Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Ms Eileen Chong.

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, today, I would like to explore a question that we deeply care about, from a young person’s perspective: "What does it mean to live well in Singapore?"

This question seems simple, but it is profound. Living well is not just about high income, big houses or rapid economic growth. Living well is more about whether we have time and energy to be with families and whether we have space to explore and grow. Today, I would like to share three indicators for living well.

First, time – a resource that money cannot buy. One of the major focuses of this Budget is AI. I support Singapore in keeping pace with the times and embracing AI. Yet while productivity has improved with the adoption of AI tools at work, workload has increased instead of decreased. International research is beginning to confirm this.

The adoption of AI tools has not only failed to reduce the employees' workload, but made them busier instead. This is because the adoption of AI tools has accelerated the pace of work, expanded their scope of work and lengthened their working hours.

I cite this example, hoping that while we embrace AI, we also do not forget to face the potential risk that AI brings. The risk is not merely that AI eliminates some jobs, but that it leads to job intensification, resulting in workplace burn-out. Singapore may find ourselves in this situation if we pursued AI adoption without relevant guardrails.

I urge the Government and Singaporeans to consider not only how AI can help us improve productivity, but also think about how we can leverage emerging technology like AI to reclaim more time that we can spend with family and friends.

Second, presence – something that cannot be achieved even with time, but without energy.

A topic I often discuss with friends my age and young Tampines residents is that whether to have children. The biggest consideration is rarely money, but whether we will be an exhausted parent who is physically present but emotionally absent.

We all hope to have sufficient time and energy to good parents who can provide our children with high quality companionship. The 2021 Marriage and Parenthood Survey results shows that while over 90% of married Singaporeans want to have two or more children. In reality however, more than half only have one child or none at all.

Mr Speaker, I support the series of measures introduced in this year's Budget to reduce the burden on Singaporean families. At the same time, I also hope the Government will also provide a complementary set of policies, including childcare leave based on number of children, introducing paid caregiving leave and upgrading Flexible Work Arrangements guidelines to enforceable legislation. This will allow more Singaporeans to have time and energy to be with family and friends.

Third, is space for exploration, which complements time and energy. While AI can become a substitute for many things, it cannot replace personal experience and judgement. This is why we should give the younger generation more space to explore and grow, stimulating their imagination and sense of purpose. I suggest further reducing emphasis on examinations, such as by piloting a 10-year through-train programme from primary to secondary school, allowing students to choose whether to take the PSLE. Rather than spending more than a year preparing for written exams, we should focus more on cultivating children's empathy, curiosity, creativity and sense of purpose during the critical adolescent period. It is these difficult to measure qualities that will make young Singaporeans shine in the AI era.

Mr Speaker, I support this year's Budget. Singapore must sail against the currents. If we do not advance, we will fall back. We must continue to develop and maintain our competitiveness.

However, at the same time, I hope that we do not forget that the basis of a prosperous nation is a people who live good lives. Lives where they have time to be with family. Lives where they have energy to grow their families and accompany their children as they grow. Lives where there is space for exploration so each generation can live better than the previous one.

Next, I will share my observations and suggestions in English.

(In English): Speaker, I rise today to offer a complementary perspective as a young millennial Singaporean. For many of us, the question we want an answer to is not whether Singapore is competitive. It is whether Singapore is still a place where we can live well. I wrote this speech in an attempt to answer one question that I believe is core for Singapore, as we chart our next phase: "What does it mean to live well in Singapore?"

In his Budget speech, the Prime Minister spoke of growth, innovation and resilience. These are important, but a good life is not only built on GDP per capita or AI adoption rates. It is built on time – time for the people we love. It is built on presence – the ability to be there for our families and communities. And it is built on space – space for Singaporeans to grow, to explore and to become themselves.

Budget 2026 already speaks extensively to Singapore's competitiveness. So, today, I would like to speak about Singapore's liveability, because for my generation, these are not one and the same thing.

Mr Speaker, let me start with time. A significant portion of the Prime Minister's Budget speech was devoted to AI. Indeed, AI will reshape how we work, how businesses compete and how public services are delivered. I support the ambition to harness AI as a strategic advantage, but I also want to acknowledge something that many Singaporeans feel but few are saying out loud – that AI fatigue is real. It is the feeling that no matter how fast we learn, the ground is always shifting beneath us. It is the worry that tools meant to make us more productive to make our lives easier are actually leaving us with more to do. This is not just anecdotal.

A recent Harvard Business Review article shared the findings from an ongoing study which tracks how generative AI changed work habits at a US-based technology company with more than 200 staff over eight months. The findings were striking. The adoption of AI tools did not reduce workload. They consistently intensified it.

AI accelerated tasks, which raised the expectation for speed, which deepened reliance on AI, which expanded the scope of work, which further increased the density and volume of work for each employee. The researchers warned that what looks like higher productivity in the short run can mask silent workload creep and growing cognitive strains as employees juggle multiple AI-enabled work streams and tasks. Over time, it will become harder to differentiate between genuine productivity gains and unsustainable intensity.

For employees, the cumulative effect is fatigue and burn-out. This matters for Singapore, especially as we call on more Singaporeans to embrace AI at work. The evidence suggests that the risk is not only job displacement, but also job intensification. The risk is not that AI replaces us, though it will replace some jobs, but that it makes us run faster on the same treadmill. AI adoption without guardrails will not give Singaporeans their time back. It may take more of it away.

I urge the Government and all Singaporeans to think about not just how AI can make us more productive, but also about how it can give us our time back. Singapore's average full-time working week stands at nearly 44 hours, not including unpaid overtime work. This is among the highest in a developed world. Sixty-one percent of Singaporean employees report feeling exhausted. Burn-out costs the Singapore economy an estimated $15.7 billion annually in lost productivity.

Mr Speaker, productivity gains do not automatically become human gains. Without deliberate policy choices, they tend to remain employer gains. If AI can automate routine tasks, what comes next should not only be what additional tasks can be added to an employee's plate at work. Perhaps it is that they leave the office on time most days to have dinner with their families and not only on quarterly "Eat With Your Family" day.

Last year, the Prime Minister spoke of building a "we first" society – a society where we look out for each other, volunteer and contribute. I support this vision, but realising it requires something that money cannot buy – time. A "we first" society needs people who have the time and energy to show up for each other – and I hope this will be one of the design goals of our national AI strategy and not an afterthought.

This brings me to presence, which requires both time and energy. I want to share tidbits from conversations with friends, peers and young Tampines residents about growing our families, about having a child or having another one. These conversations rarely begin with money.

They begin with a pause, sometimes a sigh and then almost always a shared concern that we cannot be the parents that we want to be – present, engaged, patient, even after a long day at work – instead of giving in to screen time because we are exhausted and need a moment of peace.

The Government's own data reflects this. The 2021 Marriage and Parenthood Survey shows that over 90% of married Singaporeans want to have two or more children. The reality, however, is that over half of these married Singaporeans had only one or no children. Our TFR has since plunged below one, holding steady at 0.97 since 2023. This gap between aspiration and reality is not a gap in desire. It is a gap in enabling conditions. Young Singaporeans today are not overwhelmed because we do not try hard enough. We are overwhelmed because we are encouraged to get married, to have children, to remain in the workforce, to upskill, to embrace AI, to volunteer and to care for our ageing parents so they can age in place. Yet policies and workplace culture have not fully caught up.

Budget 2026 contains welcome measures for families, ranging from additional child Life SG credits, enhanced preschool subsidies and extended means-testing support. Such financial measures matter and we also need a supplementary set of policies to complement them, focused on giving Singaporeans back the time and energy to actually build a family and parent with presence, patience and joy.

This is why at the upcoming Committee of Supply debate, I will be putting forward proposals on per child childcare leave, paid caregiving leave and having actual enforceable flexible work arrangement policies rather than guidelines. These will help us to better support Singaporean families as they grow and age and hopefully, lead to higher fertility and stronger family outcomes.

And finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to speak about space. I have spoken about time and how the economy consumes it. I have also spoken about presence and how families need it. Now I want to talk about something that connects the two – whether our system leaves ample space for our people, especially our youths, to grow, explore and become themselves.

Let me start with our young. The Budget speaks of the importance of strengthening AI literacy and ensuring that young Singaporeans develop rigorous foundations, so they use AI wisely and not as a shortcut. I agree and would like to ask, what are rigorous foundations in a world where AI can generate code, analyse large datasets and even compose music?

Surely, the competitive advantage is no longer what we know, but who we are – our capacity for empathy; for creativity that comes from lived experience and not pattern recognition; our ability to sit with uncertainty and not be consumed by anxiety; and our willingness to try something difficult, fail and try again.

I welcome the long overdue comprehensive review of our education system. If AI is going to change the nature of work, then surely it must also change what we value in education. And changing what we value, requires changing how we measure. Singaporean families collectively spent $1.8 billion on private tuition in 2023. This is up 64% from a decade ago. This is not parental access. It is a rational response to a system that sorts early and sorts sharply. The PSLE, for all of its merits in maintaining a set of standards, should not be defining a child's sense of self-worth at an age where they should be discovering who they are and what they care about. I am not calling for us to abandon the bell curve.

I am calling for a rethink of how we use it. Rather than competitive grading and sorting, we should use it as a diagnostic tool to track a child's progress over time, identify specific learning needs and celebrate their growth. When access to opportunities is too tightly tied to early academic performance, those of us who take longer to find our footing may find some doors closing before we have even had a chance to knock.

This space in our education system should be complemented by space in our economy. I welcome the Budget's emphasis on lifelong learning.

Lifelong learning for youths of today may also mean lifelong experimentation – the freedom and space to pursue different paths, combine different strengths and to build a working life that reflects who we are and not just what the market demands of us at the present.

