動議 · 2026-08-05 · 屆國會 15

打造惠及所有人的未來經濟（主辯論）

AI 經濟與產業 AI 基礎設施與研究 AI 與就業 爭議度 4 · 激烈爭議

8 月 5 日國會辯論工人黨 Kenneth Tiong 提出、林志蔚聯署的"打造惠及所有人的未來經濟"動議，20 名議員發言逾六小時。原動議以"儘管 ESR 建議"起頭，Edward Chia 提四項修正改為"契合"並加入全球企業與外部需求，兩案併案辯論。AI 貫穿全場：蔡慶威指政府一年收約 200 億新元賣地收入，卻只以 1.5 億新元企業算力計劃充當"數字土地"、五年 10 億新元投入國家 AI 研究，截至 2026 年僅 4% 企業把 AI 嵌入核心流程（中小企業 15%、大企業 63%），主張仿組屋模式建"算力組屋"。Mark Lee 說第二季增長 5.7%、製造業 12.2% 由 AI 相關電子需求拉動。何廷儒警告 AI 資料中心吞噬能源與水、推高水電價格。Andre Low 以"公平起步承諾"應對 AI 壓縮入門崗位。政務部長 Dinesh Vasu Dash 與高階政務部長 Low Yen Ling 回應，稱 ESR 已是可執行藍圖，算力計劃意在啟動採用。本場未表決。

為什麼重要

工人黨把算力比作土地：約 200 億新元賣地收入對 1.5 億新元算力計劃，僅 4% 企業已把 AI 嵌入核心流程

關鍵要點

  • • 原動議以"儘管 ESR 建議"起頭，Edward Chia 四項修正改為"契合 ESR"並加入全球企業與外部需求
  • • 蔡慶威把算力比作 AI 經濟的土地：約 200 億新元賣地收入 vs 1.5 億新元企業算力計劃、五年 10 億新元國家 AI 研究
  • • 截至 2026 年僅 4% 企業把 AI 嵌入核心業務流程，中小企業 15%、大企業 63%
  • • 何廷儒指 AI 驅動的資料中心吞噬能源與水、推高碳排與水電價格並衝擊鄰近社群
  • • Andre Low 提"公平起步承諾"，指 AI 自動化正在抹掉初級崗位；政府答第一季有 3.28 萬個入門級專業人士職缺
  • • Wan Rizal：職總企業培訓委員會今年約 31% 的資助專案與 AI 相關，去年全年約 17%
政府立場

政府由政務部長 Dinesh Vasu Dash 與貿工部高階政務部長 Low Yen Ling 回應，支援 Edward Chia 的修正案，堅稱經濟戰略檢討已是可執行藍圖而非舊模式的補丁：2026 年 3 月本地居民失業率 2.9%，第一季有 3.28 萬個入門級專業人士職缺。在 AI 上，政府稱企業算力計劃意在啟動採用、形成勢頭，將密切追蹤採用率並按需調整，並以 3,800 個企業培訓委員會、PACT 夥伴計劃與 10 家中小企業中心作為三方賦能的證據；法定裁員補償與求職者支援計劃的加強則留待僱傭法令檢討工作組研究。

質詢立場

工人黨八名議員分工回答八個結構性問題，全數支援原動議：Kenneth Tiong 主張在南洋理工大學周邊劃出特區，土地按開發成本而非市場稀缺定價；蔡慶威把算力視為 AI 經濟的土地，要求以公開價目表向中小企業提供補貼算力，即"算力組屋"；Andre Low 提"公平起步承諾"與帶公積金的正式學徒制，應對 AI 壓縮入門崗位；Fadli Fawzi 與畢丹星要求立法規定裁員補償並推全民裁員保險；何廷儒質疑資料中心的能源、水與土地代價；Eileen Chong 要求區域人才計劃按成果而非人次考核。

政策訊號

AI 擴散差距被擺到國會經濟辯論的中心：4% 的核心流程採用率、200 億新元對 1.5 億新元的資源對比，把算力可及性從一次性補助推向基礎設施政策的討論範疇。政府未接受補貼定價的算力方案，但承諾追蹤企業算力計劃的採用率並按需調整；求職者支援計劃的收入門檻、法定裁員補償與資料中心的能源與水資源代價，都被列為後續檢討事項。

“在 AI 經濟裡，算力之於價值創造，就像土地之於工業經濟——那個一切都建立其上的稀缺基礎投入。”

參與人員 (20)

完整譯文（中文）

Hansard 原始記錄 · 2026-09-05

議長先生：張文傑先生。

中午12時02分

張文傑文傑（阿裕尼）先生：議長先生，我提出動議，“儘管《經濟戰略審查》對新加坡未來經濟提出了建議，本院仍相信：（a）一個更加平等和包容的經濟體，創業者有機會進行試驗，家庭和企業能夠成功，工人能夠繁榮，思想和創新能夠蓬勃發展；（b）一個由充滿活力的本地公司、健康的內需以及新加坡人和新加坡資本走向海外驅動的經濟引擎。”

【（程式文本）* 該動議也以林志蔚副教授的名義列入議程表。（程式文本）】

為什麼提出這項動議？為什麼是現在？

新加坡人面臨一套獨特且極具挑戰性的環境。新加坡人登上經濟階梯的主要模式一直是就業。沒有工作，你無法負擔租房或購買組屋。

沒有自己的住所，很難考慮生育孩子。對於這些孩子來說，幾乎沒有人夢想成為創業者，九成的人在這裡工作，成為別人的僱員。對我們幾乎所有人來說，工作階梯是主要的上升途徑，很少有新加坡人成為創業者。

給出的原因各不相同：市場小，經營成本高昂，缺乏風險承擔的社會安全網，吸引來的私人財富中真正的成長資本不足，新加坡創業公司和中小企業（SMEs）最大的競爭對手是新加坡政府關聯公司（GLCs）。這些是我們有能力影響的。

房地產對許多新加坡人來說是一張彩票，但鑑於資產價格如此之高，考慮到工資增長落後於資產價格且就業前景下降，沒有父母支援，新一代是否能沿用這一模式值得懷疑。

房地產作為財富載體的持續存在滋生了租金心態。一代人的意識形態硬化成下一代的心理。隨著代際轉移主導社會經濟地位，它們威脅要加劇不平等。

讓我回顧一下為什麼我們的就業結構受到威脅，儘管我懷疑這對許多人來說並不新鮮。

我們的就業結構依賴於成為該地區外國公司設立基地的最佳地點。我們擁有許多大型公司，但很少培育它們。

新加坡有三家公司進入《財富》全球500強，全部是大宗商品貿易商。兩家最初在別處成立後遷至新加坡。韓國有13家，臺灣有6家。它們生產半導體和船舶，由本國人打造。我們的公司是遷來的，也可以輕易離開。

在高附加值領域，關稅促使生產迴流本國及友好國家，減少了新加坡可獲得的邊際新投資供應。稅收競爭能贏得的空間越來越小。對於越來越多的研發和製造崗位，迭代速度、裝備和供應是決定性因素。

在成本敏感端，高昂的經營成本和緩慢的人力審批加速了向馬來西亞和越南等國的區域中心外包。這些例子國會並不陌生。H&M將其東南亞區域總部從新加坡遷至吉隆坡。虎牌啤酒自1932年起在此釀造，明年底將不再如此。喜力正在逐步關閉在大士的釀造廠，生產轉移至馬來西亞和越南，約130個工作崗位隨之轉移。

對年輕一代來說，他們面臨著改變的遊戲規則。許多人渴望的高薪入門級科技崗位大多消失。許多入門級崗位因高昂的經營成本被外包。且強大的人工智慧（AI）代理和模型將減少入門級招聘需求。但無論原因如何，年輕新加坡人今天找工作無疑很難。

隨之而來的是適應。創業出於必要而非選擇，第二、第三份工作，結構性就業不足。

在高成本經濟中，最可能保留的工作是無法在其他地方更廉價完成的工作。

發達經濟體的標準答案是研發。打造他人難以複製的產品，使企業儘管成本高仍願意來此。但經過數十年和數百億投資，沒有一家本地研發冠軍企業市值超過十億美元。

當然，我們應繼續投資，但結果是我們的研發體系遺憾地尚未準備好成為增長引擎。隨著中國各省及其集團成為競爭激烈的生態系統，每個經濟體都必須考慮必要的規模、能源供應和競爭成本。

單打獨鬥很難。這就是為什麼我認為我們必須加強東南亞國家間的產業協調，開展跨國產業政策，正如我在去年九月的首次發言和今年七月的休會動議中所闡述的。

這些是對就業產業基礎的結構性挑戰。我承認政府在這種情況下仍盡力而為。對新加坡的投資保持穩定。經濟發展局（EDB）去年承諾固定資產投資142億新元，高於前年135億和再前年127億，連續三年增長。

但就業趨勢卻相反。2023年新增2萬個崗位，2024年1.87萬個，去年1.57萬個。預期的附加值從267億降至235億，再降至180億。因此，即使是官方統計，投資轉化為就業的引擎也在減弱。

面對如此多的問題，我們能且應當抱有什麼希望？

首先，我們需要一個更新的增長模型，不僅關注GDP增長總量，更關注增長結構。如果我們真心相信世界已變，我們的政策必須隨之改變。增長結構重要，增長與分配不是先後順序的兩件事。

先增長後通過代金券和回扣再分配作為權宜之計可以接受。但中長期應構建一個增長本身產生公平分配的經濟，而非事後用收益修補。先分配而非後分配。

這就是為什麼我們需要一個由充滿活力的本地公司、健康的內需以及新加坡人和新加坡資本走向海外驅動的經濟引擎。只有當新加坡人繁榮並相信機會階梯對所有人公平時，這個國家才能開放。

第二，我們需要誠實地衡量和優先考慮增長中重要的方面。讓我提出三個分配增長的北極星指標。

一是本土國民收入份額，反映新加坡人作為工人、所有者和創業者對國民收入的貢獻。其國際可比指標是勞動份額——留在新加坡的收入中有多少歸屬於在此工作的人民。我們的約為40%，落後於大多數發達經濟體。我們應恢復本土收入系列，全面衡量新加坡人的貢獻。

二是實際收入增長應與生產率同步，而非滯後。2016年至2024年，勞動生產率年均增長2.5%，同期實際平均收入僅增長1.3%。

新加坡人一直是模範工人。根據國際勞工組織（ILO）資料，2016至2024年，新加坡人均產出年增2.3%，超過美國（1.6%）、以色列（1.6%）、香港（1.3%）、韓國（1.3%）和瑞士（1.1%）等主要經濟體。

我們需要修復這一滯後。新加坡工人履行了他們的承諾，但報酬未能同步增長。

三是新加坡人是否還能負擔得起他們建設的城市。不是我們生產多少，而是普通新加坡人以普通工資能享受多少多樣化的服務、能負擔多少、能享受多少閒暇。

獨立廚房、二手書店。我們不能一方面失去傳統商鋪和藝術空間，另一方面又告訴新加坡人城市繁榮。城市競爭的是消費選擇的多樣性，而非僅僅生產什麼，高便利度城市增長更快。

因此，我們應衡量選擇的多樣性以及普通工資能負擔多少選擇。

這三大北極星引導我們走向一個更加平等包容的經濟，創業者有機會試驗，家庭和企業成功，工人繁榮，思想和創新蓬勃發展。

議長先生，工人黨（WP）的多位議員將圍繞我提出的挑戰，探討八個問題。

首先，我將討論受限條件下的創新。如何在高經營成本和物理限制下，培育一個最大化價值的動態企業和創新體系？

第二，我的同事林志蔚將討論充滿活力的本地企業。如何營造一個商業環境，使充滿活力的本地企業成為創新驅動力和未來經濟支柱？

第三，我的同事蔡慶威將討論土地和家庭住房。如何確保每個新加坡家庭都能獲得有吸引力且負擔得起的住房？

第四，我的同事劉宇揚將討論職業生涯起步，探討如何確保我們的高等教育學生和年輕工人在充滿挑戰的經濟中找到有意義的機會和好工作？

第五，我的同事嚴燕松將討論邁向中產階級生計的路徑。以技工為例，他將探討如何為他們創造可及的中產階級生計路徑？

第六，我的同事莫哈默法理將討論替代和再就業，探討我們的繼續教育體系是否真正有效。旅程、目標和證據。

我們以兩位同事最廣泛的經濟模型觀點結束工人黨的發言。

第七，我的同事何廷儒將討論經濟中較少被衡量的部分，尤其是面向國內的行業，探討我們的國家統計未能捕捉哪些經濟部分？

第八，我的同事蔣佩姍將討論走向海外。如何賦能新加坡人抓住區域及更遠機會？

議長先生，除了這些問題，真正的問題是：認真對待一個變化的世界意味著什麼？

如果我們意在重建本代人的機會階梯，解決這些問題的答案必須成為我們進化經濟模型的核心。在這些發言中，我的同事將分八步提出結構性問題的結構性解決方案。

今天，我將探討受限條件下的企業和創新。

兩代人以來，我們擅長引進別人的公司。我們對用自己擁有的土地支援本國人創業卻行動遲緩。為什麼我們把高地價視為像重力一樣的自然法則？普遍土地定價是一種連貫且方便的會計理念，但最終，新加坡人民需要決定這種理念是否仍然服務於他們。

家庭已經知道這一點。補習費昂貴，沒有導師能保證20年後有好工作。我們仍然支付。投資需要支出。我們不會要求孩子立即回報。

因此，命題是：新加坡應停止將市場土地價值視為每一種社會生產性土地用途的自然價格。檢驗標準是：以大學為中心的特別區，國家土地按開發成本而非市場稀缺價值定價。

我們對年輕人的承諾是什麼？我們應以年輕人為首要考慮而非最後調整，重塑體系。

今天，我們只是微調——共居房折扣、補助、抽籤優先組別。調整的是為不同年代他人設計的體系邊緣。以年輕人為首要原則意味著相反。我們首先為20多歲年輕人設計。

這是一個政策的供給側問題。

在重塑社會以適應年輕人之前，我們必須為年輕人重塑社會。協議有四部分：一個住處，靠近工作和研究地點；價格是起薪能負擔的；服務於國家所需——更多本地企業和研發；風險與回報歸風險承擔者，且他們參與規則制定。

我們應建立一個圍繞南洋理工大學（NTU）的特別區，國家土地按成本回收而非市場稀缺價值計價，收益以成長於此的公司形式體現，而非租金。該實驗涵蓋住宅和商業用地，涉及共居、本地企業和研發。

必須以現有核心——大學為中心，因為無法憑空打造叢集，但可以利用現有優勢。該區將允許有機混亂，支援工人和企業，圍繞年輕人和年輕企業需求建設。

該實驗可逆。如果失敗，我們可恢復總體規劃。但今天的新加坡人理應對稀缺土地擁有與數十年前規劃者同等的話語權。

我將按此順序論述：土地、高等院校、治理和資金。

首先，土地。三十年，數百億研發投入及更多創業扶持，研發和培育本地巨頭的階梯表現不佳。我們在調動投入方面世界一流，但以新加坡人為主體的商業成果未達投入預期。

關於人才，我們希望吸引最優秀者與強大的本地核心共事。關於資本，我們在設計上有分歧，但或許理念一致。

但有一個嚴肅的方法論問題。國家運作依賴納稅人資金，謹慎是職責。創新則需相反：有節制的冒險。這就是為什麼風險資本應屬於政策投資銀行，而非政府內部，正如總理所提。謹慎優先的姿態難以改變。

我們在土地價格上存在意識形態分歧。我的同事蔡慶威稍後也會談及此。

《經濟戰略審查》圍繞生產投入組織：資本、勞動力、生產率。但土地是區別於資本的投入。它被視為收入而非成本——是必須遵守的約束，而非可改變的槓桿。且成本不小。

2022年12月，政府將當年完工的13,506套組屋開發成本定為每套39.6萬新元——其中土地成本23.4萬，建築成本15.4萬。土地佔組屋成本59%。

但我們當然可以檢驗並改變這一成本。我們以前經歷過。政府城市研究機構可持續城市中心記錄了One-North規劃時的情況：“提出提供可負擔住房的建議，但組屋局難以為One-North單一專案改變公共住房政策。因此，裕廊工業區發展局（JTC）轉向私營部門。”

當時國家政策無法為One-North讓步，但應當讓步。我們對研發和創業的需求比教條式僵化更重要。

高價導致同質化。它排擠了獨立廚房和尚無收入的實驗室，只留下能支付租金的連鎖和加盟店。

它還決定空間用途。市場稀缺率選擇可提前證明的專案——而新事物無法提前證明。

新穎事物無歷史記錄。實驗性混亂被競爭淘汰。

商業壓力較低的區域是混亂的區域，是土地足夠便宜讓年輕人有機創造自己的空間和未來的區域——首要變數，而非妥協。

如果土地定價對年輕人、企業和研發叢集是不必要的負擔，我們如何檢驗？有一重大約束：新加坡人需要低地價——以創業、居住；同時又需要高地價，因為許多儲蓄存在組屋中，國家依賴土地收入。

要同時實現高低地價，必須打破普遍土地定價的約束。價格可通過三種方式變化：一是隨時間變化，調整全島價格；二是針對政策目標群體，如建屋發展局（BTO）對年輕父母的優惠；三是跨地理邊界——劃定區域，改變該區內定價機制，以促進聚集和企業，人員和企業緊密相鄰以提升生產力。

我認為第三種是最不具破壞性的變革理論，若相信我們的土地定價假設需檢驗。問題是在哪裡試點這樣一個區域。為年輕人、研發經濟和創業精神。應圍繞我們的高等院校。看地圖，南洋理工大學（NTU）顯然是最佳候選。

為什麼選擇南洋理工大學（NTU）？研究叢集已經在那裡。大量實驗室設在校園內。與國立新加坡大學（NUS）不同，NUS的肯特崗（Kent Ridge）和One-North區幾乎沒有剩餘空間，而NTU仍有擴充套件空間。然而，巴哈（Bahar）和清潔科技園（CleanTech Park）規劃了116公頃毗鄰NTU的土地，這又是什麼？它是另一個工業園區——這是對面黨一再給出的相同答案。

如果我們要清理稀缺的綠地，使用案例必須足夠獨特，值得犧牲。我相信我們的方案是，而另一個工業園區則不是。這是無價且不可逆轉的東西，被換成了千篇一律的東西。

以榜鵝數字區（Punggol Digital District）為例。它佔地50公頃，由JTC開發，依託新加坡科技學院（SIT）校園。它證明政府會圍繞大學建設一個區域。但這更多是我們已經做過的——一個帶有校園的商務園區，按市場條件運作。

如果接受設立特殊區域的第一性原理論點，那麼必須處理兩個經驗事實。

首先，裕廊區域線（Jurong Region Line）正在挖掘進入NTU，校園車站將在本世紀末到來。中段（Tengah）的組屋正在其旁邊興建。若將它們作為獨立計劃，它們將成為人們通勤進入的又一個園區。裕廊創新區（Jurong Innovation District）佔地620公頃，在巴哈擁有下一個綠地新區，已劃定區域，環境影響評估（EIA）正在進行中。更好的方案是一個集居住、工作、娛樂和企業於一體的區域，而圍繞NTU的新區域將是我們進行此類實驗的最後機會。無論我們對這塊地塊做出何種決定，都將成為以後每個校園旁土地定價的標準。

其次，柔佛區協議（Johor Zone Agreement）於2025年1月簽署。這是我們必須努力使之成功的實驗。但無論我們對外經濟政策抱有多大希望，它位於另一個國家，帶有相應風險。如果可能，我們應當自己進行這些實驗——我們可以，也應該這樣做。

如果我們想將文化重新導向獨立生活精神、冒險精神和協作精神，就必須提供這些精神得以繁榮的條件。我們不應被程式性爭論分心，比如巴哈和裕廊已在總體規劃中劃定。實驗可以按現狀進行，問題是我們是否願意。

因此，NTU作為一個集居住、工作、建設於一體的區域中心，其特色是以成本回收價收取住房用地費用。這裡的成本指普通意義上的成本，排除所有稀缺價值——即建造、融資、服務、維護和更新建築的實際成本，而非其下方土地的假設市場價值。

這將是多少？我們有一些參考。今年學年，NTU一間無空調雙人房約412新元/月，空調單人房約657新元/月。NUS的雙人宿舍約494新元/月。今年7月底宣佈的共居計劃（SG Youth計劃）中，1925 Quarters的房間起價為1800新元/月；Boon Lay的Coliwoo為1950新元；Coliwoo Lutheran為2000新元，均不含水電和押金——約比通常價格低30%，運營商承擔差價。

Boon Lay的房子距NTU約四公里，價格約為大學自有學生宿舍的五倍。它負擔得起嗎？我認為不行。去年我們六所自治大學的畢業生月薪中位數為4500新元，扣除中央公積金（CPF）後，實際可支配約3600新元。Boon Lay的租金加固定水電費折扣後約佔其60%。

這並未將年輕人視為首要考慮。我們的年輕人希望擁有自己的空間和經濟自主權，作為生活的前提，而非婚姻的副產品。

而30%低於市場價是相對於稀缺市場而言。折扣前，同一房間租金超過畢業生可支配收入的四分之三。負擔能力必須以新加坡年輕人實際可支配收入為基準，而非市場價折扣。

那麼，我們能以不同的基礎提供什麼？

以成本回收為基礎，房間租金遠低於市場價的一半，更接近三分之一。舉一計算例子，不依賴大學補貼。一個500平方英尺單位，按每平方英尺200新元計算——高於政府2022年公佈的建築成本，屬於保守估計——若三人合住，按5%利率攤銷10年，月租約1061新元，約2.12新元/平方英尺，約380新元/人，含沉沒基金。攤銷期延長至20年，則為1.32新元/平方英尺。其他計算結果相近。大學自身的租金按12個月年化（而非35周學期）計算，約為478至549新元/間。

大學已接近成本價提供住宿。因此，我們可以得出每間房月租350至550新元的區間。

我知道這會引來怎樣的回應。所有國有土地均屬儲備。土地必須按公平市場價出售，否則儲備將被耗盡。那我們就看實際操作，而非僅理論。先看我們已制定的工具。

《土地增值稅（優惠減免）令2022》免除國有租賃大學土地的增值稅，該土地用於教育和機構用途，且“大學”定義為NUS和NTU。因此，大學已有優惠。

國有定價不僅限於此。宗教場所或公民社群機構用地已按全價一半估值。2023年3月生效的土地增值稅表顯示，這約為同一區域住宅用地估價的十分之一。

該紅線不僅適用於宗教場所費率。教育和機構用途同屬一組，島內分三檔收費，而住宅和商業費率跨118個區段變化。

對於某一類用途，國家已按決策設定價格，而非按地段。2023年，政府將宗教場所由競爭招標改為固定價格抽籤，正是因為競標推高價格，導致宗教團體分心籌款。價格下降，顯然沒有動用儲備。

我們能推斷什麼？

對對面黨而言，公平市場價已是授予權益的函式。它不是附著於地塊的單一數字。一旦改變用途類別，公平市場價隨之合法變動，首席估價師仍負責估價。政府發現市場機制將某用途價格抬高至偏離其本意，便以管理價格替代，得出較低數字，首席估價師仍稱其為公平市場價。那就按現有規則行事。為非交易限制性租期混合住房和企業用地建立用途類別，讓首席估價師為該限制性權益估價。

為下一代建設生產能力的明確估價不是掠奪儲備，而是投資支出。每個為子女經濟前景支付學費的家庭都知道：這是長遠經濟遠見，而非短期經濟思維。

如果需求超過供應，區域如何運作？我們可以抽籤。一旦進入，租金保持低廉——無論是學習、工作、建設還是服務。企業獲得固定期限和續約選項，成功後畢業退出。失業或創業失敗者有一年寬限期，之後租金重置。若住房為租賃而非出售，則不會成為可交易資產。

議長，土地價格極其重要，但單靠價格不足。其他條件也必須到位。

在治理方面，創新區是嘗試之地，多數嘗試失敗。這要求我們容忍一定混亂。我所提大多無需新立法。JTC按自擬合同出租土地——租金公式、續約測試、配額、豁免、佔用契約等條款均屬租賃條款，非法規，已有靈活度。

我們應取消市區重建局（URA）規劃通告，限制校園非學術用途佔比不超過5%或3萬平方米。加快深科技研究人員及企業所需人員的簽證審批，力爭兩週內完成該區域所有重大決策。

應將運營決策下放給區域董事會，規模小且靈活，包含主導大學，能統一決策空間、試點、住房分配、簽證和採購。董事會應對居住者負責，居住者應有發言權。

資金方面，應賦予該區域支援創始人和企業的能力。低租金是吸引力之一，更大吸引力應是成長資本——區域持有內部企業股份。

1994年，新加坡與中國共建蘇州工業園區。該區成立了自己的投資機構——國有的Oriza Holdings，由園區管理委員會控制，2001年成立，現管理約140億美元資產。

雖然我們未參與Oriza Holdings，但基於區域的融資機構並非新鮮事。許多金融創新源自區域。中國的新三板，國家級未上市小企業場外股權市場，2006年始於中關村科技園股份轉讓試點，2013年推廣全國。

因此，我們應為區域管理機構注資，使其在為初創企業和企業提供最佳條件的同時進行投資，持有限額股權或收入份額，並允許其使用部分收益進一步發展區域。為企業減輕即時商業壓力的區域，是實驗和多樣性得以繁榮之地。

議長，該區域是一個有界、可逆的方式，以不動用儲備的價格試用可用土地，區域外土地價格保持不變——讓更多新加坡人參與企業和研發，而非僅僅成為僱員。

因此，訴求有三：圍繞NTU設立區域；為限制性租期、非交易性混合住房和企業用地設立新用途類別，按限制性權益估價；設立區域管理機構，自主管理並持有所培育企業股份。

這是一個受控實驗，檢驗新加坡土地定價機制是否抑制了集聚、創業和本土資本形成。如果新加坡有超越土地和工資成本壓力的獨特秘訣，那麼這裡的區域與柔佛的區域將告訴我們答案。這是我們應為年輕一代進行的測試。

我們花了30年時間讓這個國家成為他人公司成功的好地方。我請求我們用接下來的30年，讓它成為我們所有者成功的地方——不僅是為年輕人爭取更好待遇，而是為年輕人專門打造的國家。

議長，最後，世界已變且不會回頭，我們都能感受到。檢驗我們是否認真的是：我們必須改革現有經濟結構的重要部分，應對變化的世界，追求更公平分配的增長，並衡量增長的價值——國家收入的公平份額、與生產率相符的實際收入增長，以及普通工資可負擔範圍的擴大。

許多變革必須在國家層面進行，但一些根深蒂固的假設必須被檢驗。普遍市場土地定價即其一。政策實驗室的真實規模是檢驗方式，區域即其中一部分。

在本動議中，我的各位尊敬同僚將提出其他結構性解決方案，針對結構性問題。新加坡人應得到嚴肅答覆；工人黨將提供嚴肅答覆。這就是我們提出本動議，打造一個為所有人服務的未來經濟的原因。議長，我請求動議。 [掌聲]

[（程式文本）提案已提出。（程式文本）]

議長：副教授林志蔚。

12點33分

副教授林志蔚（盛港）：議長，我支援我尊敬的同僚張文傑提出的動議。

我完全同意我們既需要充滿活力的本地公司，也需要企業成功的機會，因此我在本次辯論中的發言將聚焦於如何擺脫自上而下、依賴跨國公司（MNC）為中心的外資經濟模式，轉而建立自下而上、以本土資本為主導、中小企業（SME）為重點的經濟模式。我還將對最近釋出的經濟策略報告（ESR）提出建設性批評。

首先，有必要勾勒出我們的傳統增長模式。基本策略是積累。積累經濟學家所稱的生產要素，藉助人口變化帶來的勞動力增長，同時建設互補資本，包括機器、工廠、裝置等製造資本，以及通過教育提升的人力資本。

在前者方面，我們通過跨國公司的大量外商直接投資積累外匯儲備，進入21世紀後又吸引全球基金和家族辦公室的境內投資。我們還通過家庭強制儲蓄（中央公積金）和國家維持大規模財政盈餘來補充。

