connectivity standards in sectors important to Singapore such as maritime, aviation and digital trade. Singapore can develop trusted coordination standards. Stewardship of such standards creates relevance and trust for others to deal with us Singapore.

Mr Speaker, as a small city state, Singapore cannot out bill the large countries. We cannot outnumber the world. With the fragmenting world and AI acceleration, we can however, be that beacon of trust for the world as a networked economy.

When the world asks: "Who can we work with?", "Who can we rely on?", "Who can coordinate these critical systems for the world?", let the answer be Singapore. Sir, I support Budget 2026.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm looking at human capital ecosystem strategies. In my work, I have seen how capital relocates amidst volatility, how labour markets adjust when technology shifts and how nations either manage transition wisely or struggle when they do not.

My reaction to Budget 2026 is this: Singapore’s budget surplus reflects global volatility and our strategic credibility. In a fractured world, capital flows toward stability, predictability and the rule of law. That is a vote of confidence for Singapore.

I welcome the Government’s steady fiscal discipline. At a time when many countries wrestle with debts and deficits, Singapore’s prudence is an asset. It gives us room to act, credibility to lead and options in uncertainty. But volatility-driven gains are not permanent gains. Cyclical surpluses are not structural revenues.

In a more dangerous world, fiscal strength is national defence. Our buffers are not excesses, they are strategic insurance. They safeguard our sovereignty, resilience and freedom of action.

As Chair of the Defence and Foreign Affairs GPC, I say this with conviction: fiscal resilience is strategic capability. It ensures we are not forced into decisions by constraints. It preserves our strategic autonomy when circumstances demand it.

At the same time, given the current surplus position, perhaps we can signal stability by avoiding further tax increases in the near term. I recognise that Government will, when necessary, need to raise revenue. But where new measures are introduced, they should be calibrated carefully and remain progressive. Perhaps there should be no additional effective burden on lower-income households and revenue adjustments should be designed with cost pressures firmly in mind.

This is not to question earlier fiscal decisions. It is simply to say: where space exists, we should use it to cushion households and strengthen trust. Because trust in fiscal policy underpins trust in everything else.

And trust must also underpin our AI transition. The AI transformation is not theoretical. It is structural, it is global and it is accelerating.

Recent analysis from technologists observing the frontier makes this clear. Model performance is not merely improving incrementally, it is compounding. Tasks that required research teams a year ago can now be done in weeks. Tasks that required weeks can now be done in hours. What appears gradual suddenly crosses a threshold and becomes transformational.

AI is no longer assisting humans at the edges. AI is helping to build the next AI. Engineers use AI to write code, debug systems, test approaches and accelerate research cycles. But the recent AI coding revolution does not stop at engineers and programmers, because code is essentially logic and workflow. And it is enterprise logic and workflow that is the fundamental basis of many knowledge jobs. This means that AI's ability to generate code and write software autonomously could eventually have greater implications on all knowledge workers, not just programmers.

When improvements accelerate the next round of improvements, change does not move in a straight line. It begins to move like a wave.

Last week, I met a young Singaporean named Amir outside a tuition centre in Yio Chu Kang. He was waiting for his sister. In his hand was a neatly printed curriculum vitae (CV). Three pages. Strong verbs. Clean formatting. I asked whether he had hired a professional writer. He laughed and said, “No, I used an AI tool to help me. It rewrote my CV. It drafted cover letters. It even suggested interview answers.” Then he paused. “But if AI can write my CV better than I can,” he said quietly, “what happens when it can do my job better than me?” He was not dramatic, he was also not angry. He was simply uncertain. That uncertainty is what many Singaporeans feel.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates roughly 40% of jobs globally are exposed to AI. In advanced economies, exposure approaches 60%. Goldman Sachs estimates generative AI could affect work equivalent to 300 million full-time roles. These are not alarmist numbers. These are structural signals.

Stanford Prof Erik Brynjolfsson recently argued that the long-awaited AI productivity take-off may now be visible. In the US, payroll growth was revised downward by over 400,000 jobs even as GDP grew 3.7% in the fourth quarter. Output held steady while labour input declined. That is the hallmark of productivity growth.

Productivity rose about 2.7% in 2025, nearly double the previous decade’s pace. First comes investment, then re-organisation, then, if we get it right, harvest. But harvest is uneven. Some firms adapt faster, some sectors benefit earlier, others face displacement sooner. And here is the elephant in the room. Mid-career workers are already feeling automation’s pressure. The accountant whose reconciliation tasks are automated, the marketing manager whose drafting work is compressed into minutes, the operations executive whose reporting is replaced by dashboards.

These are not statistics. These are parents, caregivers and Singaporeans with responsibilities. They want to remain useful, valued and respected in their work.

Productivity can rise even as some workers experience displacement. Our task is not to deny disruption. It is to govern it. Allow me to group my proposals into three themes.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, measure what matters. AI Missions deserve praise, but alongside ambition, we need measurable labour outcomes. What three to five key performance indicators will be published annually that are explicitly job linked? For example, net new roles created, wage uplift achieved, time to redeployment, share of SMEs scaling AI beyond pilots. If this transformation is national, its scorecard must be national and human.

AI Champions must not become theatre. What is the gating bar? It should include data readiness, genuine process redesign, measurable productivity gains and meaningful workforce upgrading. And if firms cannot demonstrate transformation beyond pilot projects within a defined period, support should be reviewed and if necessary, withdrawn.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, protect pathways. Globally, the first wave is not mass layoffs but junior tasks disappearing: drafting, summarising, first-pass analysis. Will AI Mission partners redesign entry-level pathways so that young Singaporeans still get a real first job, real mentorship and real responsibility, even as AI takes over routine tasks?

The future belongs to “AI conductors”, not merely “AI users”. Our juniors must learn to curate, steer and verify AI outputs. The competitive advantage is not pressing “generate.” It is about asking the right questions and judging the answers. If we lose the first job pathway and if our juniors never get the chance to learn how to be "AI conductors", we lose the future workforce.

For mid-career Singaporeans, the fear is not only unemployment, but stagnation and even decline. Will AI support be conditional on job redesign and wage progression commitments? If gains flow only to the margins and management, social cohesion erodes. Six months of premium AI tools must not become tokenism. Access is not mastery. How will we measure demonstrable skill acquisition through portfolios, assessed projects and recognised credentials. Workers need employability, not just exposure.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, build shared capability and trust. Do SMEs have sufficient compute and infrastructure? Will we provide shared credits, secure data environments and reference architectures so that they can compete responsibly? Without shared capability, we risk an AI divide.