Some of our youths are already doing this. They are building portfolio careers, combining roles, projects and pursuits that do not fit neatly into a single job title. This is not a collection of side hustles. It is a reimagining of work that values flexibility, autonomy and personal growth. It reflects the very qualities we say we want in our workforce – adaptability, entrepreneurial thinking and a willingness to take calculated risks.

I look forward to hearing more about the mandate of the new Statutory Board formed by the merger of WSG and SSG. I hope it will build complementary and updated frameworks for career development and ensure labour protection and skill certification to accommodate diverse work arrangements, while safeguarding longer-term income security and career progression.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, I am for growth, I am for staying competitive, I am for the adoption of AI. Singapore must remain economically vibrant, strategically relevant and globally connected.

Budget 2026 is titled "Securing our Future in a Changed World". I support this aspiration and I humbly suggest that securing our future is not only about securing our competitiveness. It is about securing the conditions for a good life; a life of time for the people we love, a life where we can be present for our children, our parents and our communities; a life within our space in our schools, in our workplaces and in our neighbourhoods, for people to grow into who they are meant to become.

For six decades, we have built a culture that equates progress with movement. It has made many of us, including myself, feel guilty when we are still, because if we are not striving, then, surely, we must be falling behind. Perhaps this explains why the Pace of Life project conducted by Prof Richard Wiseman found that we are some of the fastest pedestrians in the world.

Well, sometimes progress is indeed about moving forward, but sometimes, as I have learnt after leaving my first job at 31, progress is about floating, catching our breath, looking around, noticing things that we would have otherwise missed when we are rushing from point A to point B. I believe Singaporeans are ready for a conversation about what we are willing to prioritise to build a Singapore that is both successful and sustainable.

I hope the Government will be brave enough to measure what matters most; to trust Singaporeans with flexibility, with dignity and with a little more space to breathe and to be human. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget with the observations I have made.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.11 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Order. Mr Jackson Lam.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Budget 2026 comes at a time of real change. The world around us is becoming more fragmented, more contested and less predictable. Last year, our economy grew by 5%, which gives us confidence. But this year's projected growth of 2% to 4% reminds us that external headwinds are real and likely to persist.

In this environment, resilience cannot exist only in our fiscal numbers or economic forecasts. It must be felt on the ground, by our seniors, our hawkers and our SMEs. Today, I will focus on these three pillars of grounded resilience.

First, I will touch on our seniors. Singapore's ageing population is no longer something we talk about as a future issue. It is already our present reality. We should celebrate the fact that we are living longer. Longer life expectancy reflects the strength of our healthcare system and our social policies. But living longer must also mean living with security and with purpose. If seniors feel uncertain or anxious about their future, that anxiety does not remain isolated. It affects families and ultimately, it affects society as a whole.

Budget 2026 takes important steps. CPF top-ups and higher contribution rates strengthen retirement adequacy. The Long-Term Care Support Fund reinforces CareShield Life. The Senior Employment Credit and the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment encourage businesses to continue hiring and retaining older workers. All these are meaningful moves. As life expectancy rises, retirement itself is changing. Many seniors today are healthy, experienced and still eager to contribute.

So, the question we should ask ourselves is: are our systems ready for multi-stage careers? We could pilot structured second-career pathways in sectors where labour demand remains strong – healthcare support, community care, logistics coordination, SME administration – these pathways can combine modular training, job redesign and clear placement opportunities for workers aged 55 and above.

Digital skills are another key area. While SkillsFuture is broad-based, some older workers may benefit from shorter, very practical modules directly tied to specific job roles. A clearly identified "Senior Skills Track" could lower psychological barriers and encourage more to step forward.

We should also recognise that information today can feel fragmented. Employment support, CPF matters, healthcare schemes and long-term care arrangements sits across different platforms. A more consolidated, senior-focused interface – even if it is simply a navigational layer – would go a long way in improving clarity and confidence.

Ultimately, supporting seniors is not just about financial adequacy. It is about dignity, contribution and about sustaining inter-generational trust. And that trust strengthens us, especially in uncertain times.

Next, I will touch on our hawkers. When we talk about hawkers, we often speak of heritage and culture, and rightly so. But we must also remember: hawkers are small business owners operating on very tight margins. At the same time, hawker centres are shared community spaces, places where Singaporeans from all walks of life gather.

In a fragmented world, such shared spaces matter even more. Yet, rising rental pressures, volatile input costs and manpower constraints are placing real strain on many stallholders. If costs continue to outpace revenues, the risk is not just about business closures. We risk weakening a layer of our social fabric.

Resilience here means balance. Transparency helps build trust. Publishing periodic rental sustainability indicators, even at an aggregate level, can reassure hawkers and the public that rental frameworks remain aligned with operating realities.

On digitalisation, grants are available, but adoption is not just about funding. It requires practical guidance. Structured advisory support, perhaps expanded through hawker associations, can help stallholders with cost control, inventory management and digital payments, that will improve productivity without losing authenticity.

Succession is another important area. Pairing retiring hawkers with aspiring entrants through structured mentorship and phased handovers could preserve know-how while reducing entry risks for newcomers. Supporting hawkers is not just about economics. It is about preserving everyday infrastructure that holds our communities together.

Next, I will touch on our SMEs. Our SMEs are central to our economy. They create jobs, anchor supply chains and generate domestic value. But today, they face a dual challenge – geopolitical uncertainty and rapid technological change. Budget 2026 strengthens financing schemes, internationalisation support and AI-related incentives. These are necessary steps.

However, for many SMEs, the issue is no longer awareness. Most business owners know AI matters. The real challenge is execution. Where do they begin? How much should they invest? How do they assess the risks?

Resilience in this context requires structured enablement. Sector-specific AI playbooks, developed with trade associations, could provide practical, step-by-step roadmaps tailored to industries such as logistics, retail, professional services and F&B. Shared advisory models within industry clusters could allow SMEs to access transformation expertise without bearing the full cost alone.

We could also streamline grant processes through pre-approved solution bundles for common transformation projects that will reduce friction and speed up adoption. In some cases, SMEs within the same sector could even pool resources to invest in shared AI tools or digital infrastructure – that will achieve scale without overstretching their balance sheets. Global uncertainty should not lead to hesitation. If SMEs upgrade decisively, they strengthen both employment resilience and long-term competitiveness.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, resilience must be layered. For seniors, it means inclusion and participation. For hawkers, it means sustainable viability. For SMEs, it means execution capability. Macroeconomic stability gives us room to act. But societal resilience determines whether that stability lasts.

If we strengthen participation for seniors, sustainability for hawkers and capability for SMEs, we build resilience that is both economic and social. In a changed and uncertain world, that layered strength will determine whether Singapore simply adapts or continues to lead. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget.

Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Prof Kenneth Poon.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation for the measures announced in this year’s Budget. Important steps have been taken to support Singaporeans through ongoing global uncertainties while continuing to invest in our long-term economic resilience and social well-being. I support this Budget and its emphasis on strengthening opportunities, supporting families and enabling Singaporeans at different life stages to progress with confidence. My remarks today are, therefore, offered in the spirit of constructive support.

As we consider the spirit of a “we first” society, it may be useful to examine not only what support is provided but how policy initiatives shape the capacity of Singaporeans to participate meaningfully in shared institutions, such as schools, workplaces and community networks across the life course. Research in human development suggests that positive long-term outcomes are influenced not only by access to programmes, but by the extent to which individuals remain embedded in common social institutions through key transitions in life, such as entry into post-secondary education and employment.

From this perspective, I would like to offer four questions that may serve as a lens for considering how initiatives within this Budget strengthen Singapore’s social foundations over time.

First, does the initiative enable participation in common social life or does it primarily deliver services within specialised settings? While specialised supports are often necessary for competence-building and protection, their long-term effectiveness depends on whether they ultimately scaffold participation in everyday life. The question, therefore, is not whether specialised supports are needed, but how they connect individuals back into common settings over time.

Second, do our institutional arrangements connect people across life domains or do they channel them into separate tracks? Life course research suggests that systems which bridge education, employment, healthcare and family life are more often able to sustain continuity in developmental pathways. In contrast, fragmented or categorised service structures may inadvertently introduce discontinuities that may constrain participation or mobility across transitions.

Third, how is responsibility distributed across society? Many policies provide valuable programmes, but the coordination of care, the navigation of services and the sustaining of participation are often undertaken by families or professionals. An approach that places disproportionate reliance on a single individual increases the likelihood of cumulative strain and, over time, heightens the risk of stress and burn-out. Correspondingly, it is important to consider whether those involved are adequately supported.

Finally, are communities enabled to act as responsible partners with a meaningful voice in shaping the institutions in which they participate in or are they positioned mainly as beneficiaries? Evidence from co-production and community development suggests that outcomes are strengthened when families and communities are engaged, not only as recipients of services but as partners in institutional design and delivery, thereby supporting sustained engagement and reducing risks of disengagement over time.

Taken together, these questions invite us to consider how policy investments can influence participation trajectories over life stages and particularly at transition points. So, I will consider this across four areas: firstly, persons with disabilities and their caregivers; secondly, vulnerable young children; thirdly, youth development and fourthly, families navigating complex needs.

First, people with disabilities. I welcome the continued support in this Budget for persons with disabilities and their caregivers, including the top-up to the Long-Term Care Support Fund and the planned expansion of Day Activity Centre (DAC) capacity. For many families, one of the most significant transitions occurs when their child exits the formal education system at about 18 years of age. This transition often entails a loss of structured routines, peer networks and community participation, while families navigate a new landscape of adult services.

As the capacity of DACs expands, it may be helpful to consider how transition pathways connect individuals across education, employment and community life. Anchoring transition supports within community-based employment partnerships, shared-use facilities or neighbourhood organisations can help ensure that the specialised supports continue to scaffold participation in everyday institutional life over time.

Next, vulnerable young children. The Budget continues to strengthen affordability and access to the preschool sector, and these are important steps at ensuring no child is left behind. At the same time, developmental vulnerability is often closely intertwined with family stressors, such as housing instability or caregiver fatigue.

