모두를 위한 미래 경제 (토론 마무리)

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Deputy Speaker : Dr Neo Kok Beng.

6.43 pm

Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member) : Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you.

I would like to state that I have been recently elected as vice president of the Institution of Engineers Singapore and I am tasked to take care of all technical committees, including innovation acceleration and technology entrepreneurship. The first thing I did was set up a technical committee for space engineering, nuclear engineering and quantum engineering. The latest stuff. So, we try to transform the Institution of Engineers Singapore from the built environment to the latest emerging technology cluster.

Last week, a famous Singaporean son, TikTok chief executive officer Chew Shou Zi, addressed the doctoral graduation ceremony at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU). He noted that we are standing at a pivotal juncture, "Change is not just constant, but exponential and compounding."

We all know that change is inevitable, but exponential and compounding are really another expression for disruptive and transformative. So, I sent him a message and said, "Can I quote you in my speech?" And he said, "Go ahead."

That was on a Sunday evening, so I redrafted my speech. So, I will be quoting his various quotes, so I will not requote again.

To thrive in this new landscape, I would like to propose "3Is": innovation, investment and internationalisation.

Innovation – moving from a very fixed blueprint to embracing the messy unknown. As an engineer and educator, I have been championing the growth of our deep tech ecosystem. However, true innovation requires cultural shift in how we manage risk.

At NTU, Mr Chew challenged the doctoral students to take the superpower, which is their knowledge and research knowledge, and of course, it is not necessary that PhD students have the knowledge, everybody has the knowledge at their mastery. He said to take the superpower and apply it to the messy, ambiguous problems of the real world, adding that we must embrace uncertainty because that is where meaningful innovations happen.

I would like to quote a case of Blackstone. Five years, six years ago, someone attended my class in NUS on technology entrepreneurship. Blackstone deals with submersible robotics, things that swim in the water, which we cannot see. And at that time, it is about just trying to do video analytics and – very much like student projects – we touch something so that it is accurate. But the videos are great. We tried to find some application for this. And within five years, we looked at trials in Singapore, trials overseas. I will not mention the countries, but we look at trials in lakes, ponds, seas, including Hawaii.

And today, after much trialling, they are selected for the US Navy's "My countermeasure modernisation challenge". They are one of the two selected among the world challenge submissions, and the only Singapore firm or the only firm that is non-US. The other one is a US firm.

But I spoke to them last week and the journey is really difficult because the US firm can easily raise $30 million; but they just recently raised US$7.7 million. That is public information. Of course, supported by Cap Vista; and Monk's Hill Ventures among the investors. I wish to state my interest. I am an angel investor, because when I see that they are really startup, I will put some money in for them, to help out.

So, what we really need is much more aggressive regulatory-like sandboxes. It is not just domestic because in this kind of deep tech environment, domestic, sometimes, it is not applicable, so we should then look at sandboxes that are domestic, regional and even global. In this case, they have tested the craft in Hawaii.

Therefore, I call on MTI to expand funding lines, specifically for early-stage high-failure, high-impact deep tech ventures and allow them to fail. We cannot have sure bets, but we can actually give them opportunities to ride out that phase for the next generation of breakthrough technologies. It takes six years.

They need very sophisticated equipment and labs. In the first two years or first three years we were actually operating out of NUS labs. So, my suggestion is that we take a leave from the partnership between MOE and MCCY, where facilities that are unused – for example, badminton hall, football fields – if they are unused, then open it to the rest who can use it. We can kick football on Sundays in certain school fields, right?

The same thing, whether it is universities, polytechnics or A*STAR, all these research labs, they have really expensive equipment and very sophisticated equipment that all these deep tech startups can use. The question is how to manage it so. It is like facilities on a shared economy basis. If we believe in the Institution of Engineers Singapore, then maybe the institution can help you to manage it. So, that is one proposal.

Coming to investment, the second "I", shifting capital to skill up revolutionary ideas. Sir, our investment philosophy really must evolve, highlighting the significant trend. Mr Chew Shou Zi noted that the massive shift in investments towards early-stage startups that emphasise the true impact lies in, "taking a single idea and giving it the scale to reach millions or billions," he said, "if you are lucky."

The reality on the ground, for Singapore, is that it is really difficult to get Series A, and you have to prove profitability and the likes. Last year, A*STAR's spin-off, MetaOptics, pre-profitability, a little bit of revenue, but high potential – it listed on Catalist. It was about $30 million and now it has a market capitalisation of about $200 million, and it is going to NASDAQ.

That points us to a path for all these deep tech startups. Let us not depend too much on the venture capitals, maybe public money or public funding might be a better option or another option.

I convene a group of tech entrepreneurs, investors like Catalist sponsors, and investors, and we meet at the Singapore Exchange (SGX). SGX is very supportive to give me the room. And SGX participated in what we term special pathway for Catalist listing of technology ventures.

We note that in Hong Kong Exchange chapter 18(A) for biopharma companies, chapter 18(C) of the Hong Kong Exchange basically says that pre-revenue, pre-profitability companies can list, but the size is huge. We are talking about HK$1.5 billion to $1.8 billion. We have the Global Listing Board but it is also a big number. So, perhaps the sweet spot is not really to go for the $1 billion size capitalisation, but actually to go for $50 million or $100 million, as a pathway to get them funded properly because these are long-term investments, but with a high potential to go global and worldwide. So, that is case two of MetaOptics.

Internationalisation. Using our knowledge or education passport for global impact, Mr Chew pointed out Singapore has historically looked outwards and upwards and has created an outsider global footprint, advising the graduates to use the extraordinary educational passport to take their work to the world. I give you another case of space engineering. Alenia, I am not sure Members are familiar with them or with Dr Mark Lim. He developed plasma-based propulsion for spacecraft. I invited him to sit on my technical committee; I am going after all of these people. And his business obviously is not really much in Singapore. In Singapore, he would probably have one or two customers —

Mr Deputy Speaker : Excuse me, Dr Neo. I have given you 10 minutes of latitude. I am beginning to ask whether you are going to draw any of your insights to the subject of the Motion.

And I turn you to Standing Order 50(1), and these are rules and Standing Orders that apply to all Members of Parliament. You do have a few more minutes. Could I invite you to draw a link from your observations, insights and experiences to the Motion or the amended Motion at hand? Thank you.

Dr Neo Kok Beng : Sure. Okay, alright let me finish this. What we need is not just encouraging the startups to work, but also to tap on the ecosystems and the ecosystem is like the Institution of Engineers, whether it is a global or regional setup.

As far as the Motion is concerned, it is not just assisting, it is not just getting startup, giving resources to push them. I think the Motion has to include the system of innovation. And the system of innovation does not just have a couple of parties. Competitors, especially MNCs, suppliers that are based here, are very important to help create this ecosystem to have a much more vibrant ecosystem, not just what you call – okay, I will stop at that.

I just want to declare one more interest. I quote so much of Mr Chew Shou Zi and my mother maiden's name is Chew. He is my nephew. That is all that I have.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Dr Neo, you have got another few minutes. Feel free to carry on if you can make your points relevant to the Motion.

Dr Neo Kok Beng : Alright, so as far as the Motion is concerned, Mr Edward Chia took my technology entrepreneurship class in NUS also. He understands that to build tech ecosystems, we really need a complete system and innovations, so I therefore support his amended Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker : We carry on with the debate on the Motion and the amended Motion. The next speaker is Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

6.57 pm

Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang) : Mr Deputy Speaker, youths and/or aspiring entrepreneurs catching snippets of today's debate may think that there is a dearth of ideas or entrepreneurship in Singapore, or that this is a place where there is no room for experiment. I beg to differ. In fact, just end-June, I met eight startups at NUS Homecoming, from the very same programme that Minister of State Dinesh mentioned, NUS Overseas Colleges.

I met companies involved in robotics, social enterprise and edutech, and that is just a very small subset of the thousands of entrepreneurs that the NUS Overseas Colleges have bred. But every generation of startups and companies face challenges, and we are here to diagnose and address the gaps to help them succeed.

The aspirations expressed in this Motion are ones that Members on both sides of the House can support. An economy where Singaporeans can thrive, entrepreneurs can experiment, businesses can succeed, workers can progress and good ideas can flourish. The more important question is how do we turn these aspirations into reality?

My central argument today is simple: thriving Singaporeans drive thriving Singapore businesses, and thriving Singapore businesses build a thriving Singapore.

Businesses need skilled, confident and adaptable Singaporeans to grow. Singaporeans in turn, need strong businesses that can create good jobs, invest in their capabilities and give them opportunities to lead. We should therefore avoid viewing workers and businesses as being on opposing sides. When businesses do well, workers should share in the gains. When businesses face genuine transformation pressures, our policies should help both companies and workers make the transition together.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

I have seen our enterprise landscapes from several perspectives, having worked in a successful startup, supporting Singapore companies in the Public Service and now running an SME. These experiences have convinced me that good ideas need "5Cs" to grow: customers, capital, connections, capabilities and confidence.

I will trace the journey of a company through our enterprise ecosystem, from turning an idea into a viable product to winning its first customers, scaling through capital and global connections, and eventually reaching an exit that recycles capital, experience and confidence into the next generations of our enterprises.

Our enterprise policies should help promising companies to make each of these transitions. In the world of startups, it is no longer merely a contest of ideas. Increasingly, it is a contest of adoption. A good idea that nobody buys remains an idea.

For Singapore startups, the domestic market is where they can prove themselves, but the region and the world are where they must scale. That requires more than grants, competitions and technical development. It requires someone willing to become the first serious customers.

Yet, every founder encounters the same dreaded question: "Who else has already used it?" This creates a familiar paradox. A company cannot establish a track record without a major customer, but it cannot secure a major customer without an established track record.

I recently met this company, Mottainai Food Tech, and "Mottainai" means "too good to waste" in Japanese. It is a local startup that turns food-manufacturing by-products, including soybean pulp, into nutritious food products. Its technology supports food security and circularity, and it has developed a commercial product. But like many young companies, it still needs sizeable orders to prove that it can produce and deliver at scale.

This challenge is not unique to food technology. Singapore companies in sustainability, advanced manufacturing, healthcare and enterprise technology encounter similar barriers. I therefore welcome the ESR's recommendation to mobilise lead demand from large companies and the public sector. This does not mean buying an inferior product, simply because it is local. Nor should Government agencies become the permanent customers of every startup. It means giving credible companies a fair opportunity to test, demonstrate and improve their solutions. It means helping them to cross the difficult gap between having a technically viable product and building a commercially proven business.