在後者方面，我們通過快速教育學齡兒童提升教育水平，自1990年代起，逐漸吸納海外技術工人。

我們結合這些要素積累與基本面，利用地理優勢，培育開放的商品、服務和金融貿易經濟。

我們還強調優質制度和低稅環境，尊重產權和法治，以及高效公務員體系。

我們全力以赴，使人均收入從獨立時約1600新元，增長到今天超過121,000新元——無論如何都是驚人的增長。

儘管我們在1960年代已領先於其他發展中國家，我們的增長故事無疑令人印象深刻。

這種模式並非獨有。日本早期工業化成功採用此策略，香港、臺灣和韓國等東亞“龍”經濟體也以此模式（帶有個別差異）致富。自1980年代起，中國也採納了自我儲蓄模式。

儘管傳統模式成功，但內含多種弊端。它使我們過於迷戀吸引外資，害怕實施有利於工人的政策，擔心失去區域總部吸引力。我們的教育系統培養了大量優秀操作人才，但風險創業者寥寥。政府的租賃土地模式在節約稀缺土地的驅動下，助長了房地產尋租心態，而非將土地視為普通生產要素。

最嚴重的缺陷是，在不斷追求積累生產要素的過程中，我們的生產率增長滯後。公平地說，其他“龍”經濟體也如此，但新加坡表現最差。

同樣重要的是，這些經濟體一旦確立高收入地位，便開始向更內生、自我驅動的生產率主導模式演進，而我們尚未果斷轉型。

有人可能認為我們不應為增長找藉口。我認為這觀點不完整，甚至誤導。畢竟，我們已知如何推動良好增長——加大資本支出，犧牲勞動收入和生產率。

事實上，這一直是對新加坡1960年代至1990年代快速增長階段增長模式的批評，促使一系列生產率運動和機構成立，但遺憾的是未能扭轉國家生產率困境。

雖然我們可能傾向於用已驗證工具促進增長，如繼續增加資本存量，但必須抵制這種誘惑，因為明顯過度優先硬基礎設施投資，尤其是房地產，正面臨邊際效益遞減。

議長，新模式應如何？首先，我們必須擺脫傳統依賴外資跨國公司驅動增長的模式，轉向以中小企業為本土經濟引擎。

儘管經濟策略報告提及兩者，但對跨國公司存在隱性偏好。我們需要有意識地轉變，不再過度關注稅收競爭、低估匯率和吸引腳步不定的跨國公司。相反，應促進本土企業自下而上的形成和成長，釋放本地勞動力的創新和創業精神。這意味著讓企業擺脫以成本削減為唯一競爭手段的惡性競爭。

收入和工資應當依賴於生產力的提升，而非無休止地追求更廉價的投入。利潤率可以且應當通過提升附加值和質量來驅動。我們希望“新加坡製造”成為更好品質的代名詞，而不僅僅是更快或更便宜，這些應留給收入水平較低的經濟體。

明確地說，這不僅僅是呼籲更快的增長，也不僅僅是為了增長而增長。這具有生存的重要性，尤其是在人工智慧時代。研究顯示，全球範圍內，小企業推動破壞性創新，初創企業是通過這種創造性破壞過程實現可持續增長的基石。然而，儘管中小企業佔本地註冊企業的99%，併為七成新加坡工人提供就業，但它們目前僅貢獻了經濟附加值的一半。

如果我們的中小企業因大企業擠佔了商業或融資機會而受限，我們將永遠無法發現本土具有全球競爭力的獨角獸。或者如果它們選擇安於現狀，不敢挑戰大型既有企業，我們也永遠無法打造像德國中堅企業（Mittelstand）或日本太平洋工業帶那樣，構成經濟支柱的充滿活力的中小企業群體。

為了實現這一轉型，我們需要一批能夠成長為下一波國家企業冠軍、推動21世紀創新驅動型經濟的本土中型企業。我們需要新加坡人創辦新加坡公司，並讓這些公司在本地及全球舞臺上成長和成功。

新加坡對中小企業的支援並不陌生。政府無疑會指出一系列支援計劃，如生產力解決方案補助金、SkillsFuture企業信貸、企業發展補助金、市場準備援助、企業勞動力轉型計劃——我可以繼續列舉。

問題不在於這些計劃是否有用，它們確實有用。關鍵是這些催化性補助金是否足以激發中小企業活動，使其系統性地邁向下一階段的成長，還是存在其他結構性障礙，阻礙它們從小型本地企業轉型為中型、具有全球競爭力的企業。

企業自身報告了幾個主要的增長限制。最顯著的是，中小企業面臨生產力水平低的問題，政府對此也明確承認。許多企業反映難以吸引和留住能夠提升效率和產出的優秀人才。

公平地說，我們的中小企業必須面對全球最高水平的經營成本。更復雜的是，中小企業必須為投資獲得融資，而一旦脫離初創階段，融資尤其稀缺。我們的中小企業必須準備好成為發展創新的源泉，即研發中的“D”。

我之前曾向本院分享過，我國研發投入不足GDP的2%，遠低於全球平均水平，且顯著落後於領先創新國家。但我也解釋過，這主要是因為私營部門的研發投入疲軟，而非政府投入不足。遺憾的是，在中小企業中情況更糟。絕大多數企業研發支出（BERD）可能來自大型企業。

《經濟發展報告》（ESR）談及研發，但未強調這一轉變的重要性。

我注意到總理公署去年宣佈未來五年將投入370億新元用於研究、創新和企業資金。這將使我們的公共支出達到約1%，位居全球前列。但我們需要加快私營部門研發，不僅僅是增加公共資金，還要通過私營資本市場提供補充資金。

公平地說，企業研發稅收激勵已經非常慷慨，每個評估年度首40萬新元合格支出可享受高達400%的扣除，最近又增加了最高100%的可退還投資抵免。中小企業是主要受益者，佔研發申報的85%。

但提升生產力不僅僅依賴創新。研究表明，小企業提升效率的一個重要障礙是管理質量。因此，可能有理由擴大中小企業研發稅收扣除的合格活動範圍，特別是針對產品商業化、內部業務運營最佳化或海外擴張的活動。

缺失的還有一條連貫的創新路徑，適用於所有中小企業，而不僅限於那些面向前沿領域的企業。傳統經濟領域的初創企業創始人可能不具備使用GoBusiness目錄的技術能力，也可能不瞭解如何尋求企業發展局的商業顧問。他們可能無法整合眾多支援計劃，甚至難以提交可信的申請。

需要的是推動而非拉動策略，即對新註冊企業自動且常規地提供如何獲得政府支援以推動業務發展創新的資訊。更好的是，初創企業可以匹配派遣專家，內部提升研發能力，類似科技研究局（A*STAR）的企業能力升級技術（T-Up）計劃。

國家通過對政府關聯公司（GLC）的間接影響仍有發揮空間。儘管GLC佔據本地企業經濟附加值的一半，但研發支出僅佔五分之一。我們的GLC可以帶頭，將更多留存收益投入應用研發，前提是投資回報期合理。中期來看，它們可以努力提升支出，更接近其他跨國公司的水平。

最後，我們還可以通過降低高昂的經營成本間接支援中小企業生產力。與中小企業交談時，人員成本和租金問題總會出現。然而，擴大規模和搬遷並非總是可行。因此，我們需要尋找替代方案。一種簡單策略是將租金年漲幅上限限制在歷史平均約3%的水平。

這是對漲幅率的限制，而非租金水平的限制。長期來看，市場租金仍將起主導作用。但此舉將為企業調整固定成本的跳漲提供時間。許多國家和地區已採用類似限制。即使僅限於政府和機構房東，如建屋發展局（HDB）或裕廊工業區管理局（JTC），也將是重大進步。

或許也該重新審視某些行業的依賴比例上限，比如餐飲業，新加坡人即使在高薪職位上也不願填補空缺。

先生，提升本地中小企業的核心挑戰是吸引和留住人才的困難。新加坡人常將小企業工作視為二線、低端崗位，不及跨國公司（MNC）更有利可圖和聲望的職業。《經濟發展報告》雖強調優質就業的重要性，但對中小企業與跨國公司職位差距及其彌合方式幾乎未提。

彌合這一差距必須認識到，小企業相比大企業更難籌集足夠投資資金。為緩解現金流壓力、促進招聘，改善內外部融資渠道是首要任務，以提升年輕有活力企業的生存能力。

已有支援小企業發展的計劃。例如，企業發展補助金（EDG）針對專案，生產力解決方案補助金（PSG）針對資訊科技裝置，旨在緩解財務限制。EDG甚至明確將人力資本發展專案視為核心能力。

我們的PSG也應如此，因為生產力提升同樣依賴人力資本和資訊科技裝置。

有人可能認為勞動力發展補助金（WDG）也有類似作用，但WDG限制較多，依賴批准的顧問名單，且非持續可用。

我認為應更靈活，允許中小企業提高薪酬福利，更好地匹配跨國公司的起薪水平。

除了薪資，求職者可能因工作多樣性、靈活性以及更廣泛的業務角色和職能接觸而願意加入中小企業。實習和學徒計劃，包括理工學院、大學及畢業生行業培訓計劃（GRIT）應積極納入中小企業作為潛在僱主。職業轉換計劃不應僅限於批發貿易，應擴大涵蓋更多中小企業行業。

不過，這些計劃的申請和報告要求往往繁重，進一步壓縮了小企業本已有限的資源。雖然我理解公共資金管理需謹慎，但不應讓中小企業變成另一種政府官僚機構。補助申請應簡化，報告重點應放在防止欺詐審計，而非繁瑣的文件合規。

此外，目前資金是報銷制。但任何小企業主，尤其是初創企業，都知道維持現金流是主要挑戰之一。我們應當提前報銷支援資金，並信任中小企業主明智使用這些補助。當然，支援中小企業吸引年輕人才應更早介入。中小企業尋求技術工人時常招收實習生，但許多年輕畢業生仍未與潛在中小企業僱主匹配。

這並非缺乏努力。大多數高等院校已有工作體驗計劃，但參與率仍低。2024年，工藝教育學院（ITE）提供了1300名學生，自治大學提供了800名。儘管實習往往能轉化為就業，更重要的是，中小企業參與率仍低。約300家公司參與此類計劃，不到註冊中小企業的1%。

參與率低的一個原因可能是希望與高等院校合作的公司必須共同設計和實施定製課程。對於資源有限、缺乏相關經驗的小企業來說，這幾乎是難以逾越的障礙。

或許可以借鑑德國的做法，其等效計劃中超過十分之一的公司參與。通過擴大潛在申請者範圍，允許使用SkillsFuture資金僱傭實習生，並接受中小企業僱主更簡化的申請標準。

然而，即使針對人才招聘，也缺乏確保系統性技能轉移的結構，導致人力資本效益難以在企業內部廣泛傳播，尤其是對外籍人才而言。

應加強本地能力建設，將其納入先鋒證書激勵計劃和發展擴充套件激勵計劃，促進技能向新加坡員工轉移。特別是較大補助應附帶明確的技能轉移方案和時間表，包括若無額外轉移，外籍就業準證在指定期限後可能終止。微型和小型企業員工技能提升時，僱主可獲得部分補償工資報銷，用於臨時僱傭或加班，類似國民服役預備役人員履行義務時的補償。

先生，請允許我結束髮言。

議長：林志蔚副教授，您還有一分鐘。

林志蔚副教授：我聽到了。

明確地說，我呼籲的並非全面推翻我們以政府關聯公司（GLC）、跨國公司（MNC）主導、依賴外資的模式，該模式迄今為止服務良好。排除這些主體無異於殺死金鵝，它們已成為我們企業和工業格局的基石。我們的GLC在國際市場上競爭力日益增強，彰顯新加坡企業的經濟影響力。

我也不主張放棄外資投資，關閉外資流入大門。這將削弱我們的資本基礎。沒有現代經濟體，尤其是像我們這樣全球化的經濟體，會忽視國際參與者。但我呼籲的是政策和體制的轉變，帶來對本土企業的新認識。在這個已富裕、先進的經濟體中，轉變將使中小企業，尤其是中型企業，成為國家經濟模型的核心，而非大型外資跨國公司或GLC巨頭的利益中心。

我們需要的是創造性破壞。通過破壞，我們將同時創造一個適應21世紀的經濟。

議長：李堅輝先生。

下午12時53分

李堅輝（提名議員）：議長先生，動議提出的願景幾乎無人反對——更具包容性的經濟，給予企業家更多試驗空間，企業和工人獲得成功的機會，以及擁有更強大的新加坡公司和資本基礎，能夠走向海外。

這些不是政府的願望，也不是反對派的願望，而是新加坡的必然要求。真正的問題不是我們是否想要，而是如何實現，以及誰應當行動。

但我們應從兩個事實開始。

第一，今年第二季度新加坡經濟增長5.7%。製造業增長12.2%，主要受人工智慧相關的電子和精密工程需求推動。這種增長是真實且受歡迎的。

第二，增長感受並不均衡。實地調研中，我聽到除非你的業務是人工智慧，否則就是“悲哀”（bei ai，中文意為“悲哀”）。

許多企業，尤其是面向本地市場的企業，仍在應對需求不確定和持續高昂的人力、租金及運營成本。對這些企業及其依賴其生計的員工而言，GDP頭條數字並不意味著增長，而是每日的火線應對。這種擔憂是真實存在的。

因此，我們的應對必須兼顧兩個時間維度——為面臨即時壓力的可行企業提供切實、限時的救助，以及提供長期轉型支援，幫助它們提升生產力、擴大規模和開拓新市場。

但僅有救助而無轉型，只是拖延問題。政府必須通過良好的監管、基礎設施、教育、公平監管和強大的社會保障網為經濟鋪設跑道。但企業、企業家和工人是必須起飛的飛機。從商業角度看，這意味著三個要務——賦能企業、擴大機會和植入責任。

為了賦能企業，我們必須建設包容性經濟，賦予人們和企業平等尊嚴、真正的機會通道，以及在面臨劣勢或變革時的有意義支援。但公平不等於一視同仁。傳統中小企業數字化的需求與開發智慧財產權的科技初創企業不同。準備海外擴張的本土企業需要的支援與商業模式可能已不再可行的企業不同。

公平意味著理解每個企業的進步需求，並明確公共支援應達成的成果。如果支援過於分散，我們無法為有潛力國際突破的企業提供足夠的跑道。同時，包容不意味著保證每個企業都能存活。

動態經濟需要新進入、試驗、偶爾失敗和更新。企業家應有責任失敗並重試的空間。但公共支援不能消除所有商業風險或社會化所有企業損失。政府的角色是創造公平和支援的環境，企業的角色是利用環境改進、投資和競爭。

這正是我們的商業機構必須發揮作用的地方。我對企業的實際建議很簡單。無論你處於哪個發展階段，首選應是新加坡工商聯合會（SBF）或相關商會和行業協會。

企業不應在尋求幫助前必須瞭解整個政府組織架構。若需理解政策或法規，從我們這裡開始。若需融資指導，從我們這裡開始。若需轉型勞動力、採用人工智慧、進入新市場或尋找政府支援，從我們這裡開始。我們可能沒有所有答案，但會負責協調，幫助每家公司找到正確的入口。

以本土培訓機構All Hearts為例。隨著發展，手工流程導致錯誤和延誤增加。通過SBF的技術實施諮詢服務，聯合企業發展局和資訊通訊媒體發展局（IMDA）支援，我們幫助該公司採用單一整合技術方案。手工資料錄入減少一半，報告幾乎即時生成，員工有更多時間培訓和支援學員。

對於成熟的中小企業，下一步可能是新融資、更強的管理能力或進入海外市場。

UTRACON是一家尋求在中東地區發展的新加坡工程公司，具備能力但缺乏當地合作伙伴和市場準入。通過企業發展局支援的GlobalConnect@SBF計劃，新加坡工商聯合會（SBF）將其與阿拉伯聯合大公國（UAE）合作伙伴連線起來，打開了區域專案的大門。我們的角色不是為企業冒險，而是縮短它們獲得海外首個機會的距離。支援企業也意味著確保我們的法規保持適用性。

法規對於保護工人、消費者、公共安全、環境和經濟誠信是必要的。但隨著時間推移，規則可能積累併產生意想不到的摩擦。答案不是為了放松管制而放松管制，而是有紀律的試驗。謹慎測試變更，從證據中學習，並在規則不再適用時進行調整。

商業競爭行動聯盟（AfA）展示了這如何運作。它通過25次參與會議，將企業、行業協會、商會和公共機構聚集在一起。迄今為止，27項建議中已有24項以某種形式被採納。這些包括針對特定職業的外籍勞動力來源變更；保留有經驗的工作準證持有者；更靈活的工業租賃；更快的太陽能板部署審批；以及設立中小企業親企辦公室。

AfA的價值不在於政府同意每一項企業請求，而在於企業解釋規則帶來的問題，機構說明他們必須管理的保障措施和權衡。有時，企業在理解政策原因後改變了看法；在其他情況下，機構在瞭解運營現實後調整了規則。

這就是良好合作的樣子。不是政府總是說“是”，也不是企業總是正確，而是通過參與進行政策學習並隨著時間改進。

議長先生，動議還談到了健康的國內需求和新加坡資本走向海外。我同意。

對於新加坡來說，國內需求只能提供緩衝，但不能成為我們規模擴張的主要引擎。要實現增長，新加坡企業必須走向海外，尋找新客戶，建設新的生產能力，獲取技術並參與海外供應鏈。迄今為止，SBF已促成79家新加坡企業在44個市場開展108個海外專案。這正是我們需要支援的目標——新加坡企業走出去，同時將其最有價值的能力紮根於本地。

Golden Bridge Foods就是一個例子。在SBF的協助下，這家新加坡農食品公司投資超過5000萬馬幣，在馬來西亞柔佛建立了新的製造能力，同時保留新加坡作為管理其區域業務的基地。這就是為何柔佛-新加坡特別經濟區（JS-SEZ）重要。通過與巴淡、民丹和卡里蒙（BKK）更緊密地連線，其潛力可以得到加強。SBF已啟動一項戰略研究，探討如何通過更好的物理和數字連線、更順暢的海關安排以及更緊密的監管協調，將JS-SEZ與BBK整合為更廣泛的區域合作。

但擴大我們的腹地並非無代價。更好的連線也為消費者提供更多選擇，同時使本地企業面臨更大競爭。

SBF與新加坡餐飲業協會和新加坡零售商協會共同完成的柔佛巴魯-新加坡快速交通系統（RTS）研究說明了這種權衡。RTS開通後，新加坡消費者每年可能在柔佛巴魯額外消費10.5億新元，而柔佛訪客在新加坡的額外消費可能達7.56億新元。

我們的回應不能是阻止人們跨境。新加坡企業也不能僅靠價格競爭。我們必須在質量、信任、生產力、創新、特色產品和更好體驗上競爭。

隨著我們拓展市場創造新機會，競爭將隨之而來。答案不是保護主義，而是幫助新加坡企業建立能力，走向海外，將價值錨定於本地，並變得足夠強大以競爭。

這引出我的第三點——植入責任感。受益於全球人才准入的企業，也必須通過指導新加坡人、培養本地接班人並給予新加坡員工區域和全球視野來幫助新加坡人發展。我們不應將培養新加坡人與保持對外籍或全球人才開放視為選擇題。

外籍專業人士帶來網路、技術知識和海外市場經驗。但開放只有在真正融合、知識轉移和投資本地領導力的前提下，才能保持社會可持續性。由文化、社區及青年部（MCCY）、新加坡全國僱主聯合會（SNEF）和SBF召集的外籍專業人士融合行動聯盟展示瞭如何實現這一點。它提出了加強職場融合的實用建議，同時保持新加坡對全球人才的開放。

在MCCY支援下，SBF現設有外籍專業人士融合專案辦公室。該辦公室與行業協會和商會合作，為新就業準證持有人舉辦入職培訓，提供職場融合資源，並開展文化敏感度研討會。

最後，議長先生，經濟成功必須強化我們更廣泛的社會。企業受益於新加坡的穩定、基礎設施、受過教育的勞動力、法治和社會凝聚力。回饋社會不是慈善，而是對企業賴以生存基礎的再投資。這就是為何SBF基金會及我們的社會影響專案至關重要。

通過VolunteerInc.，我們幫助包括中小企業在內的公司動員員工貢獻技能和時間於社群。通過EmployWell和MigrantWell，我們為弱勢群體創造就業路徑，支援外籍勞工福祉。

已有超過5200家公司參與這些專案。但更重要的是人文成果。僅EmployWell就為2100多名面臨就業障礙的個人提供了就業支援，超過1000人重新進入職場。這就是企業強化社會契約的方式。

議長先生，這些例子說明了什麼？說明了企業與政府合作時的可能性。企業領導者在SBF及行業協會和商會任職，並非因為他們有空閒時間，恰恰相反，而是因為他們知道沒有任何公司能獨自構建競爭生態系統。政府無法瞭解企業面臨的每一個運營難題，企業也未必完全理解政府必須管理的每一個國家權衡。工會必須明白更好的工作取決於可行的企業，而僱主必須認識到轉型離不開工人。

這就是為何我們的三方合作及公私夥伴關係依然重要。各方不必事事同意，但必須有足夠的信任坦誠討論困難權衡，有足夠的承諾在討論後付諸行動。

只要我們各盡其責，新加坡不僅能應對未來，更能共同塑造未來。這就是我相信新加坡必須建設的未來經濟。議長先生，請用中文發言。

（中文）：[請參閱本地語言發言。]議長先生，當前全球經濟前景不確定。油價波動和頻繁的關稅變動嚴重影響全球經濟和企業。作為一個沒有自然資源的小型開放國家，新加坡同樣面臨巨大壓力。

幸運的是，我們擁有穩健的金融體系。企業積極多元化投資並管理風險，政府近期推出了一系列支援措施，短期內可緩解中小企業和民眾面臨的外部壓力。

展望未來，我們仍面臨多項結構性挑戰。人工智慧推動技術變革的同時，也推高能源需求，我們需要發展可再生能源。人口老齡化也是嚴峻問題——低效的年輕人口將導致勞動力和消費基礎雙重短缺。

這些挑戰真實存在，不能忽視。我們必須及時適應。我們目標一致，差異僅在於前進路徑。俗話說，想走快就獨行，想走遠就同行。若人人各自為政，只顧自身利益，短期或有進展，但難以持久。唯有相互支援、攜手合作，方能穩健可持續前行。

因此，企業應積極抓住機遇，同時回饋社會。工人應持續學習和提升技能，政府應繼續營造公平、開放、透明的營商環境。

我堅信，只要三方夥伴攜手合作，我們定能克服困難，實現長期發展。

（英文）：總結而言，議長先生，動議措辭似乎暗示這些願景與經濟策略審查（ESR）有所分離。我對此表述並不完全認同。因此，我無法支援當前形式的動議。

議長先生：謝秉輝先生。

下午1時10分

謝秉輝（荷蘭-武吉知馬選區）：議長先生，首先，我宣告我擁有並運營一家生物科技初創企業，向本地公司和全球企業提供迴圈食品解決方案。我今天發言支援“為所有人服務的未來經濟”動議，認同其廣泛願景。

我們都希望經濟更具包容性——本地企業更強大，新加坡人擁有良好工作，增長讓人民對未來充滿信心。但我認為動議可通過明確這些願景與ESR一致，並更好反映新加坡小型開放經濟的現實而得到加強。

議長先生，我請求您允許我對動議提出修正案。

議長先生：請提供您的修正案副本。

謝秉輝：好的，議長先生。

議長先生：請交給我的書記員。[修正案副本已交給議長。]

好的，我看到您提出了四項修正案，順序正確。議員們有副本嗎？

謝秉輝：有的，議長先生。

議長先生：我們將分發給所有議員。[修正案副本已分發給尊敬的議員們。]

好了，看起來每位議員都收到了副本。謝先生，您可以提出修正案。

謝秉輝：謝謝，議長先生。我提出以下修正案：

“第一行，刪除‘notwithstanding’，改為‘in line with’。”

“第五行，刪除‘economic engine driven’，改為‘economy powered’。”

“第五行，在‘local companies’後插入‘global enterprises’。”

“第五行，在‘healthy domestic’後插入‘and external’。”

修正後的動議將改為：“本院認為，依據經濟策略審查對未來新加坡經濟的建議：(a) 應建設一個更平等包容的經濟，鼓勵企業家試驗，支援家庭和企業成功，工人繁榮，思想和創新蓬勃發展；(b) 應建設一個由充滿活力的本地企業、全球企業、健康的國內和外部需求，以及新加坡人和新加坡資本走向海外所驅動的經濟。”

議長先生，修正案在三方面加強了動議。

首先，它明確包容性、創業、創新和優質就業的願景與ESR是一致的，而非相悖。其次，它承認新加坡未來經濟需要充滿活力的本地企業和全球企業。第三，它承認健康的國內需求必須由強勁的外部需求支援，尤其對於像新加坡這樣的小型開放經濟體。

因此，我將圍繞修正後的動議提出三點。

第一，ESR為包容和創新經濟提供戰略基礎。ESR認識到世界已發生根本變化。在更為分裂的環境中，新加坡不能僅僅保留過去有效的做法，必須更新戰略。其三大要務明確：提升新加坡價值主張；增強敏捷性和適應性；構建韌性與效率並重。

這些建議非孤立產生。ESR通過與企業、工會、工人及行業利益相關者廣泛交流形成。因此，它不僅是政府報告，更是國家戰略，由人民和企業共同創造和塑造。

接下來的挑戰是執行。我們起點堅實。研發投資已吸引研究人才留在新加坡，並催化企業研發支出。2023年企業研發支出約達90億新元。

接下來，我們需加強研究轉化。新加坡不僅要產出更多研究，還要將更多創意轉化為產品；將更多智慧財產權轉化為企業資產；將更多創新轉化為具全球競爭力的新加坡企業。

這需要大學、研究機構、投資者和企業間的強大合作伙伴關係。我們需要更清晰的路徑將有前景技術商業化，推動更多產業主導的研究合作，併為初創企業和中小企業提供更好資本、客戶和全球市場的准入。

第二，我們必須幫助工人向上、橫向和前進轉移。即使技術顛覆就業，答案也不是放緩技術採用。那將削弱企業競爭力，最終減少新加坡人的機會。答案是為工人提供相關培訓、更好職業指導、行業認可技能和進入增長行業的真實路徑。一個為所有人服務的經濟必須創造廣泛的優質崗位，涵蓋技術員、運營專家、技工、助理、專業人士、經理、行政人員和技術人員（PMETs）、服務工人、中年及成熟工人。

第二點是，新加坡的經濟引擎必須由充滿活力的本地企業和全球企業共同驅動。

充滿活力的本地企業重要，但我們不應將本地企業和全球企業視為競爭選擇。新加坡的成功從未建立在這種錯誤選擇上。相反，我們應幫助跨國公司、大型本地企業、中小企業和初創企業相互促進。全球企業帶來投資、技術和國際網路，本地企業貢獻敏捷性、創新和專業能力。它們共同創造生態系統，構建能力，加速創新，為新加坡人創造更好就業機會。

我們已見證這一實踐。AEM是一家本土新加坡公司，設計先進系統測試半導體，包括篩選當今耗電AI晶片所需的熱控技術。通過2010年代與全球半導體跨國公司的合作，AEM從合同製造商轉型為半導體行業值得信賴的創新工程夥伴，提供測試和熱自動化解決方案，服務AI、高效能運算和儲存器裝置。

以新加坡為基地，AEM已成長為全球測試領導者，在亞洲、歐洲和美國設有業務，現正將專長拓展至全球最先進的AI處理器。這顯示了與全球企業合作如何幫助新加坡公司構建自主能力，提升價值鏈，贏得全球競爭。我剛查閱，AEM市值約28億新元。

因此，我們面臨的挑戰是深化這些合作，使更多新加坡企業能夠創新、擴張和國際化。這些聯絡通過匯聚研究人員、初創企業、中小企業、投資者和產業，加速創新從實驗室到市場的轉化。我們必須幫助中小企業和初創企業擴充套件規模，同時確保全球企業繼續視新加坡為可信賴且有價值的基地。如果我們變得不開放、不連通、不具吸引力，本地企業將失去市場、合作伙伴、技術和機會。

議長先生，第三點是，新加坡的未來必須開放且面向外部，同時確保增長強化社會契約，惠及新加坡人。這就是為何我們需要健康的國內和外部需求。國內需求重要，支撐許多本地企業，支援就業，反映家庭和企業信心。但我們整個市場無法為所有行業提供所需規模。因此，我們既需要充滿活力的本地市場讓本地企業繁榮，也需要強大的全球聯絡幫助其他企業進入更大市場。