In regulatory sandboxes, who bears the liability? When AI affects hiring or evaluation, what is the audit framework? Speed without accountability breeds backlash. And how do we remain trusted without slowing deployment?

What is the AI Council’s explicit speed-with-safety model? This should include: tiered risk categories, standardised evaluation, fast-track approvals for low-risk use. Trust must not become friction. Speed must not become recklessness.

Will the Government lead by example? Will the public sector pair AI adoption with systematic job redesign and publish measurable outcomes?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, two centuries ago, in the English Midlands, groups of skilled textile workers gathered at night. They broke into mills and smashed the mechanical looms, the industrial weaving machines that automated the production of cloth, because they believed those machines would destroy their livelihoods. These workers came to be known as the Luddites. They were not ignorant men. They were craftsmen, fathers and providers who feared that mechanisation would render their skills obsolete.

History remembers them as opponents of progress. But here is the twist. The looms did not destroy prosperity, they transformed it. Industrialisation was painful and disruptive, but the societies that adapted built new industries, new skills and eventually a broader middle class.

The lesson is not that technological change is painless. It is that refusing to prepare does not preserve dignity, preparing does. AI is technological change. It is not to be feared. It is not to be ignored. It is to be governed.

But AI moves at digital speed. The Luddites had decades. We may only have years, perhaps only months. History also warns us that when ownership concentrates and meaningful work disappears, inequality hardens. If AI disruption results in productive assets concentrated in a few hands while working people are excluded from opportunity, social strain follows.

But that outcome is not inevitable. Every major technological disruption has also created renewal. AI can expand opportunity if directed wisely. That means preparing our workforce today. It means equipping our workforce tomorrow. It means being prepared to recalibrate policy as the technology evolves.

The future will remain uncertain. But this Government does not sugar-coat reality. The PAP has never shied away from harsh truths. We will be honest about the challenges on the ground. We will be honest that some jobs will change. We will be honest that some roles will disappear. And we will be honest that the transition will not be easy.

But we will also be clear about this: we are here to walk with Singaporeans through the tough times.

Let me return to Amir. When I saw him again, he had enrolled in a course. He was no longer asking what AI could do for him. He was asking what he could become. “The tool is not the point,” his instructor told him. “Learning how to think is the point.” “I realised,” Amir said, “that I needed to level up.”

Mr Speaker, that is the future we must design. Not a future where workers are discarded. Not a future where productivity rises but trust falls. But a future where productivity funds mobility and automation finances upgrading.

If we prepare honestly, govern wisely and act courageously, Singapore will not merely endure this wave of change. We will rise with it. If we get this right, Singapore will not merely adopt AI. We will guide it. We will shape it. We will humanise it. And together, we will shape the future of Singapore. I support the Budget.

Assoc Prof Terence Ho.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join the debate. I would first like to congratulate the Prime Minister and his team on the forward looking and comprehensive Budget that speaks to the wide-ranging needs of our economy and society. I will make some broad remarks on the Government's fiscal position and spending and use the rest of my speech to outline four priorities that I believe are critical for Singapore's future.

As many have observed, what stood out in this year's Budget Statement is the sizeable surplus that the Government is expecting for FY2025, and the positive fiscal outlook in FY2026 and beyond. Looking around the world today, a strong fiscal position is both rare and enviable. Fiscal strength allows for policy optionality and gives confidence that the Government has the resources to carry out its policy agenda.

As a public policy academic, I often speak to visiting delegations of public officials from other countries. Many are eager to learn how Singapore has accumulated reserves and achieved such a healthy fiscal position, and they want to learn how their countries too can strengthen the public finances.

However, the accumulation of our reserves was more or less unique to our circumstances, enabled by a confluence of historical factors as Singapore successfully rode the early wave of globalisation. This is not easily replicable by other countries today, nor can the Singapore Government expect to run large surpluses every year as spending needs grow.

The question then is how the Government can best deploy the fiscal resources at its disposal today. Should the Government set them aside for a rainy day by replenishing the reserves, earning financial returns in anticipation of future spending needs and exigencies, or should we invest in our earning capacity – in infrastructure capabilities and human capital? Or should we strengthen social support dealing with the challenges we face here and now, which is so important for a sense of assurance and solidarity as a nation?

We must, of course, do all these. The question is one of balance and I think there is a judicious mix of each in this year's Budget, which will allow us to address immediate challenges while positioning Singapore well for the future.

Singapore is doing fairly well as a nation. As an optimist, I am inclined to see the glass is half full rather than half empty. One could even say that for Singapore, the glass is more than half full. But even if the glass is, say, three quarters full, we cannot be complacent as the shortfall represents Singaporeans who are struggling or insecure. Gaps matter even in a nation that is doing well overall because social cohesion depends not on averages but on those at the margins.

What we do to support fellow citizens could determine whether we remain a cohesive society or become one that is divided along socio-economic lines. As a nation, we need to address the gaps with boldness and urgency, and the willingness to transcend existing policy paradigms, because of the scale of the challenges we face, spanning the costs of living, wealth disparities, workforce disruption and population ageing.

I will touch on four areas I think need our attention and resources. They form the acronym "FEAT" – "F" for future readiness, "E" for empowerment, "A" for assurance and "T" for togetherness. These priorities are mutually reinforcing. Future readiness creates opportunities. Empowerment enables Singaporeans to seize these opportunities. Assurance provides the confidence to navigate change and Togetherness sustains the trust that underpins our shared progress.

Let me begin with future readiness.

This year's Budget focuses on frontier technologies, notably how Singapore can build a competitive, AI-enabled economy. We are strengthening our security against new threats, expanding our infrastructure capacity ahead of time and building capabilities in areas such as nuclear energy, to give us more options.

In an uncertain world, adaptation matters more than prediction. This is important, not just at the national level but also for organisations and individuals. I am glad that firms will receive support to use AI to transform their business through the new Champions of AI programme and will also be able to tap the enhanced Enterprise Innovation Scheme and the PSG. I look forward to more details of these schemes.

How firms rework business processes will be critical, whether they use AI to augment or to replace human contribution. There is a need to support firms in building capabilities for human-centric job redesign. Fundamentally, too, we will need to redesign jobs so that the jobs in demand are also the jobs that Singaporeans aspire to do. I will elaborate on this at the MOM COS debate.

Ultimately, preparing for the future is an individual responsibility as well. It requires a growth mindset. We are not defined by our Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) score or "O" level grades, but by our willingness to learn throughout life.