A reference customer in Singapore can provide more than just revenue. If a young company can show that its product meets the standards of an established corporation or Government agency, it becomes easier to approach customers abroad. Our domestic market may be small, but Singapore's reputation for quality, standards and reliability is significant.

A first customer in Singapore is often a passport to the region. I experienced the value of such an opportunity early in my career at Brandtology. It is a Singapore technology startup developing natural language processing and social media analytics before these capabilities became mainstream. A major Singapore Government contract gave the company both a credible reference customer and evidence that its team could deliver at scale.

Singapore's concentration of multinational and regional headquarters then amplified the value of that first reference customer. Once we had demonstrated our capabilities here, many of their regional decision-makers were already based here and would ask us a very different question from before: "Do you want to follow us into our other markets?"

A successful project in Singapore therefore became more than a domestic reference. It became a platform for regional growth.

The lesson remains relevant today. If every major buyer insists on an extensive track record, new companies will never have the opportunity to build one. Yet, buyers also have legitimate reasons to be cautious, especially when procuring critical or untested solutions. They must be confident that the technology is reliable and that the company can deliver.

The challenge, therefore, is to manage these risks without allowing past track records to become the only measure of credibility. For suitable purchases involving new solutions, agencies and major buyers could give greater weight to independently verified technical performance, relevant certifications, pilot results and delivery capacity.

And where the risks are manageable, smaller initial contracts or phased procurement can allow credible new entrants to establish a track record without requiring the buyer to assume the full risk from the outset. This is not about lowering the bar. It is about ensuring that the bar measures what truly matters: whether the solution works, whether it meets the required standards and whether the company can deliver.

Mr Speaker, Singapore companies do not grow in isolation. Leading global companies contribute more than investment and direct employment. Their regional management, technical and procurement functions can connect local enterprises to sophisticated demand, new technologies, international standards and global supply chains.

However, these connections do not arise automatically. Smaller companies may lack the information, networks or resources needed to identify suitable partners, understand overseas requirements or anticipate where an industry is heading.

This is where industry associations and consortiums can play a much larger role. As the special advisor to Battery Consortium Singapore, I see how an effective industry platform can bring together startups, established local enterprises, MNCs and research institutions across the value chain.

They come with different strengths and interests. A startup may have a promising technology, but lack the production experience. An established enterprise may understand customers and operations, but need new technologies. An MNC may be looking for qualified partners that can meet its standards. A research institution may have valuable intellectual property that has yet to find a commercial application.

The role of an industry platform is to then make these connections useful. It should identify actual market needs, bring suitable partners together and help promising solutions move from research and pilot projects to paying customers. Its effectiveness should therefore be measured not by membership or the number of events organised, but by partnerships formed, standards attained, projects commercialised and contracts secured. Foreign investment and local enterprise development are not competing strategies. At their best, they reinforce each other.

The deeper question is not simply how many global companies we attract or how many local SMEs we support. It is whether they interact in ways that build lasting capabilities for Singapore and Singaporeans.

The objective should not be to shelter our companies from competition. It is to ensure that they are sufficiently connected, informed and capable to compete.

Securing a major customer is an important breakthrough, but it often creates the next challenge: cashflow. A company may have to purchase materials, expand production, hire workers and provide bank guarantees before receiving payment. A healthy order book does not necessarily mean that there is enough working capital to fulfil those orders.

Penguin International's "Electric Dream" project illustrates how customers and capital must come together. After securing Shell as a customer, Penguin obtained a green loan under the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green to support the design, construction and operation of Singapore's first fully electric seagoing passenger ferries and their rapid shore chargers. The customer provided the demand and commercial validation, while suitable financing enabled the company to deliver an innovative project at scale. That successful delivery can, in turn, become a track record for winning future projects.

And financing requirements change as a company grows. Early funding may help develop and test a product. Fulfilling the first major order may require working capital, while expanding production or entering overseas markets may require longer-term financing.

Deep-tech companies may need capital that is willing to wait several years before earning a return. We therefore need suitable financing at every stage, from developing a product and fulfilling the first major order to expanding overseas or preparing for acquisition or listing.

Different businesses will also require different forms of financing. These may include equity, venture debt, private credit and acquisition financing. Not every promising company will fit the venture-capital model of rapid and exponential growth. Some will grow more steadily while creating good jobs, accumulating valuable capabilities and becoming strong regional businesses. Our financing landscape should have room for the whole range of companies.

Government intervention should not replace commercial discipline or protect unviable companies. Our role is to address genuine financing gaps and crowd in suitable private capital.

I also want to touch on a point on enterprise policy. Singapore has built up a large and active startup community today. Our next challenge is to help more promising companies survive, scale and expand overseas.

This should also shape how we evaluate enterprise policies. Too often, success is measured by participation: how many companies received a grant, joined a programme, attended a trade fair or mission or completed a pilot? These figures tell us whether support has been delivered, but not whether enterprises have progressed.

We should also track how many companies move from pilot to first contract, from first contract to export and from export to scale. This does not mean that every company must follow the same path or grow at the same speed. It means each programme should be clear about the next commercial milestone it is intended to help companies reach. Where companies repeatedly stall at the same stage, whether in securing their first major customer, obtaining working capital or finding overseas customers, that tells us where our support system must improve.

Enterprise policy should therefore be evaluated not merely by participation, but by progression.

In practice though, business progression ultimately depends on its people. While policies, financing and connections matter, businesses do not transform automatically. People transform businesses.

For an SME owner, AI, higher labour costs, overseas expansion and new regulations do not arrive as separate projects handled by different departments. They all land on the same desk. The owner must manage cash flow, chase payments, retain workers, serve customers and resolve the day's operational problems, while still finding time to invest in technology and plan for the future. The owner must work in the business while also finding time to work on the business.

Enterprise transformation therefore cannot be reduced to giving a company a grant to purchase equipment or adopt a new system. We must also invest in the capabilities of SME owners, directors and business leaders. Leadership development should be practical. It should help them interpret new technologies, assess overseas opportunities, understand financing options, manage people and decide when to adapt, expand, pivot or diversify. This matters because entrepreneurship must remain a viable path for capable Singaporeans.

We have strengthened protection, support and progression for workers, and rightly so. At the same time, we should recognise that business owners carry risks that are less visible and often less cushioned.

An owner may invest personal savings, guarantee a loan and forgo a salary during difficult months, while remaining responsible for paying employees, suppliers and creditors on time. We should not romanticise business ownership, because being your own boss also often means that every customer, creditor and employee becomes your boss. Responsible entrepreneurs need mentorship, suitable financing, strong networks and a reasonable second chance after honest commercial failure.

Risk-taking does not mean irresponsibility. An economy that wants entrepreneurs to experiment must distinguish genuine commercial failure from misconduct. Not every startup will become a MNC. Many will find a sustainable place in the SME landscape as employers and capability builders.

But Singaporeans must continue to see starting and growing a business as a worthwhile path. This is also where confidence matters. Entrepreneurs need confidence that a credible idea will receive a fair hearing, that financing will be available when real demand emerges and that one honest failure may not end their entrepreneurial journey.

This returns me to the relationship between workers and businesses. It is tempting to view economic policy as a choice between supporting workers and supporting businesses. But businesses succeed through people and workers progress when their companies become more productive and competitive.

Every successful transformation therefore depends on whether employees understand it, contribute to it and share in its benefits. A grant may help a company purchase a new machine, but workers must learn to operate it. AI may improve productivity, but managers must redesign jobs and equip employees to use it effectively. Internationalisation may open a new market, but Singaporeans must be prepared to lead teams, serve customers and operate across cultures.

Wage standards provide an important floor, but sustained real wage growth must also be supported by higher productivity, stronger capabilities and businesses that create greater value. Crucially, workers must share in these gains through better wages, stronger career progression and greater opportunities to take on skilled and leadership roles.

Workers also need confidence that the transformation will lead not simply to disruption but to better skills, wages and opportunities. Workers and businesses are therefore not opposing interests. Their success is interconnected and our economic policies must help them progress together. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] As the sayings go, the lips and the teeth are interdependent. Businesses and employees have to rely on each other. Only when a business develops well can employees enjoy better salaries, and only when employees continue to improve can the business become more competitive. Both must grow and benefit together.

( In English ): In conclusion, there is considerable common ground between the aspirations of this Motion and ESR. The direction is sound. The next task is execution.

We should focus on four practical priorities. First, help credible young companies secure their first major customers while maintaining rigorous standards and managing the buyers' risks. Second, connect global companies, local enterprises and research institutions through industry platforms that are accountable for actual partnerships, projects and contracts. Third, ensure that companies can access suitable financing as they move from product development to order fulfilment, expansion and internationalisation. Fourth, invest in the business leaders and workers responsible for carrying out transformation and ensure that both share in its gains.

Across these areas —

Mr Speaker : Mr Ng, you have about a minute left.

Mr Ng Shi Xuan : — we should evaluate enterprise policy by progression, not merely participation; whether companies move from pilot to first contract; from first contract to export; and from export to scale.

Ultimately, an economy for the future must be built around its people. Thriving Singaporeans drive thriving Singapore businesses. Thriving Singapore businesses build a thriving Singapore. Our task is now to give Singaporeans a fair chance to build, grow and lead successful businesses from Singapore, and the ESR recommendations set out how we can get there for both businesses and workers.

I support the Motion as amended, especially Part (b), where local and global enterprises should be interacting with each other and not grow in isolation.

Mr Speaker : Minister Jeffrey Siow.

7.17 pm

The Minister for Transport and Second Minister for Finance (Mr Jeffrey Siow) : Mr Speaker, let me begin by first thanking Members on both sides of the House for a thoughtful, wide-ranging and constructive debate on our economy. Many have observed that our world has changed, constraints are tighter and our economic future could be more uncertain. I am glad Members across the aisle recognise that Singapore must refresh our economic strategy. And that is precisely why we started ESR a year ago.

The ESR was one of the most extensive reviews in recent years. Five ESR Committees engaged more than 7,700 people over nine months. These included: business leaders of large and small enterprises; trade associations and chambers representing SMEs; unionists supporting and championing workers' interests; and experts with decades of experience, including academics, venture capitalists, senior civil servants and global CEOs. Many of these people are on the economic frontline, making decisions today that will shape the direction of our future economy.

The ESR was a collective endeavour by all of these Singaporeans, and this is how we were able to produce a comprehensive economic blueprint grounded in experience and reality.

Today, we have heard several speeches from WP. Sifting through the veritable grab bag of pet issues raised, nevertheless, I found agreement with quite a few of the WP's economic ideas.