2025年，新加坡的貨物和服務出口總額約為國內生產總值的178%。這反映了我們的經濟與區域和全球市場的深度聯絡。我們必須繼續作為一個值得信賴的金融、貿易、技術、物流、航空、海運、資料、仲裁、綠地、專業服務和創新樞紐，為世界服務。同時，這種外向型經濟的利益必須通過優質的就業、工資、技能和企業機會回饋給新加坡人。這增強了國內的信心和需求。

這就是為什麼《經濟策略報告》（ESR）強調新加坡作為一個連線和可信賴樞紐的重要性。在一個更加分裂的世界中，僅有連線是不夠的。我們必須成為一個能夠協調流動、管理金融並將其轉化為經濟價值的地方。這是我們保持相關性的方法。這是我們創造高價值工作的方式。這是我們保障未來的途徑。

議長先生，擬議的修正動議還提到新加坡人和新加坡資本走向海外。這很重要，但必須以一個強大且開放的新加坡為基礎，從這裡資本、人才和企業才能擴充套件到區域。我們希望新加坡人能夠領導、管理、投資、建設和跨境運營。我們也希望全球合作伙伴將新加坡作為跳板，併為新加坡人創造機會。

這在東南亞尤為重要。我們的地區在增長，但也多樣、複雜且不均衡。新加坡企業需要支援以瞭解當地法規、建立合作伙伴關係、管理風險、獲得融資和擴大運營。政府可以通過市場準入平臺、融資支援、海外網路、人才發展以及與區域政府和企業的更強合作，幫助本地企業國際化。但這必須置於一個開放和外向的戰略之中。我們通過幫助世界從新加坡解決問題而變得更強。

議長先生，這引出了包容性的更廣泛問題。有時，經濟辯論將平等與競爭力視為對立目標。我不同意。對新加坡而言，競爭力是我們擁有包容資源的基礎。沒有增長，工作崗位會減少。沒有投資，機會會減少。沒有高效企業，工資無法持續上漲。沒有財政資源，我們無法資助教育、住房、醫療、社會支援和技能提升。

所以，問題不是我們選擇增長還是包容。問題是我們追求何種增長，以及如何確保新加坡人從中受益。我們希望增長創造優質工作；增長使工人能夠轉向更好的崗位；增長強化本地企業；增長支援家庭、長者、低薪工人和中年轉職工人。

這正是政府在其更廣泛經濟戰略中強調的增長型別。漸進式工資幫助低薪工人。工作補貼支援需要額外幫助的工人。SkillsFuture幫助新加坡人提升和轉型技能。Forward Singapore議程加強不同人生階段的社會支援。ESR在此基礎上，聚焦優質工作、終身學習、企業轉型和韌性。

企業還有另一個維度，我們不應忽視。我們應將企業視為不僅是經濟單位，也是社會行為者。公司創造就業、支付工資、推動增長，但在最佳狀態下，它們還能強化社群、支援弱勢群體、關愛環境並促進更強大的社會。國家志願者與慈善中心（NVPC）的“好公司運動”就是一個例子。該運動剛剛慶祝了十週年，表彰那些將企業宗旨融入核心業務並在傳統經濟指標之外創造積極影響的企業。該運動鼓勵企業在五個領域行動：人員、社會、治理、環境和經濟。

這不僅僅是慈善。它關乎企業如何通過核心業務和運營執行宗旨。有些企業通過包容性招聘和以人為本的工作文化實現這一點。其他企業通過員工志願服務、指導中小企業、支援社群夥伴、減少廢棄物、改善可持續實踐或利用其產品、服務和供應鏈創造更廣泛的社會影響。例子包括盛祥的以人為本文化、HPE的廢物回收、惠普的Planet Partners計劃以及Fraser's Property作為房地產開發商通過塑造環境和社群所做的努力。僅三年內，該運動已表彰了1,046家公司，其中超過70%為本地公司。這是令人鼓舞的進展，仍有進一步發展的空間。

這很重要，因為包容性經濟不能僅靠政府建設。初創企業、中小企業、大型本地企業和跨國公司在將宗旨融入招聘、採購、建設、服務和增長方式時，可以成為積極力量。一個為所有人服務的未來經濟必須是企業既做得好又做好事的經濟。

先生，包容性不能意味著讓每個人都免受變革影響。政府的角色不是讓經濟停滯不前。相反，政府的角色是幫助工人和企業在變革來臨前適應，並在轉型困難時提供支援。這需要誠實。現實是，並非所有現有工作都會保持不變。並非所有公司都能以現有形式存活，新加坡無法避免全球競爭。

但我們可以承諾。我們可以承諾幫助新加坡人建立新技能、獲得新機會，並自信地應對變革。我們可以承諾幫助企業轉型、採用新技術、開拓新市場並建立競爭所需的能力。這是一種更誠實、更可持續的包容形式。

這就是為什麼擬議的修正動議很重要。它反映了新加坡必須取得的平衡。它與ESR保持一致。它支援作為一個生態系統一部分的動態本地公司和全球企業，為新加坡企業家和工人創造機會。它重視健康的國內需求，同時認識到強勁外部需求的必要性。它鼓勵新加坡人和新加坡資本走向海外，同時保持在一個可信賴、開放和有韌性的新加坡的錨定。

我們的未來經濟必須同時開放、競爭和包容。我們必須吸引世界上最優秀的人才，同時培養新加坡人中的佼佼者。我們必須支援本地企業，同時保持與全球網路的連線。我們必須擁抱人工智慧和技術，不是為了取代人類能力，而是為了擴充套件它——利用人工智慧強化工人的判斷力，釋放時間用於有意義的互動，並支援信任仍然核心的角色。我們必須在外部增長的同時確保新加坡人從國內受益。我們必須建立韌性，而不是封閉。

議長先生，ESR為下一階段提供了嚴肅且前瞻性的路線圖。它認識到工人和企業面臨的真實焦慮，但也認識到新加坡不能通過縮小抱負來應對不確定性。我們必須更大膽。我們必須承擔經過計算的風險。我們必須支援我們的企業。我們必須投資於我們的人才。我們必須加強作為全球可信賴樞紐的角色，並確保每個新加坡人都有公平的機會為未來經濟做出貢獻並從中受益。

一個為所有人服務的未來經濟不是通過在開放與包容之間選擇而建立的。它是通過將增長轉化為優質工作建立的。它是通過讓創新惠及企業和工人建立的。它是通過讓變革不再令人恐懼建立的，因為新加坡人知道我們將共同面對。我們必須建設這樣的經濟。

議長先生，我請求議員們支援修正動議。[掌聲。]

議長：張文傑先生，請稍等，讓我說明程式。謝秉輝先生對動議提出了四項修正：

修正一：“第1行，刪除‘notwithstanding’，插入‘in line with’。”

修正二：“第5行，刪除‘economic engine driven’，插入‘economy powered’。”

修正三：“第5行，在‘local companies,’之後插入‘global enterprises,’。”

修正四：“第5行，在‘healthy domestic’之後插入‘and external’。”

將原動議及議員提出的其他修正同時作為一個問題進行辯論，是否方便？議員們同意嗎？

[（程式文本）議員們表示同意。（程式文本）]

議長：多數議員同意。問題是謝秉輝先生提出的修正。辯論可以涵蓋原動議和修正。

在我叫蔡慶威先生髮言前，張文傑先生，您要澄清嗎？您當然有權在最後作結辯時回覆。您現在要澄清嗎？請講。

下午1時32分

張文傑：謝謝。僅就謝秉輝議員的第二項修正作一澄清，即刪除“economic engine driven”並插入“economy powered”，我不太明白此修正的目的。用對面一位部長喜歡用的詞來說，似乎多餘。

議長：謝秉輝先生。

謝秉輝：議長先生，我認為我們此刻不必在措辭或語義上爭論。基本上，這項修正是說經濟必須由本地公司和全球企業共同驅動。我想您可以在結辯時聽聽議員的看法。

本質上，這項修正的核心是首先表明您的動議精神和原意與ESR一致。支援本地公司，我們也必須認為全球企業是支援本地公司的單一生態系統的一部分。

議長：蔡慶威先生。

下午1時34分

蔡慶威（盛港）：議長先生，今年5月，ESR提出了涵蓋八大重點的32項建議，這是五個委員會和超過7,700名利益相關者磋商的成果，完整報告於6月釋出。

這是一項嚴肅的工作，我讚揚所有參與者。但正如我去年9月在國會所指出，新加坡從未缺少工作組和委員會——2009年的經濟策略委員會、2016年的未來經濟委員會、未來經濟理事會、產業轉型地圖、2020年的“更強韌”工作組，以及現在的ESR和新加坡經濟韌性工作組。

照此速度，審視經濟本身可能成為一個增長產業。

ESR對我們的企業和工人提出了尖銳的問題：提升價值主張、保持敏捷、增強韌性。這些都是合理的主張。但報告對一個經濟主體幾乎沒有提及——政府本身，特別是政府作為我們最有利可圖的房東角色。

國家擁有新加坡約90%的土地，是全國最大房東，遠遠領先於其他。

我今天的主張很簡單。只要政府繼續視自己為房東，只要新加坡人繼續共享政府的地租思維，ESR關於企業和創新的雄心就無法實現。

事實上，儘管經濟學家常將生產要素歸為土地、勞動力、資本和企業家精神，ESR報告的32項建議中卻沒有一次提及土地，儘管報告本身承認土地、能源和人口限制預計將趨緊。

議長先生，尋租行為滲透社會，基調由上而下。如我在本屆國會開幕演講中所述，政策不應必然獎勵出價最高者而犧牲更廣泛的社會成果。

我們必須在上游土地成本上做得更多。國有土地是我們的儲備資產，但過高的土地價格推高開發成本和租金，影響租戶和企業，最終影響消費者。

正如亞洲最大房地產集團之一的本地高管過去所言，新加坡土地成本現約佔專案開發總支出的70%，而1980年代萊佛士城僅為4%。這些成本不會消失，而是從開發商傳遞給租戶，再傳遞給小販、診所、店主，最終傳遞給每位消費者。

我預料到熟悉的回應是租金不是企業面臨的最大成本。確實，當國會討論小販文化時，高階國務部長引用國家環境局（NEA）調查顯示，租金佔店主運營成本不到10%，而原材料佔56%，人力佔20%。

但這個論點不足以說明問題。小販供應商在哪裡經營？租用國有土地上的工業單位。批發商儲存貨物、物流公司停放卡車、廚房準備食材，都在國家定價並收取費用的土地上。

高土地價格推高租金，租金又滲透到成本結構的每一環，包括我們被告知應關注的56%。租金不是眾多成本之一，而是所有成本中嵌入的重要固定開銷，無法避免。

議員們還記得一間位於組屋區的全科診所月租高達52,000元的投標。王乙康部長本人承認，這必然以某種方式傳導至醫療成本，且最高租金投標並不意味著為社群提供最佳護理。我當時贊同他的觀點，至今仍然如此。今年供應委員會期間，我也讚賞建屋發展局（HDB）正在擴大鄰里商店商業招標的價格質量法。

但如果我們接受單個商店招標的下游邏輯，我們必須有知識上的誠實，將其應用於上游的土地政策。

議長先生，這些成本持續上升有結構性原因。我們的土地銷售系統設計使價格只能逐步上升。地塊通常授予出價最高者，設有不公開的保留價。當市場出價高於保留價，土地售出並設定新基準；當市場出價低於保留價，除特殊情況外，招標不予授予，國家等待更好時機。正面是土地價格上漲，反面是土地價格不允許下降。

在我2021年7月的國會質詢中，法律部長披露保留價定為估價師辦公室評估市場價值的85%；2016至2021年間133個招標地塊中，有17個因最高出價被認為不反映土地公平市場價值而未授予。

約八分之一的招標被叫停，而非以市場實際願付價格成交。

這一模式延續至2024年2月，市區重建局（URA）拒絕授予濱海花園彎白地塊，因唯一齣價7.7億新元（每平方英尺地積比率984新元）被評估為過低。

我最喜歡的東部綜合用途地塊之一——巴耶利峇廣場的歷史也說明了這一點。2011年11月，URA拒絕了由UOL集團和新加坡土地公司組成的財團唯一齣價5.295億新元（每平方英尺地積比率566新元），理由是出價過低。財團要求公開保留價，因提交成本和努力巨大，URA拒絕，稱公開不符合公眾利益。

該地塊最終於2015年4月招標授予，售價達16.7億新元（每平方英尺地積比率943新元），比政府早前拒絕的出價高出約三分之二。土地等待了四年，價格上漲約三分之二。國家財政收入增加了十億，地塊面積也更大，隨後該區私人住宅價格在Park Place Residences推出後創下新高。這是健康的發展嗎？

諷刺的是，政府在某些情況下對此非常清楚。自2012年以來，NEA自豪地對小販攤位招標不設保留租金，也不設最低投標價。

因此，我的首要呼籲是，土地和建築最大化收入不應再是土地政策的首要考慮。如我此前在國會所述，我們應恢復“兩信封”概念，將戰略性和麵向社群的地塊預設採用價格招標，以便土地根據建設質量和價值授予，而非僅憑最高出價。

政府作為最大房東獲益，但代價由所有人承擔。

同樣邏輯適用於家庭。住房貸款佔新加坡家庭總負債至少70%，今年第一季度抵押貸款同比增長5.8%。我們的監管框架——總債務償還比率，允許家庭將最多55%的毛月收入用於償債。

一個家庭如果要償還長達30年的抵押貸款，且貸款金額接近那個水平，是不會輕易放棄每月薪水的安全感去創業的，因為創業多年內現金流都難以預見。家庭必須最佳化下一個薪水的收入，因為這是必須的。此外，根據ADP研究，截至2024年，新加坡有60%的工人靠薪水過活。

那麼創業的資本在哪裡？難怪新加坡的風險規避並非某種文化謎團，而是現實的資產負債表平衡。這就是為什麼在上一屆國會，我提出了一個休會動議，呼籲發展租賃住房作為真正的住房模式，而不僅僅是為那些別無選擇者提供的安全網。

建屋擁有模式在資產積累方面表現良好，但它將一生的槓桿壓力前置到新加坡人最有能力承擔創業風險的幾十年。在許多其他全球城市，年輕專業人士多年租房而無汙名，保持靈活性以便搬遷、再培訓和創業。

因此，我的第二個呼籲是為年輕和中等收入的新加坡人提供有意義的公共租賃選擇，保障租期安全，租金應參考收入而非市場價值。我們已有類似的變體，即為收入較低且已婚或訂婚夫婦提供的父母臨時住房計劃，他們希望在新房建成前租住臨時組屋。

如果我們想要一代創業者，就應停止讓他們在20多歲和30多歲時被抵押貸款束縛。

議長先生，既然政府似乎樂於成為全國最大的房東，讓我提出一個新的發展領域。在人工智慧經濟中，計算能力對於價值創造的重要性，正如土地之於工業經濟，是一切建立的稀缺基礎投入。

我們已經有所起步，我承認在2025年預算中宣佈了企業計算倡議，提供高達1.5億新元的資金支援。然而，這只是一個短期專案，每個雲服務提供商的啟動日期僅執行一年。到2025年10月，據報道已有約1000家公司與雲合作伙伴配對，但相比2024年新加坡企業環境中約38.5萬家企業（根據經濟戰略審查最終報告），這個數字非常有限。

我也認識到全國職工總會（NTUC）的AI-Ready SG專案為會員提供合格AI工具訂閱費用的一半補貼，前提是先參加認可課程。換言之，政府已接受補貼計算資源的原則。剩下的問題是規模、持續時間和雄心。

一些海外例子或許有啟發。香港在數碼港建立了自己的AI超級計算中心，並撥款30億港元用於為期三年的AI補貼計劃，符合條件的使用者可獲得中心服務標價高達70%的補貼。這是一個國有設施，擁有公開的價格表和折扣。

加拿大的主權AI計算戰略將公共超級計算投資與3億加元的訪問基金配對，覆蓋本地基於雲的AI計算服務合格成本的三分之二，針對計算成本高達500萬加元的專案。請注意“本地”一詞，這些專案針對中小企業。

英國在2022年底全球計算能力僅佔1.3%，承諾到2030年投入高達20億英鎊的計算路線圖，其AI研究資源現直接分配計算資源：首次使用者可獲1萬GPU小時，中小企業可獲2萬GPU小時，作為容量而非現金髮放。

再看看近鄰的不對稱情況。我們單年土地銷售收入約200億新元，但僅為本地企業建設數字土地預留1.5億新元，五年內國家AI研究總投入10億新元。儘管我們在AI準備度排名第一，2026年僅4%的企業將AI嵌入核心業務流程，中小企業採用率為15%，而大型企業為63%。AI普及是一個大問題。

我無法比2025年世界銀行《數字進展與趨勢報告》總結得更好：政府應創造有利環境，促進計算資源的獲取，催化AI的採用、適應和創新。這可包括針對中小企業和研究人員的計算補貼、區域資料中心和公私合作。

最近，NVIDIA執行長黃仁勳也指出，強大的AI生態系統並非必然。政策制定者有重要機會採取行動，如擴大初創企業和研究人員的計算訪問，投資共享訓練資產。這不是一次性或限時努力，而應持續不懈，直到絕大多數本地企業真正將AI嵌入核心業務流程。

因此，我的第三個呼籲是所謂的“組屋模式計算”。組屋公共住房模式使政府早期實現全民擁有住房的目標成為可能，通過補貼國家土地的使用。同樣，國家計算計劃應為本地企業，特別是中小企業和創業者，提供補貼分配的計算容量。該容量應基於國家所有權，價格低於市場價，擁有公開價格表，租期確定，資格優先考慮本地所有權和本地價值捕獲。正如DeepSeek執行長梁文峰最近所說，“人才的差距，本質上也是因為算力的差距”。讓我們不要因為缺乏計算資源而在新加坡出現人才差距。

議長先生，我已經預見政府對我提出建議的回應：以低於最高市場出價定價土地或計算資源等同於掠奪儲備。請允許我三點回應。

第一，儲備屬於所有新加坡人，而非當權政府。放棄租金收入流入新加坡家庭和企業的生產能力，不是掠奪，而是對我們共同未來的投資。是儲備所有者對自身的投資。

第二，根據政府向本院的解釋，租賃土地在租期結束後歸還國家，並再次作為過去儲備受到保護。因此，爭論的是99年土地使用的定價理念，而非贈與永久產權。

第三，我們對外資推廣並不吝嗇。我們通過一系列激勵計劃提供慷慨的低稅率優惠，企業所得稅低至5%，而非17%，以吸引跨國公司。為何對外國跨國公司的折扣是審慎的經濟策略，而對新加坡創業者的折扣卻被視為掠奪儲備？

議長先生，請允許我用中文總結新加坡真正面臨的風險。

（中文）: [請參見本地語言發言。] 議長先生，我們國家和經濟真正面臨的風險是什麼？是我們將少數土地地塊、租賃組屋或GPU叢集定價低於市場最高承受水平嗎？還是一代又一代新加坡人會默默得出結論：在自己的國家，最賺錢的生意是做房東，最安全的生活是成為揹負半生抵押貸款的房主？

我歡迎經濟戰略審查委員會的最終建議報告，並支援張文傑議員和林志蔚副教授提出的動議。但只要國家仍是我們經濟中最成功的租金最大化者，這一宏偉戰略願景將永遠停留在紙面上。政府應停止將自己視為新加坡最大的房東，而應更積極地視自己為人民最大的賦能者。

議長先生，我支援張文傑議員和林志蔚副教授提出的動議。

議長先生：佳馥梅女士。

下午1時50分

佳馥梅女士（實巴旺）：議長先生，我支援謝秉輝議員提出的修正案。

首先，我要承認一件重要的事。林志蔚副教授和張文傑議員觸及了一些新加坡人真實的感受：一些企業主覺得經濟越來越難以駕馭；一些中小企業感受到成本壓力，包括租金和人力成本，且在商業和融資機會方面被更大競爭者擠壓；一些工人，尤其是年輕工人，懷疑機會是否隨著經濟本身一樣快速增長。

這些感受是真實的。如果新加坡人對未來感到焦慮，我們的職責是認真傾聽。但認真傾聽也意味著要仔細診斷。理解人們的感受不同於理解他們為何有此感受，更重要的是，知道該如何應對。

這引出了本院面臨的核心問題：像新加坡這樣的小國如何在變化更大、更不穩定的世界中持續創造繁榮？

這是每一代新加坡人都必須回答的問題。新加坡的答案從未是豐富的資源或規模龐大的國內市場，也不是豐富的土地。我們從未擁有這些奢侈條件。我們所取得的一切成就，都依賴於創造遠超自身規模所能預期的價值的能力。這是新加坡過去60年的故事，也必須是未來60年的故事。

議長先生，新加坡成功的經濟戰略必須做到兩點：第一，創造儘可能多的價值；第二，確保新加坡人創造、捕獲並擁有越來越多的價值份額。這兩個問題都重要，但必須按正確順序回答，因為沒有哪個國家能捕獲它未先創造的價值。第一章必須先於第二章。

先生，我職業生涯的大部分時間都在為企業提供增長和競爭力諮詢。有一條經驗始終如一：最強的組織不是因為單一優勢而成功，而是因為它們構建了相輔相成的能力——技術、人才、資本、客戶、合作伙伴，這些能力相互強化，複合增長。單一優勢不足以成事，合力創造的價值遠超各部分之和。

現代21世紀經濟也是如此。它不是圍繞單一公司或行業構建，而是圍繞生態系統構建。

新加坡從未通過試圖比任何國家更大來競爭。我們通過比比我們規模大許多的國家更快更好地整合互補優勢來競爭。我們連線資本與創意，研究與企業，人才與機會，本地雄心與全球市場，全球企業與本地供應商。每個連線強化下一個，每個成功吸引另一個。隨著時間推移，這些連線形成了一個生態系統，其競爭力遠超任何單一公司、機構或行業。

新加坡的優勢在於將相輔相成的優勢結合成生態系統，創造更多價值。

我相信本院普遍同意，我們希望更多新加坡企業在全球取得成功。不同之處不在於目標，而在於我們認為通往目標的路徑。

因此，我們應謹慎看待選擇為權衡、拉鋸或零和遊戲——本地企業與全球企業、國內需求與外部需求、增長與包容。這些不是對立力量，而是相輔相成。

以全球企業與本地企業的關係為例。充滿活力的本地企業對新加坡未來至關重要。它們體現了新加坡的創業精神、創新和雄心。我們應希望有更多、更大、更高效、成功走出國門的本地企業。

全球企業同樣不可或缺，不是因為它們規模大，不是因為它們創造就業，而是因為它們擴充套件了整個經濟的生產前沿。它們帶來前沿技術，世界級管理實踐，培養新加坡人才，其中一些人才將來會創辦自己的公司。它們將新加坡企業連線到全球客戶和供應鏈，即使供應鏈在重組。它們為本地供應商創造了苛刻客戶，暴露我們的企業於國際最佳實踐，提高生態系統標準。

簡言之，它們擴充套件了新加坡經濟的能力邊界。

但這一切不是偶然發生的，而是有意為之。當經濟發展局批准重大投資時，不僅詢問資本投入和創造就業，還問將錨定哪些能力，新加坡企業如何受益。2025年，經濟發展局與企業發展局合作，促成了19個跨國公司與本地企業的合作專案。這不僅是投資促進，更是有意的能力建設和生態系統深化。

一家小型精密工程公司可能從為本地跨國公司供應零件開始。如果生態系統運作良好，這個故事不會止步於此。接觸全球標準、新技術和生產方法，以及苛刻客戶，使該公司深化能力——從製造零件到設計解決方案，從服務單一市場到多個市場，從供應商變為競爭者。最終，它不僅受益於系統，更為下一代新加坡企業強化系統。這就是能力複合，這就是打造更強新加坡企業的方式。

過去幾年，我有幸與更多本地中小企業合作。阻礙它們全球擴張的，往往不是缺乏雄心或產品需求，而是不同的限制——增長資本的獲取、跨境運營管理經驗、技術轉型領導力、開拓海外市場的網路、風險承受能力。

這些是能力差距，不太可能僅靠切斷與全球資本的聯絡來彌合。相反，應通過讓這些聯絡更好地服務於更多新加坡企業來彌合。

因此，真正的問題不是本地企業是否重要，也不是我們是否應更強力支援它們——我們應支援。真正的問題是如何構建一個本地與全球企業相互強化、相互促進的經濟。真正的問題是我們是否幫助足夠多的新加坡企業連線生態系統，獲得攀升價值鏈、國際競爭並最終成為生態系統建設者的能力。這正是經濟戰略審查的目標。

同樣的邏輯適用於國內和外部需求。國內需求重要，支撐社群企業，提供韌性。但對於六百萬人口的國家，國內需求無法支撐我們期望的增長、工資和機會。我們必須繼續在更大市場競爭。

當然，許多新加坡企業不是出口商。作為兀蘭選區議員，我比其他人更深切感受到社群企業的壓力，快速交通系統可能加劇這種壓力。

但答案不能僅僅是加強國內需求。我們不能要求消費者忽視價值，不能要求他們改變消費習慣，不能要求他們不在其他地方消費。我們的回應必須是幫助企業以不同方式競爭。

此外，最終，國內需求對每個小販、家族企業、社群零售商而言，依賴於新加坡人的消費能力。消費能力來自生產性就業、工資增長、競爭力產業和企業在全球市場的成功。反過來，充滿活力的國內經濟提供穩定性、人才和信心，使更多企業成長並走向海外。這些不是競爭優先事項，而是互補優勢。

議長先生，過去有議員問：價值最終由誰捕獲？這是正確的問題，但我認為我們應以正確方式回答。

所有權很重要。智慧財產權歸誰所有很重要，成功企業歸誰所有很重要，下一代全球競爭力公司的所有權很重要。但所有權不會僅因我們宣稱而成為現實。它是通過能力一點點建立起來的，企業一點點，機構一點點。能力使所有權成為可能。

以港務局（PSA）為例。它起初是國內港口運營商。如今，它在45個國家運營超過70個碼頭，遍佈180多個地點。但PSA最有價值的資產不只是更大的碼頭組合。管理全球主要貿易路線的港口使PSA對全球供應鏈有獨特視角。通過結合運營專長與數字技術、資料、自動化和AI，設計客戶單一港口運營商無法提供的解決方案。港口是切入點，資料優勢和能力才是競爭優勢，所有權隨之而來。

所有權最持久的基礎是能力，因為能力使所有權得以持久和發展。

新加坡不會擁有塑造全球人工智慧經濟的每一家公司。我們也不需要這樣做。這些公司通過就業、供應商生態系統、知識溢位、能力建設，為新加坡人創造了巨大的價值。是的，跨國公司有一天可能會離開新加坡。投資可以流動，但能力會留下。

最重要的問題是，新加坡人是否正在建立與這些公司共同創造價值的能力——作為創始人、工程師、研究人員、投資者、供應商、技術領導者，越來越多地作為具有全球競爭力企業的所有者。

現代經濟中的所有權形式多樣：創始人打造下一個區域冠軍，僱主持有成長型公司的股票期權，新加坡供應商進入更高附加值的設計和工程領域，投資者參與世界級企業的成長，我們的主權財富基金代表每個新加坡人進行投資。這些都是新加坡人參與、捕捉並擁有我們經濟創造的價值的方式。

因此，目標不僅僅是擁有更多資產，而是建設一個讓更多新加坡人擁有他們幫助創造的價值的經濟。我們通過建設完整的創新生態系統來實現這一點：研究、人才、資本、耐心融資、市場準入、監管、強大的全球夥伴關係。這些是互補的優勢，當它們結合在一起時，創造的效果遠超任何單一政策，比如研究政策所能達到的。

我想回到我開始的地方。如果一家中小企業主說，“我感覺不到這些好處”，我們應該傾聽。如果他們說，“我感覺被擠出去了”，我們應該傾聽。如果他們說，“這個生態系統似乎對除了像我這樣的企業之外的所有人都有效”，我們應該傾聽。

