President's Speech

Mr Patrick Tay.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Speaker, it has been four months since the last General Election (GE). As we commence this new term of Parliament, I note that there are 31 Members who are entering Parliament for the first time. I am privileged to be here for my fifth term. There are quite a few others who have been here longer, including Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his 10th term – more than 40 years. Nevertheless, I trust I may be permitted to give my personal welcome to the newly-minted Members of Parliament (MPs) from both sides of the House.

One of the themes in the President's address is about trust. Some Ministers have, in past days, also emphasised the importance of trust in institutions. Today, I wish to say a few words about trust in one of the key institutions we have – this Chamber, Parliament.

All of us here gained entry through a competitive process, that is, we contested in the recent elections to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans.

Fundamentally, party politics is a competitive process which pits one party against another. Yes, elections involve a zero-sum game: one vote for you means one less vote for me. But once the dust of elections has settled, we are entrusted to represent our constituents. How can we best do so? On a broader level, how does one measure the effectiveness of a Parliament?

To answer this question, one needs to return to the purpose of Parliament in the first place. One respected index that covers this issue is the World Justice Project. The World Justice Project compiles an index that the Singapore Government frequently cites for its high rankings of Singapore in the area of Order and Security.

To give a bit of background, the World Justice Project declares itself as an independent, multi-disciplinary organisation that seeks to advance the rule of law worldwide. The Project reviews countries around the world to assess each country's laws, institutions, norms and community commitment to the rule of law. The outcomes it is interested in centre around four principles: accountability, just law, open government and accessible and impartial justice. It believes these principles are universal. I do not think anyone in this House will disagree that these principles apply to us as well.

In assessing the state of the rule of law, the World Justice Project examines each country on various indicators. In its latest overall ranking in 2024, Singapore was ranked 16 out of 142 countries, which is, overall, respectable. When we look across the different sub-indicators for Singapore, what sticks out is that we have largely healthy scores around six out of eight indicators. The two indicators where we do not do so well are in the factors called Open Government and Constraints on Government Powers. I believe this has been our consistent scorecard from the World Justice Project for many years. Such a mixed scorecard should also come as no surprise.

In measuring Open Government, the index looks into matters, such as how much information is shared by the government with the public and whether citizens have a right to information. Open Government also measures public accountability, whether there are effective complaint mechanisms and how far the people are empowered with the tools to hold the government accountable.

As for the factor of Constraints on Government Powers, it is concerned with how far those who govern are bound by law. One key sub-indicator is whether government powers are effectively limited by the legislature. That is where Parliament comes in. On this issue, our score is not respectable. The Singapore Parliament is ranked 104 out of 142 National Parliaments. Among high income countries, we are second last. In contrast, our Courts appear to be doing well as a check on the government, being ranked 17th out of 142 countries.

Sir, I cite these rankings not as gospel truth but as a point for introspection. We should honestly examine why there is an independent, multi-disciplinary opinion that our Parliament is not effective in limiting government powers.

Of course, one likely reason is the balance in Parliament between different political parties, or should I say imbalance, with almost 90% of the seats in the hands of the ruling party. This is the result of our system design and Singaporeans' votes on Polling Day. We respect the outcome of the elections.

That said, it is a fact that in the House, the Government agenda is set by the leaders of the ruling party and party discipline demands that ruling party MPs vote in support of the Government agenda. But we should be mindful that, as MPs, our overriding duty is not to our parties, but to Singaporeans. Regardless of our affiliation, we have a duty to speak for our constituents and ensure that this Chamber works for them. This means questioning the Government and holding it to account, rigorously, if necessary.

On the Government's part, it should always demonstrate that it is sharing as much information as possible in the House. And in the long run, it is Singaporeans who need to decide if the balance of power in the House should be changed.