Last year, I took part in an SG60 commemorative book project entitled "Redefining Singapore". One of the contributors to the book, Mr Mohammad Saleem, overcame a troubled youth to become the founder of a social enterprise that provides life coaching. Drawing on his own life experiences, Mr Saleem contributed one of the best chapters of the book. It was deeply inspiring and beautifully written. In both his writing and speaking, Mr Saleem stands out, even among the many eminent contributors to the book. His life story is a testament to the potential that is in each of us and how far we can go if we keep learning and improving ourselves.

The second priority I would like to highlight is to empower Singaporeans to pursue excellence. Singapore is where it is today because generations of Singaporeans gave of their best, pursuing excellence in what they did. While we are more comfortable and affluent today, we cannot afford to lose this drive for excellence and, along with it, our society's dynamism and verve. Affluence does not mean we grow soft as a people. Instead, we should think of our resources as an enabler, a springboard to greater achievement.

I am not referring to excellence that is narrowly defined, nor am I asserting that the pursuit of excellence should be at the expense of physical or mental well-being. In fact, our society ought to have a place for some who run faster and others who prefer a slower pace, recognising that people at different stages of life and career will have different priorities.

But as a society, we need a critical mass of highly motivated people with the hunger and drive to succeed. This is not about hyper-competition but about setting high standards for ourselves, not being satisfied with the status quo but pushing the boundaries of possibility, often through collaboration with others.

I know a teenager who constantly challenges his own limits, whether it is learning mathematics, programming, playing music or learning to juggle. Whenever he has mastered something, he was always on to the next target. His intrinsic motivation stems from curiosity, challenge and purpose, rather than extrinsic rewards. I hope this kind of spirit will be pervasive among our youths. We must encourage and empower Singaporeans to be the best each of us can be, whether in creative, sporting or academic pursuits, or in serving the community.

In sharing about Singapore's social policy with visitors, I often describe Singapore as a social investment state, where social policy is geared towards education and skills development to enable people to earn a good living. This includes significant investment in our national schools and preschools, as well as in lifelong learning.

Despite these efforts, we know the playing field is not level. Children from affluent families have access to private tuition and enrichment programmes spanning both academic and non-academic domains. The question is whether, as a society, we can provide even more resources and opportunities for children from lower-income or disadvantaged households. The idea is not to fuel an education arms race, but to expand equitable access to programmes that are truly helpful in nurturing passion and potential.

One possibility is to liberalise the use of Edusave to cover high-quality, non-school-based enrichment activities. To narrow the opportunity gap, the Government could provide children from lower-income families with additional support via the Child Development or Edusave accounts – in other words, make Government contributions to these accounts progressive. Donors could also be encouraged to top up the accounts of less well-off children identified by schools or community organisations with matching funding from the Government in the spirit of a "we first" society.

It is important to provide opportunities, not just during the schooling years, but also into working life and it is not just the Government's responsibility. I know the chief executive officer of a private equity firm who, instead of only hiring top graduates from brand name universities, makes it a point to give opportunities to those from modest family backgrounds and less well-known institutions. A number of those he has recruited and mentored have gone on to become successful investment professionals. Their success illustrates how opportunity, mentoring and the willingness to look beyond credentials can unlock potential that might otherwise remain untapped.

Empowerment enables social mobility and is vital for a fair society. There is also tremendous benefit to society when more have the opportunity to fully realise their potential.

Next, I will talk about strengthening assurance and social inclusion. Singapore is an expensive city, but it must never become an excluding one. The cost of living will always be high because land is scarce and incomes generally high. Prices are high because of supply and demand. Many shops and eateries set prices according to what most Singaporeans can afford. We must therefore ensure that those who are less well-off are not excluded from mainstream life in Singapore, for instance, by having to forgo social gatherings because they feel they cannot afford to pay for a meal or a shared activity.

The past two decades have seen many groundbreaking policy innovations to strengthen social support and assurance, but we must go further because there is still an assurance gap for many Singaporeans. The aim must be for citizens to feel a greater sense of financial assurance. This is necessary for our social compact, so that we can face challenges together with confidence. It is also a pre-requisite for public support for Singapore to remain an open economy.

There are many ways to strengthen assurance and support, but each comes with trade-offs. If the Government holds down prices or rents, this may distort price signals and reduce market efficiency. If the Government mandates high wage floors, this may raise business costs and crimp employment. The Government could provide more direct support to the less well-off via social transfers, but this would incur fiscal costs and may affect incentives to work.

This is not to suggest that we do nothing but rather to highlight that strengthening assurance inevitably involves trade-offs. Greater support may entail fiscal costs or modest efficiency losses but the society that provides confidence and dignity to its citizens is ultimately more resilient and cohesive.

I have three suggestions for social policy.

The first is to reframe or reposition CDC vouchers. Singaporeans are, by now, very familiar with CDC vouchers, which we have received yearly since 2021. If I am not wrong, the value of CDC vouchers, SG60 vouchers and LifeSG credits announced in last year's Budget amounted to over $3 billion. However, the vouchers also appear to some as mere band aid for the cost of living, something that is neither sustainable nor targeted.

I take a different view. I see a useful role for vouchers and credits in our social support system, complementing structural or permanent transfers, such as the Workfare Income Supplement, Silver Support Scheme, the GST voucher, along with healthcare and housing subsidies. The advantage of vouchers is that they can be sized according to needs. For instance, more can be given when inflation is high and cost of living pressures are elevated, and when more fiscal resources are available, I believe that with a reframing, the role of the vouchers would be better appreciated by Singaporeans as a form of support that is anchored in the shared ownership of Singapore's success. The vouchers and credits could be repositioned as a social dividend, an annual sum given to citizens that signifies that they have a stake in the country and its collective wealth.

The Government can determine the size of the dividend it declares each year, depending on prevailing fiscal and economic conditions. The dividend should be universal and progressive, meaning that everyone receives something, while the less well-off receive more. A social dividend would be a form of social support that compliments the structural transfers, is flexible in size and sends a clear message of solidarity and inclusion. This reframing would shift the narrative from short-term relief to shared participation and in national progress.

The second suggestion is to give low-income households part of the social dividend in income-generating assets and securities, beyond just cash and vouchers. The Government has already adopted various forms of asset-based social policy. These include the CPF system to build up savings, the home ownership policy that has given most Singaporeans valuable housing equity and periodic CPF top-ups for those with less retirement savings.

The Government could consider broadening the types of transfers to include income-generating assets, such as mutual funds. This could be designed so that recipients would not be allowed to sell these assets within a certain vesting period and can earn a stream of income from them over time. Asset-based transfers can strengthen financial resilience and foster a shift in mindset, from short-term spending to long-term wealth building and stewardship. Provided they are carefully designed to manage market risk and complexity, such measures offer a complementary pathway to narrow wealth gaps and broaden participation in asset ownership.