全球公司確實與本地公司爭奪人才和資本。工資承受壓力，而且這種壓力分佈不均，這是真實存在的。開放並非沒有代價。但對這種真實代價的回應不是變成一個不那麼開放的經濟體，因為能力正是來自開放。答案是確保更多新加坡人分享收益，而不是僅僅承擔成本，提升技能使工人向前沿靠近而非遠離，擁有足夠深度的資本市場，跨國公司與本地企業之間的合作幫助更多本地企業成為供應商、採用者、國際化企業和獨立所有者。這些都堅定地體現在《經濟與社會復甦戰略》（ESR）中。

議長先生，我們都希望看到更多大型成功的新加坡公司。更多價值在這裡被捕捉。更多新加坡人走向海外冒險。但如果我們把再平衡作為戰略的組織原則，我們可能不會擁有更多這樣的公司，而是更少。把所有權置於能力和競爭力之前，我們不會擁有更大的一塊蛋糕，而是擁有更小蛋糕中的更多份額。

這就是為什麼我支援謝秉輝議員的修正案。它們承認了本議院60年來一直知道且未來60年不能忘記的事實。我們的力量從來不是單一來源，而是來自加強它們之間的聯絡——充滿活力的本地公司、全球企業、國內需求和外部需求、新加坡人和新加坡資本自信地走向世界。這些從來不是彼此對立的引擎，而是互補的優勢，作為一個系統協同工作，共同提升普通新加坡人。

新加坡從未通過要求世界為我們讓路而成功。我們是通過變得有用、不可或缺而成功，即使世界在我們周圍變化。

我們的任務是繼續建設未來經濟，讓各方相互強化，讓最好的公司，無論是外國還是本地，都願意來這裡。並確保更多新加坡人擁有塑造未來、創造價值、捕捉價值並日益擁有價值的能力、自信和機會。這樣每一代新加坡人都比上一代擁有更多機會。議長先生，我支援修正後的動議。[掌聲]

議長先生：劉宇揚議員。

下午2時05分

劉宇揚議員（非選區議員）：謝謝議長先生。議長先生，《經濟與社會復甦戰略》（ESR）圍繞工人不斷適應展開。它提出培訓、職業路徑和崗位間的橋樑。但它對從教育或國民服役（NS）過渡到穩定工作的首個關鍵轉變關注甚少，也未充分關注年輕人是否獲得公平的起點。

今年2月預算辯論期間，我稱這種現象為職業階梯的斷裂底階——年輕新加坡人無法邁出第一步。第一份工作是有人願意給你機會，是你獲得後續僱主期望你具備經驗的地方。年輕人無法獨自創造這個機會。當企業不再給初學者機會時，新加坡最終將無法培養出有經驗的工人。

今天，我想向政府提出一個實際問題：如果一位年輕新加坡人已為工作做好準備，認真尋找卻仍無法獲得穩定就業，必須改變什麼，才能讓他們持續的努力有所回報？

目前，大多數畢業生仍能找到工作。在勞動力中的自治大學畢業生中，2025屆畢業生在完成最後考試後六個月內獲得任何形式就業的比例為88.9%，較2024年的91.2%略有下降。因此，去年九成畢業生找到了工作，但這一數字是廣義的，包括全職永久就業，也包括兼職、臨時或自由職業者，接受未來入職的崗位，以及創業準備中的畢業生。

然而，全職永久就業的比例去年為74.4%，低於前一年的79.4%。這意味著只有四分之三的畢業生——低於之前的五分之四——找到了更穩定、長期的崗位，能夠開始真正的職業生涯。

我不會立刻發出警報，但這些是新加坡及全球範圍內令人擔憂的訊號，表明我們最年輕的一代找工作越來越難。

當我們觀察不同教育路徑時，這些訊號更為明顯。在私立教育機構全日制外部學位課程的應屆畢業生中，78.9%獲得就業，46.9%為全職永久就業。因此，約24%處於兼職或臨時工作狀態，其中9.7%表示這是非自願的。顯然，並非人人都一帆風順。進入穩定工作的轉變因畢業院校不同而有顯著差異。

這些數字背後是那些完成要求卻仍無法起步的年輕人。我聽過年輕畢業生講述他們投遞數百份申請的經歷。一位六個月內投遞超過500份申請，卻很少獲得面試機會。另一位四個月內投遞近200份申請，卻一次面試也沒有。

對這些年輕人來說，首次轉變意味著反覆努力、極少回應，且當努力屢屢未獲回報時無處求助。

多種因素可能導致年輕新加坡人就業市場降溫。隨著人工智慧和傳統技術及生產力提升的廣泛應用，企業可能理性地決定自動化替代曾由初級員工完成的基礎任務。企業可能認為在當前高成本環境下培訓初學者代價過高，且該員工獲得關鍵經驗後可能離職。

將這些理性決策在整個經濟中放大，我們可以看到問題所在。如果每家企業，無論本地還是跨國，都做出相同計算，經濟引擎將逐漸停止培養有經驗的工人。對單個企業有利的決策，可能損害國家勞動力。

政府已推出多項措施支援就業過渡。《新加坡青年計劃》引入“職業體驗”幫助年輕人探索職業。培訓幫助他們準備。匹配服務連線職位空缺。工學結合和企業主導培訓結合真實工作與結構化職場學習。

然而，這些措施各自針對不同階段。綜合來看，年輕人仍可能從接觸、培訓到崗位匹配，卻未獲得公平起點。接觸有用，但接觸不等於就業。這是我們必須填補的空白。

議長先生，這就是我提出“公平起點承諾”的原因——對所有青年人的國家承諾，目標簡單：如果你是30歲以下、正從教育或國民服役過渡到職場的年輕新加坡人，你將獲得公平起點，通過穩定就業或適當的帶薪職業發展路徑。這意味著我們必須重建斷裂的職業階梯底階。

技能與勞動力發展局（SWDA）的成立為實現這一承諾提供了重要機會。通過將技能和就業整合，政府現在可以用一個結果來評估整個過程：年輕新加坡人是否真正獲得公平起點。

政府應將實現“公平起點承諾”作為SWDA的核心使命，設定分階段目標，顯示新加坡是否正朝目標邁進。

對個別年輕新加坡人而言，這意味著SWDA個案官員提供有針對性和個性化支援，且應儘早開始。過渡六個月時是評估結果的合理節點。屆時仍在尋找工作的年輕人應繼續獲得積極支援，沒人應被遺棄。

但僅有國家目標無法創造機會，因此我們必須創造更多真正讓年輕人獲得公平起點的途徑。

首先，我們應開放更多普通入門級崗位給有能力的初學者，僱主應有真實工作能通過正常僱傭過程培養初學者，優先考慮真正的崗位。

我的同事蔣佩姍在SWDA法案辯論中提到基於技能招聘的實施差距。新加坡已製作工具包並建立機構推動此舉，但我們仍不清楚僱主是否改變招聘方式，或仍落後。她呼籲公共服務部門以身作則，公佈按行業和僱主規模統計的基於技能的職位釋出基線。我支援這些建議。

我此前也建議將職業與技能護照從數字檔案櫃轉變為動態、活躍的憑證。現在我提出擴充套件這一想法：使其更好地服務於招聘。護照已允許新加坡人與僱主共享經驗證的資格、培訓和就業記錄。

但對應屆畢業生而言，這些記錄自然較少。SWDA應制定標準，使高等院校和僱主能通過職業與技能護照驗證重要專案、實習、工學結合學習經歷及其他評估能力。僱主應將這些證據與崗位所需技能匹配，並在適當時通過結構化實踐評估讓申請人展示技能。

公共服務部門應對其入門級崗位施行同樣標準：明確首日必須掌握的知識，取消無法合理證明的學位和經驗要求，並公佈招聘實踐是否改變。政府應再次以身作則。

這些措施將改善有能力初學者與市場上現有入門崗位的匹配。但匹配本身無法構建某些崗位真正需要的職場經驗，因此新加坡還必須創造更多讓初學者獲得經驗的崗位。

這引出我的第二點。我們應建立適當的帶薪學徒制。在某些職業中，能力只能通過持續、監督下的實踐培養。僱主需要經驗，因為工作確實需要時間學習。然而，每家企業都有動力等待他人承擔培養有經驗工人的成本。

新加坡已有針對年輕入職者的職場專案。例如，GRIT提供三至六個月的津貼制培訓，能提供有用的短期經驗。但對於需要長期持續監督實踐的職業，我們需要另一種更完善的途徑：提供帶薪就業、正式員工身份、公積金、結構化培訓和可轉移能力的正規學徒制框架。

這就是為什麼新加坡應建立全國性的正規帶薪學徒市場。SWDA應識別僱主需要工人但初學者需持續職場培訓的職業，與僱主和行業機構合作，擴大符合統一質量標準的學徒崗位。這意味著招募企業，協調教學、評估和監督，確保每個崗位提供足夠真實工作。

共享能力對中小企業尤為重要。小企業可能有有價值的工作，但缺乏培訓部門、完整課程或足夠多樣的任務獨自培養學徒。行業機構和聯盟可提供共同教學、巡迴導師和獨立評估，並協調這些中小企業間的輪崗，以全面培養能力。

僱主仍需提供崗位、工資、職場監督及其應承擔的投資份額。

質量標準必須明確。正規學徒制是帶薪就業，應有勞動合同、工資、公積金和常規職場保護。學徒應從事生產性工作，按結構化計劃學習，並有指定導師。工資應隨能力提升。技能應獨立於任何單一僱主得到認可，並在市場上具備價值。僱主不必保證永久轉正，但路徑結束前應有可信的轉正或晉升決定。

政府應支援共享基礎設施和可轉移職業培訓，這些是單個企業難以獨立提供的。僱主必須從第一天起成為重要投資者。這是我們達成的協議。政府解決協調問題，企業提供真實工作並幫助培養工人。

正規學徒制是年輕人公平起點的核心。相同原則在整個經濟中有更廣泛的應用。我的同事嚴燕松將接著談及熟練工種領域，強調經驗證的能力應帶來認可的精通和真實晉升。

第三，政府應利用經濟槓桿創造真正額外的就業機會。一些僱主有生產性工作，但因初期工資、監督和較低生產率而猶豫是否僱傭初學者。政府可以有選擇地改變這一決策。

一項槓桿是擴大有針對性的臨時風險分擔安排。支援應針對僱主能證明將創造真正額外的員工崗位或正規學徒崗位，且若無幫助該崗位不會以相同條件出現。僱主必須全程出資並負責工資、公積金、真實工作監督和發展。

另一槓杆是公共採購。在涉及重大公共合同的勞動力發展方面，採購機構可要求或認可對正規學徒制和真實員工入門崗位的相應承諾。目的是將公共採購需求與新加坡未來勞動力發展連線，而非對每個承包商施加統一配額。

兩項槓桿應接受同一考驗：公共干預是否改變了僱主決策，創造了原本不存在的生產性機會？公共資金不應支付僱主重新標記計劃中的空缺、替代現有工人或讓年輕人輪流佔用臨時崗位。支援應基於額外工作和真實發展。若僱主虛報崗位或未提供承諾的工作、工資或發展，應追回資金。

這些措施不會消除年輕人所有艱難的轉變，但能增加真正的首次機會數量，而無需強制私營僱主僱傭或製造經濟中的無效工作。

最後，我們必須衡量年輕人是否真正獲得公平起點。公平起點承諾應以他們是否進入穩定就業或正規帶薪職業發展路徑並能從中成長為評判標準。SWDA應公佈基線和分階段目標，報告就業持續性、崗位職責和工資是否提升，以及結果是否因群體不同而異。

結果還應顯示關鍵六個月節點時有多少年輕人仍無穩定就業，持續多久及主要原因。年輕人不應因轉介失敗或專案結束而從統計中消失。保持這些結果的可見性將顯示崗位、培訓能力或實際支援的不足之處。

經濟下行可能也會使實現公平起點承諾的進展更加困難。正是在這種時候，誠實的衡量尤為重要。它告訴國會和公眾，有多少機會已經消失，以及國家的應對是否足夠有力。

公平起點承諾設定了國家的雄心。我提出的三個建議是實現這一目標的切實途徑：通過基於技能的招聘向有能力的初學者開放現有職位，建立適當的帶薪學徒制，並創造額外機會，在公共干預改變任何僱主的計算和招聘決策時發揮作用。透明的結果也將顯示進展的領域以及政府必須加大努力的地方。

議長先生，最後，公平起點承諾對每個人都有要求。年輕人必須做好準備，認真尋找並參與合適的機會。僱主必須提供真正的工作崗位並投資於初學者。政府必須營造條件，使持續努力能夠帶來進步並引領穩定的職業發展。

當每個僱主都在等待別人提供第一次機會時，政府不能袖手旁觀。它不能讓年輕人在各個專案和機構之間消失。

議長先生：阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生。

下午2時21分

阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生（提名議員）：謝謝您，議長先生。我今天發言的議題是“為所有人服務的未來經濟”。

我想宣告，我是新加坡馬來商工會（SMCCI）副主席，SMCCI中小企業中心主席，東亞商務理事會理事，以及Enercon Asia私人有限公司執行主席。

我想強調的是，這項議案本身非常重要。更重要的是私營部門與政府之間的合作。我之所以這麼說，是因為我們不希望進入一個要重新發明一切的議案。我認為最重要的部分是不破壞已經有效的機制。

我以我隨中小企業中心訪問中亞某國的經歷來說。我們在那裡做了商業調研。當天政府或商會對我們擁有的體系感到驚訝——從貿工部到企業發展局，再到中小企業中心，形成了政府與基層之間的緊密聯絡。這在其他國家是不存在的。這是我們應該自豪並保持的能力——共同成長的能力。

我們生計的根本不能被破壞或改變，那就是貿易。我們生活在地緣政治緊張加劇和多極化的世界。各國紛紛內向，保護主義抬頭，供應鏈沿政治路線重新配置。在這樣的環境下，許多國家的本能是築牆。

對新加坡來說，這不能成為我們的回應。貿易是國家的命脈。我們不能成為貿易壁壘。我們必須成為貿易的橋樑。我們的戰略必須清晰、開放、互聯、可信且有韌性。我們必須加倍發揮新加坡的獨特優勢——一個可信賴、基於規則的樞紐，能夠連線分裂世界中的市場、資本、人才和創意。

我想強調合作的重要性——這包括政府、政府關聯公司（GLCs）、企業發展局、私營部門、中小企業、代表勞動力的工會、行業協會和商會。李堅輝議員曾評論過貿易商會的重要性。

我的發言分為七部分，我相信這將為實現集中支援網路、作為一個生態系統共同應對未來挑戰並制定共同策略提供清晰視角，確保我們取得進步並取得成功。

第一部分。在保護主義世界中，貿易是我們的命脈。議長先生，新加坡的繁榮一直依賴於貿易。在主要經濟體去風險、多元化甚至脫鉤的世界裡，我們必須成為他人可以依賴的連線者。

為此，我們必須擴大自由貿易協定（FTA）網路。我們必須與儘可能多的國家簽署自由貿易協定，不僅是大經濟體，還有新興市場。非洲、拉丁美洲、中亞。每一個新的自由貿易協定都是為我們的中小企業開闢的新門路，是服務業的新渠道，也是對新加坡開放經濟的新信任投票。

將新加坡定位為貿易橋樑。當其他國家提高關稅和實施配額時，我們必須降低摩擦。我們必須成為東西方交匯、南北連線的中立地帶。我們的法律體系、金融基礎設施和物流能力使我們成為理想的角色。

賦予企業發展局成為全球樞紐的能力，打造由政府關聯公司支援中小企業的“蜂王企業”。這是我想分享的，使我們能夠成為一個強大且獨特的經濟體——合作的凝聚力非常重要。

必須更積極利用企業發展局的國際存在。他們的海外中心應充當商業撮合者，將新加坡公司與海外合作伙伴、分銷商和合資機會連線起來。他們不僅是官員，更應是交易推動者。

最近，我參加了企業發展局關於中東局勢的講座，向本地企業分享預期和機會。當然，存在挑戰和風險。但通過這種資訊化環境，我們能夠做出明智判斷，決定是否進入市場。總體而言，這為企業提供了確定性和清晰度的評估。這正是我所看到的企業發展局海外存在與資訊反饋相結合的優勢。

政府關聯公司也扮演重要角色。同樣，我參加了由新加坡工商聯合會（SBF）組織的會議，旨在將“蜂王企業”或政府關聯公司與新加坡本地企業連線起來。這也非常重要。我們在這類合作上已經滯後。我們的公司遍佈全球，參與大型專案投標。合作能力比以往任何時候都更重要。這至關重要。通過合作與互動，我們也展示了企業與政府及政府關聯公司良好合作的正確態度。

接下來，我們可以降低中小企業海外擴張的錯誤成本。海外擴張風險大，尤其是對中小企業來說。一次失誤可能致命。政府應加強補助——正如我們之前所見——並提供財務支援以降低國際化風險。這包括關鍵市場的共享倉儲或物流中心，針對將海外利潤再投資於研發或能力建設的稅收激勵。

當我們降低失敗成本時，就增加了嘗試的勇氣。這是新加坡企業成長為區域和全球冠軍的方式。

第二部分，新加坡作為樞紐中的樞紐。議長先生，在分裂的世界中，新加坡最大的優勢是能夠成為所有主要產業的一站式樞紐。我們必須有意識地將自己定位為：金融樞紐——繼續深化資本市場，吸引資產管理者和投資，成為亞洲綠色金融和金融科技的領先中心；物流樞紐——利用我們的港口和機場連線，成為世界領先的轉運和分銷中心；交通樞紐——擴大航空和海運網路，保持各國之間的門戶地位；教育樞紐——吸引頂尖全球大學和研究機構，培養本土人才以滿足區域和全球需求；管理樞紐——將新加坡定位為跨國公司區域總部及法律、會計、諮詢等專業服務基地；醫療樞紐——建設世界級醫療體系，吸引醫療旅遊、臨床試驗和生物技術創新；當然還有人工智慧樞紐——投資人工智慧研究、人才和基礎設施，成為東南亞領先的人工智慧生態系統；可持續發展樞紐——打造卓越和可信賴的可持續發展報告及實施中心。

“樞紐中的樞紐”戰略不是要我們自己做所有事情，而是創造一個生態系統，讓全球企業願意將運營基地設在這裡，讓新加坡中小企業能夠融入全球價值鏈，讓全球人才願意在這裡工作和創新。

第三部分，賦能中小企業在本地和全球蓬勃發展。中小企業佔我們企業的99%，僱傭約三分之二的勞動力。它們是我們經濟的支柱。然而，它們面臨成本上升、勞動力緊張和激烈競爭。我們必須做更多，幫助它們不僅生存，更要繁榮。

中小企業中心是可以為企業提供服務的樞紐之一，必須成為每個中小企業的首選。它們提供並應加強服務。中小企業中心在政府支援下免費提供商業諮詢服務，舉辦數字化、可持續發展和國際化的研討會，提供治理和合規的模板、工具和最佳實踐。

利用行業協會和商會。像新加坡工商聯合會、新加坡中華總商會、新加坡馬來商工會、新加坡印度商工會、中小企業協會等組織必須被賦能做更多工作，不僅限於組織商務考察和交流活動；舉辦綠色經濟、人工智慧和醫療等增長領域的行業論壇；教育會員關於法規變化和新興機會；在政策層面為中小企業發聲。我認為表現非常好的還有導師計劃，將經驗豐富的企業家與初創企業配對。這也是馬來商工會開始做的事情。

接下來，鼓勵企業適應變化的需求。市場不會等待。中小企業必須準備好轉型，無論是採用電子商務、轉向可持續產品，還是開拓新客戶群。政府、行業協會和商會可以通過提供即時市場情報和趨勢分析來幫助。

下一部分，推廣“買新加坡貨，支援新加坡”。我提出這個問題是關於政府關聯公司支援本地中小企業。我認為這是我們可以共同努力提升所有人的地方。這樣做意味著每一元支出都會在我們的經濟中迴圈，創造就業，增強韌性。政府採購應以身作則，在質量和價值相當的情況下優先考慮本地中小企業。

第四部分，將可持續發展作為競爭優勢。可持續發展不再是可選項，而是商業必需。隨著新加坡力爭2050年或更早實現淨零排放，企業必須將可持續發展融入運營。激勵綠色採用。政府應擴大節能補助，甚至增加補助，當然還有碳核算和報告工具、可持續包裝和供應鏈解決方案，建設綠色能力。

我們還希望看到新加坡定位為綠色樞紐。通過提供可持續專案的稅收減免、綠色專案的快速審批、可持續認證的一站式服務，吸引綠色投資。早期採用可持續發展的企業不僅能遵守法規，還能在全球市場中獲得競爭優勢，因為消費者和投資者要求企業承擔責任。

第五部分，人工智慧時代的人力資源和終身學習。議長先生，我必須談談人工智慧的挑戰。人工智慧不是未來，而是已經到來。它正在改變產業，自動化任務；在某些情況下，取代工人。這不是遙遠的威脅，而是現實。

我們無法阻止技術進步，但可以確保沒有新加坡人被落下。勞動力必須準備好學習和再學習。技能的半衰期在縮短。五年前學的東西今天可能已經過時。每個工人必須將終身學習視為生存策略，而非口號。

政府應資助培訓和人工智慧工具。技能未來框架是良好開端，但必須更進一步——允許培訓積分用於訂閱人工智慧驅動的生產力工具，資助行業協會和商會會員資格及持續學習的商業網路，為中年轉型工人提供培訓津貼，這不是補助，而是專案。

關注以人為本的技能。人工智慧可以自動化常規任務，但無法複製創造力、同理心和領導力。我們的教育和培訓系統必須強調這些獨特的人類技能。

我們必須支援轉型中的工人。對於被人工智慧取代的崗位，我們需要更強的月度收入支援，針對增長行業的職業轉換專案，輔導和心理健康支援以應對焦慮和不確定性。持續學習是保持競爭力和就業能力的唯一途徑。政府必須使其負擔得起、易獲得且相關。

第六部分，支援研發和減輕成本壓力。創新是未來增長的引擎。但研發成本高昂，尤其對中小企業。政府必須增加研發補助和稅收激勵，擴大研發稅收優惠計劃，設立產學研合作的聯合資金池，支援連線實驗室與市場的概念驗證和試點專案。

當然，下一部分是緩解高生活和運營成本。新加坡人感受到壓力。企業正應對租金、公用事業和人力成本上升。我們必須審查監管費用，簡化合規負擔，為高成本行業的中小企業提供有針對性的救助，確保住房和交通保持可負擔性以留住人才。繁榮的經濟需要創新和可負擔性並重。

最後，第七部分，保持新加坡夢的活力。議長先生，這項議案的核心是一個簡單問題：我們希望新加坡擁有什麼樣的未來？

新加坡夢必須保持活力。這是相信通過努力、決心和公平機會，每個新加坡人都能實現藝術、體育、學術、商業或文化的抱負。我們必須確保沒有人被排除在外。包容性增長意味著進步的成果廣泛共享。我們必須扶持弱勢群體，支援中產階級，慶祝成功者。

對國家的自豪感。新加坡人必須為自己的國家感到自豪。他們必須在我們的經濟故事中看到自己，不是旁觀者，而是主角。議長先生，請允許我用馬來語發言。

（馬來語）：[請參見本地語言發言。]議長先生，我們面前的議案呼籲建立一個平等、包容、由充滿活力的本地企業驅動的經濟。在一個日益內向的世界裡，新加坡必須堅定地成為開放的燈塔。

我們必須成為貿易的橋樑，而非壁壘。我們必須成為卓越中心——金融、物流、交通、教育、管理、醫療、可持續發展和人工智慧。

我們必須賦能中小企業在本地和全球蓬勃發展。

我們必須將可持續發展作為競爭優勢。

我們必須為人工智慧革命準備勞動力。

我們必須確保新加坡夢為所有人保持活力。

讓我們建設一個每個新加坡人都能繁榮、每個企業都能成長、我們的國家在全球舞臺上繼續發揮超出體量影響力的經濟。

（英語）：請允許我用一首潘頓詩表達。

（馬來語）：[請參見本地語言發言。]變化的世界帶來不確定性；新加坡企業做好準備；在政府策略引導下；我們攜手共進。

（英語）：議長先生，最後，我們面前的議案呼籲建立一個平等、包容、由充滿活力的本地企業驅動的經濟。在一個內向的世界裡，新加坡必須堅定地成為開放的燈塔。我們必須成為貿易的橋樑，而非壁壘。我們必須成為樞紐中的樞紐——金融、物流、交通、教育、管理、醫療、可持續發展和人工智慧。我們必須賦能中小企業在本地和全球蓬勃發展。我們必須將可持續發展作為競爭優勢。我們必須為人工智慧革命準備勞動力，我們必須讓新加坡夢為所有人保持活力。

讓我們建設一個每個新加坡人都能繁榮、每個企業都能成長、我們的國家在全球舞臺上繼續發揮超出體量影響力的經濟。議長先生，我支援修訂後的議案，前提是我們必須團結一致。 [掌聲]

議長先生：嚴燕松先生。

下午2時38分

嚴燕松先生（裕廊東）：議長先生，幾十年來，技術工人——從電工、水管工到電梯工程師和基礎設施技術員——未能獲得與其重要經濟貢獻相匹配的聲望和薪酬。我們依賴外勞套利，允許無證工人執行本應由認證從業者完成的任務，最終壓低了本地技術工人的收入。

2023年，技術工人的月收入中位數僅為2700新元，技術工種很少被年輕新加坡人視為首選職業。過去十年，本地工匠勞動力減少了40%至50%。在新加坡的186,000名工匠和技術工人中，只有28%是本地人，且他們的平均年齡為56歲，隊伍正在老齡化。

然而，熟練技工是我們國家基礎設施的基石。雖然人工智慧可以自動生成行政報告，海外遠端工作人員可以處理企業賬目，但他們無法親自重新佈線伺服器機房、修理主水管或維護新加坡的關鍵基礎設施。這些工藝本質上是本地化的，高度專業化且難以被遠端替代。

如果我們想為職業畢業生提供真正的經濟流動性，就不能讓熟練技工被無證工人的低價競爭、僵化的許可制度和有限的職業晉升路徑所困。我們必須將這些職業提升為受人尊敬的高收入貿易、創業和民族自豪感的途徑。

雖然提升技能至關重要，但與師傅帶徒弟的學徒制相比，課堂再培訓在技術工藝中的效用有限，單靠培訓無法解決更深層次的市場扭曲。

當我們著眼於提升熟練技術職業時，依賴漸進工資模型（Progressive Wage Model）或職業晉升模型（Career Progression Model）等框架將達到自然的結構性限制。雖然這些模型為基礎行業設立了重要的工資底線，但其設計高度依賴於攀登固定的企業階梯進入行政或監督崗位，而這些崗位數量本質上有限，且迫使工匠放棄其實踐工藝以獲得更高收入。

為了讓我們的工匠實現真正的長期工資增長，我們必須超越行政階梯，重構基礎市場，使技術精通自然體現其工藝的真實市場價值。

為此，我們必須引入一個市場友好的貿易能力框架，將熟練技工提升為高度受尊敬的獨立企業和職業發展的途徑。我們必須使技工能夠貢獻並建立繁榮、可擴充套件的企業，確保他們不會陷入工作繁重且前景有限的境地。

ESR報告正確地承認，關鍵的實體技工對新加坡的經濟韌性至關重要。然而，其建議仍依賴於僱主主導模型內的漸進調整。雖然ESR指出了外包和技能認可薄弱的問題，但對壓低技工工資的更深層結構性扭曲保持沉默。

報告中有一位令人鼓舞的年輕電工，他的堅韌精神值得稱讚。然而，他的成長路徑耐人尋味——實現高收入需要四個學位，包括從Nitec到碩士學位。我讚賞他的努力，但質疑這一制度。為何要讓一位大師級工匠經歷學術障礙，而不直接重視其動手能力和獨立創業？

這種範式轉變必須從這些關鍵職業在開放市場中的監管和保護方式開始。

考慮我們現有的所有許可制度，幾乎所有固定電氣工作都必須由能源市場管理局（EMA）許可的電工執行，而受監管的管道工作則需由公共事業局（PUB）許可的水管工完成。儘管不合規行為可被處以最高一萬美元罰款、最長三年監禁或兩者兼施，但日常實踐顯示，持證技工與無監管市場替代者之間的收費差距巨大。此經濟差距誘使資金緊張的買家在許多常規物業維護任務中選擇無證選項。