On our part as opposition MPs, we are expected to take an independent line, question the Government and vote against proposals when we deem it necessary. Speaking from experience, this is not easy, especially when one is surrounded and vastly outnumbered. But that is our obligation and that is what voters expect us to do. We will play our part to build a Parliament that the people trust. We are cautiously optimistic that our Parliamentary system has potential to do better.

Sir, earlier this month, I had the privilege of attending a parliamentary sitting in the United Kingdom (UK), in the House of Commons in Westminster. Many of us would have seen television footage of somewhat rowdy sessions from the UK Parliament and strong exchanges between opposite benches. But I realise, now, that such scenes do not tell the whole story. What I saw that day was a Minister from the Labour government painstakingly explaining an urgent matter that had just taken place over the weekend in London – how the British police had upheld democratic values while policing a mass protest over the situation in Gaza.

What was more striking to me was the response of the Shadow Minister from the Conservative Party. He rose to ask for an assurance from his political opponent – the Minister – stating that if that particular Minister gave the assurance, he would accept it. That moment set me thinking hard. Political competitors, yet able to give each other some credit and credibility.

That is my hope for our Parliament, too. Politics is competitive, but why are we in this? I would like to believe that the main motivation is a calling to serve the public in elected office, a calling that is most meaningful and noble. In this term of Parliament, I hope we can build trust in the House as well. At the very minimum, we should remember that all colleagues here are fellow Singaporeans who have made a choice to leave our comfort zones to take up national office. Let us start from a position that a fellow MP has a good motivation, though we may disagree with the position he or she is taking and should take the issue on. If we can do that, I believe Singaporeans will benefit from a focus on the issues that matter.

Sir, let me conclude. Our system of Government expects Parliament to play its role to ensure good governance. All of us here are competitors but not enemies. The people have elected us to act on their behalf, to ensure Singapore endures for the long term, to work towards a Singapore built to last. On this, Sir, we have common cause.

Mr Victor Lye, do you have a clarification?

Ms Sylvia Lim. Ms Lim, you might want to turn on your microphone?

Mr Victor Lye.

Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for her clarification. And I think we should just focus on the conclusion that the Member had in her speech – that both sides of the House work harder to maintain trust between our leadership, that includes the Member as well, and our people.

Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks standing in the name of the hon Member Mr Sharael Taha.

That Singapore is a small island is a matter of geography, but that we can travel swiftly and in comfort across all its corners is a matter of human endeavour. It is our transport system that allows us to work, study, exercise, access essential services, socialise, volunteer and live our lives to the fullest. These were amongst the topics that hon Members spoke passionately about in this House over the past five days. If we do it well, transport becomes an invisible social service, moving from point A to point B is as effortless as stepping through a door. This is our urban dream, a 45-minute city and 20-minute town.

This dream, of freedom and connectivity, is not new. Although at the time of our Independence 60 years ago, there were immense challenges in ensuring Singapore’s survival, from clean water to housing, such that transport may have seem to be a poorer, lesser cousin.

Yet, transport is a peculiar policy problem. Once laid down, whether planned or organic, transport lines carve out their place in the history of a place; implacable, immovable and, for better or worse, they shape the fate of cities. We see this now in the gridlocked congested lives of many cities, whose systems had not been built to accommodate growth. It is Singapore's good fortune that our early Governments built for the future.

But transport is not just a decision of the past. It demands ceaseless attention to keep pace with the needs and lives of the people it serves. To neglect investments is to accept time spent in traffic jams, accidents, breakdowns, workdays lost and important occasions missed. Again, we see this in the cities of developed countries, whose transport infrastructure have suffered from decades of under-investment.

These two challenges, greater complexity in needs and financial demands for infrastructure, also apply to Singapore. As our systems expand and become more complex, the number of potential points of failure increases. The needs of our people are evolving. New vulnerabilities will emerge as we digitalise, adopt new technologies and put more of our services online into the cyberspace. The emerging challenges, coupled with the unprecedented pace of change in our external environment, will mean that we need a new generation of transport professionals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, I will speak on how we can build a strong transport system through three strategies.