For instance, there were suggestions on how to better support our SMEs and startups and build a stronger base of local companies. These goals are not in dispute and the ESR report sets out specific recommendations, whether on more broad-based support for overseas expansion or nurturing the next generation of Singapore global enterprises.

While we can debate the details, it is clear that the suggestions from WP are not so much a different economic playbook but instead, very much in line with the direction of the ESR. So, we have considerable common ground. We do want an economy with dynamic local enterprises and good jobs for Singaporeans. There are some differences over the means of achieving these goals, but there is no need to overstate these differences.

However, there is one significant difference we need to address, and this is in how we understand Singapore's economic model. From the speeches I have heard, WP appears to believe that Singapore's economic model is imbalanced and needs to be fundamentally re-oriented. They have portrayed Singapore as a place where MNCs create wealth and there is some Faustian bargain where SMEs are held down, and Singaporeans receive the benefits through redistribution.

I disagree with this characterisation. And this is not an academic disagreement but one that is crucial to the policies that we will pursue. If the original diagnosis or assumption is wrong, the proposed remedy will send us in the wrong direction. The wrong medication may cause us even more harm than good.

One example, Mr Kenneth Tiong referred to the Government as having a universal land pricing model. This is simply untrue.

Our framework is already differentiated. Land is priced differently at fair market value based on its intended use, which could be residential, commercial, industrial, community, educational or religious. We can debate whether there is sufficient flexibility in the current framework and whether there could be or should be further differentiation. But that is quite different from suggesting that the current framework is fundamentally flawed. On the contrary, our clear and transparent framework ensures responsible stewardship of our limited land resources.

I want to emphasise that the People's Action Party Government's economic strategy has always been built around Singaporeans, whether as workers, professionals, investors, entrepreneurs or business owners. Our people, not companies, are at the centre of everything we do. Economic growth has never been an end in itself. It is a means to an end to create better jobs, higher incomes and better lives for Singaporeans. And by that measure, Singapore's economic model has delivered for generation after generation of Singaporeans.

The WP's view appears to be that MNCs and local firms are competing for a fixed pie. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested that the Government is not supporting our own SMEs as much as we do for MNCs and that we must pivot away from MNCs to SMEs. But as my colleague, Mr Edward Chia, has already pointed out, this is a false choice. For our economy to thrive, we need both MNCs and SMEs in Singapore to succeed.

In a more difficult global environment, we have to compete harder for foreign investments. We must also work harder to support our local companies.

We are not in a zero-sum situation. In fact, the growth of our local companies and our MNCs mutually reinforce each other. SMEs are critical to our economy. They employ the majority of our workforce. Many enterprising Singaporeans start their own businesses to forge their own paths and strive for their hopes and dreams.

Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling, has spoken in detail about the robust support ecosystem for SMEs. And the Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash, shared how we have built up our startup ecosystem over the years. I will not repeat what they have already covered.

But very few countries support local companies like we do here in Singapore. Every year, the Government provides nearly $2 billion dollars in direct grants and loans for our local SMEs to build stronger capabilities, embark on new projects and compete successfully in global markets.

Not all of these schemes are fully utilised today. We can do more to help our companies make fuller use of the support available. And if demand for these schemes grows because more companies are stepping up and making use of them, let me state for the record that the Ministry of Finance stands ready in support with more resources.

Of course, if this was just about spending more money, we would already have many more world-class companies. But many of us understand that building a company is very hard. Mr Mark Lee and Mr Azhar Othman have spoken passionately about their experience as business leaders themselves and also in their roles now supporting SMEs. Building a business requires many factors: stronger leadership, deep technological capabilities, access to capital and talent, and the confidence to venture overseas.

That is why in 2018, we re-organised agencies in MTI to form Enterprise Singapore – a new Statutory Board with a clear mission to support our local companies end-to-end: capability building, innovation, financing, talent, internationalisation.

I had the privilege to serve as the first Managing Director of Enterprise Singapore. My colleagues and I were deeply motivated by our mission. We made it a point to use Singapore-made products in the office – locally made coffee and tea; chairs and cushions; even the snacks in our vending machines – as a small reminder every day that our mission was to support and champion our local enterprises.

Every success by a Singapore company – a new product, a new market, a new investment – was a success that we celebrated together. Our officers worked hand-in-hand with SMEs. Our companies know that we walked this journey with them side by side. Because when Singapore enterprises thrive, they create more jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. We all have a stake in their success.

In a more fragmented global economy, it has indeed become more difficult for SMEs to venture overseas. Tariffs have gone up. Industrial policies are now back in fashion. The path from local company to global enterprise seems much steeper than before.

But that does not mean that we should turn inward. The WP asserts that if external markets become more uncertain, we should retreat and rely more on domestic demand. This is unrealistic. Our domestic market is simply too small. Mr Mark Lee, who leads the SBF, pointed out that domestic demand cannot be our primary engine for growth, and I cannot agree more.

The answer is not to turn inward. It is the reverse: to strengthen our companies to compete more effectively in more overseas markets with greater resilience.

This is why following the US Liberation Day tariffs last year, we set up the Singapore Economic Resilience Task Force, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, to help our businesses adapt. Many companies have benefited from our efforts. For example, Castlery, an online furniture company with 70% of its revenue from the US, has diversified its manufacturing base with Enterprise Singapore's support. In fact, Castlery has pivoted so well that it has recently opened up its first brick and mortar store in New York City, which I hope to visit soon.

Even as we redouble our efforts to support our local companies, we must not forget that MNCs remain important to our economy. MNCs are attracted to Singapore not just because of the incentives we give, but because of our entire ecosystem – our capabilities, our workers, our SMEs.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat spoke in detail about how, in turn, MNCs generate positive spillovers for the economy. When global companies set up deep capability here – a research centre, a regional headquarters, an advanced manufacturing line – they do not simply occupy space that local companies might otherwise have filled. But they bring in resources, capabilities and technology we do not yet have, and this includes AI capabilities which would take us years to develop on our own.

Many of our local companies grow and succeed because of their relationships with MNCs, not in spite of them. For example, Sunningdale Tech is a Singapore precision engineering company which started off as a small-scale manufacturer of plastic products, and it has grown to be a large company, alongside its blue-chip clients like HP, Illumina and Dyson. When I attended a major industrial trade fair last year, I was proud to see many more local manufacturers, smaller than Sunningdale, but ready to grow, showcasing their innovations and products to a global audience.

Just as importantly, global companies create good jobs – high-skilled, high-paying jobs. More than two-thirds of senior management positions in MNCs in Singapore today are held by Singaporeans. These often have regional or even global responsibilities, which means Singapore can have a greater influence in economic decisions beyond our small size and population.

Many jobs are generated for young Singaporeans too. I visited Applied Materials last year. Applied is an American company producing high-end equipment for semiconductor manufacturers, such as TSMC, Samsung and Micron. Mr Saktiandi mentioned that Applied Materials had invested recently in building a second campus at Tampines; they told me about it with great excitement when I visited their first facility at Upper Changi.

At Upper Changi, I met Ms Chua Khai Shuen. Khai Shuen had interned at Applied while studying mechanical engineering at the NUS. She was very happy to be hired upon her graduation, so she could continue with the projects that she started. Her biggest achievement, so far, unfortunately, is that she can put on her PPE faster than her colleagues. I tried competing with her and I naturally lost out.

But Khai Shuen's story, as a young graduate, is not unique. There are many like her, building their budding careers in global companies based in Singapore. During our house visits, I am sure many of us would have met parents who proudly tell us their sons and daughters are working in Google or Microsoft, BlackRock or JP Morgan, Micron or GlobalFoundries, Boeing or Rolls Royce. It would be much harder for a Singaporean to work in any of these companies, if the companies were not based here in Singapore.

The support we provide to attract foreign investment and the support we provide to local enterprises are complementary and mutually reinforcing. The resources we commit to attracting investments do not come at the expense of supporting local enterprises. The converse is also true. If we reduce the resources that we commit to supporting this ecosystem, then only do we risk MNCs leaving Singapore, even local companies will think about operating in other jurisdictions.

So, at a time when countries are spending more than ever to attract and reshore strategic investments, our response surely cannot be to do less. Giving up these investments would mean fewer higher quality jobs and fewer opportunities for Singaporeans – and this cannot be our approach.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. The ESR began with a simple but urgent premise. The world is changing and Singapore must reinvent ourselves. But as we do so, we should be clear about what needs to change and what should stay the same.

Our task is not to discard what has made Singapore successful, but to renew and strengthen our formula for a changed world. We are not choosing between SMEs and MNCs. We need both. We are not choosing between domestic demand and external markets. We need both. This is why I fully support the amendments to the Motion as proposed by Mr Edward Chia, which reflect our economic strategy holistically and accurately.

Mr Speaker, our enterprises have ambitions that extend far beyond our shores, further than perhaps what the WP thinks they are capable of. Our job is to help our companies realise their ambitions and not hold them back.

Ultimately, the ESR is not going to be judged by the number of schemes we create, or the amount of money we spend. It will be judged by its outcomes: better jobs, higher incomes, more social mobility and greater resilience, and whether Singaporeans have the confidence that they can build better lives for themselves and for their children.

This is why it is important that the ESR is a whole-of-society effort, led by a new generation of business, union, society and Government leaders, who will collectively own these outcomes.

Mr Speaker, throughout our history, whenever the world has changed, Singapore has adapted. We have stayed open, we have continued to build our capabilities, and we have always invested in our people. This is how we have earned our place in the world and this is how we will continue creating opportunities for ourselves. Mr Speaker, I support the amended Motion. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Mr Mark Lee, do you have a clarification to ask of the Member?

7.36 pm

Mr Mark Lee : Mr Speaker. I would like to pose a point of clarification to Minister of State Dinesh. While we discuss the mandatory retrenchment benefits for workers, has MOM also examined the potential impact on employers, specifically whether mandatory retrenchment benefits could create unintended cost or behavioural changes in hiring, particularly for SMEs and firms?

Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash : Mr Speaker, it is not the first time that we are raising issues of legislation of retrenchment benefits. We have considered it in the past. It was not very appropriate then. We studied it periodically. As the Member knows, with the Tripartite Guidelines, at least nine and 10 workers are compensated, as was highlighted. [ Please refer to ​ " Clarification by Minister of State for Manpower ", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Correction By Written Statement section. ]

However, the circumstances have changed. We are looking at it, because we have highlighted that both in the speech and as well as the ESR has recommended for stronger support to our workers. This is something that we are looking at. Whether or not we can go above 90% is something that we are looking at as well.