此類選擇帶來嚴重的公共安全風險。無證電氣工作可能導致接觸不良、電弧、結構火災或觸電，而不當的管道接頭可能引發隱蔽洩漏、汙水倒流或供水汙染。

2016年，一名無電工執照的工人錯誤地將熱水器接到三腳插頭，導致一名15歲男孩在組屋內觸電身亡。類似地，2020年，一對老年夫婦及其兒子因熱水器安裝不當，在裕廊組屋觸電身亡。

為保護公共安全並防止本地工匠因工資被壓低而遭受不公平競爭，監管機構包括EMA和PUB必須對所有市場參與者，無論本地還是外國，執行嚴格的監管基線，確保本地工匠在技術質量和安全方面公平競爭。這將要求相關機構配備足夠的檢查員和審計員以執行監管並響應舉報投訴。

其次，我們必須簡化本地人才進入和流動職業人才管道的方式。目前，本地人力供應受限於僵化結構，迫使初級工人和中途轉行者走過漫長且不確定的路徑才能獲得執照。我們應向學生和中途轉行者推廣技能特質，作為理工文憑和大學學位的可行且受尊重的替代選擇。

培訓路徑已存在，無論是通過ITE全日制課程，還是建設局（BCA）學院或新加坡電力與燃氣學院為中途轉行者提供的認證課程。然而，儘管完成了課堂教育，立志成為技工者在將資格轉化為持證獨立職業時仍面臨結構性挑戰。結構瓶頸在於畢業後需完成兩年涵蓋全方位貿易工作的相關實踐經驗的許可要求。

我與貿易從業者交談時，他們指出，實際上幾乎沒有小承包商涵蓋全部工作範圍，期望住宅服務水管工在工業供應系統中積累經驗形成實際瓶頸，因為現行評估標準偏好多年商業建築專案而非日常住宅維護。

我們可以通過實施模組化貿易認證路徑來解決許可瓶頸。該路徑不要求工人在獨立執業前具備兩年全方位經驗，而是逐項認證特定已驗證的能力。每個通過的模組將合法授權技工執行該特定工作範圍，無論是熱水器安裝、衛生管道還是佈線環路。這些里程碑通過實際操作評估、客戶評分和由大師級從業者進行的結構化同行評審驗證。這樣，本地學徒可以合法開始執業併為其掌握的任務賺取體面收入，同時逐步擴大其認證範圍。

為實現這些模組化認證，我們需要現代數字架構，即官方技工技能賬本平臺。該平臺具有雙重功能。它允許技工在持證工匠監督下記錄特定任務的貿易認證，建立其實踐里程碑的不可篡改記錄。它還可作為國家技工市場，基於驗證的模組化能力、領域專長和由工匠透明設定的明確費率表，直接連線企業和業主買家與持證技工。

可建立明確的基準費率區間，為物業所有者提供價格透明，同時保證工匠獲得公平的非工作時間補償，消除掠奪性漲價和人為工資上限。通過簡化匹配並減少小承包商和買家的行政負擔，該系統使技工能夠建立可持續的商業客戶，獲得企業採購合同並積累長期商業資產。

第四，我們必須消除對僱主單方面決定學徒職業晉升的結構性過度依賴。在熟練技工領域，政府目前通過嚴格的僱主繫結許可要求執行安全標準，無意中賦予僱主對初級工人晉升的否決權。

在現有市場結構下，成熟僱主幾乎沒有商業動機為可能成為直接競爭對手的學徒簽署日誌和推薦信。雖然在資深從業者指導下的在職培訓仍然必不可少，但我們必須確保如果學徒遭遇不合理的行政延誤或僱主阻撓，存在獨立審計機制。

學徒應能將其不可篡改的數字工作日誌和專案檔案提交給獨立技術小組進行驗證。這既保留了直接監督責任，也保護學徒免於職業停滯和僱主拖延。

最後，為了將這些支柱結合起來，我提議成立一個名為新加坡熟練技工公會的新自治實體，負責定義基本能力標準，倡導公平商業費率，管理技工技能賬本，並賦能本地技工自我監管和擴大業務。

現有行業組織，如新加坡水管協會、新加坡電氣承包商及持證電工協會和新加坡專業貿易聯盟，具備相關行業熟悉度。這些貿易協會可改革並整合為該公會下的專門商會。這將賦予每位技工直接發聲權，消除企業僱主的門檻，賦予工匠以類似醫生、工程師和會計師享有的自我監管模式管理其工藝。

在這一四方共享責任的夥伴關係中，僱主提供結構化學徒制，所有進展和里程碑透明記錄於技工技能賬本。新加坡熟練技工公會作為獨立質量審計員和安全守護者。技工維護經驗證的數字檔案並對其認證範圍內的工作承擔法定責任，消費者則獲得直接訪問可信、透明且具質量保證的市場。

議長先生，提升我們的實體工藝不僅僅是政策調整。它要求恢復工匠的社會地位和制度尊嚴。當我們賦予熟練技工自治權，令其掌控職業、獲得透明的商業回報並建立獨立高收入企業時，我們可以從根本上改變社會對藍領工作的看法。

通過用直接的市場獎勵取代僵化的學術培訓，進入技工行業將不再被視為學術繞道的次優選擇，而是通往創業和大師級工藝的自豪、豐厚且受尊敬的路徑。通過獨立代表、技術驅動的能力追蹤和結構化學徒制，這一全面的結構性重塑將恢復工人的議價能力，確保國家經濟進步服務於每位新加坡人的尊嚴與繁榮。

因此，我支援由我的尊敬的朋友，阿裕尼集選區（GRC）議員張文傑先生和盛港GRC議員林志蔚副教授聯名提出的原動議。

議長先生：安迪先生。

下午2時53分

安迪（碧山-大巴窯）議員：議長先生，閣下，首先宣告我在一家設於新加坡的外國金融機構工作，服務中小企業和企業客戶。

我今天發言是針對本院面前的動議。動議中許多願景我都支援。我們希望新加坡企業更強大。我們希望我們的企業家成功並實現國際化。我們希望為新加坡人創造良好工作和更多機會。歸根結底，經濟進步必須轉化為人民生活的改善。

我也認可提出此動議的議員們的論點。新加坡的傳統經濟模式曾為我們帶來成功，但競爭環境已發生變化。在這一點上，我們有共識。成本上升，技術使企業職能更易轉移，其他經濟體發展了更深厚的能力，地緣政治分裂正在重塑投資和供應鏈。

所以，是的，新加坡的經濟戰略必須演進。

但更激烈的競爭環境並不意味著外部需求或全球企業對新加坡下一階段增長不重要。恰恰相反，我們成功爭取它們並從它們在此的存在中捕獲更大價值的能力更為重要。健康的國內需求可以增強我們的韌性，但我們應謹慎認為它能替代我們全球經濟聯絡所提供的規模和機會。

議長先生，有人建議新加坡需要一套新的經濟劇本。我同意，但這正是ESR試圖解決的問題。ESR基於80多次涉及7700多家企業、工人、工會和行業協會的交流，其中一些就在此室內。

它認識到支撐新加坡成功的假設正在改變。其回應不是簡單重複過去六十年的戰略，而是升級它。事實上，ESR的許多建議與今天動議中的願景驚人地相似。

ESR的建議將在全球環境劇變中推動下一階段的經濟增長和勞動力轉型。ESR呼籲加強對創業和增長資本的支援，創造更多更好的工作，加強職業轉換支援和終身學習，鞏固新加坡作為人工智慧全球領導者和全球流動樞紐的地位，建設更具活力的企業生態系統，使更多新加坡企業能夠起步、擴充套件並全球成功。

這些不僅僅是紙上願景。許多已開始在政府政策中體現，包括最近預算中宣佈的措施，增強企業融資，支援中小企業和國際化，加強勞動力轉型，進一步投資人工智慧能力。

這表明今天動議的願景與新加坡通過ESR已採取的方向之間存在相當大的共識。

因此，今天辯論的有益問題對我而言是實質性差異在哪裡，無論是整體經濟模式，還是該模式內的平衡、重點和政策選擇。我認為這一區別很重要，因為辯論並非舊劇本與新劇本之爭，而是關於新劇本應包含什麼，以及我們在平衡和重點上可能存在的分歧。

我認為我們應謹慎對待的一個領域是我們對外部需求和全球企業在新加坡下一階段增長中所賦予的權重。此前已有許多發言，我在此簡要重申。

新加坡無法逃避的一個經濟現實是，對於我們這樣的小國，單靠國內需求無法提供新加坡人所期望的規模機會。2025年，新加坡商品貿易額接近1.4萬億新元，相當於我們GDP的數倍。這讓人感受到新加坡繁榮與海外需求的深度聯絡。

我們的半導體工廠並非主要為新加坡消費者生產；我們的製藥設施也不只為本地患者製造；我們的港口、機場和金融中心服務遠超本地的市場。國內需求支撐我們的經濟引擎，外部需求提供了其大部分規模，全球企業亦是如此。

我們當然應培育更多新加坡冠軍企業，但這不是全球企業與本地企業的選擇題。ESR本身呼籲支援高潛力企業，無論是本土還是全球。

這仍然是真實的經濟機會來源。2025年，新加坡經濟發展局（EDB）獲得142億新元固定資產投資承諾，預計未來五年實現時將創造約15,700個就業崗位。但模式必須演進。

今天相關的問題不再僅是我們吸引了多少投資，而應更多關注我們在新加坡錨定了多少價值。我們在此設立的戰略職能——新加坡人是否晉升為專家和領導角色？我們的中小企業是否成為供應商和合作夥伴？技術和能力是否擴散到更廣泛的經濟？

ESR正是試圖解決這些聯絡，正如我從其報告中推斷。它呼籲我們超越單純吸引投資，通過更強的本地供應商網路、與研究機構的合作、更深的創新能力和更強的技能人才管道，將這些投資更深地嵌入新加坡。

我們已建立了相當的能力。私營部門研發支出從2013年的43億新元翻倍至2023年的90億新元。正如ESR所認識到的，下一個挑戰是將這些能力更緊密地連線到產業需求。

事實上，溢位效應超越了企業本身。貿工部2025年的一項研究估計，2012年至2019年間，每家EDB支援的企業每年為非EDB支援企業創造了平均4850萬新元的淨溢位增值。

值得注意的是，這種溢位效益佔企業總直接和溢位經濟貢獻的41%，其中很大一部分通過勞動力市場體現，因為這些企業培養的技能和能力惠及更廣泛的經濟。作為一名經濟學家，我閱讀了這份報告。它相當嚴謹。我可以看到資料確實顯示了對新加坡的好處。

換句話說，目標不僅僅是吸引全球公司來這裡，而是要在這裡錨定更多他們的能力，並確保他們的存在能夠增強新加坡公司和新加坡工人。這應當越來越成為我們衡量成功外資投資的標準。

讓我把這個說得不那麼抽象，議長先生。我的辦公室位於萊佛士坊的萊佛士碼頭一號。幾乎每天早晨，我乘電梯上下樓時，都能看到年輕的新加坡人進入由全球公司佔據的辦公室，包括字節跳動、金融機構和科技公司等企業。他們從事技術、資料、金融、合規和區域職能工作。這些年輕的新加坡人在全球企業中建立職業生涯，同時仍然紮根於新加坡。

當這些公司選擇新加坡作為區域總部時，他們不僅僅是租用辦公空間。他們創造就業機會，帶動本地服務需求。他們引入技術和管理能力。他們為我們的商業區注入活力。這也引出了關於“兩個速度經濟”敘事的擔憂。

我們應當認真對待這種擔憂。事實上，我注意到《經濟戰略審查》（ESR）本身也認識到中小企業面臨的能力和成本限制，以及較小企業在導航和獲取現有支援方面可能遇到的困難。在人工智慧採用等領域，ESR特別呼籲支援應超越領先企業，惠及更廣泛的商業基礎。

因此，中小企業面臨的挑戰並未在ESR中被忽視。更重要的問題是我們的傳導機制是否足夠強大，能夠觸及它們。但答案不是放慢處於生產力前沿的企業的發展步伐，而是加強傳導機制，幫助更多企業向前沿邁進，實現向上的趨同。

一家為先進製造商供貨的新加坡中小企業可能必須滿足嚴格的全球標準。在此過程中，它建立的能力可以幫助其贏得其他客戶並進入新市場。在跨國公司受訓的員工將技能和經驗帶遍整個經濟。技術和管理實踐可以擴散，錨定企業創造對供應商、專業服務、物流和專業技能的需求。

但這些溢位效應並非自動發生。這正是政策發揮作用的地方。開放必須創造能力，這一原則同樣適用於工人。

以物流和供應鏈行業的行政人員或司機為例——我擔任供應鏈員工工會的工會顧問。隨著人工智慧、自動化和數字化轉變供應鏈，我們的目標不能僅僅是保持今天的工作崗位不變。我們必須幫助工人沿著我們希望新加坡經濟提升的同一價值鏈向上發展。

這也是為什麼能力轉移很重要。我們已有能力轉移計劃，支援企業引進外國專家向本地勞動力轉移能力，以及為新加坡人提供海外培訓。我們是否可以走得更遠，例如促進在新加坡工作的外國專業人士向新加坡同事進行更有結構的能力轉移？

這正是我們應當加強的傳導機制。開放必須創造能力。全球專業知識在這裡紮根，新加坡人逐步具備承擔更復雜角色的能力。這不是對我們的樞紐戰略的退縮，而是其演進。

議長先生，還有一個領域我想談談——成本和相關的政策選擇。新加坡無法主要靠成本與更大經濟體競爭。我們必須通過技能、連通性、信任、基礎設施、創新以及管理複雜區域和全球運營的能力來競爭價值。

我相信本院兩邊的議員都會同意，許多本地企業面臨顯著的成本壓力。這無可爭議。但如果商業成本是今天辯論或後續發言中的重要關注點，我希望我們也能更清楚地瞭解解決這些問題的政策選擇。對於許多中小企業，尤其是服務、零售、物流和餐飲業，顯著的成本壓力包括勞動力、租金和能源。

所以，我的問題是：那麼，政策選擇是什麼？我從早前的發言中聽到一些建議。如果勞動力成本是主要關切，議員們是否建議我們大幅放寬外勞政策？如果租金成本是問題，議員們是否提議某種租金管制或加強商業租賃干預？如果能源成本是問題，議員們是否建議能源價格管控或長期補貼？

這些不是修辭性問題，而是真正的政策問題。因為每項提議都涉及權衡。我們都希望企業保持競爭力並管理成本，但降低某一成本的措施可能會在其他方面產生影響。

同時，國會此前也曾辯論過旨在加強工資和退休保障，以及更雄心勃勃的環保措施的提案。這些可能是合法的政策目標，但它們也體現了權衡——推進重要社會或環境目標的措施可能影響企業成本結構。

因此，當我們呼籲降低成本和加大對本地企業的支援時，我認為接下來的問題應是：具體的政策選擇是什麼？權衡是什麼？最終由誰承擔成本？

所以，我希望今天的辯論和後續發言能夠超越識別中小企業面臨的挑戰（這方面有相當多的共識），轉向更清晰地討論我們或他們願意做出哪些政策選擇，以及我們願意接受哪些權衡。歸根結底，經濟政策最終需要做出選擇，而選擇需要優先排序。議長先生，請用馬來語。

（馬來語）：[請參閱方言發言。]議長先生，在談及馬來/穆斯林社群的努力之前，請允許我總結一個重要觀點。作為一個小國，新加坡不能僅依賴國內需求。我們需要全球市場、全球投資和國際經濟聯絡，以創造更大的增長規模和為人民提供更多機會。但我們的目標不僅僅是吸引更多全球公司來新加坡。

更重要的是，我們能在新加坡錨定多少價值、能力和機會。

新加坡人是否獲得了更好的工作和晉升機會？我們的本地中小企業是否成為全球公司的供應商和合作夥伴？技術、技能和專業知識是否在更廣泛的經濟中傳播？解決這些問題的努力與《經濟戰略審查》（ESR）報告的關鍵方向一致。我們不必在全球公司和本地公司之間做選擇。我們需要確保兩者能夠共同成長。

如果我們經濟的不同部分發展速度不同，答案不是放慢最具競爭力的部分。相反，我們需要幫助更多企業和工人提升能力，以便他們能夠共同進步。經濟開放和包容也不是相互衝突的目標。

我們的挑戰是保持對世界的開放，同時確保更多新加坡人、工人和企業能夠抓住這種開放帶來的機會。這一切都與《經濟戰略審查》報告的建議相符。

這也是我們希望帶給馬來/穆斯林社群的精神。國家戰略只有在我們的社群理解正在發生的變化並能夠抓住可用機會時，才能帶來有意義的改變。在馬來/穆斯林社群內，負責穆斯林事務的部長已宣佈成立經濟韌性委員會，我與文禮佳博士共同擔任聯合主席。我們希望傾聽青年、工人、專業人士和企業家的願望與經濟關切，並幫助將ESR建議轉化為更具體的機會。

我們的目的不是為馬來/穆斯林社群制定單獨的經濟戰略。我們的目標是確保社群為變革做好準備，並有良好定位去抓住和創造新機會。我們的優先事項與ESR保持一致。

首先，技術和人工智慧。我們如何幫助更多馬來/穆斯林企業主利用人工智慧提高生產力，增強競爭力並發展業務？這正是M³+、商業領袖和社群網路可以作為國家專案與基層需求之間橋樑的地方。

第二，增長和國際化。對於有抱負和潛力的企業，新加坡應是起點，而非限制。我們希望幫助更多企業建立能力，成為全球公司的供應商和合作夥伴，並最終進軍東盟及更廣市場。

第三，工作、技能和職業轉型。技術將改變工作和所需技能。我們需要幫助工人及早了解這些變化，提升技能，抓住增長行業的機會。

我們不應等到有人失業才行動。經濟韌性也意味著在變化發生前做好準備。從意識到參與。

議長先生，歸根結底，我們的抱負不能僅停留在提高對ESR的認識。我們需要從認識轉向參與ESR戰略。

更多馬來/穆斯林中小企業能否成為全球公司的供應商和商業夥伴？我們的企業家能否更多地拓展到東盟？我們的年輕人能否更多進入先進製造、數字技術、人工智慧、綠色經濟及其他新興行業？這些是我們希望通過經濟韌性委員會探討的問題。

包容不僅僅是增長成果創造後再進行再分配。包容還意味著擴大機會，讓更多社群成員參與創造增長的過程。

我們的願景應當明確。

馬來/穆斯林社群不應僅為未來經濟做好準備。我們應具備信心、技能和能力，幫助塑造未來經濟並在其中取得成功。

請允許我以一首馬來諺語結束這部分發言：

乘船航行於平靜海面；

暫駐烏敏島；

知識獲得，才能輕鬆成長；

共同進步，未來安穩。

（英語）：議長先生，正如我一開始所說，本動議的願景與《經濟戰略審查》（ESR）已設定的方向有很大共識。

因此，問題不在於我們的經濟模式是否必須演變。必須演變。問題在於它如何演變，以及在加強本地企業、韌性和包容性的同時，我們必須保留新加坡經濟成功的哪些基礎。

其中一個基礎是我們對世界的開放和連通性。我們可以打造更強大的新加坡公司，加強韌性，擴大增長的參與度。但這些目標應當補充我們的全球定位，而非取代它。

我們的任務是實現向上的趨同，讓更多新加坡公司和工人受益於流經我們經濟的技術、能力、投資和機會。因為選擇不是全球化還是包容性。我們的挑戰是保持全球化，同時確保更多新加坡人、企業和社群參與我們全球聯絡創造的機會。

所以，議長先生，雖然我支援本動議背後的願景，但我不能支援現有動議文本。我將支援議員謝秉輝提出的修正案。我也特別支援第二句中“engine”一詞的替換，因為這不僅僅是單一的經濟引擎，而是由多種因素驅動的整個經濟。這使第二句對我來說更清晰。修正案看似微小，但在這方面使其更明確。

因此，帶著這些修正案，我們如何打造更強大的公司，創造更好的工作崗位，建設真正惠及所有人的未來經濟。[掌聲]

議長先生：莫哈默法理議員。

下午3時13分

莫哈默法理（阿裕尼）議員：議長先生，今天我支援由我的尊敬同僚林志蔚副教授和張文傑議員提出的原始動議。ESR認識到全球經濟的變化是結構性的，而非週期性的。我的發言將聚焦於ESR的第6和第7重點。雖然其總體目標值得讚揚，但我希望提出一些不同的建議，以共同的希望和精神，更好地準備和保護我們的新加坡工人。

我將通過三個問題來框定我的建議。

第一個問題關乎旅程。對於那些在勞動力市場中被替代或面臨被淘汰風險的新加坡工人來說，他們的旅程是什麼樣的？

第二個問題是目的地。那些接受技能培訓或提升的人，他們的目的地是什麼？我們如何確保這種再培訓或技能提升能帶來就業？

第三個問題將前兩個問題聯絡起來。我們的繼續教育體系有何證據表明它確實有效？

議長先生，我先從第一個問題開始。對於接受再技能培訓或再培訓的新加坡人來說，旅程是怎樣的？更重要的是，我們如何確保這些工人能夠並確實從這些機會中受益？我們能做些什麼讓他們的旅程更順暢？

我的答案有兩方面：一是提供強有力的安全網，使工人，尤其是被替代的工人，能夠無憂無慮地追求再培訓和技能提升機會；二是為那些希望進行更深入中期職業技能提升的人解鎖資金來源。

先生，新加坡工人應享有強有力的安全網。技能提升和再培訓作為應對職位替代的措施，聽起來不錯。但我們必須記住，新加坡工人不是電子遊戲角色，不斷通過技能樹解鎖成就。對於被裁員或即將失業的工人來說，技能提升和再培訓在當下可能聽起來不是解決方案，而是另一種壓力和不確定性來源。

我們不能低估不穩定就業帶來的心理壓力和絕望。除了焦慮和失望，工人還可能感到羞愧和尷尬，尤其是當他們是養家餬口的主要收入者，家中有子女或老人依賴他們時。

因此，我們必須以敏感的態度管理勞動力轉型和過渡。我們需要讓新加坡工人感到安全，有信心他們能夠並將會克服就業中斷。我們需要讓受影響的工人相信，在他們努力克服挫折時，社會和政府會全力支援他們。

先生，這種安全感、希望和信心只能通過為工人提供強有力的安全網來實現，即：一是強制性裁員補償；二是全民失業保險計劃。

議長先生，ESR第6重點呼籲更早介入裁員支援。早期介入是合理的。然而，我想問，這是否足夠，或者對那些有多年服務貢獻的受影響工人來說是否公平？

關鍵是，僱主被鼓勵遵守《三方關於管理過剩人力和負責任裁員的諮詢意見》。因此，裁員補償仍由各僱主自行決定。這是一項政策選擇，不公平地使我們的工人處於弱勢，令他們脆弱。對我來說，這是錯誤的。我們必須保護勤勞的新加坡人，立法規定強制裁員補償。

先生，現在我轉向ESR第6重點提出的另一個關切，即加強對專業、管理及執行人員（PME）的支援。

我們認為失業保險計劃能為所有工人，包括PME，提供更好的保護。與SkillsFuture求職者支援計劃不同，我們的提議是普遍適用的，由僱主和僱員共同繳納，合計佔工人月薪的0.1%。因為每個工人都繳納，所以每個工人都有資格受益。基本思路是每位被裁工人可獲得其最後工資的40%，但最高不超過新加坡現行中位收入的40%。這些補償最多持續六個月。

先生，我們的失業保險計劃的優勢之一是補償發放簡單明瞭。工人無需經歷申請流程，也不用忍受漫長等待結果的煎熬，或因申請被拒而進一步焦慮。我們的提議為被替代工人提供保障、安心和經濟緩衝，使他們能夠適當再技能培訓並尋找更合適的工作，因為他們不必急於接受第一個工作機會。這也將減少就業不足的可能性。

議長先生，此刻，我已經能聽到對面各位議員關於道德風險的竊竊私語。我想向他們保證，我們的裁員保險具備以下“4C”特徵來應對這一問題。4C分別是覆蓋範圍（coverage）、條件性（conditionality）、上限（caps）和緩衝（cushion）。

首先，覆蓋範圍僅限於非自願裁員的情況，從而消除了工人可能為了領取福利而主動辭職的擔憂。

第二，條件性。第二個月及之後的賠付將以個人的求職和/或再培訓努力為條件。

第三，上限。賠付金額適中，並受“雙40”上限限制，即僅為最後領取工資的40%，且進一步受制於中位收入的40%上限。

最後，緩衝。這些賠付是有時間限制的，並非旨在完全替代失去的收入，而是旨在緩解裁員帶來的嚴峻衝擊，為工人及其家庭和受撫養人在近期提供一定的安全感和保障。

議長先生，除了4C之外，我想提出一個更根本的觀點，關於裁員保險計劃。我很高興看到總理也在議會，因為他或許最能理解我們的全民裁員保險計劃如何通過集體籌資和風險共擔，體現並促進“我們優先”的精神。這提醒我們所有新加坡人是共同面對挑戰的，當情況變得困難時，我們相互幫助和支援。

先生，我回到關於旅程的問題。我們還能做些什麼更好地支援正在再培訓或提升技能的工人？我想提出的建議尤其適用於那些已經在職場工作過一段時間、現在想要進行重大且深入技能提升的新加坡人。這可能意味著攻讀研究生學位。通過這樣做，工人將獲得所需的資格和能力，既可以提升當前工作價值，也可以轉向新行業。

然而，這種深入的技能提升通常更具挑戰性，非常耗費時間和精力，並且需要長期承諾。它在經濟上也可能帶來較大壓力。

在這方面，我同意《經濟轉型報告》（ESR）第七重點的診斷和建議，即應擴大資金支援，涵蓋更廣泛的深入再培訓路徑，包括高等院校（IHLs）提供的研究生課程。我有兩項具體建議。

第一，政府應直接為攻讀研究生學位的中年新加坡人提供教育貸款，貸款在課程期間至少免息，且還款起始額度較低，隨後在一定期限後逐步增加。我想到的是類似於MENDAKI學習貸款，其還款安排是逐步遞增的。

第二，政府應擴大公積金教育貸款計劃，涵蓋我們高等院校的兼職和全日制碩士課程。目前這尚不可行。

為研究生學習籌集資金對許多在職專業人士來說是一個挑戰。然而，研究生學位在提升就業能力方面依然有用。例如，僱主有時會減少對擁有研究生學位申請者的工作經驗年限要求。

先生，這些建議部分源自我幾年前轉行的親身經歷。我離開公共服務，攻讀新加坡管理大學的法學博士（JD）課程，成為一名律師。臨時迴歸全日制學生身份非常困難，尤其是因為JD課程三年期間失去了穩定收入。

然而，獲得MENDAKI的免息教育貸款對我幫助很大。此外，作為JD學生，我因擁有社會學碩士學位，能夠在新加坡管理學院兼職教學，這幫助我應付日常開銷。

如今，再培訓和提升技能已成為新加坡工人不可避免的事情。然而，我們在議會應認識到，再培訓過程，尤其是深入提升技能，涉及機會成本和實際成本，其中一些成本是可以且應當減輕的。

議長先生，我現在提出第二個問題——目的地。培訓本身不是經濟成果。獲得證書不一定能轉化為生計。如果再培訓結束後，工人只能回家獨自瀏覽招聘網站，那麼我們只是用另一種形式的不安全感取代了原有的。

因此，我對上個月技能未來（SkillsFuture Singapore）與勞動力發展局（Workforce Singapore）合併成立單一法定機構所帶來的機遇感到鼓舞。新成立的勞動力發展局（SWDA）有潛力打造一個新的綜合體系，國家可以在整個失業、再培訓、崗位匹配和再就業過程中積極支援工人。我相信這符合《經濟轉型報告》第七重點的建議。

因此，SWDA應避免僅僅成為一個更大的培訓管理機構。相反，它應連線僱主、培訓提供者和工人，使再培訓最終轉化為真正的就業機會。

SWDA應成為一個首屈一指的一站式就業中心，為每位非自願失業的求職者分配專屬個案工作者。求職者將與個案工作者一對一會面，獲得求職過程的指導。經過對求職者的情況、技能和經驗以及預期職位空缺的仔細評估，個案工作者可以將求職者匹配到可用職位，或推薦再培訓或提升技能課程，幫助求職者轉型到其他崗位。