First, resilience. We will enhance our ageing infrastructure, make them robust and flexible so as to meet the needs of our population, which are increasing in volume and complexity. Second, technology. We will seize opportunities from new technologies, while safeguarding against cybersecurity risks. Third, people. We will continue to build a professional and adaptive transport workforce, the only real piece in the transport landscape that can ensure our systems remains fit for purpose well into the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we sometimes forget the breakneck speed at which our transport system has travelled. Many from my generation remember growing up alongside this journey. As a young boy, I took the single-door "bone shaker" public bus to school. I would leave home from Sembawang at 5.30 am to catch the 5.45 am bus on a one-hour 30-minute journey to reach school at Newton by 7.15 am, with 15 minutes to spare before morning assembly. With limited resources then, these "bone shakers" were, in fact, refurbished lorry chassis with suspension systems so poor that they vibrated vigorously. But as a young boy, I did not mind it. I was thrilled, in fact. The same journey today, via Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), would take 30 minutes in air-conditioned comfort, just one-third the time it originally took.

Today, we enjoy a transport system that is admired across the world. Changi Airport is our nation’s pride, consistently ranked amongst the world’s best airports. Our port was recently named the “Best Global Seaport”. And our land transport network serves about 10 million journeys each day.

Our transport systems today are extensive and highly complex, with many interconnected elements and moving parts. Our public transport network today covers 240 kilometres of rail lines and over 350 bus services, with 160 stations and 5,000 bus stops.

As I said at the start of my speech, transport infrastructure incur large sunk costs. Even with long-term planning, we can only build to the best of our knowledge and ability at any given time. We must also make the most prudent choices possible. At the beginning of our MRT development journey, we had just five stations. Within 30 years, we have 100 and then to 160 stations today. Underneath this, lies years of design, planning, battles over land and billions of dollars in investment.

While 30 years is a short time in the life of a nation, it is long for an MRT line. Our rail system comprises many mechanical parts, each with specific lifespans, similar to everyday appliances, such as washing machines. With different parts of our rail system at different ages, ensuring the smooth operation of all trains in the network becomes increasingly complex and challenging. We aim to keep our rail network running smoothly, through a combination of maintenance, refurbishments or replacements where needed.

We will do so by focusing on the three "Rs": resilience, reliability and recovery.

First, we will enhance resilience with more alternative routes. We are building new rail lines that will enable commuters to still get to their destinations in the event of disruptions or planned maintenance works through alternative train routes. We will close the loop for the Circle Line next year and extend the Downtown and Thomson-East Coast Lines. In the longer term, we plan to expand our rail network further, such as with the West Coast Extension.

Second, we will invest in improving the reliability of our rail assets. As announced at the Committee of Supply this year, we will invest an additional $1 billion over the next five years to enhance the way we monitor and maintain our rail assets, and uplift the maintenance capabilities of our rail workforce. We also set up the rail reliability task force to address immediate issues, following the recent incidents.

If not for the COVID-19 pandemic which the hon Member, Ms Mariam Jaafar, reminded us in her speech yesterday ended just 30 months ago, the progress on these two "Rs", resilience and reliability, would have been even more significant. Now we are playing catch-up, but catch up we will.

Having regard to the state of affairs now, however, we cannot eliminate rail disruptions entirely. But when disruptions occur, we will ensure recovery as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. We will communicate with commuters and help them find alternative routes.

Sir, transport is a key essential service which we all count on to arrive at our destinations on time. Failure in service is a justified cause for frustration and disappointment. The Singaporean reputation for reliability and predictability is hard earned. Nowhere must this be more clearly seen than in our transport system. So, I accept that we need to work hard to win back the support of frustrated Singaporeans affected by some failures.