Third, we need a sharper focus on affordability as a policy objective vital to social inclusion. There are already affordability indicators for public housing, such as the ratio of new flat prices to incomes; and for healthcare, the share of out-of-pocket expenditure in total health spending. We could likewise track the percentage of households whose expenditure on food, utilities and other essential goods and services exceeds a certain proportion of their income.

Publishing a concise set of indicators covering housing, healthcare and essential consumption would deepen public understanding of cost pressures, and support evidence-based adjustments when needed. It is particularly important that low-income Singaporeans have sufficient consumption choices, so that they can participate fully in society. It is worth thinking about how this, too, can be tracked as an indicator of how inclusive our society is.

Finally, the "T" in "FEAT" stands for togetherness. This, I believe, will be the single most important determinants of Singapore's future. Togetherness is not merely a sentiment, but the culture and practice of respect, trust and shared responsibility within society.

As a small nation at a time of geopolitical flux, we cannot afford to be divided along partisan lines, ideology or any other societal fault lines. Often, such division starts with disrespect and then progress to denigrating those whose views or practices are different from ours. And very soon, people cannot work with one another on the basis of ideology, politics or worldview, and once the genie is out of the bottle, it is very hard to put it back in.

If Singapore gets mired in partisan battles or culture wars like what we observe in other countries, we could win our individual battles but lose the war. Our fiercest fights would be with one another rather than against external threats.

Suppose in a hypothetical country, two-thirds of the population support a party or ideology and one-third support a rival, and suppose in the extreme, the two sides spend all the time and resources trying to negate the efforts of the other side. The net strength of this hypothetical country would be two-thirds minus one-third, but if the country is united, then it is two-thirds plus one-third, or perhaps even more than the sum of its parts.

As Singaporeans, we must recognise and affirm that there is more that we have in common than what divides us. We must do everything we can to nurture a strong middle ground of citizens who are fair-minded and respectful towards one another, a middle ground that is not reflexive, but reflective in our approach to affairs in the public square.

Particularly at this time of severe geopolitical turbulence, Singaporeans must close ranks if we are to survive and prosper, and not be swept away by external tides. If we succeed in doing so, we will truly be an exceptional society. And this, I believe, would be the greatest competitive advantage for Singapore in a world of deeply divided societies.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, a budget reflects the values and priorities of a society. Ultimately, what matters most is how we care for the vulnerable among us, how we relate to people whose views are different from ours and how we equip future generations with confidence and opportunity. Success will depend not only on policies and spending, but on the collective actions of citizens and stakeholders. It is up to each of us, as Singaporeans, to exercise agency and influence to help mould our shared future.

If together, we can achieve the FEAT of future readiness, empowerment, assurance and togetherness, I believe Singapore will continue to flourish as a resilient, cohesive and exceptional nation. In my view, this Budget is a step forward in this direction, though we have much further to go. For this reason, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr David Hoe.

Mr Speaker, I am speaking in support of Budget 2026 because it strengthens assurance for Singaporeans and also invest in our future.

In this response, I will cover broadly on three issues. The first is on the perceived support to parenthood; second, is on closing the opportunities gap; and third, it is a whole-of-Government approach in how we can tackle the first two issues that I have just mentioned.

First, if we are serious about encouraging parenthood, we must reshape the lived experiences of parents or potential parents, which shapes perceptions of support given. To be clear, Budget 2026 takes meaningful steps in the right direction, such as Child LifeSG Credits, raising of income thresholds for preschool subsidies and student care support, and others.

All these follow comprehensive steps taken over the past few years to support parents and families, including significant enhancements to parental leave, the Large Families Scheme and many others. But we have to be candid at where we now stand. Our TFR in 2024 remains at a historical low of 0.97. While we all hope that the Government's efforts over the past years would have improved our TFR, in my conversations with parents and also my residents, the current realities makes me doubtful whether this could significantly change in 2026.

My point here is this: we have done a lot to encourage Singaporeans to have children for the past decade. But with the historical low of 0.97, it suggests to me that we may not have been effective in shifting the needle. I propose the shift from doing "more" in an aggregate manner to doing "better". Allow me to propose some solutions regarding on how we can overcome such barriers and constraints, drawing from the conversations with young parents and also my resident.

I will cluster them into three "S" – first, spaces; second, stress; and third, support.

The first "S" pertains to space and housing. Singapore is land scarce and we have to use space efficiently. Over time, HDB flats have become more compact and this is part of our reality today. But if we are serious about encouraging parents to have children and supporting large families, we should make it easier for families planning to have children or more children to secure homes that are conducively sized for them.

You see, if we want couples to start thinking about children early, the flats that they choose can influence their decision. One idea is they can select a "room to grow" flat, where it mimics a larger format of HDB units, in what I may call "jumbo BTO flats", and these are thoughtfully designed for modern family needs where some of our families rely on domestic helpers.

For example, such flats could include layouts with extra bedroom separate from the main living quarters that can accommodate domestic helpers and better soundproofing so that children can play, sleep or study without the entire household being disrupted.

If I were to push this idea slightly further, such flats could be priced similar to smaller-sized units through additional subsidies, but with clear conditions. For example, eligibility to apply for such units could be linked to couples committing to have two or more children within the first five to seven years of Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) after key collection. If they do not meet such conditions, then there should be a clear and fair "down-sizing" pathways with subsidy clawbacks. Let me be clear here – we should be reasonable in exceptions, for example, if medical, fertility or relationship issues arises.

I will be frank here, I do not think that we have really tried a "bigger home for bigger families" housing scheme that ties bigger flats and extra subsidies to having more children, so I think that the idea needs to be tested. I think it is worth studying this idea. At least, it addresses the concern of adequate space if a family is considering having more children and will certainly give them a good nudge in their decision-making before they get married.

A second idea is to give families more flexibility to upgrade their larger flats when a new child arrives and relax the existing rules on flat applications within MOP.

I am sure many of us, as MPs, have received such requests and what I am about to share is not uncommon. Basically, some families already live in smaller HDB flats, and they find that space becomes too tight after having their second or third child. In such a case, we should consider activating more flexible pathways for them to move to larger flats. For instance, reducing or suspending MOP if couples are expecting or have additional children during that period; and even concurrently "resetting" their eligibility to apply for larger BTOs and for them to accord higher priority in the application process.

Of course, these details should be thoroughly considered and debated, but the broader point is this: we should be prepared to use policy design to signal that we are ready and willing to reduce the structural and financial hoops for families to jump if they want to secure bigger and more comfortable living spaces, if they want to raise more children.