為了恰當履行這一橋樑和匹配功能，SWDA必須同時完成兩項任務：（a）跟蹤就業領域的宏觀發展；（b）確保其專案設定切合實際需求。

第一項任務是讓SWDA深入瞭解不斷變化的就業市場需求，以便更好地匹配或培訓求職者。SWDA可以與僱主合作，瞭解哪些行業在擴張，哪些公司預計在未來六至十二個月內有職位空缺，以及哪些行業持續存在勞動力短缺。

第二項任務要求SWDA建立嚴格評估的文化，確保納稅人的資金用於那些真正為工人提供良好就業成果或至少滿足行業所需技能的課程和培訓專案。例如，在許多行業中，雖然公司之間存在商業競爭，但它們需要許多相同的基礎能力。SWDA可以與行業合作伙伴合作，設計培訓專案，前幾個月專注於行業範圍的技能，隨後進行較短的公司特定實習。

SWDA還應與行業專業人士合作設計工人培訓課程。它應定期收集各行業僱主的需求，甚至接受這些僱主提出的課程建議，正如我的兩位尊敬的朋友嚴燕松先生和林志蔚副教授之前所建議的。培訓提供者應展示其課程如何滿足行業確定的需求。如果尚未如此，行業代表應參與這些課程的指導委員會。

技能未來的提供者也應受更嚴格的質量保證框架監管，定期對提供者和培訓師進行審計。技能未來課程的評估標準也應有行業參與。每個技能未來專案，從課程到評估，都應由三方簽字確認：僱主或行業代表、政府和培訓提供者。

最後，SWDA應與僱主合作，為技能未來專案的成功畢業生提供試用機會。這將證明這些培訓專案確實能幫助工人進入新崗位或新行業。

我相信，新的SWDA可以通過成為全國性的協調者，將失業工人、僱主和培訓機構整合成一個連貫的再培訓和再僱傭體系，從而最好地服務我們的勞動力。SWDA可以在建立《經濟轉型報告》第六重點提到的職業橋樑方面發展專長——為處於風險中的工人提供結構化路徑，幫助他們獲得更具韌性的職業。

議長先生，我的第三個問題是證據。我們如何確信我們的繼續教育體系確實有效？有什麼證據表明我們的培訓專案真正成功？

我們在勞動力發展上投入了數十億新元，但令人驚訝的是，公開領域中很少有成果資料。例如，我們知道約55%的曾經失業的技能未來職業轉型專案參與者在六個月內找到了新工作。但我們不知道哪些課程更有助於求職者找到新工作，哪些提供者持續交付更好成果，培訓後工資是否上漲，以及工人是否能在一年後繼續就業。

我理解技能未來和繼續教育不應僅以就業成果狹義評估。技能未來也服務於豐富生活和終身學習，這也是為何一位尊敬的同事告訴我，她88歲的母親也獲得了技能未來積分。

然而，議長先生，問題依然存在。如果政府主要依賴技能未來作為勞動力再培訓和提升技能的平臺，那麼我們對技能未來及其專案的評估必須反映這一重點。政府應釋出更多指標，幫助工人評估具體技能未來專案在就業前景方面的有效性。例如，應公佈每個提供者和課程中，有多少學員在六個月內找到新工作及這些新工作的平均工資。

此類資料的可用性將徹底改變我們培訓生態系統的問責機制。提供者將被迫以成果競爭，而非僅靠營銷，工人也能在培訓前做出更明智的選擇。政府資金應流向那些確實成功的專案。

議長先生，最後一點，關於我們為何投資於工人技能提升。新加坡建立了世界上最慷慨的繼續教育體系之一。毫無疑問，政府在人才上投入巨大。但正如政府開支一貫所示，資金的去向和使用方式與投入金額同樣重要。

審計署最近釋出的報告對資金是否被有效利用提出了質疑。審計署辦公室（AGO）指出職業轉換計劃和中年職業路徑計劃存在一些問題。在報告第65頁，審計署發現30個相關實體組成的六個集團存在“可能為最大化補助申請而非真正培訓專案的潛在操控行為”。

雖然我理解勞動力發展局已對部分發現作出回應，但我擔心繫統中存在的漏洞可能被利用。政府必須保持警惕，及時發現並堵塞這些漏洞，確保公共資金真正用於培訓勞動力。因為每一分被挪用和浪費的資金，都是沒有用於幫助工人再培訓或提升技能以保持就業能力的資金。我們必須確保納稅人的錢用於支援技能轉換和職業轉換時，能產生真正的勞動力成果，切實幫助失業工人重建職業生涯。

總結我演講中的建議：一、立法強制裁員福利；二、實施全民裁員保險；三、推出免息教育貸款並允許公積金用於研究生學習；四、整合勞動力發展局為一站式就業和技能提升中心，配備專屬個案工作者；五、與行業夥伴更緊密合作，最佳化技能未來課程和教學大綱；六、按提供者和課程釋出更多公開成果資料。

議長先生，《經濟轉型報告》正確指出，新加坡最大的資產始終是人民。為了最大化我們的競爭優勢，我們必須使新加坡人能夠自信地從職業生涯的一個階段過渡到另一個階段。理想情況下，工人在開始再培訓或提升技能時，應對未來的目的地有清晰認識，應從一開始就能看到可信的職業橋樑，而不是寄希望於模糊的“更好未來”。基於此，我重申對原動議的支援。[掌聲]

議長先生：吳多泉副教授。

下午3時32分

吳多泉副教授（提名議員）：謝謝議長先生。我首先宣告，我是某所自治大學的教職員工。

議長先生，《經濟轉型報告》闡述了新加坡如何在快速變化的世界中保持競爭力。其核心主題是適應性和韌性。報告還呼籲建立更具活力的企業基礎，加強職業轉型支援，以及利用人工智慧增強工人能力。

原動議的發起人稱其與《經濟轉型報告》互補但有所區別。我同意動議中(a)段的許多願景。企業家應能進行試驗，企業應有成功空間，工人應能繁榮，創新應能蓬勃發展。

但對這些願景的認同並不等同於支援動議的原始表述。我擔心措辭未能充分體現所涉及的權衡。

我將先談公平，再談企業活力以及工人與創新的關係。

先談“更平等和包容的經濟”這一表述。更平等的結果不一定更公平。相同工作同酬可能公平，但我們也會給予需求更大的家庭更多幫助。獎勵更大貢獻或負責任的風險承擔也可能公平。適當的原則取決於具體問題。因此，問題不只是結果是否平等，而是是否公平。

這並不意味著我們應簡單接受不平等。收入和財富的巨大差距可能帶來廣泛的社會和經濟成本。它們可能固化優勢，削弱流動性，使人們在追求機會或從挫折中恢復的能力上存在巨大差異。當基本生活成本壓垮低收入家庭時，應提供更多支援。當家庭資源決定教育或職業機會時，應拓寬低收入者的路徑。因此，應針對不平等帶來的具體社會經濟成本採取措施，而非簡單假設平等總是合適的解決方案。

我們也不應只關注財富分配，還應關注財富的使用方式。這指向更廣義的包容理解。人們不僅應在起點獲得機會，還應有能力在一生中改變方向。

《經濟轉型報告》提出為處於風險崗位的工人主動搭建職業橋樑，這是朝這一方向邁出的重要一步。我願將這一原則更廣泛地應用於教育與工作、就業與創業，以及不同職業間的轉型。

以大學生為例，他們在第一年發現選錯專業。轉專業時，已使用的補貼學期會計入新專業的學費補貼額度。因此，額外學習可能需繳納非補貼學費。財政理由可以理解，但糾正早期不匹配的能力可能取決於家庭經濟狀況。

是否可以設立有限的一次性課程調整補貼，針對第一年內的首次轉專業？例如，忽略一至兩個補貼學期，前提是有適當的學業指導和最大限度認可已修學分。

這不是無限制轉換或補貼的理由，而是確保早期不匹配不會導致經濟上的不可逆轉。它也可能減輕家庭為首次選對專業的壓力。

我們的系統有時像傳送帶。當目的地明確時效率極高，但當有人需要改變方向時則不夠寬容。因此，更具適應性的系統應允許人們在不丟失已取得進展的情況下轉換路徑。這就是我對動議中包容一詞的理解：不是相同的旅程或目的地，而是隨著個人發展，真正有機會改變方向。

先生，我的第二點是關於企業家試驗和企業成功的機會。《經濟轉型報告》正確強調企業更新，包括重組和退出。企業活力必須為人服務，而非僅為資本。試驗伴隨不確定性，有些專案會轉型，有些會終止。發生這種情況時，經驗不應丟失，企業家不應被永久懲罰。

離職去創業的員工，無論創業結果如何，都應有機會重返職場。僱主應認可員工在創業期間獲得的判斷力和實踐經驗，而非將這段經歷視為其職業生涯的汙點。

同時，商業成功不應僅以規模或盈利能力來定義。以Bettr Group為例，這是一家本土特色咖啡公司，將業務與為面臨社會和經濟障礙的人群提供培訓和包容性就業相結合。其價值不僅體現在商業活動上，還體現在它幫助創造的技能和機會上。

Bettr Group提醒我們，企業活力應為更多樣化的企業和價值形式留出空間。健康的經濟應允許試驗和退出，也應給予創造更廣泛社會價值的企業公平的發展機會。

因此，我的最後一點是關於動議中呼籲為員工創造繁榮機會、促進創意和創新發展的內容。我支援原動議和修正動議中使用的“繁榮”一詞。它設定了比僅僅保持就業更高的目標，值得我們努力追求。員工應積極投入工作，並通過工作建立美好生活，同時看到發展和進步的路徑。這也延續了《就業、技能與再培訓報告》（ESR）中提出的，通過崗位重設計和培訓利用人工智慧輔助員工，並將學習更緊密地與實際工作和僱主需求結合起來。

實現這一更高目標需要雙方的承諾。首先談談員工，然後是僱主。

隨著常規任務越來越多地實現自動化，員工需要更多地運用判斷力，處理沒有固定答案的問題。再培訓不能僅限於參加課程，員工必須願意應用所學知識，承擔新職責。僱主則可以決定技術如何改變工作。他們可以主要利用技術以更少的人力完成相同工作，也可以利用技術幫助組織成長，為員工創造更有價值的崗位。

當員工承擔更大責任並幫助提升生產力時，這應反映在他們的薪酬或對工作和時間的更大自主權上。這並不意味著保留每項任務或阻止變革，而是員工應承擔適應的責任，僱主應利用創新不僅降低成本，更要推動組織發展，並與創造價值的員工分享成果。

議長先生，我關注的不是(a)段中的願景，而是將不同原則和權衡壓縮成單一命題。公平並不總是要求結果平等，但不平等不應成為機會的持久障礙。

企業活力需要試驗和退出的空間，也應認可更廣泛的社會價值。員工和創新可以共同繁榮，但這需要雙方的承諾：員工必須適應，僱主必須創造更有價值的工作並分享收益。

因此，我對目前(a)段的表述仍持保留態度。我更傾向於更細緻、權衡更明確的表述，既保留其願景，也明確權衡和責任。

不過，謝秉輝先生提出的修正案使動議更接近我的立場，也更符合我所表達的觀點。綜合考慮，我支援修正後的動議。謝謝，議長先生。[掌聲]

議長先生：畢丹星先生。

下午3時43分

畢丹星（亞裕尼） ：議長先生，我支援原動議。6月24日釋出的《就業、技能與再培訓報告》（ESR）直指我們希望為新加坡及其員工建設何種經濟和社會。該報告置於一個日益受人工智慧、技術變革、地緣政治分裂和加劇的經濟競爭影響的世界中。

此外，ESR廣泛討論了就業和增強韌性，報告的(b)部分專門論述此題。第六項重點呼籲縮短公司在通知員工裁員後五個工作日內提交強制裁員通知的現行要求。

我的發言將圍繞員工韌性、裁員對員工的現實影響及如何更好支援他們展開，因為一個有韌性的經濟不能建立在不安全員工的背上。

因此，我認為新加坡應立法規定最低裁員補償金，這是我此前在國會多次提出的議題，最近一次是在今年四月，另一個背景是正在進行的《僱傭法》修訂。

在倡導立法裁員補償金時，我的發言將涵蓋四個部分：首先，概述新加坡的裁員情況；其次，簡述新加坡裁員補償的法律地位；第三，說明裁員補償對員工的重要性；第四，回應反對立法裁員補償的常見理由，並結合ESR的更廣泛建議進行審視。

首先，關於本地情況。上週五，《海峽時報》發表題為《新加坡第二季度新增就業崗位，裁員人數上升》的報道。報道指出，今年4月至6月的4500人裁員，是自2020年最後一季度以來最高。過去12個月，Lazada、Gardenia、Shopee、亞太釀酒廠、Agoda、DHL和Yeo Hiap Seng等知名企業宣佈裁員，部分業務遷往馬來西亞。2024年，新加坡主要科技公司如Meta、Tiktok、Dyson、微軟和谷歌共裁員至少9000人。

在這方面，有兩個具體資料值得關注。

第一，2024年和2025年，新加坡總就業人數增長，失業率在2024年和2025年保持在約2%的低位。然而，記錄的裁員人數近年來增加，從2022年的6440人增至2024年的13020人，2025年達14490人。

第二，2020年至2025年間，八成合資格員工獲得了不低於三方指導原則規定的每服務年限兩週薪資的裁員補償。這為所有員工設定了立法最低裁員補償的良好起點。人力部提供的這一資料未具體披露獲得工會標準即每服務年限一個月薪資補償的員工人數，但據我瞭解，這在許多集體協議中並不罕見。

關鍵是，我們可以合理推斷，例如2024年，約有近3000名被裁員工未獲得任何裁員補償或低於三方指導原則規定的補償。這絕非小數目。

如今，亞洲許多經濟體為被裁員工提供某種形式的立法保護。然而，新加坡員工沒有法定的裁員補償權利。除合同外，裁員補償主要由三方規範和僱主慣例決定。新加坡員工獲得裁員補償依賴僱主的善意、僱傭合同條款或失業後談判能力。

這一立法缺失與ESR報告揭示的員工現實形成鮮明對比：首先，新加坡人不應假設經濟增長會自動帶來以往同等規模的就業機會；其次，儘管就業形勢良好，員工在多個行業的焦慮感卻在增加。

接下來談談第二部分，法律地位。新加坡法院和仲裁庭重申了一個對員工不利的法律立場。在JIF訴JIG案中，僱傭申索仲裁庭裁定《僱傭法》第45條未賦予法定裁員補償權利。仲裁庭認為，裁員補償僅在僱傭合同、集體協議或其他法律依據存在時支付，三方指導原則不構成法律依據。事實上，這一立場可追溯至新加坡上訴法院在Bethlehem Singapore Pte Ltd訴Ler Hock Seng案中的判決，明確第45條不強制僱主僅因員工完成資格服務期就支付裁員補償。

該仲裁庭判決的重要性因其時機而加劇。正當ESR呼籲新加坡人準備迎接更頻繁的重組、更快的技術變革和更大經濟不確定性時，法院提醒我們，面臨裁員的員工沒有普遍的法定裁員補償權利。

國會面臨的問題是，現行法律是否仍適合ESR期望塑造的員工和經濟環境。

我認為法律已落後。看看周邊國家。中國為受裁員和重組影響的員工立法經濟補償。韓國對裁員設有嚴格法律要求。臺灣立法規定遣散費。馬來西亞立法規定解僱和裁員補償。泰國立法規定按服務年限支付遣散費。印度尼西亞立法規定裁員補償。菲律賓立法規定離職補償。

這些國家政治體制、勞動力市場和經濟發展階段差異巨大，但都達成共識：企業靈活性與員工保護並非互斥。

第三部分，裁員補償為何對員工至關重要。

裁員補償重要，因為它在員工及其家庭財務壓力最大的階段提供支援。它是僱主提供的重要支援層，補充納稅人資助的求職者支援計劃。

在新加坡背景下，這種額外財務支援尤為重要，因為許多家庭負債較重。根據星展銀行2025年財務健康系列報告，分析了約兩百萬星展和POSB零售客戶的匿名彙總資料，Z世代和千禧一代（25至44歲）負債加重，退休儲蓄落後於年長群體。35至44歲預退休群體財務壓力最大，債務略超流動資產，主要因住房、車輛和信用卡貸款。

超出這些年齡段，50多歲員工失業後，影響遠超收入損失。公積金繳納停止，退休儲蓄增長放緩，住房負擔、醫療費用和照護責任持續。裁員不僅是勞動力市場問題，還是退休保障、住房、家庭和社會穩定問題。

隨著新加坡向高薪高成本經濟轉型，若員工無法獲得相當收入的工作，裁員影響將更嚴重。失業和財務不安全對心理健康的影響也不可忽視。

納稅人通過資助求職者支援計劃發揮作用，政府和勞工運動投入大量資源進行再培訓。僱主也必須承擔責任。根據裁員補償資料，許多僱主已願意承擔責任，向員工支付裁員補償。

第四部分，我將回應反對立法裁員補償的論點。新加坡歷史上，許多員工保護措施最初被批評為威脅企業競爭力。工作補貼推出時，儘管由納稅人資助，仍有人擔憂成本。漸進工資模式擴大時，尤其在政府工資支援減少後，也有人擔憂成本。平臺員工獲得更強保護時，成本擔憂再次出現。

事實上，去年政府宣佈審查《僱傭法》時，新加坡全國僱主聯合會警告審查不應“無意中強制推行可能減少僱主靈活性、削弱企業競爭力的漸進式就業做法”。

然而，推動重大親工改革始終重要，因為經濟增長本身永遠不夠。

如今，我們將工作補貼視為成熟平衡經濟體系的一部分，裁員補償應被同樣看待。

多年來，人力部提出多項反對立法裁員補償的理由，但這些風險應結合ESR報告描繪的日益不可預測的經濟環境重新審視。

第一，強制裁員補償可能使僱主更猶豫提供長期或永久合同。但許多經濟體，包括髮達國家，存在強制裁員補償，且永久僱傭仍普遍存在。此類需求受勞動力需求、技能短缺、生產力及更廣泛勞動力市場法規等多因素影響。在新加坡，勞動力市場普遍緊張，反而可能促使僱主通過永久合同爭奪優秀人才。

第二，政府認為立法最低裁員補償可能導致僱主趨同於最低標準。但事實並不完全支援此擔憂。已有三方指導原則，已有集體協議規定裁員補償，絕大多數僱主已按此標準支付，少數支付高於每服務年限一個月薪資的補償。

因此，立法不一定改變現狀，也不會阻止僱主在認為合適時支付更高補償。

最後，有觀點認為強制裁員補償可能影響財務困難企業的生存，增加留任員工風險。但這一擔憂應與現實權衡：財務困難並不自動免除企業支付未付工資、公積金、稅款、供應商債務或銀行貸款等義務。企業也會計提員工休假兌現、酬金義務、合同責任和債務償還。裁員補償同樣可視為可預見的僱傭成本，正如進步僱主目前所做。

更重要的是，該論點假設裁員僅發生於虧損企業，但事實並非如此。許多裁員發生在盈利企業重組、自動化、整合運營、遷移活動或尋求提升盈利能力時——正如近年新加坡所見。在此情形下，裁員往往是戰略商業決策，而非最後手段。

這也解釋了為何一些工會在無法律保護情況下，仍成功爭取更優裁員補償，因為並非所有企業因財務困難裁員。像以往加強員工保護的努力一樣，立法裁員補償必然引發企業關注。

這些關注值得重視和尊重，因為創業、經營和維持企業並非簡單易行。但我們不應忘記，許多負責任的僱主已提供裁員補償：八成合資格員工已獲得不低於三方指導原則規定的補償。

如前所述，這可作為立法裁員補償的起點。此舉在很大程度上是對現有做法的正式確認，同時確保那些未被非約束性三方指導原則覆蓋的員工獲得保護。負責任的僱主將不再相較於僅提供最低或無補償的僱主處於不利地位。

法定框架還可通過附屬法規規定大型企業支付更高補償，如達到工會標準的每服務年限一個月薪資，尤其是大型跨國公司對此不會反感，畢竟它們在其他運營國家已受裁員補償立法約束。

較小僱主支付裁員福利的能力常被作為反對全面立法裁員福利的擔憂。這些小企業的顧慮並非無關緊要或不重要。一個年收入五十萬美元的企業，顯然與年收入五千萬美元的企業是截然不同的。

各國在立法裁員福利時，對這一特定問題的處理方式各不相同。有些國家設立了保障機制，如國家保險計劃；有些推動工資保障協議；還有些通過破產法將裁員福利視為優先債務。

這些都不是未知領域，一個完美的裁員福利立法制度不必成為一個比新加坡現有制度更好、保護更多工人的良好制度的敵人。

總之，呼籲立法裁員福利關乎我們希望新加坡成為怎樣的社會。經濟轉型路線圖（ESR）呼籲更多國際企業在新加坡設立區域總部，根本上是一個面向未來的經濟計劃。它將國際社會對新加坡品牌的信任視為戰略資產，新加坡理應利用這一資產推進其經濟價值主張。

然而，這種信任也包含重要的國內層面，正是這種信任塑造了新加坡品牌。當工人知道，經過多年服務後，如果因非自身過錯而發生重組，他們將獲得公平且有意義的保護時，對僱主的信任和承諾便會增強。因此，作為政府落實經濟轉型路線圖的一部分，我敦促政府召集僱主、工會和工人，共同制定法定裁員福利框架，目標是引入相關立法。

一個有韌性的社會需要工人知道，他們不會獨自承擔經濟變革的重擔，正如全國職工總會（NTUC）勞工運動所呼籲的那樣，雖然並非每個職位都能被保護，但每個工人都應獲得保護。

我支援由張文傑和林志蔚議員提出的原動議，該動議呼籲為所有新加坡人建立一個包容和平等的經濟。 [掌聲]

下午4時

議長：秩序。我們已經開會近五個半小時，我建議休息一下。我宣佈休會，下午4時20分繼續開會。秩序。秩序。

會議於下午4時休會，至下午4時20分繼續。

會議於下午4時20分恢復。

[副議長迪舒沙先生主持]

一個為所有人服務的未來經濟

[（程式文本）辯論繼續。（程式文本）]

副議長：何偉倫副教授。

下午4時20分

何偉倫副教授（提名議員）：副議長先生，我支援修正動議。我想宣告我的利益身份，我是新加坡成人學習研究院的執行董事，該院是新加坡成人學習的國家卓越中心。

毫無疑問，維持一個包容且充滿活力的經濟對新加坡至關重要。我們正建立在堅實的基礎上，經濟轉型路線圖為推動經濟發展提供了堅實的藍圖。話雖如此，更多激發包容性經濟增長的想法應當受到歡迎。該動議涵蓋多個方面，我將重點談談我們的勞動力和人民，作為包容且充滿活力經濟的關鍵。

包容性經濟必須惠及其人民。在新加坡，經濟增長惠及新加坡人的主要渠道是良好的就業和收入。這仍然是核心的社會經濟戰略，正如本議院最近關於人工智慧轉型無失業增長的辯論所確認的那樣。雖然我們必須考慮加強社會支援和保護的新方法，並加大再分配力度以實現更公平的結果，但我們必須繼續優先考慮就業和優質工作。

今天議會動議的第一部分談到為工人提供茁壯成長的機會。值得反思這意味著什麼。

對我而言，這意味著工人不會因過去的教育資格而被鎖定在預設路徑或死衚衕工作中。相反，他們必須有機會在職業生涯中不斷成長和發展。這也意味著工人不會被限制在單調或重複的任務中，因為所有有趣的工作都被人工智慧接管了。相反，工人必須有自主權來展現才華和創造力，在工作中找到意義和自我實現。

需要三組因素：第一，工人必須靈活且適應力強；第二，組織必須轉型以啟用技能並釋放工人潛力；第三，我們需要一個由公共政策支援的煥新工作與學習生態系統，支援工人和組織，幫助他們茁壯成長。

首先，靈活且適應力強的工人。新加坡15歲學生的測試成績全球領先，但我們能否在45歲成人的技能和學習敏捷性方面也名列前茅？經濟合作與發展組織（OECD）成人技能調查顯示，相較於OECD經濟體，我們在成人讀寫和算術能力方面僅處於中游水平。

設定我們的雄心很重要。我們應將目標定得很高，不僅要擁有世界上最優秀的學生，還要擁有世界上最靈活、適應力強和創新的勞動力。我們必須重申，人是我們的關鍵競爭優勢，而不僅僅是技術或基礎設施。在新加坡，我們常說人是我們唯一的資源，因此政府多年來持續投資於教育和人力資本發展。

如今，不僅僅是發展硬技能和能力。人際技能或關鍵核心技能日益重要，而學習如何學習的元技能或許是最重要的。我們需要強調在變革中學習的敏捷性和適應性，以及超越靜態卓越的動態創新。人工智慧和自動化將進行分析和執行，但由人類設定議程、優先排序任務、提出問題、權衡人工智慧建議的選項、做出決策並最終承擔結果責任。所有這些都需要基於持續學習的判斷力和創造力。

作為個體，我們必須走出舒適區，尋求新的學習和成長機會。我們還必須規劃職業生涯，投資於職業健康。我們不應侷限於任何時刻僅是學生、僱員、自由職業者或僱主。每個人都可以是工人-學習者和工人-創業者。因為學習永無止境，預就業培訓與繼續教育和培訓之間不應有硬性界限。無論職業如何，每個人都需要具備創業者的心態和本能，以便在未來經濟中貢獻和成功。

第二，讓我們關注組織能做什麼。組織必須轉型以啟用勞動力的技能，釋放員工的創造力。否則，培訓和再技能的收益將無法充分實現。包括成人學習研究院技能與學習調查在內的一系列研究表明，人們在正規培訓中學到的許多內容未能在工作中應用，往往是因為沒有機會，或工作環境不利於應用。

因此，學習必須與組織戰略相結合，而非孤立進行。企業必須成為學習型企業，將學習融入企業DNA。領導者、人力資源專業人士、直線經理和工會都應發揮作用，通過啟用心態、確保培訓資源、將學習與工作結合、創造有利於學習和試驗的環境來促進學習。

組織還應優先採用以技能為先的做法，即以技能而非資歷作為招聘、職業發展和晉升的關鍵考量。這將使僱主獲得更大的人才庫，而工人則享有更大的職業流動性，不受限於以往的教育資格或工作經驗，而能利用通過工作獲得的技能承擔新職位或跨行業發展。

僱主應定期與各職業階段的員工進行結構化職業對話，而不僅限於年長員工。此類對話有助於個人瞭解自身優勢、抱負和發展機會，同時使組織更好地開發和部署人才。最後，組織應鼓勵自下而上的創新，將勞動力視為洞察力和創新的來源。

在複雜且不確定的環境中，工人理解不斷變化的環境並被賦權共同創造解決方案尤為重要，這為他們磨鍊直覺和建立信心提供了機會。工人的隱性知識在以人為本的工作再設計中也極具價值，工人參與工作再設計可帶來更強的歸屬感和更佳的成果。

第三，需要煥新且整合的工作與學習生態系統，以培養靈活、適應力強和創新的勞動力，以及一個以優質工作、技能匹配和強大勞動力流動性為特徵的勞動力市場。

首先，我要肯定技能未來計劃（SkillsFuture）已有的措施。培訓和再技能獲得慷慨支援。我們擁有統一的技能分類體系和職業與技能護照，支援技能認證、認可和流動性。還有一個培訓機構網路，其質量標準受到嚴格監控。通過一系列線上工具和儀表盤，向個人、企業和培訓機構提供勞動力市場情報。

還能做些什麼？

首先，我認為我們需要加快推廣以技能為先的做法，確實使其成為企業和組織的預設做法。成人學習研究院將在十月推出以技能為先的行動框架，列出具體行動和行為，期望被個人、僱主和培訓機構廣泛採納。

第二，我們需要發展健全的技能認證。目前，職業與技能護照存在缺口，主要記錄正規培訓和資歷以及工作經驗。隨著職場學習成為終身學習的重要組成部分，我們需要能夠評估和認可在職場獲得並可展示的技能。成人學習研究院已在培訓和成人教育領域開創了技能認證，並正與合作機構合作，將此方法適用於其他行業。