Let me say squarely what I mean. We will invest to reduce disruptions, but they will not be eliminated. We will still have disruptions. I do not take any pleasure in saying this, but this is the hard truth. But knowing that disruptions will happen, we have in place systems to help affected people still arrive at their destinations, not on time, unfortunately; not without trouble, regrettably but with all practicable haste.

I want to assure the House that all my colleagues on the ground, work tirelessly, truly flat out, during disruptions, including the East-West Line disruption in September last year. I saw that with my own two eyes. Alongside my colleagues were many volunteers to guide and support commuters to use the bridging buses.

These are hardworking transport professionals, including our sisters and brothers of the National Transport Workers Union and fellow Singaporeans who deserve our respect and support. Yet, they have, on occasions, been cathartic vehicles, on the receiving end of abusive language, anger and derision.

I ask all hon Members in this House for ideas that you may have to improve our transport infrastructure and to build up the resilience of our systems. At the same time, I am sure Members will agree that we should forbear from cheap shots and low blows when things go wrong. Never exploit problems, but by all means, let us work on the problems.

Even as we tackle the challenges of today, we must prepare for the future. Our people are getting older. We are developing more areas across our island. We need to move more people who are less mobile across larger tracts of space. These are points that hon Members, Ms Valerie Lee and Mr Shawn Loh, admirably made in their respective speeches. We will engage our members of public on their desires, aspirations and concerns for the future of land transport. People remain at the heart of our transport system.

To fellow Singaporeans, I say, preparing for the future is an important journey. I hope you will support and join us every step of the way.

Second, technology. Across transport sector, innovative technologies can enhance efficiency and productivity of our systems. For example, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) launched DocuMind and DocuMatch last year, harnessing AI to streamline ship insurance certificate renewals for Singapore-registered ships. These tools streamline the process to minutes compared to up to three days previously.

New technologies are essential for our path to net-zero. Electrification remains a key strategy to decarbonise Singapore's land transport sector. As we build a network of chargers to support electric cars, we employ new technologies, such as the dynamic load management at our Housing and Development Board car parks to allow us to tap on existing unutilised electrical capacity. And this will enable us to deploy even more electric vehicle (EV) chargers, bringing us closer to our goal of 60,000 EV chargers by 2030.

However, as our system increasingly digitalise and move into the cyberspace, we face unprecedented security challenges. We are familiar with the cyberattacks on critical infrastructure by UNC3886. With so much of our daily lives and economy reliant on our transportation networks, our infrastructure becomes prime targets for malicious actors.

Globally, cyberattacks on transport infrastructure have occurred across land, air and sea. In July 2023, Nagoya Port, Japan's largest maritime hub, fell victim to a cyberattack that disrupted its container handling operations. In September 2024, Transport for London reported a cyberattack on their computer systems that lasted for three months. And just last week, a cyberattack at a provider of check-in and boarding systems disrupted operations at several major European airports, leading to flight delays and cancellations.

So, you see 2023, 2024, 2025. There is no telling when malicious actors may target our systems in similar attacks, these cyberattacks show us that even as we leverage the transforming power of technological advancements, we must put in place appropriate safeguards to address vulnerabilities. We must work together, as One Transport Family, with our fellow Singaporeans to secure our critical transport infrastructure.

We are only as strong as our weakest link. The work has already started. The Land Transport Authority (LTA), the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and MPA have established cybersecurity operations centres that provide monitoring to detect cybersecurity threats. Agencies also share critical information with key partners, from public transport operators to aviation partners and maritime companies.

We are also investing in our people to cultivate their cybersecurity awareness and skills, tailored to the air, land and sea transport sectors. This will not only enable them to practise good cyber hygiene, but also uplift them to become the first line of defence to detect anomalies that could signal cyber intrusion attempts. For example, the Singapore Aviation Academy and the Singapore University of Technology and Design offer a joint course to provide aviation professionals with an understanding of the cybersecurity landscape and specific challenges facing the aviation sector, as well as the key foundations in cybersecurity concepts and controls.