In this regard, we may wish to consider how our resourcing for programmes in early childhood connects families across domains of daily life. Strengthening linkages between preschools and services that support families may enable caregivers, not only to access programmes, but to sustain the support of their child or children's development within the home and community environments in which the children spend most of their time.

On youth development, this Budget makes important investments in traineeships, skills development and employment pathways. From a developmental perspective, youth transitions are not only about access to opportunity but about participation in the institutions and communities they will inherit.

Platforms, such as Youth Panels, may therefore be understood not only as consultative mechanisms but as opportunities for co-production that can strengthen engagement, persistence and alignment between institutions and the developmental needs of young persons.

Finally, on strengthening families. Recent enhancements in parental leave, housing support and healthcare initiatives are significant steps towards reducing financial strain and enabling family stability.

Families often serve as primary coordinators across education, employment, healthcare and community systems, particularly during transitions, such as school-to-work or caregiving. Policies that empower families, not only as recipients of services, but as partners in navigating institutional supports can help sustain participation and reduce discontinuities between transitions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Budget helps to shape the conditions under which Singaporeans remain connected to one another across schools, workplaces, families and neighbourhoods. When our investments enable individuals to remain embedded in shared institutions across life stages, they strengthen not only individual outcomes but our collective capacity to act in times of uncertainty and change.

In that sense, the effectiveness of this Budget lies not only in terms of the opportunities it creates but in the extent to which it enables Singaporeans to participate, contribute and remain connected over time. This way, it lays the foundation for a "we first" society grounded in shared responsibility and common purpose. And for these reasons, I support the Budget.

Dr Charlene Chen.

Mr Speaker, as I reflected on this year’s Budget, I asked myself a simple question. If our goal is not just to get through the next year, but to thrive for the long term, what should an ideal Budget prioritise?

One word came to mind – productivity. But not productivity in the narrow sense of GDP or output. True productivity is about enabling people to realise their full potential – our young, our mid-career workers, our seniors who continue to contribute and our persons with disabilities who deserve full opportunity to do so.

Singapore has no natural resources. We rely entirely on our people – their skills, resilience, values and unity. If we want to stay competitive and cohesive, we must invest in enabling every Singaporean to reach their potential. Productivity is not about squeezing more from people. It is about helping people grow.

Even in a more uncertain world, we are fortunate to discuss this from a position of fiscal strength. With surpluses last year and this year, we have the capacity to invest prudently and strategically in our people.

In every Budget, there are two responsibilities: to provide support and to invest. Support reduces inequality and ensures no one is left behind. Investment unlocks potential, because if people cannot reach their potential, the economy cannot either.

Let me begin with young Singaporeans. They have clear aspirations: good jobs, affordable housing, meaningful careers, stable paths to marriage and family and lives with purpose. At my Meet-the-People Sessions, housing concerns often surface. Decisions about flats are tied to life decisions – marriage, career stability and family planning. This was also reflected in the PAP Policy Forum’s Pre-Budget Survey. About 60% of over 1,000 respondents cited daily costs as their top concern and nearly one in five highlighted housing pressures. Many also flagged family-raising as a major worry. When cost pressures weigh heavily, aspirations become cautious.

On employment, nearly half of 433 respondents cited lack of career progression as their biggest challenge and more than one in four mentioned underemployment. This shows that the issue is not simply job creation but whether jobs enable growth. For long-term productivity, young people must see credible and coordinated pathways ahead. This means continued investment in strong school-to-work transitions, better skills-job matching, predictable housing supply, mid-career mobility support, and accessible lifelong learning frameworks.

Structure matters. When aspirations are supported by stable pathways in jobs, housing and skills, people can plan confidently. And when they plan confidently, they commit to families, careers and to Singapore. But our youth are not just beneficiaries of policy, they want to contribute. When they feel trusted and supported, they step forward.

Supporting aspirations is just part of the equation. We are raising a generation that is capable but also under pressure. They face academic competition, social comparison fueled by technology, economic uncertainties and rapid AI-driven change.

Over 100,000 Singaporeans took AI-related courses last year – a positive sign. But readiness remains uneven. One in five survey respondents felt unprepared for AI-related shifts in their industry and nearly half said they lacked sufficient training due to time constraints or difficulty finding relevant programmes. The focus group's discussions reinforced this, highlighting weak training-to-job linkages and skills mismatches as persistent concerns.

Access to courses is not the same as confidence, training enrolment is not the same as career stability. As we embrace artificial intelligence, we must also not neglect another "AI" – actual intelligence. Technology is a tool. Our people must know how to use it, but also how to question it. We must nurture judgment, empathy, critical thinking and moral reasoning.

In my maiden speech, I spoke about the paradoxes of technology: tools that can connect can also isolate; convenience can erode capability. AI presents a similar paradox. If we let machines think for us without strengthening our own thinking, we risk weakening the qualities that make us adaptable and innovative. In my classrooms, I see bright young students already worried about burnout before their careers begin. They are not lacking ambition. They are asking whether they can keep up without losing themselves.

If productivity depends on human capacity, resilience must be part of our economic strategy. We must invest in school-based mental health support, workplace mental wellness frameworks, community sports and physical activity, curriculum that builds emotional regulation and bounce-back ability, soft skills that help navigate setbacks. These measures matter for students, mid-career workers adapting to change and seniors staying engaged. A burnt-out population cannot be a productive one. Resilience is not a side issue; it is the foundation of sustainable growth.

Managing pressure is not only about coping, it is also about shaping social norms. If success is defined narrowly by grades, pay or title, we risk creating pressure and weakening cohesion. We need a broader, healthier definition. Success is living up to your potential. Success is purposeful contribution. Success is knowing your work – whether in business, arts, sports or service – matters to your community.

Our identity as Singaporeans must embrace the diversity of talent through culture and arts, sports and teamwork, academic and technical excellence, entrepreneurship and service. When young people see that there are many legitimate ways to contribute, they feel seen; and when they feel seen, they step forward.

This is why continued investment in youth engagement, culture, arts, sports and community initiatives matter. These are not peripheral. They build belonging, shape identity and strengthen a "we first" mindset. Inclusive progress must be designed. Ability exists across society. Opportunity must too. When people feel included, they contribute with confidence. And when they feel part of something larger, they act differently.

I have seen this spirit of agency in Tampines. Vareck Ng, a young resident, co-founded a volunteer initiative to improve safety for active mobility users, both walkers and cyclists. After residents raised concerns about near-misses, I brought these to him and a group of advocates. Together, we identified problem spots and worked with the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) Active Mobility Team to improve safety. He did not wait for someone else. He stepped forward, organised others and worked constructively with the authorities. That is youth agency in action. That is Team Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] An ideal budget does not just help us to get through this year but lays the foundation of Singapore's long-term development. Singapore has no natural resources; our greatest resource is our people. When young people have stable jobs and affordable housing, they can plan their lives with peace of mind and start families and careers. When middle-aged workers receive support during transitions, they can continue to contribute their experience and skills. When seniors feel respected and needed, they can remain active and continue participating in society.

If a society makes its people feel that they are not being left behind, they will be more confident and willing to dedicate themselves to the country. This is what we call "Team Singapore." Investing in people is investing in Singapore's future.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, AI can multiply our advantage but only if it strengthens people, not sidelines them. If we invest only in machines, we may grow output. But if we invest in people, we grow a nation.

When people feel supported in their aspirations, equipped to manage pressure and confident that success is defined fairly, they do not disengage. They step forward. They start families. They build businesses. They lead community projects. They improve neighbourhoods. They carry forward the values that built Singapore.

Sustainability is not only about fiscal discipline. It is about ensuring the next generation is resilient, capable, inclusive and united. The most important investment in this Budget is not in technology alone. It is in our people across every generation, especially those who will carry Singapore forward. Because when our people realise their potential, Singapore realises hers.

Minister of State Jasmin Lau.

Ms Valerie Lee.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I begin, I would like to declare that I am employed by a Singapore-listed energy company. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Budget.

Much has been said about huge surpluses and some have asked whether we may have set aside more than was necessary and that we aimed poorly and overshot. These perspectives are understandable, particularly when many needs remain pressing. However, I would suggest that the surplus can also be seen in another light.

To me, it reflects prudence and discipline. When the world is becoming more contested, when supply chains fracture and the guardrails that once managed international disputes and tensions are eroding, it is better to discover we have more than expected than to discover that we have too little. In uncertain times, a surplus is not a mistake; it is a buffer.

Hence, for those who disagree – we were perhaps not looking at the same target; as our bullseye will never be pure numerical accuracy, but rather, overall fiscal and social resilience. But I think what we all agree on is that a surplus should not sit idle. It must be deployed deliberately to improve the lives of our people today and to fortify Singapore against the uncertainties of tomorrow.

With that, Sir, allow me to frame my speech around three "S": first, supporting the "Sandwich Generation"; second, securing a sustainable future; and standing with every Singaporean.

Sir, the middle-income Singaporean, especially those caring for both children and ageing parents, working and paying the bills at the same time, they carry a unique burden that is worsened by smaller family sizes, fewer siblings share the load, and longer life expectancies.

As far back as 2019, NTUC Income research reported that 94% of parents surveyed revealed that they were currently pressured between having to financially support their growing children and their ageing parents. The majority of these parents also believed that their children and grandchildren would continue to be caught in this "sandwich generation" trap. These working caregivers are already stretched and require more support.

The Government has provided broad-based support and I welcome measures, such as the additional $500 in Child LifeSG Credits in this year's Budget. However, many of our structural family schemes are still designed to provide additional benefits only from the third child onwards. For example, the Large Families Scheme focuses its enhanced support on the third child and beyond.

While these schemes are valuable, we should also be mindful that the pressures of raising a family do not increase in neat steps, as the first two children already place significant demands on household resources. As such, we should consider stepping up our support even for smaller families especially for middle-income families who do not qualify for the highest tiers of assistance, but who feel the squeeze most acutely.