這很重要，因為更完整的技能護照將促進並鼓勵採用以技能為先的做法。高等教育機構也可以通過設計學生推薦信，更好地反映通過課程作業、實習和課外活動獲得的技能。

第三，需要通過提供實用工具包和資源支援企業成為學習型組織，增強組織能力，同時幫助領導者、人力資源和組織發展專業人士將學習置於組織戰略核心，釋放勞動力潛力。

第四，有進一步投資個性化職業指導和崗位匹配能力的空間，不僅基於技能推薦崗位，還基於價值觀、抱負和個性匹配。

一位高階精神科顧問最近告訴我，崗位匹配是人類健康和幸福的重要因素。他觀察到，不同型別的工作可能更適合不同的人格型別。強行讓方釘適應圓孔可能導致壓力、倦怠和心理健康問題。相反，良好的崗位匹配可能帶來個人滿足感、更投入和充滿活力的員工，以及更高的生產力和創造力。

更全面有效的職業輔導和指導體系，不僅針對失業工人，也針對在職人員，還能支援更好的職業健康和韌性。

第五，我們可以加強對微型創業的支援。得益於人工智慧，個人現在可以以更低的市場準入門檻檢驗商業創意。人工智慧使一人公司日益可行。政府可以審視還能做些什麼來支援此類創業，無論是融資、獲取人工智慧計算資源、商業網路和指導，還是其他有針對性的支援，鼓勵微型創業成為新加坡人的可行職業路徑或補充收入來源。

最後，我們需要大量投資於理解技術、成人學習、就業能力和企業績效之間的關係。

我最近與每位首席人力資源官交談時，他們都表示，人工智慧及其對工作和勞動力的影響是組織面臨的核心挑戰之一。在這一快速發展的人工智慧新現實中，沒有任何組織或政府擁有所有答案。我們需要實驗、測試、迭代並推廣在人工智慧支援的學習、工作再設計和就業能力方面有效的做法，涵蓋多個行業和組織型別。

正如我們在教學法方面積累了豐富經驗，使新加坡在全球學齡兒童教育中處於領先地位，我們也需要同樣積累終身學習和就業能力方面的專業知識。我們應引進世界頂尖專家——不僅是學術研究者，還有能夠橋接學術界與產業界、提供及時研究以指導快速變化環境中實踐的應用型學者。通過建設我們的研究與實踐生態系統，新加坡可以在人工智慧時代的學習和就業能力領域處於前沿。

讓我們以持續投資專業知識和能力來匹配對勞動力的雄心。我們的指引應是給予人民在人工智慧時代成功和貢獻的最佳機會，這對充滿活力和包容的經濟至關重要，也是更新社會契約的基礎。

副議長：何廷儒女士。

下午4時33分

何廷儒女士（盛港）：副議長先生，獨立後，作為一個年輕國家，我們專注於追求經濟增長，努力站穩腳跟，開放吸引外資，連線全球貿易網路，為全球和本地企業提供肥沃土壤。這帶來了廣大民眾生活質量的巨大提升。對許多人來說，為下一代創造更好未來的承諾是我們努力的希望燈塔。

然而，近年來，居民提出疑問並不罕見：經濟增長應是我們的終極目標嗎？

最新的經濟轉型路線圖報告為我們提供了寶貴的反思機會，重新思考進步對新加坡意味著什麼。但在裁員成為新聞頭條、居民為不穩定生計憂心忡忡、我們的小紅點感受氣候變化日益嚴峻之際，正是我們思考如何讓經濟增長服務於更廣泛社會進步的恰當時機。

我們需要一個讓每個人都有空間成為最好的自己的新加坡經濟。

幾年前，我談及凱特·羅沃斯（Kate Raworth）的“甜甜圈經濟學”概念，該理論設想一個以集體福祉和平等為核心的經濟，實現人類安全公正的空間，同時保護地球免受進一步環境破壞。這一理念比以往任何時候都更為相關。我們的經濟政策必須體現公平、集體和地球福祉的精神，同時為社會所有人提供茁壯成長的機會。

今天我將圍繞實現這一目標的三個關鍵領域發言：第一，解決我們的照護體系；第二，為創意人士和創業者提供合適生態系統；第三，保護我們的地球。

如果我們的經濟要根植於公平和集體福祉，首先必須審視誰決定經濟蛋糕的分配。在參與經濟轉型路線圖的成員和五個委員會中，似乎主要由高管層和全國職工總會（NTUC）工會領導組成。

儘管我們認可他們的見解，但代表外籍勞工、婦女權益和殘疾人士的組織也應有更明確的代表。我們的經濟軌跡必須由人民塑造、與人民共塑、為人民服務。多樣性和視角，代表經濟中多元利益相關者，必須用來識別潛在盲點和邊緣群體，以及這些多元群體如何生活和體驗我們的政策，無論是經濟政策還是其他。

談及經濟貢獻時，我們的經濟結構往往聚焦於金融、科技和商業的精英領域。然而，我們的經濟由一群多樣化的專業人士維持活力，他們的貢獻對整體經濟成功至關重要。

尤其是我們的照護經濟，包括托兒、養老、醫療保健和各種社會服務中的有償和無償勞動。作為任何經濟的基礎構件，我們的照護基礎設施促進了當前和未來世代的更廣泛增長、福祉和人類發展。建設我們的照護基礎設施必須被視為優先事項，而非事後補救或因人口結構變化而需解決的問題。

在這方面，ESR的第五重點建議我們提升對人工智慧抗風險行業的吸引力，例如輔助醫療、早期兒童教育和社會工作。提出了許多建議，如崗位重新設計、明確晉升路徑、加強技能發展和認證。同時也提到了增加工資支援。

誠然，這是一種微妙的平衡。英國最近試圖改革社會護理的例子就體現了這一點，這被設想為一個漫長且昂貴的過程，涉及艱難的決策，儘管有觀點認為護理人員應當是社會上薪酬最高而非最低的群體。

然而即使在新加坡，工資支援也僅限於我們的護理人員。根據2025年6月最新的勞工部資料，註冊護士的月中位數總工資為5,129新元。社會工作者的月薪為4,565新元，學前教師為4,150新元。這些數字均低於整體就業月收入中位數5,775新元。

即使我們承認工資支援已是當務之急，護理工作者也必須因其對社會的寶貴貢獻而獲得更好的認可和支援，無論他們是否能夠抵禦人工智慧帶來的衝擊。護理經濟中的工資必須與不斷上漲的生活成本相匹配。

我們還需要關注護理工作者所面臨的沉重情緒負擔。2022年發表在新加坡醫學科學院官方期刊上的一項研究，測量了2019年7月至2020年1月公共醫療部門的倦怠情況，發現37.8%的受訪者情緒疲憊得分較高；29.7%表現出較高的去人格化得分，55.3%個人成就感得分較低。2024年下半年在國大綜合診所進行的另一項研究也發現，近10%的參與者表示計劃在未來六個月內離職。研究作者對此表示擔憂，指出新冠疫情期間醫療人員的辭職率僅為4%。

正如律師公會最近開始審視律師的現行工作文化一樣，現在是我們的監管機構與護理經濟領域的行業和非政府組織合作，正式跟蹤職場福祉並審查現行職場標準的時候了。

支援本地護理經濟創業同樣關鍵。護理經濟高度依賴勞動力，我們支援創業資本需求和能力建設的一般資助需要更細緻的審查。雖然由raiSE SG管理的VentureForGood資助計劃支援早期和成長階段的社會企業，最高可達30萬新元的資本支出和運營成本，但我們如何支援更多初創企業和商業企業進入這一領域，為護理經濟帶來可持續投資？raiSE SG必須與貿工部和社會及家庭發展部共同審視護理經濟投資生態，打造更可持續的投資和就業生態系統。

護理工作也由非正式護理者承擔，如家庭成員和朋友。這種愛的勞動未反映在GDP資料中，但其重要性通過首個由杜克-新加坡國大聯合進行的研究得以體現，該研究估算非正式老年護理的經濟貢獻每年達12.8億新元。

護理人員的付出往往伴隨著犧牲——犧牲健康、職業和休閒時間來照顧親人。這也是我自2020年以來一直呼籲進行官方定期時間使用研究，以更好地瞭解護理者的需求，衡量護理背後的隱性經濟和個人成本。護理者也需要更好的支援，這也是我們黨宣言中呼籲的內容之一，包括對家庭護理者的補償和擴大臨時照護服務。

新加坡必須彌合將護理視為成本的認知差距。我們必須將護理視為一個增長領域，不僅建設今天的經濟，也塑造明天的社會。

我們明天的社會還必須支援敢於夢想並追求自己熱情的創意者和創業者。我們如何確保本地創業者和夢想家能夠在新加坡實現他們的熱情？

為了創造創業成長的條件，我們首先必須作為一個社會，從小培養自我發現和探索的文化。ESR報告中提到的擴大學校創業相關專案、鼓勵批判性思維和同理心的做法，如果我們的體系不獎勵冒險精神或不允許犯錯和學習的空間，也只能起到有限作用。

我們如何解釋幾十年來努力打造更全面教育體系的努力與現實之間的差距——這些額外層面反而製造了新的教育軍備競賽路徑？我們需要做什麼來緩解家長或準家長對下一代的擔憂，在房屋轉售價格高達百萬新元、車牌競價價格不斷攀升以及永無止境的稀缺感的時代？

雖然這是另一個話題，但與我們未來的經濟政策息息相關。今天，我想重點談談我們的創意者和創業者。

我們的創意者是冒險家和遠見者。他們將創意轉化為商業和文化價值，激發一個繁榮社會所需的驚奇感。然而，在新加坡，藝術職業仍然是一個艱難的選擇。監管障礙迫使藝術家修改或移除公共藝術作品，而受歡迎的藝術空間因成本上漲和重建壓力而關閉。這些都不是小挫折，它們扼殺了我們所說想要培育的活動。

一次性的文化通行證只是第一步。我們的創意者需要持續支援，專門的工作、展示和商業空間來磨練技藝並獲得體面收入，同時配合合理的商業空間管理規定。這些應與初創企業空間並存，就像北京和臺北等城市的創意文化園區，證明文化與商業可以共榮。

接下來，支援大大小小企業的成長抱負。小型家庭企業可以成為有志創始人試水的試驗場。但下一步往往令人生畏，商業開銷迅速變得難以承受。政府能否跨部門提供更多負擔得起的短期攤位和店鋪空間，涵蓋組屋、城市重建局和裕廊集團管理的物業，借鑑現已普及的共享辦公設施，提供更小的模組化單元，降低裝修和押金要求，並允許更短的租期或更寬鬆的合同退出條件？

對於尋求擴張的中小企業，ESR報告承認企業仍難以獲得成長階段資本，淡馬錫已參與中小企業的共同投資。但企業成長需要更大膽、更廣泛的融資渠道，由私營和公共資本共同催化。

通過Startup SG股權計劃與企業發展局共同投資的公司，應成為主機板或催化劑，企業發展局應與新交所合作，制定共同投資公司治理和披露要求，簡化上市路徑。結合股權市場發展計劃，這可以提升本地股市流動性，吸引更多資金流入這些公司。此類公司也應明確跟蹤其除回報外的影響，例如對新加坡經濟活動和就業的貢獻。這與愛爾蘭戰略投資基金的雙重底線使命精神相似。為進一步鼓勵潛在創業者，我們還需要一個有結構性措施保護必要風險承擔的生態系統。

今年五月初我談及支援青年創業，包括呼籲調整現行破產框架時，5月26日《海峽時報》報道，企業失敗是個人破產的主要原因之一。然而，破產程式往往復雜，日常活動受限且無自動解除機制，這可能阻礙有膽識的人大膽嘗試。

支援資料改革被發現與更好的創業和創新成果相關。歐盟2011年專家組報告指出，“允許正式破產的創業者重啟的二次機會政策，可能是公司創立和就業增長中最有前景且未充分利用的政策選項之一。”

歐盟隨後為尋求第二次機會的誠信創業者採納了更平衡的預防性重組方法。因此，我重申呼籲，看看我們是否能改革破產製度，鼓勵更多潛在創業者挺身而出。

最後，繁榮的人類需要一個繁榮的地球。然而，對經濟增長的無休止追求導致了珍貴自然資源的過度開採、生態系統破壞和社群擾動。

ESR的第八重點建議企業為低碳和氣候韌性未來做好準備。顯著的是，報告強調企業應防範氣候變化的有害影響，卻未承認歷史上正是企業和工業發展導致了我們如今的地球困境。我們需要更多關注和細節，說明我們的政策如何使企業和經濟成為氣候變化解決方案的一部分，特別是ESR第二重點涉及使新加坡成為人工智慧全球領導者。

正如我在關於新加坡人工智慧使用的辯論中所說，毫無疑問，人工智慧有潛力為經濟和社會帶來更大福祉。但與此同時，我們也聽聞發展中國家的低薪工人被迫觀看露骨內容以訓練人工智慧，以及對認知發展和批判性思維的負面影響。更明確的是，人工智慧驅動的資料中心消耗大量能源和水資源，增加碳排放，推高公用事業價格，擾亂附近社群生活。

2019年早些時候對新資料中心的暫停以及本地較高的運營成本，促使運營商轉向鄰近的柔佛和巴淡設廠，新加坡公司在這兩個地區擁有最大比例的資料中心容量。這給當地社群帶來了不便，甚至促使柔佛居民抗議附近資料中心的建設。

將資料中心遷得更遠也無法解決問題。今年6月我訪問泰國時注意到，儘管政策制定者對與新加坡等國合作的人工智慧投資和增長機會感到興奮，但也對這些投資的環境和可持續性影響表示擔憂。

雖然計劃恢復新加坡資料中心建設要求使用更綠色的能源，但我們如何平衡對寶貴土地的需求？這是否導致本可保留為自然和綠地的土地最終被夷為工業和住宅用地？

這些綠地對增強我們的抗熱能力至關重要，但正以增長和經濟生存的名義迅速消失。人們對馬朱森林和吉爾曼兵營的森林被砍伐表示擔憂，伍德蘭茲關卡附近的一片森林將被清理以開發新的商業中心，而裕廊創新區下一階段將砍伐超過52公頃的森林用地。

商業和工業活動的加劇最終影響我們的能源消耗。能源市場管理局指出，2024年電力消費同比增長4%，商業和服務相關企業佔當年總電力使用的40.2%。水資源情況更為嚴峻，尤其是資料中心是巨大用水戶。非住宅用水已佔總用水量的55%，公共事業局估計到2065年將增至60%。我們在做什麼來減輕這種影響？

在制定應對氣候影響的政策之前，我們必須先衡量環境影響。正如我在2022年預算演講中首次提及，關鍵第一步是通過環境儀表盤跟蹤和監測我們的政策和環境結果。這可以藉助最近引入的新加坡環境分類系統實現，該系統用於分類與環境活動和產品相關的資料。

我們應牢記，地球母親不是人類的私人自動取款機。我們必須確保經濟政策不會導致對地球的進一步破壞，透明的環境結果核算將是幫助我們保持警覺的有力工具。

副議長先生，邁向明天的進步不意味著我們為了GDP增長而犧牲集體福祉。進步意味著我們作為社會支援平衡且全面的生活方式，為人民提供強有力的安全網，認可所有有意義貢獻者，給予每個人追夢的機會，並承擔起作為地球守護者的責任。新加坡建設的明天社會必須是一個讓我們所有人共同繁榮、共享成果的社會，我相信我們能夠實現這一目標，併為我們和後代創造更多可能。

副議長先生：鄭德源先生。

下午4時52分

鄭德源（先鋒選區）：副議長先生，閣下，我今天發言支援本院面前的動議，並支援謝秉輝議員提出的修正案。

本動議表達的支援本地企業、幫助工人成功、拓展新加坡海外足跡和確保共享繁榮的願望，是我們所有議員都能支援的。事實上，這些目標多年來一直是全國職工總會和勞工運動、我們的工會及三方夥伴的核心工作，也與ESR的精神和方向一致。

對於許多新加坡工人和企業主來說，未來經濟已經以非常現實的方式顯現出來，表現為需求不確定、成本上升、競爭加劇、新技術和產業變化速度前所未有。

我在全國職工總會工作已逾25年，目前擔任電子電器業聯合工會執行秘書。在這二十多年裡，我陪伴工人經歷了多次風暴，從非典、全球金融危機到新冠疫情，每次危機都不同。

每次轉型都各有痛苦，但教訓相同：工人絕不能成為經濟變革的犧牲品。在新加坡發展的每個階段，我們都需要明確的國家方向，更重要的是，確保那些努力工作、適應並貢獻的人不會被拋下。

ESR是我們最新的國家路線圖，旨在創造更多優質工作崗位、更強大的企業和讓新加坡人公平切實受益的增長。

今天，我想聚焦三個優先事項，我稱之為“3S”，它們對建設一個為所有人服務的經濟至關重要。

第一“S”，保障規則；第二，共享成果；第三，加強新加坡核心。

首先，保障規則。動議的第一部分提到一個“工人興旺”的經濟。但工人不能僅靠願望興旺。他們需要公平的規則、公平的機會和公平的保護。當經濟變化速度超過工人適應能力時，許多人感到形勢對他們不利。我們的責任是為他們創造公平競爭的環境。

人工智慧將以前所未有的速度和規模擾亂就業。它可以提高生產力，創造新可能。但如果管理不善，也會加劇不安全感，壓縮職業路徑，給工人帶來過大風險。工人不應獨自承擔這一轉型的重擔。

這方面有兩個話題，首先是裁員福利和失業支援。關於強制裁員福利，全國職工總會和勞工運動，包括我本人，一直與三方夥伴合作，確保沒有工人被遺忘。全國職工總會和勞工運動，包括許多工會領導和工會，一直在談判集體協議，推動企業工會化，確保在裁員時能支付裁員福利。

事實上，我們已有強有力的現有機制，如調解、勞工部，甚至工業仲裁庭——一個非常獨特的法定機構——我多次出庭支援併為工人（包括專業管理人員）爭取裁員福利支付。事實上，我本人過去十年，包括今年早些時候，一直在本院遊說進一步加強新加坡的裁員保護機制。

我相信本院所有議員的共同意願是確保受影響的工人得到照顧，因為每一位工人都很重要。

事實上，作為三方夥伴，我參與了《僱傭法》以及所有相關法定條文和諮詢的談判，我們仍然保持開放態度，正在進行協商和討論，無論是《僱傭法》的審查，還是將三方諮詢加強為三方指導方針，我之前在本院已提出過，甚至對那些未能遵守諮詢意見而失敗的公司採取更嚴厲的措施。

這些都是我們一直在提出的事項，我相信這是一個旅程，一個需要我們所有三方夥伴緊密合作的旅程，以實現我們一直所說的三贏結果。這始終符合全國職工總會和勞工運動的利益，即關心工人及其家庭，尤其是當他們受到裁員影響時。

有大量的措施和支援方案幫助他們找到下一份工作，支援他們在公司內的工作，以及在許多場合下，我實際上在過去幾年以就業與就業能力研究所（UWEEI）執行秘書的身份，深度參與了製造業中發生的許多裁員事件。

關鍵是，我們將繼續為工人進行遊說和倡導。但更重要的是，與我們的三方夥伴密切合作，確保我們擁有相應的制度和機制。我們也觀察到三方夥伴非常開放，願意探索新的方法和機制來克服這些問題，確保在裁員或裁減人員時沒有工人被遺忘。

關於失業保險支援的話題，這是我十多年前就曾談論過的，為新加坡工人爭取某種形式的失業支援。我非常高興去年4月26日——我記得這個重要的日期——推出了SkillsFuture求職者支援計劃。

該計劃的獨特之處在於，與失業保險不同，失業保險需要僱主和僱員雙方繳納保費，而該計劃由政府承擔費用，通過積極的勞動力市場政策提供所需支援。這減輕了工人必須支付保費的負擔。

同時，我也在本院呼籲進一步擴大和重建這一領域，尤其是在過去24個月中，越來越多的專業、管理及執行人員（PME）受到裁員影響。因此，我們可以審視是否應提高SkillsFuture求職者支援計劃的收入門檻——目前為5,000新元——是否可以提高到PME的中位數薪資，這是一個值得探索的方向。或者甚至設立新的計劃來支援PME，因為我們知道他們和基層工人一樣脆弱。

我必須說，本地PME是我在本院持續為之發聲的明確群體。他們構成了我們勞動力的廣泛中堅力量。他們也是最容易受到技術或應稱為技術性顛覆影響的群體，但可能並不總是享有足夠的代表權和保護。

多年來，全國職工總會與我們的三方夥伴密切合作，建立了更強的制度保障，例如針對就業準證的互補性評估框架（COMPASS），以及新頒佈的《職場公平法》。

因此，我很欣慰《就業形勢報告》（ESR）認可PME作為一個值得加強支援的群體，並優先投資於增強而非取代工人的人工智慧技術。我認為這是正確的方向。

今年早些時候，人力部、全國職工總會和新加坡全國僱主聯合會宣佈成立三方就業理事會。該理事會由全國職工總會發起，匯聚工會、僱主和政府，作為協調現有和新專案的核心節點，幫助工人重新技能培訓，並幫助企業負責任地重新設計工作，使人工智慧成為提升工具，而非取代工具。

我認為找到新工作難並非新發現——我多次提出這一點——我們必須特別關注剛進入職場的年輕PME。如果人工智慧壓縮了入門級崗位，可能會在他們職業生涯的起點形成某種“斷層”。我們一致認為，如果年輕畢業生無法獲得第一份有意義的立足點，他們的長期發展可能會受影響。我們不能允許職業生涯的第一步成為勞動力市場的薄弱環節。

這就是為什麼我也在本院呼籲加強輔導、指導，並擴大SkillsFuture學分在輔導和指導領域的使用，這已獲得支援，真正建立更強機制，幫助從學校到工作的過渡更加有效、高效和無縫。

通過GRIT計劃，全國職工總會與政府及金融服務、資訊通訊技術、製造業等行業的僱主攜手合作，為年輕畢業生提供結構化、行業相關的經驗。

在實習期結束後，全國職工總會和勞動力發展局通過就業與就業能力研究所（e2i）和職業連線，幫助這些年輕工人轉入全職崗位，並建立使用人工智慧工具的信心，使他們不僅為今天的工作做好準備，也為未來的職業生涯做好準備。

我曾建議進一步擴大該計劃，涵蓋更多領域和行業，並審視是否應將其設為永久性計劃，以真正幫助新入職者應對仍然存在的問題和挑戰。

第二個“S”是分享收益。第(b)部分正確強調了健康的內需的重要性。但對於像新加坡這樣的小型開放經濟體，外需同樣關鍵。根據新加坡工商聯合會（SBF）的資料，海外收入佔我們一半企業總收入的40%以上。

我很高興《就業形勢報告》將打造新加坡企業全球成功的動態企業生態系統作為重點。內需和外需不是競爭關係，我們需要兩者共同驅動。

外需幫助新加坡擴大蛋糕。但僅有增長還不夠，真正的考驗是增長是否轉化為更好的工作、更高的工資、更強的技能和更多的機會，惠及新加坡工人和本地企業。

全球企業選擇在新加坡設立，不僅是為了我們的國內市場，更是為了開拓亞洲及更遠地區的增長機會。但如果新加坡要保持作為可信賴的全球節點，我們的工人也必須提升價值鏈。這正是全國職工總會公司培訓委員會（CTC）發揮關鍵作用的地方。

自2019年以來，我們的CTC將公司管理層、工人和工會領導聚集在一起，推動業務和勞動力轉型。2022年，政府向全國職工總會提供了1億新元資金以擴大該計劃，隨後又追加了2億新元，因為該計劃在為工人創造實際共享收益方面取得了成效。

當公司現代化或採用新技術時，我們的工會與管理層坐下來，確保工人接受培訓，勝任更高價值的崗位，且生產力提升不僅反映在公司業績上，也體現在工人工資和職業發展上。

讓我舉一個來自全國職工總會電子、海事及工程叢集的實際例子。通過CTC資助專案，一家公司引入自動化生產流程，以接更多訂單。但自動化並不意味著裁員。工會和管理層共同制定了結構化培訓路線圖——24名工人完成了再培訓，生產能力提升了12%，更重要的是，這些工人的工資在年度調薪基礎上額外增加了5%，並獲得了職業發展支援。

迄今為止，已有超過15,000名工人受益於全國職工總會的CTC資助專案，這些專案中的工人平均工資比調薪高出5%。

工資增長與生產力提升同步。這才是真正的收益共享。不是理論上的再分配，而是通過協商達成的可持續成果，生產力提升帶來更高薪酬。這與國家工資理事會協同工作，後者是一個三方機構，針對不同部門和公司不均衡且有時不可預測的前景做出回應。

最後一個“S”是加強我們的新加坡核心。隨著經濟全球化，我們必須確保新加坡人不是自己成功的旁觀者。我們需要在這裡擁有實質運營的全球企業，也需要有志於走向海外的本地企業。但無論新加坡資本流向何處，新加坡人才也必須隨之流動——不僅是支援，更要領導。新加坡人必須有公平的機會擔任領導職務，獲得區域曝光和全球職業發展。

本地中小企業僅靠國內市場無法良好且快速成長。在高科技製造和商業服務領域，許多本地企業通過首先成為新加坡全球跨國公司的可信合作伙伴，然後利用這一信譽進軍海外市場，包括東南亞、中國和印度的高科技及工業園區，建立了國內的運營實力，從而抓住海外機會。

政府計劃是重要的推動力。市場準備援助金幫助中小企業共同承擔最多50%的合資格海外市場進入成本，每個新市場上限為10萬新元。企業發展資助支援中小企業建立核心能力以參與國際競爭。這些計劃幫助本地企業更有信心邁出第一步。

但隨著新加坡資本走向海外，我們必須有意識地培養新加坡企業領導者。我們的工人和PME不僅要在後臺支援區域化，還必須有機會領導、管理、建立網路，並自信地代表新加坡進入海外市場。

我很高興《就業形勢報告》建議擴大海外市場沉浸計劃，為年輕專業人士提供海外和領導力曝光，並支援他們晉升國際崗位。我鼓勵政府監測並加強新加坡人在管理職位中的比例，以確保本地PME與外籍同行享有公平機會。

議長先生，建設一個為所有人服務的未來經濟不僅僅是口號。這是艱難、持續、集體的工作。全國職工總會和我們的工會幾十年來一直在做這項工作，有時顯而易見，有時默默無聞，但始終只有一個目的——保障工人的權利、工資、福利和工作前景。

事實上，我想借此機會感謝我的工會領導同仁們，他們排成一線，伸出援手，守望相助，有時在經濟起伏時給予肩膀依靠。

但不要誤會——三方合作並不容易。平衡工人、企業和國家的需求並不簡單。但正因為困難，它迫使我們尋找切實可行且持久的解決方案。

《就業形勢報告》為新加坡提供了保持全球競爭力的全面路線圖。我們的任務是確保這條路線圖也以工人為中心，包容且公平。

因此，讓我們繼續加強這一務實的三方夥伴關係。讓我們保障規則，分享收益，加強我們的新加坡核心，以堅固持久的三方關係為支撐。我支援議員謝秉輝對動議的修正案。[掌聲]

副議長：蔣佩姍女士。

下午5時09分

蔣佩姍（非選區議員）：謝謝您，副議長。去年7月，李總理指出，東南亞國家聯盟（ASEAN）的人均GDP目前約為6,000美元。他說，如果達到10,000美元或以上，將是一個徹底的遊戲規則改變者。一個年輕的地區，一個崛起的中產階級就在我們門口。

他的觀察並不新鮮。最新的《就業形勢報告》將東南亞視為增長引擎。2021年“更強大任務組”在“攜手共進”支柱下呼籲深化夥伴關係，尤其是與東南亞的夥伴關係。2017年“未來經濟委員會”在七大戰略中的第一項也提出了這一點。

過去十年的每一個主要經濟藍圖都將該地區視為新加坡未來的關鍵。因此，問題不是東南亞是否重要。我們已經達成共識，但我們實際上做了什麼？

本動議認為，一個為所有人服務的未來經濟包括由新加坡人和新加坡資本驅動的經濟引擎走向海外。《就業形勢報告》明確指出後者，許多議員也呼應了這一點。報告要求更多本地公司開始、擴大並在全球取得成功。它尋求加深區域內的貿易和供應鏈聯絡，設想一個資本在區域和全球範圍內籌集、結構化、部署和迴圈的的新加坡。圍繞這一切的是熟悉的支援架構、補助和市場進入支援，我們的公共機構共同投資、分擔風險併為其擴張融資，吸引私人新加坡資本隨之而來。