Finally, and most importantly, we owe our transport story to the hard work and dedication of more than 300,000 workers across our land, air and sea transport systems. They will continue to be central to our transport ecosystem as we write the next chapter of this story. Automation and autonomous innovations have great potential to transform the way we work. This not only allows our ecosystem to transcend manpower and land constraints, but also creates new good jobs for our people.

We are already seeing this transformation on the ground today. Tuas Port is designed to be fully automated, intelligent and sustainable, and will offer new jobs with enhanced career prospects. At older port terminals, crane operators work at great heights atop cranes to direct movement of each container from ship to shore, and vice versa. With automation, our crane operators are upskilled from doing manual work to directing automated crane operations and troubleshooting exception cases remotely from control centres.

This is the experience of Mr Muhammad Zulfikar Bin Minhat, from managing manual operations on site at Tanjong Pagar Terminal when he started his career 11 years ago, today, Mr Zulfikar remotely manages automated yard operations from PSA's control centre. In fact, when I spoke to him yesterday, he told me that he got promoted and is now in charge of 26 remote operators on his shift. He continues to upgrade his skills, enhancing his ability to troubleshoot and navigate operational challenges. He is also a proud member of the Singapore Port Workers Union, which supports him in every way possible. What a great example Mr Zulfikar is to his peers.

Changi Airport and SATS are also transforming to harness AI automation and robotics to stay competitive and resilient. Existing jobs, such as airport ground handling services, will change in tandem, and new jobs will be created for a new generation of Singapore workers who are tech savvy. Exciting new mobility options in our public transport network are on the horizon as we plan and start piloting autonomous vehicle (AV) shuttles. This will better meet the growing and evolving connectivity needs of Singaporeans without running into manpower constraints. The AV industry will also create good jobs for Singaporeans in roles, such as software developers, engineers and radar designers. We will continue to collaborate closely with our industry unions and education partners to upscale our workers and ensure their access to these jobs.

As rightly highlighted by the hon Member Mr Ang Wei Neng, lifelong learning is crucial for our workers as industries are transformed by AI and new technologies. That is why we are investing in support for training partners and companies to provide upskilling training opportunities.

CAAS established a $200 million OneAviation Manpower Fund in July 2025 to better attract, develop and retain the OneAviation workforce. The fund will provide stronger and more targeted support to companies to transform jobs and better support workers. Together with our tripartite partners, we are equipping workers with skills that are increasingly sought after in their industries. The MPA-Singapore Maritime Foundation Joint Office for Talent and Skills is working with educational partners to develop tailored training courses for maritime workers in emerging domains. A pilot course on applied data science and analytics tailored for maritime professionals, co-developed with the National University of Singapore, was well-received and will be scaled up.

The transport sector is a rewarding career spent in service of our fellow citizens. It is a dynamic sector with good jobs for Singaporeans of all ages and backgrounds.

The veteran union leader, Sister Mary Liew, General Secretary of the Singapore Maritime Officers' Union, shared with me the heartening story of Miss Valerie Thai, a legal professional turned seafarer, with me recently.

Valerie obtained her law degree from Australia and worked as a paralegal in Singapore but soon found the legal profession a bit too boring for her. Attracted by the wide range of opportunities in the maritime industry with fields that allow her to tap on her legal background, Valerie took the brave plunge into seafarer training under the Tripartite Maritime Training Award. This award provides a place-and-train programme that equips Singaporeans with seafaring skills and experience for careers in the maritime industry. I met her two days ago, a cadet now, she is eager to blaze the trail for women wanting to be seafarers. I wish Valerie all the best in her training.

Valerie's story is one of many. With the diverse range of career opportunities, whether in traversing our skies, connecting people on land or plying our seas. I look forward to welcoming all to join our transport family.