We are not at this point wedded on whether or not it is to be legislated. As in all things that the Government does, we will consult Singapore National Employers Federation, we will consult the unions and make a considered decision after our consults.

Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, do you have a clarification to make? Go ahead.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim : Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank Minister Siow for the opportunity for me to clarify some positions for the WP.

I think when I and my colleagues called for a rebalance, we were neither suggesting that SMEs and MNCs are competing for the same pie. Nor are we suggesting that greater support for local SMEs must somehow either come at the expense of existing MNCs or punish these golden geese. Indeed, I believe I was very careful to emphasise in the closing of my speech that we must not sideline our MNCs and GLCs, nor should we shut off foreign capital.

What Mr Siow attributes to the WP, I am afraid is a false dichotomy that we did not draw. It is a convenient strawman argument, perhaps to win – had we actually made it.

Similarly, we are not blind to how domestic demand alone is insufficient to drive our economic engine. But saying that we want healthy domestic demand is not equivalent to saying that we do not need foreign ones. Rather, what we want to urge is the growth of consumer demand that historically has been weaker here than in other advanced economies of our level of development.

So, my question then to the Minister is whether he believes that the state of our SME ecosystem is currently sufficiently strong to compete in regional economies as they internationalise and if he thinks that our current domestic demand is sufficiently healthy, that there is no need to push this up as we try to restructure and reform our global economy for the 21st century?

Mr Jeffrey Siow : I thank the hon Member for his clarification. We had this impression, I had this impression largely because of the language that is used in the Motion, where there was no mention of global enterprises and the global economy. And Mr Edward Chia had to specifically amend the Motion.

In Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's speech, he specifically said that we should pivot towards SMEs. So, when we say pivot, I am assuming there is an impression of a zero-sum arrangement that he had in mind.

But if I was mistaken, I am very happy that he has clarified that the WP is certainly aligned with our economic strategy, that he sees that both MNCs and SMEs are important, and that we should strive to strengthen our strategies on both sides.

Specifically, to his question on whether the state of our SME ecosystem is sufficiently strong, or whether local demand is sufficient, I do not think there will be a threshold where we say today, we are ready and okay. I think it is a continual process. The colleagues at Enterprise Singapore and MTI are working very hard, continually strengthening our SMEs, continually making them globally competitive, continually creating opportunities and supporting them to grow. And that is the spirit in which we see this, and we will continue to do this and endeavour to help our SMEs to succeed.

Mr Speaker : Minister Dr Tan See Leng.

7.42 pm

The Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (Dr Tan See Leng) : Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me first thank Mr Kenneth Tiong and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for bringing this Motion before the House, and all Members who have contributed to a thoughtful as well as a constructive debate.

With that point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim raised earlier on to Minister Jeffrey Siow, perhaps, the Member would consider supporting and voting for the amended Motion.

We have all heard different views, diagnoses and prescriptions, but also substantial common ground. We all want fulfilling careers. We want good outcomes for our fellow Singaporeans. We all want entrepreneurs who are confident and willing to try, to innovate and to grow. We all want more Singapore enterprises that are globally successful. And we want Singaporeans to be able to face the future with confidence, even as technology and global competition reshape our economy.

Mr Kenneth Tiong said that, if he could sum up this Motion in one question, it would be: "How does an ordinary Singaporean get a lasting share of our country’s success?" It is a fair and it is an important question. Let me try. Let me offer my answer.

A Singaporean gets a lasting share of that success by meaningfully participating in our economy, through good jobs, sustained real wages growth and finding fulfilment through work; by acquiring and building skills and skillsets that remain relevant as technology evolves and changes; and after any setbacks, by taking up the opportunity to learn, and the support to recover and build again.

Some Singaporeans will be able to do much more, such as by starting or growing a successful business; by turning an idea into a product or service; or by leading a regional or global team from Singapore. Our people shape the economy. But they are, in turn, shaped by the economy itself.

Singaporeans are not mere passive beneficiaries of economic growth. They never have been that. We would never have gotten here if our people had been inert digits. Our people have always been active participants, contributors, builders and owners of this island-nation. And this has always been at the heart of Singapore's economic strategy.

The ultimate purpose of our economic strategy has never been growth for growth's sake. It is about whether that growth pervades and percolates through the broader economy, that it improves people's lives through good jobs, rising incomes, social mobility and the resilience to withstand setbacks.

By these measures, the Singapore model has delivered over successive generations. Our responsibility now is to ensure that it continues to deliver in a very different, changed world.

The ESR is guided by three imperatives: sharpen Singapore's value proposition; enhance the agility and adaptability of our firms, workers and institutions; and build resilience alongside efficiency.

These are not abstract concepts. They are about widening practical pathways to success. Can someone with an idea – whether a research breakthrough, a new service, an F&B concept or even a franchise opportunity – find the mentorship, the first customer and the capital to build a viable enterprise? Can an SME adopt technology and scale? Can a professional gain the international exposure needed to lead a global business? Can a worker acquire relevant skills before being displaced or find a credible path back into meaningful work after losing a job?

The ESR is about strengthening these pathways. Not everyone will follow the same path.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh made a useful distinction: fairness, rather than equality alone, should guide policy. It means preventing disadvantage from becoming entrenched while calibrating opportunities and support for different needs and for different circumstances.

Mr Speaker, allow me to speak and share about my own personal journey before I was elected as a Member of Parliament in 2020.

I began my own entrepreneurial journey when I was around 27. Together with a few partners, I started Healthway Medical Group with one clinic in Yishun. I have to declare I do not have any shares in Healthway, so I am not making a pitch.

We were all young. We had limited capital. We had zero experience in starting a business. Nor did we have the wide range of support schemes which startups today can draw on. There was no certainty that our venture would succeed. We were doctors, and I can tell you our medical training did not include courses on how to build a business organisation. We had to learn on the go – operations, finance, people management and quality control. In time we also had to learn how to build an institution that could endure beyond ourselves.

Some of the earliest companies that gave us a chance were MNCs like Sony, Aiwa, Shimano, Asahi TV Glass, Hewlett-Packard and Procter & Gamble. In fact, a few of them no longer exist in Singapore.

They were large at that time; they were established global companies. We were a young Singapore startup enterprise who found a relatively white space in the HDB and industrial estates, when the concept of a corporate group practice providing healthcare in those areas was still nascent. The trust of these MNCs gave us that foothold and enabled us to build a track record.

We had to constantly measure up. We had to meet their demanding standards. But once we showed that we could deliver, it became easier to win the confidence of the next customer.

Therefore, I have never regarded global enterprises and local enterprises as opposites. In my own experience, established global companies helped a homegrown Singapore enterprise to start, establish credibility and grow. They did not crowd us out. They gave us an opportunity to grow and to compete. And I know this is the experience of many other SMEs in Singapore.

Opportunity alone was not enough. We still had to deliver. We had to improve our service, we had to look after our people, we had to manage our costs, we had to earn our customers' trust again and again.

Over time, the organisation grew. It transformed, it diversified, it achieved sustainable scale and all of us successfully divested.

Later, I built, I transformed and I scaled organisations at a much larger and more international level. Starting a clinic did not equip me automatically to manage a network, let alone lead a healthcare group of tertiary hospitals with global operations, with more than 55,000 staff operating across Europe and Asia. I had to keep learning, moving beyond medicine into management, finance, technology and organisational leadership, and working with people and most importantly, mentors who knew far more than what I knew in so many areas outside my own training.

I graduated from business school only after turning 40, and hence, I am a believer in lifelong learning. Even now, I am still learning from all of you here.

I did not do it alone. Healthway was built with a few founders who shared that same vision – perhaps foolishly, they listened to me, they took risks alongside, with me – and staff who committed themselves to the organisation, customers who trusted us and partners who helped us develop.

That experience also taught me what the Government can and what the Government cannot do. Mr Mark Lee put it so aptly: the Government must build the runway, but entrepreneurs and workers must still run on it and take off.

The Government should maintain sound institutions, open markets and clear rules. It must and should always reduce avoidable friction, reduce volatilities in policies, connect businesses to knowledge and markets, and share selected risks where there is wider economic benefit.

And I was taught by a very famous accountant during that period. In Singapore, we have knowledge, but know-how, better. So, knowledge is good, know-how is better. But when you go overseas, know-who is the best.

So, the Government cannot find the customers for us. It cannot build the business team, it cannot make commercial decisions or persevere on the entrepreneur's behalf. Government support should be a springboard for enterprise. It cannot be the business model.

But that does not mean leaving entrepreneurs and SMEs to fend for themselves. Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling has set out comprehensively how we help enterprises manage immediate pressures, adopt technology, strengthen operations and venture overseas. These schemes are aimed at helping viable firms become more productive, more competitive and more resilient.

To be clear, not every idea or startup will bear fruit. However, this does not mean that these assistance schemes are futile or that the entrepreneur has failed. Every closure can instead mean avoiding years of opportunity costs. The efforts, capital and time saved can then be re-channelled to other more promising ideas or opportunities.

If you talk to enough successful entrepreneurs, where they eventually arrive – the destination, the final destination – often differs from where they intended to go at the start. But that is the resilience, the tenacity and the perseverance of an entrepreneur.

Some of you are old enough, alongside with me, to remember the series "Rocky". Mr Pritam Singh is smiling. I presume he would have known who Rocky, the character is about. "Rocky" is like an entrepreneur. An entrepreneur, the exhortation is that, he is not someone who can throw the punches, but it is the person who can take the punches, get back up and keep moving forward. That is how entrepreneurs win.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has built a credible base for entrepreneurship. Singapore ranked fourth in StartupBlink's Global Startup Ecosystem Index 2025 – this has jumped, up from 16th position in 2020. Today, we have more than 4,500 tech startups, with around 220 incubators, accelerators and venture builders, and more than 500 venture capital firms.

Our ambition cannot be measured only by how many companies are formed. It has to be measured by how many good ideas become viable businesses, how many viable businesses can scale, and how many anchor capabilities, intellectual property and good jobs in Singapore.

Entrepreneurs must cross several difficult gaps. I want to say that this is not exhaustive, but generally, the entire journey involves five difficult crossings: from aspiration to the first venture; from an idea or research breakthrough to innovation and enterprise; from a product or service to a first customer; from early traction to sustained scale; and from a strong base in Singapore to markets around the world.

Government policy can undoubtedly help at each stage, but what it cannot do is make the journey risk-free.