Support must also extend to eldercare.

As the Prime Minister has rightly acknowledged, we must help our seniors age with dignity, security and peace of mind. We should remember that caregiving is not only about subsidies and CPF top-ups, important as they may be. It is also about setting aside time and nurturing a supportive ecosystem of care.

A perfect example of this would be the work done by the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC). In just under a year of serving my Pasir Ris-Changi residents, I have had many great experiences with partnering them in solving some of my elderly residents' challenges with healthcare and daily living, which always brings much relief to their family members.

Many families have had complex cases resolved, from navigating care placement to assessing subsidies. We should continue strengthening AIC and find ways to make their good work even better. In this regard, eldercare leave also deserves further study. Just as we recognise childcare responsibilities, we must acknowledge that accompanying an elderly parent to a specialist appointment or arranging post-hospital care, is not discretionary – for many, it is duty.

On the childcare front, I will speak more extensively during the Committee of Supply debates. But I wish to express concern, especially with regard to the cost of outpatient paediatric care. Even for relatively routine visits, expenses do add up quickly for families with young children. There may be room to review fee benchmarks or expand support frameworks.

Last but not least, support can also come in ways that seem unrelated at first glance – such as transport.

When we enhance bus frequencies, add more bus services, extend Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines and build sheltered walkways, we are not just improving infrastructure. We are returning time.

Ten minutes saved on a commute is 10 minutes with a child before bedtime or 10 minutes more to check in on an elderly parent. For the sandwiched generation, time is the scarcest resource and they will need all the support they can get.

Sir, on climate policy, I agree with the Government's position. Retreating from action is not an option. It is tempting – especially amid global backsliding – to slow down. But climate risks will not slow down for us. Rising sea levels will not pause while we debate in this Chamber.

The investments we make today may not be fully appreciated now, but decades from today, our children will understand why we made them.

On carbon pricing, Singapore already has the highest carbon tax in Asia. So, I welcome the Prime Minister's pragmatic stance that the rate will likely settle at the lower end of the $50 to $80 per tonne band by 2030. This reflects realism – balancing competitiveness with climate responsibility.

But beyond pricing, perhaps more can be done. Instead of viewing it merely as tax, we can perhaps more explicitly ringfence or mandate that a meaningful portion be reinvested by companies into low-carbon technologies, energy efficiency and innovation, and not have all these funds be centrally managed.

This ensures the price mechanism translates directly into transformation. This will also help boost survival rates of energy intensive sectors which are also critical to our economy and yet reduce the carbon emission intensity of their operations.

On solar energy, we achieved our two gigawatts peak target ahead of time – an impressive feat. The revised targets to three gigawatts peak by 2030 are welcome. But it is also time we pivot to examine the broader ecosystem. These include examining whether our grid connection timelines are fast enough, whether we have skilled manpower in solar engineering and maintenance and how we progress our transition into a green workforce.

Regional power imports are also critical and more government-to-government arrangements and government-to-business arrangements may be necessary. The Government must ensure that imports are sustainable, reliable and defendable. And for this reason, the Government must not leave long-term energy security to the whims of market forces.

I also welcome diversification of our energy mix in geothermal, hydrogen systems and even advanced nuclear technology.

But public acceptance for these will be key. Public education must begin early and be transparent. Conviction must accompany ambition.

Diversifying our energy mix – through natural gas, solar, regional power imports, low-carbon solutions and potentially nuclear energy – is paramount to the survival and resilience of Singapore.

Yet this transformation cannot be driven by market forces alone. It requires a deeper and more deliberate partnership between Government and industry.

We must establish enabling regulations, dedicated funding mechanisms and a robust ecosystem of technology providers, project developers and reliable baseload off takers. These foundational elements are essential to give investors and operators the confidence to commit to long-term energy infrastructure.

Given the significant development risks and long gestation periods associated with such infrastructure projects, the Government could also work closely with industry from the outset to address potential barriers and mitigate critical risks before they become insurmountable obstacles.

When the stability of our economy and the daily lives of our citizens depend on the future of our energy system, we cannot rely solely on commercial market dynamics.

To secure a sustainable future is no simple feat. We will need to work on aligning policy, workforce, infrastructure, businesses and public trust. A coordinated national effort is not optional – it is imperative.

Finally, Sir, we must stand with every Singaporean – including those whose numbers are small, whose voices are quieter, but whose needs are real. There are residents in areas with limited bus services, such as parts of Flora estate and Upper Changi – the last residential estate in the north-eastern part of the country. Connectivity shapes opportunity and so, we should continue refining route design to better serve such pockets.

There are families with special needs children who face a cliff at age 18, when school-based structures fall away. Transitions must be smoother.

As our population greys, there are seniors asking for safer pedestrian paths and more pedestrian-only zones. We should consider designing walkability and safety not for the average 30-year-old, but for the 75-year-old with slower reflexes. There are private property owners subject to a 15-month wait-out period before purchasing resale HDB flats even when they may have legitimate reasons for needing to right-size quickly.

There are the SMEs that employ 70% of our workforce yet struggle even as we push ahead with AI adoption and digital transformation. Individually small, collectively, they form the backbone of our economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me some lines in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Similarly, the residents and businesses on Pulau Ubin pay electricity bills that are far higher than ordinary household users on the mainland. They may be few in number, but they are Singaporeans just like us and their problems equally deserve our attention and concern.

(In English): Each group may not represent a majority. But together, they represent Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a surplus gives us strength, but strength must be channelled with purpose. It is my hope that in this Budget and beyond, we will commit to supporting the sandwich generation – those holding up both the past and the future; securing a sustainable future – for ourselves and our children; standing with every Singaporean – especially those whose voices are softer.

And that is what this Budget must ultimately build. Thank you, Sir, and I support the Budget.

Ms Denise Phua.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support Budget 2026.

What stood out most to me in Budget 2026 is this: AI is no longer peripheral to Singapore's plans. It is central to our economic strategy and our future competitiveness. AI is here and now. It is reshaping industries, redefining work and influencing the resilience of nations. Singapore must move decisively, but we must also move wisely.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Today, I wish to speak on AI adoption without regret, about bringing everyone along, about AI's profound implications – especially for our SMEs, our workers, particularly those who are vulnerable and ultimately, our social compact.

Because AI is not just a technology story. It is a societal one. If we are not careful, AI transformation could become a story of the few who benefit, while the many may absorb the disruption.

Our task, therefore, is clear. How do we pursue AI adoption without regret and bring everyone along?

AI is reshaping the real economy, not just the digital one. By the real economy, I mean the industries that make, move and deliver goods and services, where most Singaporeans work. This is not just another wave of automation. Singapore has automated before – in factories, ports and back offices. But this time is different. Machines are no longer just executing instructions. They are sensing, they are learning, they are adapting and making decisions.

AI is becoming embodied. We are already seeing AI-driven "lights-out" or what they call dark factories operating 24/7 with minimal human presence. These systems optimise production in real time, detect faults, predict breakdowns and adjust workflows autonomously. In some sectors, robots are even assembling other robots.

Beyond manufacturing, AI-powered machines are entering everyday services – cooking and serving food, packing goods, moving inventory, assisting nurses, guiding seniors, even conducting therapeutic and counselling functions. This is automation with cognition.

Across Japan, South Korea, China, Denmark, Germany and many others, such systems are being deployed at scale in logistics, healthcare, food services and manufacturing – precisely the sectors where many of our Singapore SMEs operate and where many of our older and lower-wage workers – Singaporeans – earn their living.

That is why this shift is more consequential than past mechanisation. Singapore is a high-cost, labour-scarce economy. Automation was already necessary. But AI-driven automation accelerates change because it does not just replace muscle – it begins to learn and replicate judgment.

So, the question is not whether AI reshapes Singapore. The question is whether we will shape this transformation deliberately – upgrading our firms, our companies, our businesses and uplifting our workers – or risk allowing intelligent systems to outpace our preparedness.

Let me turn to our SMEs. Sir, if we are serious about bringing everyone along, then SMEs cannot be an afterthought. They make up 99% of our enterprises and employ 70% of our workforce. They are the economy.

Budget 2026 places AI at the centre of our strategy. But on the ground, many business owners are still unsure what this means for survival – not just growth. The numbers are sobering. In 2024, only 14.5% of SMEs adopted AI – up from 4.2% the year before. Now, that is progress, but still fewer than one in six. Meanwhile, adoption amongst the larger firms surged from 44% to 62.5%.

Some firms are sprinting. Many are walking. Too many have not even started.

And the SMEs are already under strain we know. They quoted – we had many talks – our GPC for Finance and GPC for Trade and Industry – with our resource panel, the Singapore Business Federation, PAP Public Policy Forum and many business associations. We know that the SMEs are already under strain: rising costs, manpower shortages, thin margins, rapid technological shifts and intensifying regional competition. AI is not arriving gently for them. It is arriving on top of these pressures. These sentiments are common from the conversations we heard.

But let us be clear. For many SMEs, and I am not talking about those who are in that quadrant, where they are unwilling and unable, but for many of the rest, the issue is not willingness. Surveys consistently show SMEs want to adopt AI. But they adopt AI when three things are clear: "What works for my sector and me? Who can help me implement? And how do I pay for it?"

AI, as we know, is not plug-and-play. It does require clean data, disciplined processes, systems integration and leadership commitment. It requires job redesign, worker re-training. Without these foundations, adoption becomes cosmetic – chatbots at the front desk, dashboards in the office – but no real productivity gain.

If that happens, we will digitise inefficiency. And if we do not intervene properly, the risk is not just slower adoption. The risk is structural divergence. Large firms with capital and technical depth will accelerate. Smaller firms will struggle. Productivity gaps will widen and wage growth will stagnate for many.