Sir, I spent quite a bit of time in my speech, emphasising on the employment opportunities and prospects in the transport sector. I do hope that fellow Singaporeans, young and old, will consider these options and join our One Transport Family. As we write the next chapter of our transport story. We will face unprecedented challenges. However, we will also discover new opportunities as our environment changes.

Navigating these challenges will require concerted efforts from everyone as we enhance our physical infrastructure, digital systems and transport workforce. Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in a dialogue with young people, said recently, "Being small is a very deep part of our psyche. Some things we cannot change."

This is true. Being small is our geography, but it is not our destiny. Being small requires us to be imaginative, not only use each space to its fullest, but also to allow us access to anywhere we want to be in the shortest of time and in the greatest of comfort. If life is about journeys, then only with a strong transport system can we ensure that all Singaporeans, no matter how big our dreams, can live a full life on our small island, our little red dot. [Applause.]

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Speaker, I am honoured to address this House as an MP representing the people of Aljunied group representation constituency. This special constituency reminds us of that moment in 2011 when Singaporeans began to dream of a more plural political system, and I stand here today in service of that dream.

I wish to speak on one of the most important economic questions for our country today: what it will take for Singapore to build inherent capacity.

By inherent capacity, I mean a rooted high-value local set of companies, local base of companies and industries. For 50 years, our prosperity has been built on attracting foreign direct investment within a world of free trade. This model served us well.

But in a new era of geopolitical blocs and strategic industries, this dependence is a vulnerability. High-value work hosted on our shores can be repatriated at any time, leaving our workers exposed. The ultimate defence for our workers is not a certificate from a course.

It is being part of a deep industrial ecosystem. It is tacit knowledge, the unwritten secrets of an industry learned not in a classroom, but in a coffee conversation after work or overheard on a factory floor. The guarded tricks of building and tuning a foundation model or advance notice of a new industry standard. It is the sticky localised knowledge that gives our workers a genuine defensible edge, justifying their wages and creating the conditions for our best entrepreneurs to thrive.

Of course, we must continue to upskill our people. But skills-training alone, unmoored from a home industry, is not enough – a skill that can be learned anywhere, can be performed anywhere, often at a lower cost. We must therefore build the inherent capacity to foster unique knowledge advantages.

Building this inherent capacity requires a resurrected developmental state for our time, a state that actively shapes an ecosystem to benefit our people. There are three ways to do this: through research and development (R&D) policy, industrial policy and foreign economic policy.

Today, with only 20 minutes, I will focus on the third pillar: how we engage with the world.

I would like to tell a story about economic integration.

Once, in the 1960s, American giants – Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas – dominated over 80% of the civil aviation market. Europe’s national champions – like Sud Aviation, Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm and Hawker Siddeley – were confined mainly to national markets and had a bleak future if they stayed alone. The industry dynamics favoured the American giants due to large economies of scale, enormous R&D commitments rising 20% yearly between 1930 and 1970 and steep learning curves. In their enlightened self-interest, they turned to a new policy instrument: a transnational industrial consortium. Airbus, founded in 1970, was designed to preserve the aviation industries of Germany, France and the UK.

It is important to note it was not a top-down creation of the European Community. It was driven from the bottom-up by the firms themselves. Airbus is not a private creation. It arose from a group of state-backed enterprises and was founded on commercial principles, learning the lessons from the commercial failure of Anglo-French Concorde. State-backing was necessary as the long-duration debt market in Europe was too small to finance this industry alone. This political decision was made possible by two points of consensus: First, the knowledge that industrial policy was necessary to build inherent capacity – again, a rooted high-value local base of companies. Second, that national industrial policy would likely prove insufficient. Transnational projects would be needed to achieve the necessary scale and competitiveness.

It was sustained by three key points: political will to provide financing until the consortium hit its first financial milestones, demand-assurance for guaranteed orders in the early years and partner lock-in via specialisation and workshare agreements for the different components.