Let me explain. The first gap is between aspiration and the first venture. To address this, Startup SG Founder provides startup capital to first-time entrepreneurs, alongside mentorship and communities to help founders learn, build the confidence, and navigate different stages of growth. Dedicated spaces such as LaunchPad@one-north give founders a place to collaborate, learn from one another, meet investors, develop the know-who, the networks – and develop their ideas.

The aim is not to make everyone an entrepreneur. It is to give serious ideas a fair chance to be tested.

The second gap is between research and something that creates value in the market. Many of tomorrow's founders may not begin in a clinic, in a shop or office, but in a laboratory. Their initial asset may be a scientific discovery, a medical device, a new material, software or intellectual property developed through years of research.

As a medical doctor, I know that a good scientific result is not yet a treatment. A promising prototype is not yet a product. And a good product is not yet a sustainable company. Research creates knowledge. Innovation applies it. Entrepreneurship takes it to market. Scale allows it to create wider economic and social impact.

Our long-term investments in the research, innovation and enterprise, RIE space are producing results. Government spending has catalysed greater private sector R&D. Industry R&D employment has grown to over 30,000, with locals filling more than 70% of these roles. Over the past five years, technologies from A*STAR and our universities have spun off more than 300 companies.

But creating knowledge is only part of the journey. The harder task is how do we translate research into products, into businesses and economic value. We are strengthening this translation in several ways.

Through the Technology for Enterprise Capability Upgrading (T-UP) programme, A*STAR research scientists and engineers can be seconded to support local SMEs' R&D projects for up to two years. We have also established translational platforms that bridge research and commercialisation. Through platforms such as MedTech Catapult and our semiconductor innovation facilities, companies can prototype, they can test, they can commercialise new technologies without bearing the full cost themselves.

Translation also takes place when our public researchers work with leading global companies and local suppliers.

The Smart Manufacturing Joint Lab, which is established by Rolls-Royce, Singapore Aero Engine Services (SAESL) and A*STAR, is one example. The collaboration has developed new technologies that improve fan blade manufacturing and aircraft engine maintenance, repair and overhaul. It has also enabled local SMEs to qualify as suppliers to global aerospace companies.

This is how we anchor investments deeply in Singapore. We do not simply host production. We connect global companies with our researchers and our local suppliers. That is how knowledge is translated into industrial capability and local companies gain pathways into global supply chains.

Under RIE2030, we have upped the ambition, we will strengthen these connections even further. We will commit $37 billion over the next five years, supporting both fundamental research and stronger translation in areas such as semiconductors, transport, healthy longevity and decarbonisation.

Our objective is to ensure that more research becomes useful technology; more useful technology becomes commercial capability; and more capability becomes enterprises, jobs and value anchored in Singapore.

Not every programme will produce a breakthrough. Earlier on, Dr Neo Kok Beng and Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh both argued that innovation and entrepreneurship require room for risk-taking and responsible failure. I am a custodian; we are all custodians of our Budgets. I am not sure whether I can go to that extent of his support in terms of risk-taking and failure.

But we will work within a responsible means of making sure that successes can be sustained. So, we will fund only ideas whose outcomes are already more certain. But we also cannot afford to only fund those outcomes that are already certain – because if we just do that alone, we will miss many of the breakthroughs that could define the future.

This risk-taking, therefore, must be and will be matched by discipline. The Government must invest in areas where Singapore can build meaningful advantages. We call this our right to play.

Researchers must remain rigorous. Our investors must exercise commercial judgement. And entrepreneurs must solve problems that customers are willing to pay for because even the best technology cannot be scaled unless someone is prepared to use it and pay for it.

This brings me to the third gap – how do we bring the product to the first customer. Mr Ng Shi Xuan highlighted why a first customer matters. It allows a company to test and demonstrate its solution, build a track record and show that it can meet demanding standards, making it easier to win the next customer or investor. That was true when I started at Healthway. And it remains true for startups today.

This is why EDB and Enterprise Singapore work to connect MNCs with local startups and SMEs through PACT. I will not go through that because Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling already expounded on it earlier on.

Our public sector can also be an early customer. Under the Innovative Procurement Partnership, startups can participate in tenders and propose innovative solutions for pilot testing. If a trial is successful, agencies have the option to continue working with the same firm to scale and deploy the solution.

This is the wider ecosystem we are trying to build: established companies, startups, research institutions and the public sector all coming and working together; and firms gaining the chance to prove themselves; and good solutions moving more quickly from pilot to scale.

The fourth gap is from early traction to sustained scale. This is where many promising firms struggle.

Different stages require different forms of capital: modest funding for a first venture; patient equity for deep-tech development; venture debt or private credit for growth; and then, public markets and credible exits for mature companies. So, the entire financing journey as I have just shared, we have therefore strengthened all that support.

We have topped up $1 billion to Startup SG Equity, and this will catalyse private investment in early- and growth-stage deep-tech companies. The ESR also recommends developing venture debt and private credit alongside venture capital. For mature companies, the Equities Market Review and a second $1.5 billion tranche of the Anchor Fund will support stronger public markets and higher-quality listings.

All these successful exits, they recycle capital, expertise and confidence, and trust, and reputation into new ventures. But let us not just focus on finance alone. Because finance alone does not build great companies. Public capital should crowd in commercial capital and expertise, not replace them. The risk must still be properly understood and borne. Governments cannot and do not create champions just by simply writing larger cheques.

Firms also need experienced leadership, specialised talent, sound governance and the ability to manage a much larger business. And Enterprise Singapore’s Scale-Up programme addresses this wider capability challenge. Eighty companies in its first seven cohorts generated a combined $2.5 billion in additional revenue within three years; and $1 billion came from overseas expansion.

This is the journey we must strengthen: from the courage to start, to the capability to innovate; from a first customer, to the financing and leadership needed to scale; and eventually to markets much, much larger than our own.

Healthy domestic demand matters because it reflects confidence, it supports domestic-facing businesses and it gives firms a first market to test products and build brands.

My second foray after divesting Healthway was joining and building the hospital business under Parkway. Parkway Holdings itself began in Singapore as a Singapore company. It owned, at that time, the three hospitals named Gleneagles, Mount Elizabeth Hospital and East Shore Hospital.

But Singapore’s domestic market alone cannot provide the scale required for ambitious firms or advanced industries. It is a good platform to build your credibility, to build trust, to build your reputation, to establish a viable proof of concept, build that trusted brand and operating model; then, leveraging it as a platform, a springboard to expand into the region and eventually, globally.

Internationalisation is hard. Let me tell you it is hard, it is very difficult. And I believe it is getting even harder. A company entering another market must understand different customers, regulations, cultures and partners. A more fragmented world that we live in today makes diversification and good in-market support even more important. As Mr Azhar Othman said, Singapore must remain a bridge of trade and not become a barrier to it.

The answer is not to withdraw into our domestic market. It is to do more to help Singapore firms enter more markets, find credible partners and compete more effectively. So, we are strengthening these practical pathways.

Since its inception, we have put up the Global Innovation Alliance (GIA). It has supported close to 1,200 companies to enter new markets and co-innovate with overseas partners. More than 240 startups have achieved commercial or funding traction abroad.

And we will, under GIA2030, launch programmes to help firms test product-market fit and find even earlier customers.

Not every Singapore business can or must become global. A neighbourhood service provider or heritage restaurant that serves the local community plays an equally important role in our society. They create jobs. They directly meet the needs of Singapore and Singaporeans. But for companies that aspire to become regional or global champions, they cannot be confined by the size of our home market. We want to help them grow abroad. But we want the headquarters, the strategic decisions, the R&D, the brains of the company, the intellectual property, the finance, the product management, the regional leadership, the good jobs anchored here. And that has always been what we worked towards.

So, to put simply, we help firms go abroad to grow. But as they grow, the stronger capabilities and opportunities will continue to be anchored firmly in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, most Singaporeans will experience the economy most directly through work. Not everyone will start a company. That does not make their stake in Singapore's success any less direct or lasting. A good job provides income today. But it should also enable a person to build skills, experience and confidence over time.

I have considered this consistently as a doctor, entrepreneur, employer and when I was Manpower Minister, and of course, today, I consider it even more.

As an employer, I learnt that an organisation can grow sustainably only if its people can grow alongside with it. A company that introduces technology without redesigning work and without developing its people will create anxiety and limit ultimately its own capabilities. I have come to realise very early on that at the end of the day, we are all in the business of developing, growing and maximising our human capital.

As Manpower Minister, I met workers for whom disruption was not abstract. A job loss raises fears about income; whether years of experience still count; whether one is too old to begin again; and whether the next job will use one’s experience and abilities.

These concerns are real. We should not answer them merely by pointing to aggregate statistics or the number of courses available. A course completed is not yet a successful transition. Dr Wan Rizal put it well: effort without direction creates frustration; effort with direction builds confidence. And Assoc Prof Terence Ho added that the gains from training and reskilling will not be fully realised until workers have opportunities to apply what they have learnt at work.

So, support will therefore have to begin earlier and connect to real opportunities.

The ESR proposes “career bridges” linking workers in at-risk roles to more resilient occupations through training, guidance and job matching. The new SWDA will integrate these services.

Employers must treat workforce transformation – redesigning jobs, training workers and translating productivity gains – into better work and progression.

Workers, on the other hand, must take ownership too. The Government can make training accessible, employers can create opportunities and unions, the Labour Movement's brothers and sister, can support workers. But no institution can learn on a person’s behalf.

I had to keep learning as the organisations I led became more and more complex. Singaporeans will increasingly have to do the same – deepening expertise, moving into hybrid roles that combine AI with sector knowledge, making mid-career transitions or becoming entrepreneurs later in life.

Entrepreneurship is not confined to the young. Mr Morris Chang founded TSMC, one of the world's most successful semiconductor companies, at age 55, after 25 years at Texas Instruments. This shows how accumulated knowledge and judgement can underpin reinvention later in life.

Our careers will become less linear. But they need not become less meaningful.

Financial support during unemployment or retraining gives individuals and families breathing space. But it must be connected to a pathway forward. Our objective must be to help each person return confidently to sustainable work – not merely to make unemployment more bearable.

We will not be able to promise that every job will remain unchanged – I do not think we can or should we even try to do that – hold back technology merely to freeze roles in place. But what we will do, what we promise to do and what we will endeavour and give our best efforts to do is to help every single worker prepare earlier, acquire relevant capabilities, find credible next steps and navigate change without being left alone. Because every worker matters. [ Applause. ]

That is how a worker obtains a lasting share of economic success. Not only through compensation after disruption, but through the enduring ability to contribute, earn, adapt and progress.