Some SMEs will exit but let us be honest: not every SME exit is a failure of policy. In a high-cost, AI-driven economy, some business models will no longer be viable. But firms should not fail because support was too generic, too fragmented or too distant from operational reality.

Government must enable. SMEs must step up. Transformation requires effort on both sides. AI adoption demands leadership focus, workflow discipline and real investment. It is difficult, but standing still is harder. That is why broad encouragement and broad grants waiting to be taken up are no longer enough. We need precision support, not broad measures.

Let me propose three moves for a start.

Move one, a national SME AI readiness scan. Many SMEs do not know where they stand, so let us introduce a credible, simple national diagnostic tool that classifies firms into foundational, emerging or advanced stages of AI-readiness.

Support must be tailored to readiness. Foundational firms need help in cleaning up data, fixing workflows. Advanced firms need integration and scaling support. So let us stop this one-size-fit-all grants. Start targeted transformation pathways.

Move two, Government-funded AI coaches for the SMEs. SMEs do not need some more webinars or seminars. They need embedded, time-bound advisors who can help to clean and structure data, redesign workflows, implement AI properly, measure productivity gains. Hands-on implementation support, not just funding, will separate the serious adopters from superficial users.

Move three, strengthen the intermediaries. Many SMEs rely on trusted intermediaries: the Singapore Business Federation, NTUC, SME Centres, Enterprise Singapore, trade associations and chambers, academia with practical experiences. If we expect these intermediaries to guide thousands of firms through AI transformation, then we must also equip them with deeper technical capabilities, diagnostic tools and specialist talent and funding. Empower the multipliers and impact scales across the ecosystem.

The goal is not to push every SME into complex AI systems overnight. The goal is disciplined, intentional transformation. If we get this right, AI becomes a renewal engine for SMEs. If we get it wrong, then we create a two-speed economy, not because help was absent but because execution lacked precision. Execution determines survival and survival determines jobs.

Next, on jobs. If SMEs must transform to survive, then workers must also transform to survive, to remain relevant. And we know that not all workers begin from the same starting point. Sir, at the heart of this AI transition is one deeply human question: what happens to our people’s jobs? Because technology may move at digital speed. But families move at human speed. And the disruption we face is not one-dimensional. It is two-front.

On the first front: operational and blue-collar roles, warehousing, logistics, F&B kitchens, security, cleaning, basic inspection work. AI-driven optimisation and robotics are already reducing repetitive tasks. Scheduling is automated, we know. Inventory is predicted. Machines inspect defect sometimes faster, in fact a lot of times faster than humans.

The risk is not only displacement, it is also intensification – tighter monitoring, algorithmic targets, more precarious contracts. That is on the first front, the blue-collar jobs.

On the second front: white-collar and cognitive work. GenAI already now drafts reports, writes speeches, prepares marketing copies and plans, business plans, summarises legal documents, produces financial models and writes code. Entry-level roles – internships, junior analysts, first-rung executive jobs – are increasingly augmented or partially absorbed.

The doomsday scenario is not robots overnight. It is a broken ladder. If entry-level roles shrink, then fewer young people will get their first break. If mid-career workers are benchmarked against software, then wage growth stagnates. And if the gains concentrate among those who own and control AI, while others bear the disruption, then productivity gains will not feel like shared progress.

Next, on the vulnerable. Sir, not everyone pivots at the same speed. For seniors, lower-wage workers, persons with disabilities, the risks are sharper.

Lower-wage workers often perform routine-intensive tasks, the easiest to automate. Older workers, many of them struggle with rapid digital transitions, especially if training is overly theoretical or classroom-based. Persons with disabilities face a dual risk: one, displacement in routine roles, and exclusion if new systems are not accessible by design. Without deliberate intervention, these groups will fall behind first and inequality will widen.

At the same time, of course, we must not jump – I think the Prime Minister always advices me at the lunch table – we must not jump to doomsday conclusions. AI can create more jobs and expand work. Nvidia’s CEO founder Jensen Huang has pointed out that in areas like radiology, AI did not replace doctors, it helped them read scans faster, which meant more patients could be treated and demand actually grew.

We see similar effects in other sectors. As AI systems expand, we need engineers, technicians and operators to build and run data centres. As companies automate, they also need people to maintain robotics systems and supervise AI tools.

The lesson is clear: AI can remove routine tasks and expand human capacity, but only if we design AI adoption intentionally. And that requires policy discipline. The discipline to protect workers before displacement happens.

Budget 2026 already strengthens wage support, raising the Local Qualifying Salary, enhancing the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme and continuing the Progressive Wage approach. We must now apply similar discipline to AI transition. Some of the solutions lie upstream in education reform and serious mid-career upgrading. I will return to that during the Committee of Supply. But even as we strengthen the pipeline, we must also confront the immediate labour-market transitions already underway.

Let me suggest five moves to do this.

Move number one, a national early warning and mobility system. Let us shift from reactive retraining to proactive planning. Using job-task analytics and sector data, we should try to identify roles with high automation risk, identify them early, and try to intervene before displacement occurs. This means advance job redesign before automation, training that begins before tasks disappear, clear pathways into adjacent or emerging roles. Transitions are painful when sudden, but they are more manageable when anticipated. So, a national early warning and mobility system.

Move number two, make workforce plans mandatory for major AI support. Sir, if a firm receives significant AI incentives or intermediary agency support, there should be a workforce transition roadmap. What tasks will be automated? What human roles remain accountable? Which workers will be redeployed or upgraded? And how will wages be supported during transition? Productivity gains must not come at the expense of worker displacement without a plan. Enterprise transformation and worker transition must be linked.

Move three, redesign entry-level pathways. Where AI threatens junior roles, we must redesign and not remove entry points. Support structured apprenticeships, meaningful internships and supervised AI-assisted roles. Programmes such as Enterprise Singapore’s Global Ready Talent scheme show how structured internships can build capability. But internships and these other schemes must evolve. Young workers should learn to supervise AI systems, validate AI outputs, interpret analytics, exercise judgment beyond machine outputs. AI should become a co-pilot, not a substitute. Protecting the first rung of a job ladder protects mobility.

Move four, on building concrete job pathways for seniors and persons with disabilities. Sir, we must move beyond general statements about inclusion or plans or declarations. For seniors, physical AI can reduce strain and extend employability. Robotic lifting aids in logistics, autonomous carts in healthcare, AI-assisted scheduling to reduce cognitive load. Pair this with modular, bite-sized digital training delivered at workplaces, not just classrooms, and wage support during transition for seniors.

For persons with disabilities, we should expand supported employment into AI-adjacent roles: AI system monitoring and quality assurance, data labelling and validation with assistive tools, accessibility testing of AI systems, digital customer service roles using adaptive interfaces. And to make this real, NTUC, for example, should intensify outreach to unionised sectors undergoing automation. SG Enable and the National Council of Social Service should develop AI-readiness toolkits specifically for disability-inclusive employers and job clusters. Disability organisations and charities should be funded to train job coaches in AI-augmented workflows. Enterprise grants should include accessibility compliance requirements. Inclusion cannot rely on goodwill alone. It must be systemically built-in.

And finally, move five: on strengthening intermediaries and social service agencies (SSAs). Sir, if AI is to be whole-of-society, then SSAs cannot be left behind. Many SSAs supporting low-income families, seniors, elderly residents and persons with disabilities face rising demand and manpower strain yet they also often lack AI capability: the technical capacity, the budget and the data governance expertise needed for that.

Budget 2026 should create an “AI for good fund” to build an “SSA AI Backbone” comprising centralised AI tools for SSAs, shared data governance frameworks, volunteer AI professionals embedded in agencies, a vetted AI solutions marketplace.

Ms Phua, you have a minute left.

When SSAs become AI-enabled, the most vulnerable of us benefit.

In conclusion Sir, Budget 2026 sets an ambitious direction: AI ecosystems, SkillsFuture strengthening, innovation hubs such as Lorong AI and the future AI Park at one-north. Ambition is necessary, but it is execution that determines whether progress is shared.

AI adoption must be deep not cosmetic, worker-centred, inclusive by design, accessible to SMEs and supportive of the vulnerable. If we get this right, Singapore will not merely adopt AI. We will prove that a nation can move fast in this space and still move together. That, is AI adoption without regret, bringing everyone along. Sir, I support the Budget.

And you just made it with 10 seconds; do not cut it so fine next time. Ms Jessica Tan.

Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 comes at a time when Singaporeans are navigating a world that is more competitive, more digital and more uncertain. In moments like this, what matters most is whether our people feel they can keep moving forward to find good jobs, support their families and plan confidently for the future.

Budget 2026 refreshes our economic strategy with ambition and discipline. We cannot compete on size, but we can lead in trust, excellence and speed. The Budget rightly zeroes in on our global growth clusters where Singapore can lead in semiconductors and advanced manufacturing; biomedical sciences; green energy and the hydrogen economy; digital trust, cybersecurity and AI; and future finance and logistics.

These are not new bets. They build on years of capability development. Singapore today produces 10% of chips globally and 20% of semiconductor equipment. We are a regional leader in enabling green transition, with Southeast Asia’s first carbon tax and a national hydrogen strategy. In AI governance and digital trust, frameworks, like the AI Verify and our Digital Economy Agreements, place us as a global reference point.

The Budget strengthens this foundation by encouraging high value segments of global value chains, sustaining long term R&D through RIE2030 and supporting growth capital. These moves ensure that Singapore remains relevant in a volatile world.

But strategies must translate into outcomes, especially for SMEs. Many may still struggle to navigate schemes or put together a growth plan. A “human in the loop” advisory model for SMEs scaling overseas or entering deep tech could complement GoBusiness, helping firms access support quickly and confidently.

On AI, acceleration must go hand in hand with clear governance, integration support, change management help and strong cybersecurity. I will speak more on enterprise AI readiness during the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) Committee of Supply debate.

On workforce Readiness. Economic ambition only matters when it translates into better jobs and livelihood for Singaporeans.