Above all, it was a 50-50 split in equity holding between France and Germany. This has proved highly successful for Europe. Today Airbus is the leading civil aviation company in the world, founded 55 years ago on a framework for positive integration – an integration that builds.

Let us turn to our own region, Southeast Asia. The President’s address and its addenda have told us of the multiple platforms we will pursue for economic growth. We are to deepen engagement in existing trading frameworks, from the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership to our networks of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Digital Economy Agreements. But we have spent years and decades cultivating these types of platforms without fostering that strong base of locally grown companies. Something is missing.

For decades, our diplomatic energy has been spent on the idea of "negative integration" – that is to say, integration by way of removal of trade barriers. "Negative integration" has been duly implemented. In 2009, the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) came into force.

ASEAN's website states, and I quote, "Through ATIGA, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand have eliminated intra-ASEAN import duties on 99.65% of their tariff lines. Cambodia, Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR), Myanmar and Viet Nam have reduced their import duties to 0%-5% on 98.86% of their tariff lines. Today, focus is given to addressing non-tariff measures that could have non-tariff barrier effects on the region's trade and business activities"; end quote.

Yet a 2019 commissioned study by ASEAN's Coordinating Committee for the Implementation of ATIGA, found that 10 years after ATIGA came into force, intra-ASEAN trade had not grown any faster than ASEAN’s total trade, stagnating at 25%. Moreover, for a large fraction of trade, ATIGA offered no real advantage – either "Most-Favored Nation" rates at zero already meant that there were no tariffs to cut, or the special ASEAN discount was so tiny that it made no practical difference. Decades of effort for negligible results. I am not against negative integration, but it is clearly not a sufficient ideal for Southeast Asian integration.

Against it, I believe Airbus exemplifies an ideal of "positive integration" in the industrial sense.

Our region tried a form of "positive integration" before, with the ASEAN Industrial Projects (AIPs) of the 1970s. In 1977, five projects were designated: nitrogenous urea fertiliser for Malaysia and Indonesia, phosphatic fertiliser for the Philippines, soda ash for Thailand and diesel engines for Singapore. The equity arrangement agreed in 1980 was fundamentally imbalanced – 60% for the host country, with the other four taking 10% each. The four non-Singapore projects were geared towards the agricultural industry, a reflection of national development priorities. The AIPs failed, because national priorities overrode genuine complementation and because the equity structure was fundamentally unbalanced. States will only enter enduring cooperation agreements when they do not fear that their partners will gain disproportionately.

The success of Airbus holds a mirror to these past failures and shows us a path forward.

Mr Speaker, critics will rightly point out that Europe in the 1960s and 1970s is not Southeast Asia today. They will speak of deep-seated political sensitivities, of differing economic priorities and of the cultural gulf that separates our nations. They are not wrong. These challenges are real and significant.

But I ask: are these differences greater than those that separated France and Germany just two decades after a world war? True partnership is not born from the absence of difficulty, but from the shared will to overcome it in the face of a greater common challenge – the squeeze of geoeconomic competition and knowing that going it alone is a losing game.

Three factors are critical. First, it requires coalitions of the willing, not committees of the whole. Bilateral or trilateral consortiums of nations. Some must integrate faster, to demonstrate the benefits of a particular integration model. Second, it demands balanced payoffs, like an equitable 50/50 or 60/40 structure. This ensures that every nation has an equal stake in shared success, bridging a trust deficit that erects non-tariff barriers. Defined payoffs and the way they are structured, must be negotiated early on. These negotiations reveal the viability or lack thereof regarding long-term cooperation. And third, today, the industrial bases across Southeast Asia by foreign direct investment give us a foundation that our predecessors never had, that allows us to build complementarity from a higher-base than the agricultural-industrial options available to the previous generation of policy-makers.