Mr Speaker, let me just return to Mr Kenneth Tiong’s question – how does an ordinary Singaporean get a lasting share of our country’s success?

When a young Singaporean turns a scientific idea into a company. When a local firm wins its first major customer and enters a global value chain. When a technician progresses into a higher-skilled role. When a displaced PMET can build on years of experience rather than start from zero. When a Singapore enterprise grows abroad while strengthening its R&D and leadership functions here. When a Singaporean in a global company develops the capabilities and networks to lead across the region – or even later starts a venture of his or her own. And when someone who suffers a business or career setback can recover, learn, try and succeed again. That is a lasting share. It is not only a transfer received after value has been created. It is the opportunity to take part in crafting, in creating, in shaping and sustaining that value. And that is how Singaporeans can win. That is how winning is done.

The amended Motion, Mr Speaker, captures the full combination that Singapore needs: an equal and inclusive economy with opportunities for entrepreneurs, households, businesses and workers, and ideas and innovation to flourish; and an economy powered by dynamic local companies and global enterprises, healthy domestic and external demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad.

All of these are mutually reinforcing parts of one united economic strategy.

There is a famous Chinese saying that says: "tian shi di li ren he" (天时地利人和) – right timing and opportunity, right place, right people. These are the elements often cited as requirements for success.

The Government will play its part: maintaining a trusted, open economy; investing for the long term; addressing genuine capability, financing and market-access gaps; and helping workers prepare for change. This is "di li" (地利). ( In English ): Right place.

Others have to play their parts. Businesses must transform. They must invest in people; workers must keep learning; investors take informed risks; and entrepreneurs build, compete, persevere and accept the responsibility. That is "ren he" (人和). ( In English ): Right people.

We cannot guarantee that every venture will succeed, every job will remain the same or every transition will be painless. That in itself is "tian shi" (天时) ( In English ): Right timing and opportunity.

Because we cannot provide the timing and the opportunity, that is the most crucial part that the entrepreneur and the business founder would have to decide. But what we can always do is to ensure that Singapore remains a place where every person has a fair chance to try, a pathway to progress and the support to recover from setbacks.

Our beloved Singapore's success has never been guaranteed. Every generation had to build it by staying open, learning faster, taking calculated risks and pulling together when circumstances become difficult. The next chapter will demand that same spirit. The economy of the future will not be powered by one type of company, one source of demand or one Government programme. It will be powered by all fellow Singaporeans who can build, lead, own, innovate, adapt and grow.

That is how we secure the best future for Singapore. And that is how we will ensure that Singapore's future economy truly works for all Singaporeans.

With that Mr Speaker, I support the amendments and the Motion as amended. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Minister Dr Tan, you took a road less travelled and you have certainly come a long way. On a lighter note, we both come from the same era and, like you, I, too, enjoyed watching Sylvester Stallone and must admit I watched the movie Rocky quite a few times.

I would now like to call on Mr Tiong — Oh, sorry, there is a clarification? Mr Azhar Othman.

8.19 pm

Mr Azhar Othman : Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his sharing of experience. In the context of just sharing mine as well in doing business, we know it is very difficult, but the reward is very sweet.

My point of clarification is this: we compete in a global scale now. What we compete before, purely on company to company; and now we compete against China, against US, against everybody. And my point is that in the context of Singapore's unique strategy, the competition can be made easier with the help of what our company has grown.

We have the support of Enterprise Singapore, SBF, we have the support of MTI and so forth.

And I just want to clarify that I hope this support continues and hope this support strengthens even further because this is the unique story of Singapore. How our company grows, not through the competition of what others sees from their government as a restriction, but we see our Government as a conduit to help fellow entrepreneurs, fellow companies to grow globally, irrespective of any country that we are going to go to.

Mr Speaker : Minister Dr Tan, would you like to respond?

Dr Tan See Leng : We certainly will do our best to support all of our Singapore homegrown enterprise. In fact, if you look at the renaming and the most recent Cabinet reshuffling, the Ministry of Trade and Industry will be renamed as Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry with effect from 1 October 2026.

Our Prime Minister is enlightened, he has seen how potentially all of the disruptions, the expanse of the opportunities that are available. And therefore, given the size and the scope of what we all have to do, Deputy Prime Minister Gan in his experience, overseeing trade and the macroeconomic strategy; and I will look at energy and industry, and I will actively engage the trade associations and chambers. We do not have the monopoly of knowledge or information. We will look to as many expert guidance and also invite possible openings for us to see how we can better support our Singaporean enterprises and our fellow Singaporeans. But of course, with one main outcome – and that is they have to anchor themselves here in our beloved homeland.

Mr Speaker : Mr Tiong.

8.22 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied) : Speaker, I thank every Member who spoke on both sides of this House.

We filed this Motion to provide answers to the economic worries top-of-mind for every Singaporean: whether there is a job and whether it lasts; whether the young person who has done everything asked of them can find work that goes somewhere; whether a flat is within reach; whether a small shop can survive its rent; whether the course a worker is sent on leads to a job; whether the growth we announced is felt in a wage; whether a Singaporean who wants to build something can afford to do it in spite of the high cost structure here. It is our structured view across the factors of production, land, labour, capital, productivity.

In this Motion, we have addressed nine of those questions and answered them systematically. I will recap them again.

First, how do we foster a dynamic innovation ecosystem that can overcome and maximise value in spite of high business cost and physical constraints?

I proposed a special zone around NTU, where state land is charged at development cost rather than market scarcity value. Take a different tack from the lack of flexibility, once shown to NUS and the One-North area. A zone authority that is able to make fast decisions on visas, space and procurement within weeks, with its own investment body to provide growth capital and take equity stakes in emerging enterprises. It is an investment in our young and Singapore's future.

I thank Mr Azhar Othman, who asked for wider R&D tax incentives and industry academia co-funding pools.

I thank Dr Neo Kok Beng for his observation of how A*STAR and our universities are still not adequately integrated with our SMEs and his suggestion to encourage lab sharing during off hours. While we agree with his call for high-failure, high-impact state funding, we believe such public R&D spending must be paired with sovereign return mechanisms.

And I thank Mr Ng Shi Xuan for his relaying of the "5Cs" approach to the startup lifecycle.

I thank the Minister Jeffrey Siow for making my point on land pricing. Fair market value is already a function of the interest granted and not a number attached to a plot. So, our state land and our rental policies should exercise maximum flexibility for our young and our young companies. Wherever land is priced, market scarcity value remains the default benchmark. We propose one zone where the benchmark is developmental cost and not scarcity and welcome what we perceive to be the Minister's posture of being more flexible.

Second, dynamic local firms. How can we create a business climate where dynamic local firms can emerge as drivers of innovation and become future cornerstones of the economy?

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, proposed turning the machinery from push to pull. Support offered to firms automatically – grants paid upfront, rather than on reimbursement, because small firms' binding constraint is cash and time, and not the existence of a scheme. He proposed widening qualifying research spending and seconding experts into SMEs, because domestic enterprises carry one dollar in five of this economy's business research spending, and that gap does not close by a company deciding to try harder. And he proposed tying Catalist listing to state co-investment because the capital that is missing is pre-initial public offering.

I thank Mr Mark Lee, who mentioned his belief that the bridge between headline growth and lived business reality is a tripartite process. We appreciate his support for our core aspirations of a more inclusive economy.

I thank Mr Edward Chia, who advanced his belief that the existing toolkit was the answer. Progressive wages, Workfare, SkillsFuture, Forward Singapore. We agree at least on the vital goal of building a vibrant local ecosystem.

I thank Mr Azhar Othman for his speech. We share his concern for the ground pressures facing micro businesses, particularly rising rents and labour costs that mid-career workers face today.

I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat, who asked us to move beyond identifying these challenges to naming concrete policy choices. We gently note that we have already laid out these specific choices, including our positions on labour, rent and structural support throughout our speeches on this debate. Indeed, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether our transmission mechanisms are strong enough to reach smaller firms and did not really answer his own question. So, if I may just ask him, what policy choices of transmission mechanisms to create upward convergence of smaller firms should we make?

Third, the roof over the household. How do we shed our rentier mindset by assuring that attractive affordable housing is available for every Singaporean household?

Mr Louis Chua proposed that land revenue maximisation stops being the primary aim of land policy. Because rent is not just one cost, it is already inside all of the others. He proposed concept and price tenders as the default for strategic sites, because a system where the highest bidder wins, the reserve price is unpublished and unawarded sites simply can wait, can only ratchet upward. And he proposed an "HDB model for compute", because we take some $20 billion a year in land sales and set aside only about $150 million for a one-year compute programme.

Fourth, the start of a working life. How do we ensure our tertiary students and young workers find meaningful opportunities and good jobs in a challenging economy?

Mr Andre Low proposed a Fair Start Promise, a national commitment to work towards a simple goal that young Singaporeans under 30, making the transition from education or NS into working life will get a fair start through stable employment or a proper paid career-building pathway. He proposed to make entry-level hiring genuinely skills-based using verified skills evidence and practical assessments to match capable beginners to existing labour market demand.

He also advocated expanding the supply of properly paid apprenticeships, creating a national market, coordinating employers and shared training capacity, especially for SMEs with paid employment, CPF, structured learning and portable competence. He proposed creating genuinely net new job opportunities via the use of targeted temporary risk-sharing arrangements and giving appropriate credit in suitable Government tenders for additional employee jobs and apprenticeships.

Minister of State Dinesh broadly agreed with Mr Andre Low's proposals and acknowledged that he shared our aspiration of giving every young Singaporean a fair start. In particular, he agreed on the importance of expanding and strengthening work-based pathways, including apprenticeships.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh suggested a one-time course correction allowance, so, a first-year university course transfer does not depend on family means. He suggested one or two subsidised semesters could be disregarded. I thank him for championing the very inclusivity our Motion seeks to entrench for all Singaporeans.

Fifth, pathways to a middle-class livelihood. How can we create accessible pathways for tradespersons to earn a decent middle-class livelihood?

Mr Gerald Giam proposed a practitioner-led guild, with chambers grown out of the trade societies we already have, because an employer federation cannot impartially certify a worker's competence against his own members' interest in keeping him. He proposed task-specific endorsements on a digital skills ledger, verified by practical assessment and he proposed licensing built into ITE curricula with an independent panel, an apprentice can appeal to.

We thank Assoc Prof Terence Ho for his valuable insights on the Career and Skills Passport and the importance of valuing workplace learning, acknowledging the gaps requiring enhancement to truly promote skills-first hiring as my colleague Mr Andre Low pointed out.