The Budget’s National AI Missions, the National AI Council and the Champions of AI programme signal Singapore’s commitment to being a trusted global hub for AI.

But to ensure workers benefit from this transformation, we must align AI missions with workforce pathways, scale employer led training and apprenticeships, expand modular, employer recognised micro credentials that enable quicker redeployment, and strengthen HR capabilities so enterprises can manage workforce transformation. I will speak more about the critical role of HR in accelerating enterprise transformation during the MOM Committee of Supply debate.

For our mid‑career and senior workers, the measures in the Budget will help workers through the disruption and changes. With rapid shifts in the job market, many of my residents have expressed anxiety about finding new employment after their short-term employment contracts end or following retrenchment. Matured PMEs worry about staying employable.

Tripartite partners and Enterprise Singapore have stressed the importance of faster, dignified support when workers are displaced. But we can still do more to shorten unemployment transitions further by providing earlier notifications to placement hubs; sector specific placement packs with skills mapping, bridging courses and job fairs; as well as streamlined access to training and employment support. I will dive deeper into the topic of career health and employability of matured PMEs in the MOM Committee of Supply debate.

We must ensure that our refreshed economic strategy is matched by a workforce that is resilient, ready and able to seize the opportunities ahead, and this matters whether they are just starting out or making a mid-career transition.

Let me talk about families. Growth alone is not enough. For the sandwiched class, the question is: can my family cope? Will my children and parents be cared for? Budget 2026 takes meaningful steps in providing for higher preschool subsidies, expanded student care support and enhanced long-term care subsidies.

These will definitely ease cost pressures temporarily, but gaps remain for families who are asset rich but cash poor, especially with the rising caregiving costs. A more nuanced means testing approach for eldercare, one that recognises liquidity constraints, will prevent families from being priced out of essential care.

Why is this important? Because by 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be aged 65 or above. Care needs are rising and so is the emotional and financial load on mid career caregivers who must work, upskill and care for both young and the elderly in their families.

While real progress has been made in building up our care ecosystem – and I must stress this, there has been a lot of progress in our care ecosystem – but families still experience the system as fragmented. Information sits across multiple portals and agencies. And we should consider piloting integrated family support hubs that coordinate childcare, eldercare, respite services and employment assistance, providing a one stop touchpoint for families for case management, streamlining subsidy applications and help in navigating complex systems.

Caregiving is not only a financial load. It is a time load and a well-being load.

Employers have a role to play as well. Incentives for caregiving friendly workplace policies, such as caregiving leave, flexible hours and phased return-to-work schemes, would encourage more companies to adopt practices that keep caregivers employed and productive. Expanding daycare and short notice respite capacity will give caregivers the breathing space they need to work, train, rest or respond to emergencies.

Mr Speaker, a common thread runs through my speech – strategy only matters when implementation delivers impact. Budget 2026 charts the right course with focused investments, responsible AI adoption, a responsive skills system and deeper support for families. Our next task is to make these measures simple to access, aligned with employer needs and meaningful for Singaporeans on the ground.

I support Budget 2026 for the clarity of the strategies to take Singapore forward. I call for continued focus on simplifying access, strengthening partnerships and building community level support ecosystems.

Mr Lee Hong Chuang.

Mr Shawn Loh.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the speaking time budget of 20 minutes, I endeavour to utilise less time and, therefore, run a speaking time budget surplus.

Mr Speaker, I support the Budget. Before I begin, I declare my interest as Group Managing Director of Commonwealth Capital Group. We are a Singapore global enterprise operating a conglomerate of businesses. Like all other companies, our business decisions are influenced by the Government's strategies and its policies.

My views today are shaped by the numerous interactions I have had during this Budget season. My colleague, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, spoke about this in quite a lot of detail.

The GPC for Finance, led by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, engaged widely, far more than in previous terms. We are grateful for the time taken by more than 1,000 PAP activists to participate in the PAP Policy Forum's surveys and focus group discussions. The business community, including the Singapore Business Federation and other trade associations, also shared their perspectives with us. We even had a resource panel of experts across industries that provided more insights. I particularly enjoyed the candid conversations on the Budget with our residents from Jalan Besar and Whampoa, during house visits and through policy dialogue.

Mr Speaker, I will share my views on three matters: one, the extra money the Government has; two, the critical problems that remain unsolved for Singapore; and three, how we can use this extra money to address these problems before they become even more difficult to resolve.

The elephant in the room, which many Members have spoken about, is our fiscal surplus. It is a large elephant! It is the all-time-largest in absolute terms, at $15 billion for the past financial year. Mr Pritam Singh also noted this. But because our economy keeps growing, it is more appropriate to look at the fiscal surplus as a percentage of GDP. Even by this measure, at 1.9%, it is substantial. But it is not the largest in recent years. Around 10 years ago in 2017, our surplus was at 2.3% of GDP.

The fact that we have a surplus is not surprising. But what is surprising is how large the surplus is and why it is so. Zooming out, the multi-year picture is that corporate income tax collections have been far higher after COVID-19. A pleasant surprise was the surge in business profitability, leading to a windfall budget surplus from corporate taxes. A rule of thumb that fiscal planners used to have is that corporate income tax would be around 3% of GDP. But it has now gone above 4%. That is a significant sum, around $10 billion more. I am sure that MOF is already updating this planning assumption for future years.

This is a reflection of an increase in the "Singapore premium", the premium of stability and security that Singapore offers in a more unpredictable and dangerous world, a premium from trust, to borrow Mr Victor Lye's words. It is a direct result of past Budgets, which invested in economic infrastructure as well as long-term security infrastructure, from national defence to cybersecurity.

In the past, then-Deputy Prime Minister Tharman used to say that economic policy is part of social policy. Well, in this changed world, it is increasingly clear that security policy is part of economic policy. Our defence spending is consistently around 3% of GDP, more than many North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries and more than South Korea. We do not say this enough. But credit should be given to all Singaporeans who supported a Government that spent a consistently large sum on defence during peacetime. Mr Vikram Nair also pointed this out. A short-termist and insecure Government would have taken a more popular approach to redirect security spending to more direct social benefits.

That said, fiscal planning will enter a period of higher uncertainty next year as the impact of the domestic top-up tax and other Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)-related measures kick in. Once the domestic top-up tax commences next year, we should probably see a short-term bump in revenues. But how long this lasts will be incredibly uncertain, as these measures will impair our competitiveness over time. To that end, I take a different view from Mr Gerald Giam on being less conservative with fiscal projections. As it gets harder to predict revenues, it is better to find ourselves in a budget surplus position than struggling to reduce budget deficits, which many other countries are facing.

With the large surplus this year and potentially over the next few years, we should then ask ourselves: how should we use this extra money to improve the lives of Singaporeans and address long-term problems before they become more intractable?

A good way to think of our problems that remain unsolved is to consider what Singapore would look like, if Government policies stayed the same and if current trends continued.

Mr Speaker, there are three that I see. In the next five years, there will be fewer Singaporeans feeling the direct benefit of economic growth. In the next 10 years, there will be fewer Singaporeans feeling that they are part of one cohesive society, if wealth inequality continues to worsen. And in the next 20 years, there will simply be fewer Singaporeans, if we do not address our declining birth rates.

Today, many Singaporeans already feel that the headline economic numbers do not gel with their lived experiences. I see this in Jalan Besar and Whampoa, especially amongst our seniors who have retired many years ago. And increasingly, with our younger residents who are looking for jobs. As well as those who are retrenched, some of whom are under 40.

The economy grew by 5% last year. Inflation was below one percent. So, by all measures of the hard data, Singapore has done really well. But the question is: do you feel that your standard of living has improved by 5% compared to the year before? Do businesses feel that they have done 5% better? I reckon that many would say no. These economic figures seem theoretical, and the trickle-down effect that we had hoped for, has for some indeed, been just a trickle.

The likely reason is that the direct benefits of economic growth are captured by a decreasing proportion of Singaporeans who are earning higher wages in sectors that are globally competitive. For the growing number of retirees who do not earn salaries, economic growth may only mean higher prices. For workers who are used to working in the same company for a long time, economic growth may only mean a greater sense of job risk amidst technological disruptions.

To make matters more complicated for this generation, wealth inequality will also be an issue. A modest level of wealth inequality is not in itself a bad thing. It incentivises and rewards capability and effort. This is the meritocratic approach that has made Singapore successful and uplifted generations of Singaporeans. However, there are concerns that birth circumstances are increasingly determining life outcomes.

It is of course natural for parents to want the best for their children, and to spend time, money and effort to give their children advantages in an increasingly competitive world. But this parental help must not be determinative. All Singaporeans must continue to be able to aspire to success and to a better life, regardless of the situation they were born into. I see a need to systematically lean against the natural tendency in any economy for wealth inequality to become entrenched across generations – so that Singapore remains home for all, hope for all. We are not too late to address this.

And finally, beyond our current generation, our falling birth rates are the existential crisis that we will face. At current levels of fertility and without immigration, the number of Singaporeans will more than halve in each generation. By SG100, without immigration, our citizen population could even revert to the same size as when we first became independent.

So, how should we use this extra money to address these problems? First, we can strengthen our redistribution schemes. We can do better to uplift Singaporeans today and assure them that any unexpected fiscal surpluses will be shared with all.

Elderly poverty should be eradicated, especially for the generations that grew up in a less developed Singapore and without the lifelong support of retirement policies that are in place today. I continue to advocate for Silver Support payouts to be increased and for the highest tier of Silver Support to be given to seniors above the age of 80 or 85 who live in HDB flats. Our Government policies should embody the value of taking care of our most elderly such as the oldest five percent of Singaporeans.

We should assure Singaporeans that when Singapore does well, all Singaporeans will benefit. This can be achieved through a longer-term commitment from the Government on a surplus sharing mechanism. For example, any fiscal surpluses above 2% of GDP should be given back to all Singaporeans in the following year through extra CDC vouchers. Or if there are concerns that CDC vouchers may increase inflation, we could do so through universal CPF top-ups or other rebates for Government services such as transport and utilities. This is similar to the social dividend mentioned by Prof Terence Ho.