The second "S" pertains to mobility and commuting stress. We rightly pursue a car-lite vision, and as a member of the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) GPC, I support this as it certainly goes a long way in reducing our collective carbon footprint. But families are not abstract units. They navigate daily routines and logistics and arrangements. For larger families, private mobility has economies of scale and can reduce stress.

On economies of scale, this is especially so when larger families have to send multiple children to childcare and school each day, and they would like to spare their household from waking up early just to catch public transport.

As a father to two, I know this reality myself, because every time I bring my children out, it is not just "bringing my children out", it is bringing out a stroller, a bag with diapers, milk, spare clothes, wet wipes, snacks and things that I would only realise what to bring after a spill, an accident, a tantrum or a sudden fever.

When you do this while navigating public transport, every transfer is a stress multiplier. So against this backdrop, we should consider how we can support families with children to address these realities by providing commuting offsets, such as, another idea, private transport vouchers or even substantial family subsidies for large families for private vehicles.

Let me move to the third "S", which is on support. During my PAP Clementi market visit on Valentine's Day, a parent pulled me aside to raise a concern, which I have heard repeatedly from many parents – childcare leave. If one person raises this issue, to me, it is a data point. But when different parents raise the same issue independently, it is a signal.

The parent's concern is straightforward. Today, parents get six days of paid childcare leave, per child, when their child is six years old or younger, but only two days of extended childcare leave when the child is between seven to twelve.

This is how it looks like in real life today, primary school children still fall sick and it is rarely a one-day occasion, and they still have medical appointments to go to, and there can be occasional school disruptions such as Home-Based Learning. And for parents with two children or more, the odds of staying home at short notice is actually quite likely. When leave runs out, that same parent told me, she has to take unpaid leave a few times.

Our current support environment for parents, hence, may not feel supportive. It then raises a fair question whether the current structure remains fit for purpose. The principle is this: we should keep childcare leave provisions under periodic review, answering the question whether they match the current work and family realities today. For example, instead of a sharp step-down in leave provisions once a child turns seven, we could keep the overall number of childcare leave capped at six days per parent, but allow families to use this portion of their leave flexibly across a wider age band or redesigning the entitlement so it tapers off gradually, instead of a sharp drop, from seven to two. We should also study whether parents with more children should have a modestly higher cap.

Another aspect of support is accessibility to play. We often say this: we do not want our children glued to their phones and I agree. But in many new BTO estates, the alternatives are limited or not age-appropriate for older children. If we want parents to feel supported, then our living environment must make it easy for children to burn their energy safely and meaningfully.

This is where agencies can work together to convert unutilised spaces, such as multi-storey car parks, into sheltered play and sports areas.

Mr Speaker, I have raised this question through a Parliamentary Question before, and my fellow Member Mr Ng Chee Meng also asked the same thing for his residents. I am glad that the Government's position has shifted from just simply stating constraints to saying that it is now being studied.

But you see, families need clarity. I still get occasional queries from parents of primary school-going children in Clementi Peaks and I cannot keep tell them that the Government is still studying, because they want to know a definite timeline. So, I urge relevant agencies to share the outcome and timeline of this study soon.

On this note, I also want to say that I welcome the expansion of the Dual-Use Scheme so that families can access school facilities conveniently. But just as importantly, we should review pricing and access rules so that these spaces do not just become "available in theory" but out of reach in practice for lower-income households.

Mr Speaker, I raise these parenthood points because they connect directly to my next point about opportunity.

The release of MOF's Occasional Paper noted that incomes have risen and income inequality has moderated. These are important achievements. But I worry something that is not said explicitly: even if incomes rise, is the opportunity gap widening and is access to opportunities becoming harder? Because many opportunities today cost money, time and prior knowledge of their existence. Families with more resources can buy enrichment, exposure and networks.

As we, as a country, continue to invest in growth and skills, we must keep our promise of social mobility alive. Specifically, I will address two "As" here – awareness of opportunities and access to opportunities.

Let me first touch on the awareness of opportunities. As we push into new growth areas and an AI-enabled economy, the first barrier, in my opinion, is not about capability; but it is about clarity. In emerging industries, such as AI, quantum, advanced manufacturing and biomedical sciences, many people opt out early simply because they lack exposure. They do not know what the work actually looks like, what the entry routes are, what are the pathways or what skills are really required there.

But those with stronger networks can ask someone, get an introduction and hear early about internships or externships. And those without networks often find out late or, maybe, not at all.

Put simply: awareness is uneven and it can become a hidden advantage. So, beyond simply just redesigning a website, we should treat awareness as a policy lever. I hope the new statutory board of the merger between WSG and SSG will reach out to students and workers without strong industry networks.

I will elaborate more on this during the COS debates.

The second "A" refers to access to opportunities. I have said in my maiden speech that aspirations are shaped by experience, and experiences are shaped by access. That is why, previously, I have mentioned the idea of a means-tested "Curiosity Credits," which is a simple idea that regardless of any family background, every child should have the budget to be able to allow them to discover their interests and strengths by having the opportunity to try things, like songwriting, playing a musical instrument, robotics, sports – and the list goes on. Because today, such experiences come with a price tag.

Higher family incomes can pay, and families with stronger networks hear about opportunities earlier and get better guidance on what to try. Lower-income families often cannot.

Before and since raising this idea, I have seen smaller-scale pilots illustrating how this can work, especially for children from lower-income households. The principle is straightforward: access to discovery should not be a privilege but it should be part of how we keep social mobility alive and real.

Beyond children and our growing years, allow me to segue into SkillsFuture too. We should also have this "try before you buy" a bigger part of our opportunity system. SkillsFuture can consider creating a low-cost or subsidised "taster" lessons or courses and micro-attachments in new industries, so Singaporeans can experience the nature of the work before committing time and money into a full course.

At this point, I just want to take a step back and submit that we should, as a country, continue to be anchored in meritocracy. But we also must be hard-nosed in recognising that meritocracy, over time, may also accumulate and compound advantages across generations. That is why we should be open to bolder measures and widen genuine access at formative stages, especially throughout education, which I will expand a bit more on this in the COS debates.

Mr Speaker, I want to conclude that the need for whole-of-Government approach to tackle the issues that I have mentioned earlier – parenthood and inequality are wicked challenges. The solution does not sit nicely in one agency, neither does the outcome rarely take the form of a voucher or a subsidy.

Taken in isolation, let me submit to everyone that many ideas that I just raised today run against the Ministry's baseline mandate. Because transport agencies will rightly push for a car-lite vision; housing agencies will manage land scarcity and affordability; and fiscal agencies will rightly guard anything against these benefits becoming permanent.