Sixth, displacement and re-entry. Does our system of continuing education actually work? The journey, the destination and the proof.

Mr Fadli Fawzi proposed a universal redundancy insurance scheme, employer and employee together combining one-tenth of 1% of monthly salary, paying 40% of last drawn pay, capped at 40% of median, up to six months, with no application to make, because a worker who must apply and may be refused cannot plan.

We thank Minister of State Dinesh for mentioning that our positions are not very far. We hope this means that we will soon have universal redundancy support for all workers rather than just the Jobseeker Support Scheme for the 60%.

Mr Fadli also proposed mandatory retrenchment benefits because they are discretionary today and can lawfully be zero and a worker who has given years of service should not depend on goodwill. He proposed interest free postgraduate loans, CPF for Master's programmes and outcomes published by course and by provider because deep reskilling is where the money runs out and we need to know which courses work.

Mr Azhar Othman asked for stronger monthly income support during retraining. We agree with the principle. We also could not agree more with Dr Wan Rizal when he says that effort without direction builds frustration. We need to give more direction to our people.

Seventh, the worker who is let go. What does the Singaporean worker actually receive when the retrenchment comes?

Our Party Leader Mr Pritam Singh asked what a retrenched worker in Singapore is entitled to and answered it. As a matter of law, currently, there is nothing. He proposed legislating a statutory floor for retrenchment benefits at a tripartite norm of two weeks' salary for each year of service. He also proposed subsidiary legislation directing higher payouts for larger firms, up to the union norm of a month's salary a year and he proposed doing it now because the Courts have confirmed a gap.

This year, the Employment Claims Tribunals held that section 45 of the Employment Act creates no entitlement, and the tripartite guidelines create no legal basis, for one. Every developed economy around us – China, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines – legislates for this, but we do not.

We thank Mr Patrick Tay for his valuable contribution to the debate. We find shared ground in our conviction that workers must never be treated as collateral damage during economic transitions and that we must proactively protect our PMEs from the displacement risk of AI. However, we respectfully frame our Motion as providing some of the legal force for the very protections NTUC has long lobbied for. So, we invite the Labour Movement to support legislative mandates for retrenchment benefits.

Eighth, what our accounts do not count. What parts of our economy do our national statistics fail to capture.

Ms He Ting Ru proposed a formalised wage ladder for care work, because a registered nurse, a social worker and a preschool teacher all earn below the national median in the very sectors that the ESR calls resilient. A wage floor was not built currently to reach them. She proposed compensation for family caregivers, expanded respite care and regular official time use studies, because informal caregiving for seniors was valued at $1.28 billion a year and appears in no national account. We have not measured what it costs to the people who provide it. She proposed an environmental dashboard tracking the environmental outcomes of our policies.

Ninth, venturing abroad. How do we empower Singaporeans to seize the opportunities in the region and abroad?

Ms Eileen Chong proposed funding the OMIP to the person rather than through the employer on the French model, where a state agency holds the contract, because tying a placement to a sponsoring employer's growth plan caps it at that employer's ambition. She proposed scaling the places rather than only widening the gate, because the SG Youth Plan drops the two-year eligibility rule without committing to send anyone more.

And she proposed publishing outcomes at two years and at five because the 2018 scheme came with targets and no published outcome, and we still do not know whether going out pays you when you come home. She proposed tearing down the walls on coming home, around BTO queues, CPF and schooling re-entry for children.

We thank Mr Azhar Othman, who made policy suggestions for warehousing abroad, deal-making officers and tax incentives for reinvesting overseas profits back into R&D and capacity building.

I would like to address some points raised in relation to the WP's policies.

Ms Mariam Jaafar said, create before you capture. The sentiment is real but the diagnosis is wrong. Capability is what makes ownership possible, rather than the other way around. If we make rebalancing the organising principle of our strategy, we may not end up with more of these companies, we may end up with fewer. Target ownership without capability and competitiveness and we do not own more of the pie, we own more of a smaller one.

Of course, we have to have capability. We do not disagree. But let us use the PSA example from her speech. PSA did not acquire terminals because it had a data advantage. It got the data advantage because it owned the terminals. Ownership came first and capability compounded from it. Ownership without capability is a dead end, but capability without ownership does not build resilience in a fracturing world. Our position is that both are necessary.

While we agree on the goal of building globally competitive Singaporean companies, we see ownership not as a premature target, but an essential next chapter. After 60 years of successfully creating values through MNCs, our Motion seeks to ensure that Singaporeans move through value creation to capturing and owning more of that value today.

I believe Minister of State Dinesh was making some suggestions that some people were saying that Singapore's economic model is failing. May I gently suggest that he may have misheard because I did not hear anyone making this point.

Minister Jeffrey Siow, I believe, mischaracterised our policies as saying we want to rely on the domestic market as a primary source. That is of course a non-starter to anyone who spends more than two seconds thinking about it. What we are saying is that domestic demand is necessary. We are not saying that domestic demand is sufficient.

I thank Minister Tan See Leng for making our point, about the domestic market being the platform for Parkway to enter foreign markets.

Onto the amendments. The hon Member Edward Chia moved four amendments.

On Amendment No 1, to delete "notwithstanding" and insert "in line with", the WP cannot accept this amendment. This amendment does not simply remove a word. It turns the sentence around. Our Motion says this House believes in these things. The amendment says these things will follow from adopting the review. Ours commits the House to ends, but this amendment commits it to a document. A standard that is stated separately can test any plan, the Government and ours.

Let me be clear what the word is set against – "notwithstanding". It is not the Review's recommendations. Many of the diagnoses we shared are set against the risks that one Government document comes to be treated as the whole of the House's thinking on the economy. "Notwithstanding" says only that our commitments are neither exhausted by that document nor derived from it.

That is how the word "notwithstanding" is used in our Constitution. Article 148A of the Constitution allows the President to assent to a Supply Bill, notwithstanding his opinion that it is likely to draw on past reserves. If he does, that opinion must be stated in writing to the Speaker and published in the Gazette.

So, the word "notwithstanding" does not overrule the President, it does not say his opinion is wrong, it just requires that the opinion be genuinely held, that it stands on the record and it does not settle the outcome. And that is three things at once. That is our use precisely. The ESR proceeds, our belief stands on the record, and neither one decides the other.

We have no issues accepting Amendment Nos 2 and No 4. We had some reservations accepting Amendment No 3. The reason is because it is not a matter of simply including "global enterprises" into the text of the Motion. Had the amendment been "an economy powered by dynamic local enterprises supported by global enterprises", we would have less of an issue with the change.

We are not choosing between being global and local. That is a false dichotomy. The WP believes categorically in an open economy. As my hon friend Jamus Lim has said, we are "not calling for a wholesale overhaul of our GLC-heavy, MNC-led and foreign capital-reliant model."

We must acknowledge the long history of how our domestic firms have not felt sufficiently supported by the state in their effort to grow their companies and compete in their home economy and beyond. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If this model has succeeded historically in delivering for so many domestic firms, then why and wherefore the history of these concerns? I ask all Members and especially Members opposite to honestly reflect upon these questions.

At this point, it is worth underscoring, as my hon friend Assoc Prof Jamus Lim pointed out at the end of his speech, that we are not seeking to undermine the contribution of MNCs to our economy, nor to stem access to foreign capital. Rather, we are calling for an evolution of how dominant MNCs and GLCs have been in our economy and to re-orient it towards the younger local companies and SMEs as they are more inherently rooted and can be a source of disruptive innovation. To be clear, we are not pitting foreign versus local. Both are necessary. Suggesting otherwise is a false binary and it is a convenient strawman, but it is not an argument that we are making.

However, we will not nitpick on the semantics of Amendment No 3 and hence, will accept this amendment.

Back to Amendment No 1. Can the ESR carry the standing that is placed on it? There is much to like about the ESR. It is diligently put together, has consulted widely and it outlines real challenges. But it is incremental and it sits within a tradition of reports that say the same thing. This is not about the ESR in itself, this is about the whole continuity of reports since 2010.

The ESR is the fourth national economic blueprint since 2010. The 2010 Economic Strategies Committee, the 2017 Committee on the Future Economy, the 2021 Emerging Stronger Taskforce, and now this 2026 Review, with the same ambitions recurring in near identical language across all four: move up the value chain; grow homegrown champions; internationalise; reskill.

What is new in this report is AI. But that is a new exogenous factor that all countries must react to. Adding new chapters and footnotes to an existing playbook does not make a new playbook.

Have we arrived at those past reports' medium- to long-term targets or not? It is hard to tell with the decreasing level of tracking with each report.

The 2010 Economic Strategies Committee set two targets.

One on productivity – to "achieve productivity growth of 2% to 3% per year over the next 10 years." This goal was met.

One on enterprises – "We can raise this number significantly to reach 1,000 such enterprises over the next 10 years." Local companies with revenue over $100 million. This goal of 1,000 local companies with revenue over $100 million was not tracked after 2017, when the report recorded about 800 such companies. So, we do not know whether it was met.

The 2017 Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) set two targets.

One on growth – 2% to 3% per year – which was met. Again, a topline figure, necessary but insufficient by itself as a goal.

One on manufacturing – "The CFE recommends building a globally competitive manufacturing sector at about 20% of GDP over the medium term". This was not met. Manufacturing was 17.4% of GDP in 2016 and remains 17.4% in 2025.

From the 2021 Emerging Stronger Taskforce, I could find no macroeconomic targets at all. A pivot away from target setting altogether.

And in this 2026 ESR, the only target-shaped sentence, appearing twice, reads: "we should set an ambitious target to significantly increase the number of Singapore headquartered companies with more than $1 billion in revenue".

In 2010, the target was 1,000 local companies by 2020. In 2026, it is a recommendation that a target be set, and the companies counted have shifted from local to Singapore headquartered.

This strikes me as a government that maybe has become a little bit averse to being measured.

In May 2017, MTI wrote that every Industry Transformation Map has "tangible indicators and targets to measure the effectiveness of its strategies". In July 2024, its own retrospective told readers that sector outcomes should not be compared against these initial projections.

Targets are watered down to projections, goals into aspirations. We are getting a bit familiar with this. The food policy "30 by 30" was dropped last November for narrower targets, five years later. An unambiguous goal became a bit more of a challenging aspiration.

I have not understood from this Government what is the next level of economic target detailed beyond topline growth targets, such as the type of growth or its distribution that it will hold itself to. The Government wants us to know it will react swiftly once the monitoring alarms are triggered. The Review says so itself: on AI and workers, it recommends monitoring the impact closely and adjusting policies when needed.