And to provide more assurance, some of our temporary support measures can be made more permanent, or at least longer-term. After all, as Milton Friedman famously said, “Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government programme”.

Second, companies should be the conduit to provide a greater sense of assurance to workers, amidst greater disruption. No amount of Government hand-outs is as good as giving a leg-up through jobs. Companies are the platforms and partners for the Government to achieve its policy goals. Support given to employers to do so should be greater and for longer.

The Progressive Wage Credit Scheme and other short-term support measures are but band-aids for companies, many of whom have been taking the hit year after year after year with escalating manpower costs, in part driven by Government policy. And in the words of another famous person, Taylor Swift: "band-aids don’t fix bullet holes".

We should now give Singaporean workers the confidence that the Government has their back and anyone who is earnestly looking for a job for a while will be strongly supported by the Government through a more ambitious jobseeker place-then-train programme. For example, the Government could give all employers time-limited salary support to hire any jobseeker who has been actively looking for a job for at least six months, regardless of age.

Third, we should decisively address our existential issue of low birth rates. Parenthood is a deeply personal decision and the joys of bringing up children can never be quantified in dollar terms. But that should not mean that the Government stops trying to remove economic barriers to having children. This remains part of the enabling environment that Ms Eileen Chong and Mr David Hoe mentioned. I believe that we can promise Singaporeans that the basic costs of child raising should never be a barrier to having children.

The LifeSG credits for families are a small move in the right direction, but with the fiscal resources at our disposal, we can do more. First, basic childcare, infant care and student care should be free. Period. This is conceptually no different to how we provide all Singaporeans with basic education today. I urge the Government to think of childcare and preschool as a public good.

Second, LifeSG credits can be systematically given to all parents with children up to 16 years old and should be sized to cover more of the basic out-of-pocket costs of child raising. Although my own four children have outgrown their toddler phase, parents in our Whampoa community often remind me about the costs of milk powder, diapers and doctor visits.

Fourth and finally, amidst continued cost of living anxieties, the fiscal surplus should give the Government more confidence to assure Singaporeans that it would not take major revenue raising moves up to 2035, barring any material adverse circumstances. Thus far, it has only said that it would not raise GST until 2030. Surely the Government can do better than that.

That is not to say that the Government’s tax policy should be constrained. Taxes are not only for raising revenues, but for reflecting our values and for signalling what is important for society. We should continue to use tax policies to achieve other objectives, such as reducing wealth inequality. This can be achieved by making our property tax system more progressive, by being more aggressive with taxes for investment properties and by imposing progressive stamp duties on properties at the point of inheritance. But that is another speech for another day.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I urge the Government to continue working towards two complementary objectives. One, being fiscally prudent and conservative. Ensuring that we do not tax more than we need to spend. And if there are surprises in our fiscal projections, it is better to be surprised by a surplus and never by a deficit. Two, spending wisely and decisively to improve the inclusive Singapore that we know and that we love, and that all of us in this House fight for. This means doing right by our seniors, our families and our workers. And keeping the Singapore dream alive, not just for this generation but for future generations to come.

Mr Speaker, I have run a slight budget surplus on the time budget, and I support the National Budget and thank the civil servants in MOF and other Ministries for their hard work that always continues.

Mr Giam, you have a clarification to ask? Go ahead.

Sir, I thank Mr Loh for listening to my speech. I think I heard him say that he takes a different view about my approach to conservative estimates and suggested that it is better to have a surplus than a deficit. Is he suggesting that I was asking for Singapore to run budget deficits?

Mr Loh.

I thank Mr Giam for the clarification. My takeaway from his speech was that Mr Giam was suggesting that we run less conservative fiscal projections. My suggestion and my view is that we should still be conservative with our fiscal projections. And twined with my idea that if we run unexpected budget surpluses, we should have that as a systematic surplus sharing mechanism in the next year with all Singaporeans. Thank you to the Member.

Mr Giam.

I thank Mr Loh for clarifying. Actually, I think we are on the same page. I do believe that we should run a small surplus whenever possible, but that is different from running a surplus that is $8.29 billion more than what was estimated. And I think he himself suggested that surpluses over 2% should be given back the following year. I have no disagreement with that, as long as it is put to good use.

What I was focusing more on was our budget marksmanship. Or perhaps, the lack thereof. I think overly conservative budgeting is actually inaccurate budgeting and something we should avoid.

Mr Loh, you wish to respond? Go ahead.

I thank Mr Giam for the clarification. In fact, in the last financial year we did not run a budget surplus of more than 2%. So, it was only 1.9%. But I think we agree that if it is above 2%, he agrees with my suggestion that we can redistribute that to all Singaporeans, so thank you.

Ms Cassandra Lee.

Mr Speaker, I first declare my interest as a legal counsel with an accounting firm. Sir, I support this Budget because it recognises the present realities and prepares Singaporeans for the next wave of transformation.

In my speech, I want to focus on two areas: our efforts to support Singaporean workers and businesses in embracing and thriving in an AI-enabled economy; and our efforts to support Singaporeans to build not just careers, but also families, to be able to care for their families so that Singapore is Made For Families.

First, on an AI-enabled economy. According to MOM's report on the Labour Force in Singapore 2025, 64% of our employed residents are in PMET roles. Many of these roles are knowledge-intensive and involve analysis, coordination and decision-making – areas where AI is increasingly being deployed to augment how work is done.

AI is already reshaping white-collar jobs, with greater emphasis being placed on judgement, adaptability and higher-order skills. Singapore’s workforce is highly exposed to AI due to the large share of such roles in our economy. This means that a significant proportion of our workforce will be impacted by AI in the form of job redesign, changing skill requirements and evolving career pathways. I hope we can look into the following three areas as we try to stay ahead of the AI curve.

First, on youth and the alignment between AI education and enterprise AI adoption. In the recent AI Festival Asia 2026, and a pre-Budget dialogue organised by young PAP, the youths have called for greater alignment between AI education and enterprise AI adoption.

Singapore has made strong investments in AI education and skills development. At the same time, the pace of AI adoption across enterprises, especially SMEs, remains uneven. SMEs may find it harder to attract and retain young talent if they are unable to offer comparable opportunities. If this gap persists, young Singaporeans entering the workforce may gravitate towards firms that can offer AI-enabled roles, many of which are better-resourced global companies.

We would not want this to create a structural pull of talent away from local enterprises over time. SMEs form the backbone of Singapore’s economy. I hope that we can look into aligning career pathways across how we train our youths for the AI economy and how our enterprises adopt AI, so that working in Singapore remains competitive and accessible across firms of different sizes.

Second, mid-career workers, particularly PMETs and professionals, face a different set of challenges. AI will reshape professions by changing how work is performed, how roles are defined and how value is created. In particular, the expansion of the TechSkills Accelerator to the accountancy and legal professions presents opportunities by strengthening capability-building in these sectors, which are facing ongoing talent and retention challenges.

The core value of lawyers and accountants lies in judgement, contextual understanding and accountability. These capabilities underpin trust in these professions and remain central even as AI tools are introduced and implemented. They cannot be replaced by AI.

In a more fragmented global environment, where partnerships are increasingly strategic and selective, the ability of Singaporean lawyers and accountants to build trust, navigate cultural contexts and sustain relationships remains critical. This is especially given the nature of these professions, which are cross-jurisdictional in many respects, and which must account for different regulatory regimes and cultural practices and norms in different countries. These are inherently human skills which cannot be replaced by AI.

But AI can assist lawyers and accountants in their tasks. I hope that we direct the assistance to help lawyers and accountants to work more efficiently and improve their overall work output, so that they can focus on honing the core skills of the profession.

That said, we must recognise and be cognisant of the fact that mid-career lawyers and accountants are not AI-natives. They did not grow up with AI and using AI effectively may not come naturally to them.

We must, therefore, be cautious about the impact of AI on our mid-career professionals. When we consider job redesigns, we should ensure that the redesigned jobs are suitable and allow the professional to maximise their strengths and value. As roles evolve, we also need to guide transitions in a way that preserves the professional standards and identity. In adopting and implementing AI, we must not lose sight of the core functions of the professions. And when we consider AI training and reskilling, we need to approach this in a way which is accessible and which works for these mid-career professionals.

I suggest that we do not stop at encouraging firms to take up AI technology and for employees to train themselves on AI technology. Firms and employees will adopt this at different speeds, and will vary in how they perceive the necessity, the convenience and the reliability of AI implementation and training. There needs to be thought at a sector level on how to redesign jobs, so the industry can be uplifted together.

At the same time, a not insignificant group also warrants attention: accountants and lawyers embedded within enterprises – that is, in-house accountants and legal counsel. These in-house professionals are central to governance, compliance and strategic decision-making within companies. Their ability to work effectively with AI will directly influence how enterprises adopt AI across functions. Supporting them in their adoption of AI will also strengthen Singapore's attractiveness to foreign companies looking to hire Singaporeans or to set up headquarters in Singapore.

These in-house legal counsels and accountants may not be fully reached by initiatives targeted at law firms and accounting practices. It is, therefore, important that AI training, tools and support frameworks extend to such in-house professionals. Supporting this group will strengthen enterprise capabilities more broadly and enable the profession to better capture the opportunities presented by AI.

Third, in supporting our local SMEs in their adoption of AI, we may need to reassess the current method of support. Without the deep pockets and resources of larger firms, how can micro- and small SMEs also ride on the train of transformation? The newly announced Champions of AI programme will go some way to support this by tailoring support to each company, including enterprise transformation and workforce training.