I am a believer that foreign investment has been a net positive for this region. Negative integration in ASEAN, via ATIGA and FTAs, has created a stable potential foundation for increasing regional trade. But the world is changing and we must now adapt to that changing world. Positive industrial integration is not the only option available to us. But it is a necessary diversifier in a portfolio of international strategies. Above all we should not spend all our diplomatic capital deepening a model that is yielding diminishing returns. We need to build a future with real, defensible, and shared prosperity.

This is not a dream.

I read with interest in March 2025, the call in the Malay Mail by the chief executive officer of MIMOS Berhad, Malaysia's national applied R&D centre, calling for strong industrial policy to create a semiconductor chip design ecosystem for Malaysia. To move beyond being a trusted manufacturer for global companies to become innovators.

When I read this call and others like it, I hear a common developmental language across nations. But to channel these ambitions through national industrial policy is to face the full cost of global competition alone. Singapore should be the partner that de-risks these aspirations by opening a path to stronger, more resilient regional consortiums.

We are in the midst of a global investment cycle in many things. Healthcare, nuclear energy, renewable energy, photonics. Budgetary decisions from the Ministry of Finance should begin to inform industrial policy decisions of the Ministry of Trade and Industry. We should head in broad strokes to what will be the big buckets of spending over the next 20 years – healthcare, the clean energy transition, maritime industrialisation, education. To ensure these efforts build our local capacity, Government support, like funding and early contracts, must come with conditions. Firms must be required to build deep roots here through local engineering teams, apprenticeships, joint-IP and guaranteed work for our SMEs.

Mr Speaker, Singapore should champion the creation of new "Airbus-style" commercial consortiums with willing regional partners. In the 21st century, this need not be a bloated state-owned enterprise. But rather the principal client and industrial anchor for an entire ecosystem of SMEs, along with the safeguards to make sure that value flows down the value-chain. Airbus sustains tens of thousands of European SMEs. Similarly, every successful venture in Southeast Asia could allow an ecosystem of SMEs to thrive.

So, how do we begin? Our strategy should be modular. We do not necessarily need to build the entire metaphorical aircraft at once; we can start by mastering a single critical component – the engine, the avionics, the advanced materials. This "building block" approach allows each partner to specialise, making us stronger together than apart. As we prove the model, we can integrate more partners, even from outside our region, to build more complex systems.

And what about scale? How might such a cooperation and integration model be replicated? Once done once, the private sector can increasingly take over.

The same unfolding ladder of ideas from AIPs to ASEAN Industrial Joint Venture (AIJVs) to ATIGA, from positive integration to negative integration. But we must recognise our current lack of inherent capacity. So, the state must be the prime mover to catalyse and build it again and anew. This requires a change in our Government’s mindset. The state must be bigger in its ambition to build this inherent capacity and shape markets as only a state can. But it also needs to become smaller, by not competing directly with our own SMEs. Too many local entrepreneurs tell me that once they reach a certain size, their biggest competitor is the Singaporean state and those linked with it.

For too long, the State's ambition has turned inward, often leading it to compete directly with our own SMEs. No more. Its role must be redefined. The greatest enabler of our local enterprises and not their competitor. A government that acts as a market-shaper internationally but knows when to retreat domestically creates a fairer playing field for our and our children's ventures to succeed.

I know that there are many Singaporeans who do not share the views of some who think that Singapore should focus on doing small things and let big countries do big things. But my message to all is that every ambition has a price. If a nation wishes to be at the frontier, it needs to be prepared to pay that price to cross that bridge. And inherent capacity at the frontier, guarded by protectionist sentiment at the best of times, is today a contested ridge-line, with all nations reawakened to the necessity of inherent capacity. It remains possible, as it always was possible, to cross this bridge, as long as the political will allows. But it requires no illusions about the limits of different growth models. It requires both developmental will abroad, and restraint at home.

This generation must decide what our country’s position is in the whole scheme of human progress. But it is my belief that we are here to catalyse a brighter future. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Dr Koh, do you have a clarification to make?