Mr Speaker, reacting swiftly is the basic expectation of any government. What matters far more is which structural and falsifiable targets it will set itself between now and 2030. After all, what is the vision and what would tell us whether we had reached it?

Here is what we would hold ourselves accountable to beyond top-line growth: the indigenous share of national income rising, real wages in line with productivity growth and a widening range of what an ordinary wage can afford.

I have read the Review and in my view, it is short of report cards and targets. Nor has a consolidated report card for any of the four blueprints been published.

Our Party Leader, Mr Pritam Singh, asked for one in February. Separate the rhetoric about promises kept, from measurable outcomes. Untracked, consistency is indistinguishable from repetition. Surely, in spite of the uncertainties, there are macroeconomic targets beyond top-line growth that we can commit to.

So, let me put the question plainly. A Member who supports the Review because he wants a more equal and inclusive economy and an engine driven by dynamic local companies already believes (a) and (b). These are the ends the Review is meant to serve. Voting for the Motion says that and nothing more. It does not criticise the Review and binds no one to our proposals.

Our Motion asks this House to commit to principles, the amendments ask it to commit to one set of operational plans. So, I would like to ask Members of the House, especially Members opposite, to let the word stand and accept the Motion as originally worded.

Sir, in closing, we want to show Singaporeans a future, in which they see themselves thriving in a global environment that is increasingly challenging. Singaporeans deserve a country that is prepared to try what is necessary to give them that strongest shot of success.

Our Motion is thus written: opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment because the ground and the capital to try are priced for incumbents; households and businesses to succeed because high land prices working their way through the economy make it structurally challenging; workers to thrive because the ladder above the wage floor must work; and for the wider swath of society, workers need room to experiment, pathways to succeed and a financial cushion to recover or pivot if retrenched; ideas and innovation to flourish because we need our R&D spending to lead to meaningful commercial outcomes; and an economic engine driven by dynamic local companies, healthy domestic demand and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad because Singaporeans need to understand that there is a system that encourages their economic flourishing and their dreams of tomorrow.

Singaporeans do not lack drive, ambition or imagination. What we need is to be further empowered and supported to achieve our next successes in a different global context. We will leave no stone unturned in trying to better secure Singaporeans in uncertain times.

Mr Speaker, I thank this House for debating the future structural direction of our economy and I commend the Motion as originally worded to this House. Thank you. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Any clarifications? Minister Siow.

8.48 pm

Mr Jeffrey Siow : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Mr Kenneth Tiong for clarifying that the WP supports three of the four amendments that were proposed by Mr Edward Chia. I am very grateful that he has clarified that he and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim support the idea that we are not in a zero-sum situation, that we are not arguing for a zero-sum pivot; both SMEs and global companies are important, and that a comprehensive economic strategy must have both.

So, that accounts for three of the four amendments. We regret that we are not able to achieve consensus on the amended Motion today, that the disagreement has founded on the term "notwithstanding", as opposed to what we are proposing, which is in line with the ESR.

The ESR, relative to what the WP has proposed, I see a lot of commonality, although Mr Tiong has characterised it as incremental. Actually, in today's speeches, I have also not heard a "great big idea" that would replace the ESR. In fact, I see very much as the WP building on what the ESR has recommended. In fact, I think that Mr Tiong himself, I think during a press briefing, said that they were filling the gaps of what the ESR has set out.

So, without a replacement or a big idea for us to be able to put side by side, I venture to say that a lot of what we discussed today are towards the same goals, moving towards the same objectives, perhaps differences in the details, differences in some of the parameters – but we are all trying to achieve the same thing.

Most importantly, we are in a very difficult world, a world where external competition has become stiffer. I think it is better for us to see if we can look for areas of commonality, areas where we are aligned, areas where this House can present a common front to Singaporeans. Better for us to be able to push together, rather than look for differences that perhaps do not exist and find a wedge to drive into gaps where we do not see.

So, on this note, I would really lament that it is not possible for us to achieve common ground today. I hope the WP, at a future situation, can reconsider whether or not to try to come together and support what I think is a comprehensive, complete and forward-looking economic strategy that will serve Singapore and Singaporeans well into the future.

Mr Speaker : Mr Tiong, would you like to respond? It is alright? Anyone else have clarifications? Minister of State Dinesh.

Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash : Mr Speaker, I would just like to clarify, on record, the point that was made by Mr Tiong on the Jobseeker Support Scheme and unemployment insurance. What I said was that our outcomes might be the same and that workers should be protected, supported, especially when they go through an exercise of retrenchment. But I did not say about the fact that the insurance is the only way forward. It is really about the design, the funding approach, which may not be the same. What I also said was that our approach was always to support re-employment and not only unemployment.

So, I just wanted to state that clarification on that over-simplification of what I have highlighted.

Mr Speaker : Mr Tiong, would you like to respond? Or is it alright? Okay. Any other clarifications? Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Ms Mariam Jaafar : Sir, I would like to make a clarification regarding Mr Tiong's comment on my PSA anecdote, which he says suggests that ownership actually comes before capability.

Let us look at the sequence. PSA was, for years, a domestic operator. It built world-class port operating capabilities and then, it used that capability to go out and acquire other ports. It did not set out a target from the beginning, to say "I want to own for ports in 45 countries". It built the capability first and then, it went out.

Then, he referenced the data advantage. The data advantage does not just come from ownership. The data advantage comes from the capability in digital technology, AI and automation, without which, you do not have competitive advantage.

So, I stand by my statement that in this case, capability came and ownership followed. But actually I do not want to belabour the sequence, as much as was in my speech. Probably, capability and ownership are mutually reinforcing. As we always say we want both. But if I had to choose any day, what is going to make a company globally successful, it is capability. Thank you.

Mr Speaker : Mr Tiong, would you like to respond? No? Alright. Any other clarifications? Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Mark Lee : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank hon Member Kenneth Tiong for agreeing with me that tripartite and public-private partnerships remain important. And because this is an important issue, when we talk about retrenchment benefits and making it mandatory, the views of businesses should be taken into consideration. And I believe that some clarifications are needed to some of the points and proposals that has been put forth by the WP.

First, companies retrench under very different circumstances. The current norm actually ranges between two weeks and one month salary per year of service, but the Member has proposed at least one month for larger companies. This is a significant increase. And for those they are facing serious cash flow issues, if such payments are mandatory, would the Member not agree that this push might weaken firms into deeper distress and potentially putting remaining jobs at risk?

Second, would higher retrenchment cost make employers more cautious about hiring permanent staff? Could companies rely more on short-term contracts or outsourcing, or in the worst case, hire fewer people, particularly inexperienced workers and career switchers who require longer training runway?

Third, if we legislate a minimum, what assurance is there that outcomes could improve? Could the statutory minimum instead become the standard, with firms that are currently paying more choosing to pay only the prescribed amount, leaving less room for negotiation, even in unionised companies?

So, for the above clarifications mentioned, is legislation necessarily the best solution? And I hope that the WP would hear from businesses on the ground. Because ultimately, the best security for a retrenched worker is not only a payout, but the ability to find the next good job.

Mr Speaker : Mr Tiong? Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe the comments by hon Member Mr Mark Lee were directed at my speech. The three issues that he highlighted, in terms of what difficulties businesses could have, I think I was conciliatory enough in my speech to say that businesses will have their challenges, I accept that.

I do not think it is a question of not taking them into account. The issue here is the workers and the scenario painted by the ESR of the world they are coming into, of the Singapore they are coming into. We will have our different points of view.

The three questions, the three particular points he raised were the same points that I believe then-Senior Minister of State Mr Koh Poh Koon raised when we had an exchange at this table. I responded to all three of them in my speech, so I would invite the hon Member to consider how I responded, vis-à-vis those three points that both he and the then-Senior Minister of State Koh had raised earlier. Thank you.

8.58 pm

Mr Speaker : Mr Tiong? No? Alright. Any other clarifications for Mr Tiong?

We have now come to the conclusion of the debate and I shall put forth the questions to the House for a decision. We have four amendments proposed by Mr Edward Chia. We will deal with the amendments first.

Amendment No 1 is, "In line 1, to delete 'not withstanding' and insert 'in line with'." The Question is, “That Amendment No 1 be made”. Those who agree, say "Aye".

Hon Members : Aye.

Mr Speaker : Those who disagree, say "No".

Some hon Members : No.

Mr Speaker : I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. Yes, Mr Singh, would you like your dissent to be recorded?

Mr Pritam Singh : Yes, Sir, the WP would like to record their dissent on the first —

Mr Speaker : If I may, those who would like their dissent to be recorded, could you please rise?

[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong and Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat rose for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker : Alright. You may sit. Thank you.

[(proc text) Question, "That Amendment No 1 be made", agreed to. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 2 is, "In line 5, to delete 'economic engine driven' and insert 'economy powered'."

[(proc text) Question, "That Amendment No 2 be made", put and agreed to. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker : Amendment No 3, "In line 5, after the words 'local companies', to insert 'global enterprises,'."

[(proc text) Question, "That Amendment No 3 be made", put and agreed to. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker : Amendment No 4, "In line 5, after the words 'healthy domestic', to insert 'and external'."

[(proc text) Question is, "That Amendment No 4 be made", put and agreed to. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker : The amendments have been agreed to. The Original Motion as amended is now before the House.

The question is, "That this House, in line with the suggestions in the Economic Strategy Review on the future Singapore economy, believes: (a) in a more equal and inclusive economy, with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive, and ideas and innovation to flourish; and (b) in an economy powered by dynamic local companies, global enterprises, healthy domestic and external demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad."

Those who agree say "Aye".

Hon Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: Those who disagree say "No".

Some hon Members: No.

Mr Speaker : I think the "Ayes" have it. Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh : Mr Speaker, the WP Members of Parliament wish to record our dissent. I would appreciate if you record it.

Mr Speaker : Could I ask who wish their dissent to be recorded, to please rise again.

[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong and Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat rose for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker : You may sit, thank you. The Ayes have it.

[(proc text) Original Motion, as amended, agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, "That this House, in line with the suggestions in the Economic Strategy Review on the future Singapore economy, believes: (proc text)]

[(proc text) (a) in a more equal and inclusive economy, with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive, and ideas and innovation to flourish; and (proc text)]

[(proc text) (b) in an economy powered by dynamic local companies, global enterprises, healthy domestic and external demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad." (proc text)]

9.02 pm

Mr Speaker : Deputy Leader.