That is why we need a whole-of-Government approach only when there is a central agency that sets an overarching objective, deliberate trade-offs, compel design and serve system-wide goals. I make this point because it links back to family and opportunities. When system runs coherently, residents experience less friction.

Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 reflects a continued commitment of supporting families and investing in our children, and I welcome the concrete measures to strengthen affordability and support families with greater needs. But the trends we face, especially on fertility and the risk of widening opportunity gaps, I ask for something more: a sharper willingness to reshape lived experience through whole-of-Government approach, not just in flagship policies, but also in the everyday systems that determines friction, time and stress in residents' lives. I support the Budget.

Dr Neo Kok Beng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that I am a technology entrepreneur and I have a studio that creates and invest in technology-based venture, such as engineering, aerospace and medical devices. My speech today is going to focus on three main areas.

The first area is a vibrant economy; followed by an active caring society; followed by the last topic, which is a resilient nation.

On to vibrant economy. Singapore transformed itself from the third world to the first world over the last 60 years, from a labour-intensive industry to a very much technology-intensive economy. How did we do it? What is the secret recipe? What are the systems of governance that enabled us to do so? Those are questions eagerly sought by participants of the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy class, while I was associate faculty at the Harvard Kennedy School. Those answers probably will not be able or to solve our current economic situation going forward as we have entered into more advanced technology, more pioneering efforts and therefore, we probably have to switch our strategy, change our secret sauces or what is the new formula?

I was in conversation with Dr Paul Romer, who is the former World Bank chief economist and also the Nobel Laureate for Economics 2018. Romer is well known for his endogenous growth theory, otherwise known as the new growth theory. That probably points a good direction for us. The endogenous growth theory, conceptually, is very simple – matters over things. What are matters? Simply, they can be just factors of production – land, labour and capital.

Land, labour and capital have their limits. The more you use the land, it suffers from the loss of diminishing returns. It has scarcity. So, if we pursued these areas, how much land reclamation can we do, how many foreign labours can we import into this country – so there is always a limit, so that is matters.

Now things – matters and things are the same – but ideas are very different. Ideas are ingenuity created by human beings. So, ideas generally can be classified as intellectual properties (IPs). So, patents, you came out with ideas, you filed a patent, what happens? You can reuse, reuse and reuse it again. There is abundance against scarcity. The more you use the patents, the more you generate production, the higher the productivity and therefore, it is not the law of diminishing returns. It is actually the law of increasing returns.

If we go along this formula, or this road, then, possibly, the GDP growth will be limitless or unlimited. Of course, subject to Utopia constraints.

So, where are we now? Singapore rolled out its five-yearly science and technology plans from 1991 to 2010, spending about $25 billion over the years to build up our R&D capabilities, infrastructure and manpower. This year, 2026 to 2030, or what we call the RIE 2030, is allocated $37 billion.

This is actually a very far-sighted move, because we have to move ourselves from research to innovation and enterprise.

With this amount of money that spans over the last 15 years, what have we achieved? Well, it is not easy to measure because R&D is uncertain and of course, if you are doing biomedical applications, it could be 20 years or 30 years before you see any results. However, a simpler way to analyse this situation is to use the Global Innovation Index conducted by the World Intellectual Property Office. We use it as a reference – Global Innovation Index ranking. For Singapore, what is our ranking in 2025? We are ranked number five and that sounds very good, right? Well, the ranking has two parts. Innovation input and innovation output. So, innovation input is on infrastructure, the Government actions, especially the R&D dollars. We are number one. Okay, we pat ourselves on that. We really invest in R&D. But innovation output – which is the licensings, the trademarks and all the other IPs that we file for commercialisation, we are number nine.

Innovation input number one; innovation output number nine. Is it really equitable? Are we, after 15 years or 20 years of R&D, still ranked number nine, which is not comparable with the amount of innovation input, or R&D dollars, we put into it.

So, how do we measure the commercialisations of IPs? Firstly, what is the research and R&D intensity? How many IPs have we generated based on the R&D dollars? Secondly, how many such patents or trademarks or copyrights are commercialised within the last five years? That could be a factor for us to judge.

Remember, patents are perishable goods. A patent only has a 20-year lifetime and from the date of filing. So, if we file today, it does not mean we have the rights of it until that is awarded which is two years down the road, but the clock starts counting. So, we should quickly get it into the market or commercialise it. If after five years, that piece of patent is not commercialised, it is probably going to be obsolete very soon. And if it is obsoleted, then what is the point of filing the patent in the first place because patent is really, really expensive.

So, maybe we could consider that if, given a number of "X" years, if the patent is not filed or commercialised by our research institutes or universities, we might want to consider treating it as a public good and licence to any Singaporean companies or Singaporean individuals who want to use the patent for any other innovation purposes, free.

Let me move on to another topic – which is how to grow and anchor technology ventures in Singapore. The National University of Singapore started technology commercialisation in the year 2000, when I was an adjunct faculty. And in 2019, we started the Graduate Research Innovation Programme (GRIP). I designed the programme for the teaching part and I was a chief instructor. I am glad that it has progressed to become the National GRIP. I am no more the teacher.

During the first phase, we had churned out a lot of companies, about 250 of them. I can observe that they are good firms, they have lots of support through the Singapore tech ecosystems. So, the seeding and angel funding are not an issue. The issue then is how we bring them to commercialisation or early commercialisation, because there is a mismatch of expectations. Why? When you move on from the seeding stage to pre-commercialisation or the pilot stage, you need more funding and the funding has to come from the venture capital market. And the venture capitalists are looking at returns at maybe three years down the road and if there is no liquidity event, then they will just hold on. And now, you have a mismatch: one is moving and needs money; one is waiting to see. So, it is a chicken and egg issue.

So, how do we resolve this issue? I think that the recent example might point us a way. MetaOptics skipped Series A funding and goes directly to an initial public offering (IPO) on Catalist. And the Minister of State Dinesh was there to witness, with the gong.

So, we use this as a reference or the pilot point for us to say, "Hey, why not we create a special path for technology ventures?" Special listing rules for technology ventures that allow them, with criteria listed by the exchange, the sponsors and maybe a group of wise old men, meaning people who have done technology ventures before, to determine whether they are suitable for such acceleration programme, fast track, or we can call it, in Singapore style, through-train.

On Catalist, this is something that it is possible for us to explore and make these companies anchor in Singapore. Because if they grow to a point that they are ready for IPO, what would they choose? Catalist? No, likely overseas, where the market capitalisations or the valuation is much higher. So, this is something that we really have to grapple with and anchor them early in Singapore.