I hope that the Government will consider the Champions of AI programme alongside the more established schemes, such as the Enterprise Innovation Scheme and the Productivity Solutions Grant to marry the two for micro- and small SMEs, who often face their own unique sets of constraints on cashflows, cost, implementation expertise and change management. AI adoption for micro- and small SMEs at scales and speeds comfortable for them, will give them the confidence needed for sustainable and more permanent adoption of AI.

Sir, AI will be the defining driver of economic transformation. Our task is to ensure that education, workforce transitions and enterprise adoption move in step, so that opportunities are more broadly shared and our economy remains cohesive and competitive.

But at the core, our economy is about families – every job supports a home. I support the Government's investment in Singapore families. I have previously spoken about what I called the "Singapore Puzzle" – Singapore's challenge lies in figuring out how we might remain competitive in a fast-changing world, while staying anchored to the values, our communities and the aspirations of our people. This is reflected in whether Singaporeans feel able to build their careers while, at the same time, starting and/or supporting their families.

For many, these aspirations are clear: a meaningful job, a stable family life and a confidence that effort will lead to progress. One area that warrants closer attention is how workplaces support Singaporeans in managing family responsibilities alongside work. These needs arise across different life stages: parents raising young children; working adults caring for ageing parents; and families navigating periods where additional time and flexibility are needed.

These are part of everyday life for many Singaporeans. Despite stronger policies, take-up of family related workplace support across employers and employees remain uneven, reflecting the continued influence of workplace expectations and culture on employees' confidence to take time for family responsibilities. Many continue to navigate tensions between career demands and caregiving.

MOM and NTUC have been working with their partners on this front to set clearer norms for flexible work arrangements, to help enterprises understand how to structure return-to-work pathways and job design that accommodates caregiving responsibilities, through tripartite guidelines and programmes with industry partners.

Alongside these structural measures, day-to-day workplace HR practices are also critical. How managers respond when an employee announces pregnancy, how performance is assessed for employees returning from maternity or paternity leave and how urgent caregiving needs are handled – these are practical decisions that determine whether employees can remain engaged at work.

When these situations are handled well, employees are more likely to remain in their roles, continue progressing in their careers and contribute consistently over time. When they are not, the outcome may be that employers lose talent, with employees leaving and exiting the workforce or disengaging at key stages of their careers to fulfill caregiving responsibilities. Young Singaporeans who otherwise desire to start their own families may also be discouraged from doing so in fear that their careers will suffer.

The difference lies in how workplaces interpret and respond to these moments, and how managers are equipped to communicate with care, make balanced decisions and plan for continuity without placing undue strain on teams.

I hope that the Government can work with the industry partners, such as the tripartite Institute for Human Resource Professionals, to shape HR practices and standards across industries to place greater emphasis on consistent and fair implementation of family-friendly workplace practices.

These are operational and human considerations that sit alongside policy. How they are addressed will shape whether workplace support translates into sustained participation, stronger teams and continued productivity.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, young Singaporeans have grown up in a different Singapore – one with more opportunities, greater exposure and higher expectations of what a good life can be. They seek to build meaningful careers, achieve stability and have the confidence to plan for their future. Our policies should support these aspirations.

At the same time, sustaining these outcomes requires a careful balancing of choices. Economic growth, workforce strength and social cohesion are shaped by how we participate in the economy, how responsibilities are shared and how we respond to changing demographic realities. As a society, we must continue to make adjustments, whether in the way we organise work, support families or remain open and connected to the world.

These adjustments require collective understanding and shared responsibility. Young Singaporeans are part of this. Many are already stepping forward, building their careers, supporting their families and contributing in different ways. As expectations evolve, so, too, will the ways in which individuals, employers and the Government respond.

A system that is aligned across education, workplaces and support structures, gives individuals the space to make decisions with confidence and to contribute meaningfully over time. This is how we can strengthen both opportunity and resilience in Singapore. I support the Budget.

Mr Darryl David.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the risk of stating the obvious, AI is reshaping the world at a mind-blowing pace. Our young people will graduate into a workforce where AI is embedded across industries and everyday tasks – from the workplaces they will enter, to the problems they will solve, the challenges they will face and the opportunities that they will seize.

For them, AI will not be optional; it will be the new normal. The World Economic Forum estimates that by 2030, AI and related technologies could displace 92 million jobs, while creating 170 million new roles, reflecting a profound structural shift in how work is done. This will certainly have an impact on the older workers too.

This context, AI is not merely a technological shift; it will define the economic and social landscape of the future. However, as the Prime Minister said in his Budget speech, and I quote: "AI is a powerful tool; but it is still a tool." Tools do not determine outcomes – people do. The question before us is not whether AI will transform our economy, but whether Singaporeans are equipped to harness it confidently, responsibly and effectively.

Research commissioned by Amazon Web Services (AWS) on AI adoption and skills in Singapore found that nearly 94% of employers expect their employees to be AI-driven by 2028, yet, 74% report difficulty finding the AI talent they need, highlighting a clear skills gap between demand and supply.

So, used well, AI can amplify human capability and creativity; used uncritically, it can weaken judgement and erode independent thinking. Our responsibility is to ensure that Singaporeans, especially our youths, are equipped not only to access AI, but to understand it, question it and use it responsibly. The same AWS research also showed that 91% of Generation Z in Singapore want to acquire AI skills, underscoring both the urgency and willingness of our youths to embrace this transformation.

Sir, Budget 2026 rightly emphasises harnessing AI as a strategic advantage to build a resilient and skilled workforce. Such efforts must begin early in schools where habits are formed and competencies are developed and I will speak more on education and AI during the Committee of Supply debate.

Today, I would like to focus on a more foundational, more fundamental enabler with regard to the whole issue of AI – ensuring that every student has equitable access to the digital hardware and competencies required before they can even begin to start understanding AI and how to meaningfully leverage it.

Sir, before we can talk about mastering AI software and advanced tools, we must ensure that every student starts from the same baseline. AI readiness depends on digital readiness. Without reliable access to personal computing devices, for example, students cannot build foundational skills or experiment with digital tools in ways that will allow them to engage meaningfully with AI later.

Sir, digital inequality today will translate into opportunity gaps tomorrow. Students who lack access to devices risk falling behind in learning, developing fewer self-directed learning habits and having reduced confidence in tackling technology-based tasks. But conversely, equitable access to devices provides every student with the ability to explore, learn and innovate.

Singapore has already taken a decisive step by providing Personal Learning Devices (PLDs) to all secondary students. Introduced progressively from 2020 and fully implemented by the end of 2021, these devices were integrated with the national e-learning platform, the Student Learning Space and was supported by financial assistance schemes to ensure that no student – no secondary school student – was left behind.

Sir, in previous speeches, including the one I made during the Budget debate in 2024, I advocated extending PLDs to primary school students on the basis that early access cultivates digital fluency and supports equitable learning opportunities. Today, as Singapore increasingly positions itself as an AI-ready nation, this principle remains essential.

I wish to repeat my call to explore providing similar opportunities for our younger learners. Extending PLDs to primary school students would equip them with the tools to access digital content, develop computational skills and build confidence in navigating technology from an early age.

Such access would lay the groundwork for future AI literacy, ensuring that all students – all students – regardless of background, can engage fully with digital and AI-enabled learning. I am unsure of the progress MOE has made in introducing PLDs at the primary school level since my last advocacy and would, therefore, like to request for an update on any developments on how we can best equip our younger learners for the demands of a digital and AI-driven future.

In the meantime, Sir, let me reiterate again how providing PLDs to primary school students would bring multiple benefits. By ensuring that every child has access to a common device, we prevent unequal access to technology and strengthen social mobility. No student would be disadvantaged by relying on shared or outdated devices, reinforcing meritocracy in a digital age.

Early exposure to personal devices also allows schools to guide students in responsible use, cyber wellness and structured engagement with digital platforms. Habits formed in primary school are enduring and introducing these practices early can set the stage for lifelong literacy.

The ownership of a PLD encourages students to take greater responsibility for their own learning. It fosters curiosity, self-directed exploration and the confidence to engage with online educational resources. With AI increasingly embedded in learning platforms, these early habits will prepare students to adapt and thrive as technology becomes a key part of their education.

Aligning this initiative with the objectives of Budget 2026, providing standardised PLDs to primary students is not merely an educational reform. It is a strategic investment in Singapore's future human capital. It strengthens the foundation for a digitally fluent, AI-ready workforce that will support our nation's long-term competitiveness.

The framework for secondary school PLDs, including procurement and financial assistance mechanisms, provides a blueprint for extending this policy to primary students. A phased rollout, like the approach used for secondary schools, would allow careful implementation and adjustment, ensuring that all primary school students can benefit from this opportunity.

In short, Mr Speaker, MOE has done it before. They had done it very well – the secondary school students. I see no reason why we cannot extend this scheme further upstream to our primary school learners. It can only bring about benefits.

In conclusion, Sir, I like to say that providing every primary student with a PLD is not an end, but a step to prepare Singaporeans for a future in which AI is increasingly integrated into workplaces and daily life.

As Singapore's EdTech Masterplan 2030 reflects, strengthening students' digital literacy and technological skills is a national priority to, "prepare students for a technology transformed world". So, access to appropriate hardware ensures that all students – all students – regardless of background, can engage effectively with emerging digital tools.

This aligns with Budget 2026, which highlights harnessing AI as a strategic advantage to build a resilient and skilled workforce. True resilience begins in our classrooms, long before students enter the workforce. Equipping them therefore with the tools – the hardware tools – and competencies to navigate technology confidently nurtures a generation capable of leveraging AI responsibly and creatively, rather than simply using it passively.

In this way, equitable access to PLDs in primary schools is not merely an educational measure, but a strategic investment in Singapore's long-term human capital and technological competitiveness.

On this note, I would like to renew my call to the Government to make that decision to extend PLDs to primary school students. By taking this step, we are not only strengthening the foundation for AI literacy but also preparing our youth for an AI-driven future. Thank you, Sir. I support the Budget.

Ms Lee Hui Ying.

Order.