If you look at the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, the HKEX already has a special pathway for specialist technology companies, but this is of a bigger scale. I am proposing that we have an innovation within our Catalist for smaller market valuation companies.

Let me move on to a caring society. I am very saddened whenever I read in The Straits Times that seniors die in their homes and nobody knows about it. It was reported in The Straits Times that 33 seniors died alone in 2025, undetected. I am a kampong boy. I grew up not in a zinc roof house. I lived and grew up in an attap roof house. I think in our so-called categorisation of HDB, it would probably be a three-room for attap roof, and then zinc roof is a five-room.

We knew all our neighbours. We walked into our neighbour's house and slept on the floor – there is no couch – anytime we want. That is the kampong spirit of understanding and looking after each other. We have talked so much about kampong spirit. We have block parties. Did we really actually achieved the type of kampong spirit?

So, block parties – you live on the 14th floor, I live on the third floor. Are we that close? The closest people are the persons living here and there – your neighbours, your immediate neighbours, who can look after you if they really understand you. I do not really have a solution for this because times are different. Maybe we should have, instead of block parties, potluck among the three neighbours together to understand each other, to know each other and to take care of each other and to actively look out for each other. Not just care for each other but actively caring for each other. How to do it? I do not have a solution, but maybe a CDC voucher can help to let them have some potluck together among the three families, next to each other.

One topic that I am personally involved in is fostering. And we are very sad, very concerned in our fostering community over the Megan Khung case. My colleague here was the chair of the investigation committee.

In late 2024, we have 600 foster families and currently, in my house I have three foster kids. These 600 foster families support more than 500 children. It is actually not sufficient. But we think that there should be more plans, more awareness activities, more incentives to encourage more people to become foster parents. How are we going to do it? I think I will explain later in the COS.

One of my colleagues mentioned that the Singapore TFR has dropped to 0.97. What does it mean? It means that our population will halve in 30 years' time, that is what it means. And therefore, it is an existential issue. We know all the problems – we basically do not have enough space, marry late, have a career and all the kinds of issues.

I want to give a proposal: it is that for existing families who do not have kids, should we nudge them a little bit more? How to nudge them? Maybe we should consider for the first-born, we have free childcare and infant care. Because for the rest, we already have existing systems of subsidies and also the Baby Bonus. But to nudge them on to having the first kid, when you have the first kid, then the joy of parenting and the confidence of bringing them up all comes into picture. And when you have your first kid, then when you see them grow up, you will look at them and then say, "Oh, maybe we should have another one to keep him or her company."

So, let us try out something that shifts the point of TFR a little bit – not to two, not to 1.5, but maybe bring it above one. Mr Speaker, that is what I would like to comment on today and I support the Motion.

Ms Gho Sze Kee.

Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Speaker, earlier this year, Parliament recognised chess as a sport in Singapore. Chess rewards foresight and discipline. It punishes hesitation.

Budget 2026 reflects that mindset. It is not a defensive Budget. It is a positioning Budget.

Let us first acknowledge the board we are playing on. Externally, the world economy is becoming more fragmented and less predictable. Tariff shocks, supply chain re-routing and geopolitical alignment pressures are shortening planning processes and horizons for businesses.

At home, Singapore's total fertility rate remains around 0.97, our median age exceeds 42, labour force growth will slow structurally over the coming decade. At the same time, remuneration per worker rose by about 3.4%, with wage growth outpacing productivity in several labour-intensive domestic sectors.

Budget 2026 recognises these shifts. The business community welcome the measures to mitigate rising business costs – including the 40% Corporate Income Tax rebate, expanded internationalisation support, enhanced enterprise financing and the expansion of the PSG.

The direction is correct. But execution at scale will determine whether this repositioning succeeds.

Take productivity. Budget 2026 elevates AI as a national priority to boost productivity. The Prime Minister will chair a new National AI Council to drive the agenda, and specific sectors have been identified for coordinated AI transformation. This sectoral focus is appropriate. But enabling transformation for SMEs will be the real test. Most SMEs do not lack awareness. They lack integration capacity.

AI implementation is expensive – not just software, but data restructuring, cybersecurity, workforce redesign, up-skilling costs of workers and managerial capability. Big firms have both the talent and financial muscle to spread this fixed cost. SMEs often cannot – if transformation succeeds, gains are gradual; if it fails, losses are immediate.

Through the Champions of AI programme, expanded Enterprise Innovation Scheme (EIS) for AI expenditure and broader PSG support, Budget 2026 seeks to change the risk equation. That is welcome.

But execution hinges also on clarity. The definition of "qualifying AI expenditure" must be unambiguous. If not, SMEs will misjudge eligibility, misallocate resources and struggle to justify bundled AI costs embedded in broader systems. Without precision, we risk entrenching a two-speed economy – where large firms execute full transformation while SMEs are left with isolated tools and superficial adoption.

In sectors, such as logistics, F&B, facilities management and manufacturing, robotics may deliver more immediate productivity gains than abstract AI tools. The rapid deployment of advanced robotics and humanoid systems in China is already reshaping production economics.

However, the cost equation is misaligned. Robotics requires high upfront capital and long payback periods, while labour remains the cheaper short-term substitute. As long as that remains true, firms will default to hiring than automating.

If we want AI and robotics to meaningfully raise productivity and preserve competitiveness, the investment signal must decisively shift behaviour at scale. That suggests a different incentive logic – one that first reduces risk at the point of adoption, and then rewards firms that deliver measurable productivity gains.

In practical terms, that could include accelerated capital allowances for robotics to improve early-stage cashflow, green-linked automation incentives where AI deployment also reduces energy intensity, and co-investment platforms or shared automation hubs to lower entry barriers for SMEs.

Can the Government, therefore, consider layering outcome-linked incentives on top of entry support? Where firms demonstrate sustained productivity improvements – whether through higher output per worker, value-add per employee or reduced energy intensity – enhanced rebates or credits, potentially up to 90% of qualifying outlay, could reinforce genuine transformation.

But technology is only half the equation. Management capability is the multiplier. Without structured managerial uplift, AI support will concentrate in already capable firms and widen the competitive gap.

Can the Government consider working with the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and other trade associations to strengthen sector-specific management upgrading programmes tied directly to AI integration, job redesign and workforce planning? If we professionalise transformation management, adoption will become more even and less risky.

I now turn to manpower and labour. Recent increases in qualifying salary thresholds and adjustments to Local Qualifying Salary reflect a legitimate objective: strengthening the Singaporean core and reinforcing the social compact. Businesses understand and support that principle. However, in SBF's latest National Business Survey, 63% of firms continue to cite manpower costs as a top challenge.

On the Employment Pass front, higher thresholds raise the cost of specialised expertise, particularly for multinational firms considering Singapore as a regional headquarters (HQ) or Centre of Excellence. Combined with elevated rental and operating costs, this can influence marginal location decisions. We have already seen instances of HQ relocations with downstream job losses, and these signals warrant close attention.

On the S Pass front, domestic sectors, such as F&B and retail operate on thin margins and face immediate pressure. Qualifying salaries are intended to nudge productivity upgrading, but many firms in these sectors have already digitalised and streamlined operations.

In sectors where productivity headroom is structurally limited, further cost escalation leaves little room to adjust. Firms are effectively left with two options: raise prices, affecting consumers and cost of living, or compress operations, reducing service levels and employment scale. That is the economic reality we must acknowledge.

At the same time, there are narratives suggesting future excess manpower in some service sectors. Yet, on the ground, many businesses remain acutely short of workers for operational and frontline roles. Backend productivity gains do not eliminate the need for human service at the front-end.

As such, where productivity headroom is limited and local supply gaps persist, would the Government consider a more granular, sector-calibrated approach, whether through refinement of the Non-Traditional Source Occupation List or conditional flexibility mechanisms tied to demonstrated upgrading efforts?

Mr Speaker, when margin compression becomes structural, firms cannot absorb it indefinitely. If adjustment is delayed until distress becomes acute, closures are sharper and workers more exposed.

Sector-level mapping can identify fragmented industries where consolidation strengthens resilience. Structured advisory support for mergers and joint ventures, as proposed in SBF's Budget recommendations, can help SMEs scale non-organically before financial stress escalates. Strategic consolidation can be treated as repositioning and not failure.

At the same time, worker transitions must remain swift and credible. As structural cost pressures and technological change increase the frequency of adjustment, we should approach procedural changes carefully.

Retrenchment incidence remains below the long-term average and re-entry rates remain relatively strong. Most employers comply with the existing five-day notification requirement. In that context, before introducing additional procedural rigidity, such as mandatory advance retrenchment notification, we should ask whether shorter timelines would materially improve worker outcomes, or whether they may instead constrain firms during critical restructuring periods.

Businesses do not take retrenchment decisions lightly. Most exhaust every option to stabilise operations before acting. The more constructive question is how to enable early and more orderly adjustment.

Confidential early engagement channels could allow firms to signal emerging restructuring risks while recovery efforts are still ongoing, enabling agencies to prepare redeployment support without compromising commercial sensitivity. The objective should be responsible restructuring, preserving business viability while safeguarding workers through timely and effective support.

Mr Speaker, if labour supply is structurally tight, senior employment must be treated as a core component of our labour strategy. The extension of the Senior Employment Credit is welcome. However, wage offsets alone do not address the operational realities employers face. Older workers often require role redesign, modular reskilling and workplace adjustments to remain productive over a longer career horizon. SMEs, in particular, face volatility in medical and insurance costs as their workforce ages. If unmanaged, these uncertainties can become deterrents to hiring and retention.

If we want businesses to employ seniors with confidence, can the Government examine whether pooled insurance mechanisms, calibrated risk-sharing arrangements and structured workplace redesign support can reduce that uncertainty? I had previously suggested that senior and special needs employment be more directly linked to dependency ratio ceiling adjustments. It may also be timely to revisit whether such alignment can better incentivise inclusive workforce participation while maintaining overall labour discipline.

Let me turn to innovation. If Singapore is to move ahead of structural tightening, we cannot rely solely on cost efficiency alone. We must strengthen value creation. That requires accelerating commercialisation of IP, particularly among SMEs. Large firms often have internal R&D pipelines. SMEs do not. We should therefore consider enhancing schemes that embed scientists and research talent directly within SMEs, not only as affordable project-based consultants, but through structured industry attachments that can shorten the path from lab to market.

At the same time, IP financing remains underdeveloped. Many SMEs hold valuable IP but lack access to financing instruments that recognise intangible asset value. There may be merit in strengthening state-backed risk-sharing measures to catalyse IP-backed financing, reducing collateral constraints and encouraging financial institutions to participate more actively in this space.

And finally, internationalisation. If Budget 2026 is a positioning Budget, then internationalisation is one of its most important instruments. The Government has taken important steps: enhanced Market Readiness Assistance support of up to 70% for SMEs, the raised Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation cap to $400,000 and expanded Enterprise Financing Scheme limits materially reduce the financial burden of overseas expansion. For companies prepared to reposition and compete regionally or globally, these measures are helpful.

However, emerging markets across Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America offer growth, but they also carry higher political, regulatory and receivables risk. While existing financing schemes provide access to capital, the binding constraint for many SMEs is working capital resilience in higher-risk markets.

Would the Government therefore consider calibrating risk-sharing mechanisms more explicitly by market risk, for example, enhanced trade credit coverage or working capital guarantees in markets where the opportunity is real, but the uncertainty deters participation?

Scale is the second constraint. Many overseas projects are too large or complex for individual SMEs. Procurement frameworks favour size, track record and integrated capability. If we want our firms to compete meaningfully, we must move beyond supporting individual expansion towards structured collaboration.

Schemes, such as the Market Readiness Assistance and Enterprise Financing schemes, could be adapted to provide explicit incentives for consortium-led bids, enabling firms to "hunt as a pack" and pool complementary strengths to pursue opportunities that no single company could realistically secure alone.

And as firms from Northeast Asia and Europe increasingly view Singapore as a gateway into Southeast Asia, we must ask whether our ecosystem has sufficient regional fluency, multilingual advisory capability, regulatory expertise, deep local partnerships, to anchor these flows here. If we want to capture these investment and trade flows, we must strengthen not just financing, but market intelligence and in-market advisory platforms, working closely with trade associations and chambers.

Mr Speaker, Garry Kasparov, one of the world's greatest Grandmaster of Chess, once said, "The point of modern chess is not to wait for mistakes. It is to force your opponent to make one."

Budget 2026 recognises that Singapore cannot afford to wait, especially in an increasingly uncertain and volatile world. It gives us the tools and sets the direction. But forcing the move forward cannot be done by Government alone. Businesses must invest, not delay. Management must redesign, not defend the past. Workers must upskill and not stand still.

In a structurally tighter Singapore, hesitation is not caution. It is decline. If we take the offensive with discipline and conviction, we will not merely respond to structural change. We will shape it. For these reasons, I support the Budget.

Before I call the next Member, I have an announcement to make.