工人黨支援所有這些，但資本不會自己管理一個它不熟悉的市場。必須有人在那裡將已部署的資本轉化為生產性資本。我們越成功地將資本和公司送入該地區，ESR未回答的一個更緊迫的問題就越突出：我們派誰去？

兩個週末前，政府公佈了新的新加坡青年計劃。這是繼《就業形勢報告》一個月後出臺的針對新加坡青年的獨立藍圖，基於同樣的信念：我們的未來在於該地區。它回應了ESR留下的懸而未決的威脅，將年輕新加坡人和區域曝光置於核心，並附帶一些數字。它承諾到2030年每年提供17,000個短期區域曝光名額，高於目前的9,000個；在東盟、中國和印度提供3,000個海外實習崗位，是當前1,500個的兩倍。它擴充套件了年輕新加坡人所說的需求。63%的人同意區域工作經驗有助於加速發展，半數願意在東南亞其他地方實習或工作。

副議長先生，這是令人鼓舞的。需求存在。如果一半的人已經願意去，那麼我們應該關注的是國家是否投資建設值得去和值得回來的地方。在此，我想強調三個差距。

第一個是吸納。新加坡青年計劃制定了以供給為中心的行動方案。更多的旅行、更多的實習、更早的接觸。它的每一項區域承諾都是派遣年輕新加坡人出國。但當我們回國時，情況最為關鍵，因為如果我們回到的就業市場和晉升委員會將六個月的雅加達經歷視為繞道而非資產，那麼唯一明顯的結論就是——這種經歷是懲罰而非加分。

新加坡有足夠多的僱主重視和獎勵區域經驗嗎？雖然我不能代表所有僱主發言，但我想分享我們最大僱主——政府的觀點。

今年4月，我提交了國會質詢，詢問過去十年政府獎學金獲得者的留學地點。答覆是：“考慮到所有政府獎學金，包括公共服務委員會獎學金，在2023年至2025年三年期間，平均每年49%的獲獎者在本地自治大學學習；30%在英國；15%在美國；6%在其他國家。”

整個世界其他地區（包括整個東盟）僅佔6%。我還問是否有最低目標要求學者在非英語國家或地區學習。答覆是否定的。

我並不懷疑牛津、劍橋或常春藤盟校的教育質量，但這些數字意味著，當我們選拔並投資將來會回國服務公共部門的年輕新加坡人時，其中一小部分未來可能擔任公職，20人中有10人在本地學習，另外9人去西方。如果政府不優先考慮並鼓勵公共部門的區域準備，我們又如何讓年輕新加坡人相信市場對這方面有需求？

第二個差距是深度。曝光不等於流利或能力——17,000名年輕新加坡人在該地區短暫逗留，並不等於17,000名具備區域準備的年輕新加坡人。新加坡青年計劃講述了一名理工學院學生被派往河內後回國的故事。她變得更自信，更渴望探索海外機會。但靈感只是開始，不是結果。

真正的區域準備是多年積累的結果，而非幾周。所學語言、對市場內部運作的理解、能夠回應你召喚的網路。我們是否在深化這些結構上投入足夠？

我們為學生開設的主要第三語言仍是法語、德語、日語和西班牙語——而一份又一份藍圖強調我們的未來在於我們不教授其語言的鄰國。如果我們是認真的，難道不是該問泰語和越南語是否也應列入該名單？短途旅行留下記憶，而語言和文化理解往往是訪客與合作伙伴的區別。

第三個，也是或許最重要的差距，是這些目標是否以及如何被衡量。因為我們以前聽過這樣的願景，尤其是在2018年我們擔任東盟主席期間。那一年，關於該地區是我們的未來以及政府將如何幫助新加坡人抓住機遇的演講層出不窮，恰如其分。

2018年9月，時任貿易與工業部長陳振聲先生在書面答覆關於我們區域發展進展的問題時，闡述了我們為人才所做的工作。我們有青年人才計劃，目標是每年派遣1000名學生到海外市場工作。我們有面向東南亞準備人才的專業轉換計劃，旨在為專業人士重新培訓以適應該地區的崗位。我們還有東盟領導力計劃，幫助高階商業領袖瞭解並進入東南亞市場。

這些計劃後來怎麼樣了？看來前兩個計劃以某種形式仍在進行。青年人才計劃被納入全球準備人才計劃，據悉該計劃在2020年至2024年間支援了29,470名學生。專業轉換計劃更名為國際化專業人士職業轉換計劃，至今仍在執行。

但八年過去了，它們取得了什麼成果卻不太清楚。

全球準備人才計劃的29,470人次包括國內和海外崗位。直到今年4月，本地實習支援才停止。那麼，究竟有多少人真正出國？他們去了哪裡？其中有多少人繼續在該地區或面向該地區的崗位工作？

職業轉換計劃方面，有多少專業人士成功轉換？他們來自哪些行業，轉入了哪些崗位？這對他們的職業發展有幫助嗎？

東盟領導力計劃呢？有多少領導者參與？他們所在公司的區域野心如何？

副議長先生，我查閱了公開記錄，努力尋找上述問題的答案。我們慷慨宣佈了培養區域準備型新加坡人的計劃，但似乎不太願意衡量這些計劃是否奏效。如果奏效，哪些方面表現良好？如果沒有達到預期，哪裡存在不足？

我掌握的一些資料來自《經濟與社會復原力報告》（ESR）。雖然50%的新加坡人表示有興趣在海外工作，但實際上只有3%的人曾有過六個月或更長時間的海外工作經歷。因此，隨著新的新加坡青年計劃設定了為年輕新加坡人提供17,000個區域沉浸機會的目標，我想問這次有什麼變化，以便到2030年我們能說出計劃是否奏效。政府將如何追蹤不僅是崗位填補數量，還包括有多少年輕人最終在面向區域的崗位工作或在該地區建立職業？否則，我們只是宣佈了一個更大的數字，卻沒有衡量效果。

當我們在2027年再次擔任東盟主席時，我希望我們不僅會闡述融入該地區的雄心，還會積極追蹤並報告我們在資源投入上的成果。

副議長先生，我現在想強調一個計劃——海外市場沉浸計劃（OMIP），它最能體現我們的雄心與策略的差異。OMIP旨在讓年輕新加坡人獲得真正的區域工作經驗，而不僅僅是嘗試。它通過幫助僱主派遣年輕新加坡人到海外進行結構化工作安排來實現。該計劃於2024年啟動，目標是在兩年內提供250個名額，遠低於2018年每年1000個的目標。截至目前，已支援超過180名專業人士。

新加坡青年計劃將擴大OMIP，不是通過增加名額，而是通過放寬資格限制，取消兩年工作經驗要求，使更多年輕專業人士有資格參與。這意味著更多人有資格，但並不意味著會派遣更多人。

擴大門檻不等於增加通過人數。資格有了但沒有容量，就像邀請了人卻沒有座位。

我代表年輕新加坡人提出兩個請求：一是配合資格放寬，增加可用名額；二是將計劃脫離僱主主導。僱主主導的計劃意味著年輕新加坡人只有在公司願意派遣的情況下才能出國，這取決於公司是否有能力管理海外派遣。與其通過公司執行人才計劃，不如直接面向人才。以固定期限、合理薪酬直接資助OMIP，向所有高等院校畢業生開放。我們應根據畢業生的動力、好奇心和認真態度選拔，而非公司承擔海外派遣行政負擔的能力。

我們並非首創此舉。法國的國際企業志願者計劃（Volontariat International en Entreprise，VIE）證明了可以做得更多，甚至為我們指明瞭方向。VIE每年派遣超過11,500名年輕人到海外。他們可以直接在VIE平臺搜尋並申請6至24個月的開放職位。被選中後，這些年輕人與法國商務署（Business France）簽訂合同，而非東道公司。法國商務署負責薪資、醫療保障和社會保護。東道公司負責選拔候選人、監督工作並向法國商務署支付津貼。國家居中協調，承擔個人或小公司無法獨自承擔的摩擦。

這套機制行之有效。法國政府有資料證明：90%的VIE派遣年輕人在完成任務後六個月內找到工作；超過70%的人回國時已流利掌握派遣地語言。該計劃不僅激發靈感，更啟動職業生涯並提升能力。值得注意的是，新加坡是其十大目的地之一。我們正處於他國人才輸送的接收端，卻難以建立自己的輸送管道。

我並非建議我們完全複製法國VIE計劃，但應從其設計中汲取靈感——探索國家如何支援個人和小公司無法獨立完成的工作。我們也應像法國那樣衡量計劃成果——不僅公佈崗位填補數，還應公佈完成OMIP後兩年和五年內，有多少人擔任明確面向區域的崗位或產生區域影響。

讓我們資助年輕新加坡人的熱情，衡量成果而非產出。

最後，我們應超越計劃本身，考慮如何拆除年輕新加坡人面臨的障礙。新加坡青年計劃將推出名為“成人101”的新專案，教授公積金、公共住房政策、婚姻和育兒知識。該專案正確識別了影響年輕人是否接受海外工作機會的關鍵因素。但這些不僅是需要解釋的事實，更是需要改變的結構，以支援有志於區域流動的年輕人。

一個年輕新加坡人在權衡去曼谷或胡志明市三年，不僅是在比較薪水。她還在權衡排隊買組屋的機會，這獎勵留在本地的人；權衡區域僱主不會繳納的公積金；權衡回國後面臨的住房和醫療體系挑戰。我們建立了一個高度適合留在本地的體系，離開往往意味著接受懲罰。

去年，葉國輝先生在政策研究所的講座中坦率承認了這道牆。他回顧經濟發展局的歲月時直言不諱——年輕且未婚時派遣官員出國，因為到了三十多歲，有了孩子和房貸後，出國就太難了。

因此，培養區域準備型新加坡人，也意味著我們應考慮如何更好地支援選擇出國的人。探索如何確保區域派遣不會影響組屋機會和義務；確保隨父母出國的孩子能順利重新入學。這些措施成本僅為潛在收益的一小部分，卻能極大緩解家庭的顧慮。

讓我總結一下。

《經濟與社會復原力報告》談到創造優質就業，新加坡青年計劃也通過幫助年輕人獲得這些工作呼應了這一點。但長期以來，我們將優質工作想象為跨國公司在新加坡設立總部的高價值崗位。這種優質工作依賴於他人決定來新加坡。

還有另一種優質工作，是我們主動抓住的，因為某個領域正在我們周圍形成，而新加坡有條件引領它——東南亞日益增長的社會影響領域。在此，我宣告本人是社會影響領域的專業人士。

隨著該地區公共和私營部門轉向社會影響，解決健康、教育、金融包容和氣候韌性等問題，必須有人協調參與者、制定基準並創新解決方案。這些是新加坡這樣的小國能夠發揮超出體量影響力的新優質就業基礎。

但如果我們不建立人才輸送管道，這種雄心將無法實現。多年來，我們應對區域人才缺口的策略是吸引該地區最優秀的人才，培養他們並希望他們留下。當我們是顯而易見的最佳選擇時，這策略奏效。但隨著鄰國趕超，這一優勢逐年縮小。

正如同僚謝秉輝先生早前所言，我們必須吸引全球最優秀人才，同時培養新加坡本地最優秀人才。我們引進的人才會暫時增值，然後回國；而我們培養的能在區域工作的本地人才則終身增值。區域準備型新加坡人擁有屬於自己的能力——可攜帶的，而非依賴公司決定是否在新加坡設立基地。我們在搭建通往外部的橋樑方面行動遲緩，卻更快築起了將人留在本地的牆。

因此，明年當我們再次擔任東盟主席時，這將再次成為一個關於該地區是我們未來以及政府將如何幫助新加坡人抓住機遇的演講之年。我希望這次我們不僅會像2018年那樣指出該地區的潛力，還能幫助更多新加坡人抓住它。

我支援我的同事張文傑先生和林志蔚副教授提出的原始動議。

副議長先生：文禮佳博士。

下午5時26分

文禮佳博士（惹蘭勿剎選區）：副議長先生，我們面前的問題不是我們的經濟戰略方向是否正確，而是它是否惠及需要幫助的工人。這是全國職工總會（NTUC）及其就業與就業促進機構（e2i）的工作：連線工人與工作，包括剛踏出第一步的青年、低薪工人、成熟的專業人士及管理人員（PME），以及那些起點較低的人。

每一位工人都重要。這是我自首次進入議會以來的信念。《經濟與社會復原力報告》為我們指明瞭方向，我們的任務是將方向轉化為工人切實感受到的成果。我與同僚安迪共同擔任馬來/穆斯林社群經濟復原力委員會（Jawatankuasa Daya Ekonomi）聯合主席。我們的工作是動員社群，使這些戰略成為青年人的機會，幫助企業更好發展，提高工人工資。

我們應坦誠面對自身規模。國內市場有限，我們必須開拓區域及更廣泛的需求。駐新加坡的全球企業支援大量本地工人，推動創新、管理實踐和技術，助力本地企業成長，也促進初創企業和新本地企業的發展。

我對全球企業和本地企業的期望一致——支援我們的工人；幫助被裁員者有尊嚴地重新就業；幫助其他人提前做好人工智慧時代的準備，而非事後應對。

今天，我將談三點：第一，支援低薪和成熟工人；第二，人工智慧變革工作場所時，建立職業清晰度和保障心理健康；第三，加強對弱勢群體和青年人的支援路徑。

首先，支援低薪和成熟工人。談及提升底層收入，討論通常聚焦於最低工資應設在哪。這個問題合理，我理解為何被提及。但僅有底線只能告訴工人第一階梯的工資，卻無法告訴他是否有第二階梯，或誰會幫助他攀升。

這正是漸進工資模式的理念。它設定工資底線，並附帶階梯，每一步都有培訓和更高工資，按行業區分。清潔、安全、園林、零售、餐飲、廢物管理、電梯和自動扶梯等行業。每個行業的談判耗時多年，因為工資底線不會自動上升。

這項工作仍在進行。就在上個月，作為三方叢集主席，我參與宣佈將漸進工資模式擴充套件至害蟲管理工人。同時，我們有本地合格薪金標準，為僱傭外籍工人的企業中的本地工人設定底線，工作補貼（Workfare）則補充低薪新加坡人的收入和公積金。

那麼，效果如何？過去十年，20百分位收入年均增長2.9%，高於中位數的2.1%。20百分位工人與中位數工人收入比率升至0.55，2020年這一差距較2015年縮小。

坦率說，過去十年，底層工人收入增長速度快於中層工人。但我不會假裝工作已完成。這是漸進式、逐行業推進的。部分低薪工人仍處於這些層級之外，許多從事平臺和自由職業。我們在這方面取得了實質進展。《平臺工人法》現為送餐員和私家車司機提供公積金繳納、工傷賠償和正式代表權。但隨著該群體增長，我建議政府研究如何讓工資和保護底線跟隨工人，而非職位名稱。

先生，每一個裁員資料背後都是一個人，往往是為企業忠誠服務數十年、如今不確定自己是否仍有立足之地的人。這就是全國職工總會於2020年2月成立就業保障委員會的原因。該委員會由e2i管理，2020年至2024年間支援了超過11萬名工人進行崗位匹配。

我要明確委員會的作用。今年第一季度裁員有所上升，但仍處於非衰退正常範圍。經濟持續重組，人員流動不可避免，我們應坦誠面對。但大多數裁員來自企業重組。企業在調整自身，且將持續如此。

因此，考驗不是裁員是否發生，而是裁員後工人的去向。對此，失業率保持穩定，裁員居民六個月內再就業比例連續第二季度提升，第一季度達60.7%，這不是偶然。

我們也密切關注援助是否有效。負責任裁員與就業促進工作組匯聚人力部、全國職工總會、e2i、企業發展局和社會福利發展局，認真跟蹤成果。2022至2024年間，約七成接受職業輔導的裁員工人在六個月內找到工作，中位再就業時間約三個月。

近半數再就業者工資與之前持平或更高。最近，接受工作組援助且在離職前申請幫助的工人中，約三分之二六個月內再就業，優於裁員居民中位數。這說明提前介入的重要性。資料很關鍵。

讓我講一個例子。Mary Ho是滿地雨林度假村的資深員工。通過度假村、e2i和食品飲料及相關工會的協議，她獲得了一個重新設計、適合她需求的崗位。Mary自己說，她感動於我們在每一步都參與，確保她找到合適崗位。

這就是個性化支援的樣子——有人陪伴工人直到找到工作。

為了覆蓋更多工人，e2i自2024年起在新加坡設立了27個國家職業中心，將職業、培訓和就業支援帶到工人生活和工作的地方。

先生，第二點，人工智慧時代的職業清晰度和心理健康保障。今年預算演講中，我分享了一位中年工人的故事。她三年內完成了多門課程，驕傲地向我展示證書。然後她問了我一個簡單問題：她的提升方向是否正確？我無法給她答案。

沒有方向的努力只會帶來挫敗感。有方向的努力則能建立信心，顯然，也帶來了很多清晰度。這就是為什麼我歡迎三方就業理事會的成立。它將我們的合作伙伴聚集在一起，幫助工人重新技能培訓，並幫助企業在人工智慧重塑我們的工作場所時負責任地重新設計工作崗位。

為了讓該理事會取得成功，其工作必須觸及工人所在之處。這意味著我之前提到的可信賴接觸點——在基層，正是工人們像Mary那樣可以求助的職業中心和職業教練。

勞工運動不會等待。通過AI-Ready SG，我們已經在幫助工人，特別是我們的專業人士、中層管理人員（PMEs）和青年，獲得對人工智慧的實際信心，同時支援企業負責任地重新設計工作崗位。

我們的社群培訓中心（CTCs）是真正工作的地方。已經成立了超過3,800個CTCs，惠及超過30萬名工人。人工智慧現在成為重心。今年支援的CTC資助專案中約31%與人工智慧相關，而去年全年約為17%。

這就是將技術轉化為實際幫助的樣子。培訓讓工人們能夠在同一個星期一早上就使用。因為焦慮是真實存在的。被替代的恐懼，落後的恐懼令人害怕。害怕年紀太大而無法重新開始導致困惑。

這種焦慮不會停留在工作場所。它會跟隨一個人回家，影響他們的健康。我長期以來在本院倡導全社會關注心理健康，包括我與其他議員共同提交的關於這一主題的動議。在最近與企業和青年舉行的經濟韌性對話中，許多人提出心理健康在這樣的階段有多麼重要。他們獲得支援的能力對他們來說意義重大。這就是為什麼經濟韌性委員會將與社群領袖和企業密切合作，確保我們為社群提供支援。

當我們為工人裝備人工智慧驅動的經濟時，我們的支援不僅要關注他們的技能，還要關注他們的內心平靜。只有這樣，他們才能以信心和清晰度面對未來。

先生，我的第三點是加強為弱勢群體和青年開闢路徑。經濟戰略審查（ESR）重點加強終身學習，並更緊密地將培訓與就業結果聯絡起來。我歡迎這一點。但我想補充一點。有些工人起點比其他人更低，無論是因為年齡、背景，還是僅僅因為缺乏開啟大門的人脈。

我在e2i的部分職責是更加聚焦於觸及這些群體，即我們的低薪和成熟工人。目標是讓我們的職業服務和專案圍繞他們的需求設計，就像我們為Mary所做的，而不是圍繞便利性設計。

對於我們的年輕人，清晰度必須在他們畢業之前開始，我們將比以往更早地接觸他們，確保他們擁有正確的清晰度和通往ESR指定領域和行業的路徑。

一個曾經站在真實工作場所並擁有可以聯絡的導師的學生，與一個靠猜測做決定的學生，在做出第一份職業選擇時會截然不同。這就是為什麼早期職業接觸、結構化的導師指導和實習如此重要，我們將有許多這樣的計劃在籌備中。先生，請允許我用馬來語繼續。

（馬來語）：[請參閱方言發言。] 先生，經濟戰略審查報告內容全面，為未來經濟指明瞭清晰方向。對於我們的年輕人來說，他們首次進入職場往往是最令人生畏的。通過全國職工總會青年部（NTUC Youth），我們的年輕會員獲得職業指導和行業接觸。還有一個結構化的職業導師計劃，擁有來自20多個行業的400多名志願導師，為我們的會員提供為期四個月的導師指導。

我們的目標很簡單。

讓年輕人不必獨自摸索第一步。這補充了我之前提到的三方就業理事會的工作，以及畢業生行業實習計劃，確保我們的年輕人在首次過渡期間得到支援。這也是全國職工總會今年與MENDAKI基金會簽署諒解備忘錄的原因。該備忘錄旨在加強馬來/穆斯林工人的技能，並幫助更多人獲得增長行業的就業機會。

在M 3+重點領域內，全國職工總會、e2i、全國職工總會學習中心（NTUC LearningHub）、勞動力發展局（SWDA）和終身學習學院與MENDAKI合作。我們共同通過職業博覽會和技能嘉年華支援了超過6,000名馬來/穆斯林工人。其中近20%的人接受了更深入的導師指導。

現在，隨著人工智慧開始改變我們的工作方式，同樣的擔憂也在我們的家庭中出現。因此，請允許我提供這一保證。

全國職工總會和e2i準備與我們的馬來/穆斯林工人，特別是年輕人一起前進。我們將幫助他們提升技能、適應變化，並獲得有意義的就業機會，無論是在全球公司還是本地企業，我們都希望他們能進一步發展。

（英語）：議長先生，在進入本院之前，我從事教育工作近25年。我學到，不應因為某個標籤而放棄任何人，無論是學校裡給他們貼的學術類別，還是他們所從事的行業。

這種信念至今仍指導著我的工作。未來的經濟意味著每個工人都有同行者，給他們一條清晰的前進道路。無論年齡、背景或起點如何。這意味著我們關於人工智慧、技能和企業增長的國家戰略，其成效取決於它們能多好地觸及真正需要幫助的工人。它們將在職業中心、工會辦公室和社群合作伙伴關係中接受檢驗，那些地方是真正提供支援的地方。

讓我們確保沒有任何人，沒有任何新加坡人在這條最需要清晰度的人工智慧旅程中孤軍奮戰。因為每個工人都很重要。副議長先生，我支援由謝秉輝先生修訂的這項動議。[掌聲]

副議長先生：文化、社群與青年部及人力部國務部長迪內希。

下午5時43分

文化、社群與青年部及人力部國務部長迪內希：副議長先生，感謝議員們提出這項動議，並支援謝秉輝先生提出的修訂。

這項動議的核心是一項重要願望：新加坡繼續成為一個經濟體，讓我們的人民有機會成功，工人能夠自信地展望未來。

我相信本院每位議員都認同這一願望。政府當然如此。這一直是我們經濟戰略的核心。我們的目標不僅僅是經濟增長，而是改善所有新加坡人的生活。我們通過創造更好的機會、更好的工作和提高收入，確保增長的利益得到廣泛分享。

讓我講三點：第一，新加坡人一直且將永遠是我們人力政策的中心；第二，我們必須共同轉型企業並提升更廣泛的工作崗位；第三，我們的三方模式是根本力量，將本院表達的願望轉化為實際成果。

我們的做法為新加坡各階層工人帶來了良好成果。2026年3月，本地居民失業率保持在2.9%的低位。實際收入普遍增長。從2021年到2025年，中位數實際收入累計增長7.4%。低收入工人的收入增長快於中位數工人。同一時期，第20百分位的實際收入增長了10.1%。收入不平等也有所下降。

很少有發達經濟體能同時實現所有這些成果。一些議員將新加坡與其他工業化經濟體對比，認為它們更依賴本地龍頭企業，產生了更好的生產力模式和更好的工人結果。但在可比指標上，新加坡的工資水平高於這些經濟體，不僅是中位數，也包括較低收入層。

近年來，實際工資增長也跟上並超過了生產力增長。從2021年到2025年，每名工人的實際增加值年均增長約0.7%。同期，全職居民的實際中位數收入年均增長約1.8%，第20百分位的實際收入增長更快。

這不是偶然發生的，而是通過穩健的增長政策、戰略和三方努力實現的，如漸進工資模式、工作補貼和本地合格薪金，這些都提升了工資水平。

最近，儘管外部環境充滿挑戰，新加坡勞動力市場依然保持韌性。雖然部分公司裁員成為頭條新聞，但2026年第一季度就業連續第19個季度增長。本地居民就業持續增長，失業率保持低位，企業繼續招聘。

這些成果是有意政策選擇的結果。我們保持經濟競爭力，同時確保新加坡人有機會獲得更好工作和明確晉升路徑。這隻有在政府、僱主和工會密切合作下才能實現。

因此，證據不支援新加坡經濟模式失敗的結論。我們正從強勢位置應對結構性轉型，儘管過程艱難且不均衡。該體系服務良好，但我們必須且將保持適應變化的能力。

重要的是，我們沒有停滯不前。我們知道變化速度加快。工人預期更多變動和擾動。被替代者擔心多久能找到新工作，下一份工作是否與之前一樣好。

那麼，我們應如何應對？一些基本原則依然存在。作為一個開放且小型經濟體，新加坡的繁榮一直依賴於我們在全球市場成功競爭的能力，同時確保新加坡人從中受益。我很高興本院對此基本點有廣泛共識。

經濟戰略審查提供了一個可操作的藍圖，解決我們經濟面臨的挑戰。它不是理論演練，而是通過與7,700多名利益相關者，包括企業、工會和工人交流形成，且基於新加坡實際情況。

經濟戰略審查也將工人置於戰略核心。讓我從四個方面詳細說明：第一，從技能到就業的路徑更清晰；第二，給予年輕工人更強的第一步；第三，幫助工人更好地反彈；最後，強化流動性階梯。

第一，是讓新加坡人更容易獲得職業和技能支援。經過十多年技能未來計劃，我們已建立更強的終身學習文化。我們現在將更聚焦於就業結果，使培訓帶來更好工作、更高工資和更好職業發展。

莫哈默法理先生詢問了勞動力發展局專案的成果。2025年，超過62,000名求職者通過勞動力發展局的專案和服務獲得就業。2023年接受職業匹配服務的求職者中，約六成在六個月內找到工作。

我們的職業轉換計劃展示了與工人同行時能取得的成效。事實上，約九成參與者在計劃開始後24個月內仍保持就業，約六成收入超過之前工資。

這些成果並非完美，我們必須繼續改進，但它確實對那62,000名求職者產生了實質影響。它們說明了為何我們應加強系統，而非否定它。

莫哈默法理先生還呼籲對技能未來培訓專案進行更嚴格審查，並將資金引導至行業相關培訓。我們同意。我們一直在加強質量保證，聚焦於解決技能缺口、提升就業能力和支援勞動力轉型的課程。我們也在加強行業需求訊號，確保培訓相關且有價值。

同時，我們認識到可以進一步加強培訓與就業的聯絡。這就是為何我們將技能未來新加坡與勞動力發展局合併為新的勞動力發展局（SWDA）。SWDA將使我們更緊密地將未來技能與未來工作對接，更早識別風險工人，並提供從培訓到安置的無縫支援。這將幫助我們縮小學習與收入之間的差距。我們將在九月的技能未來節啟動活動中分享更多。

第二，給予年輕新加坡人更強的第一步。在當前經濟環境不確定且人工智慧重塑入門級任務的情況下，許多應屆畢業生及其家長對進入職場感到焦慮。我們理解這些擔憂。

工人黨認為年輕人的入職路徑已破裂。但現實比所述更具韌性。2025年，職位空缺仍多於求職者。2026年第一季度，約有32,800個入門級專業人士、中層管理人員（PMET）職位空缺，超過求職畢業生人數。在此背景下，2025屆約九成大學畢業生在畢業一年內找到工作，與以往屆別相當。我相信工人黨同事也提出了類似觀點。

系統服務良好，但必須隨著新一代工人和變化的工作環境繼續演進。作為經濟戰略審查的一部分，我們看到需要將學習與工作更緊密結合，包括正式承認在職培訓作為資格的一部分。我們這樣做正是為了讓年輕人能在工作中獲得良好開端。

在這方面，我們同意劉宇揚先生關於擴大基於工作路徑如學徒制的價值。這已是我們努力的關鍵方向。通過技能未來工學結合計劃、AI學徒計劃以及新加坡金融管理局的金融人工智慧青年人才計劃等行業計劃，我們幫助更多新加坡人在工作中獲得行業技能，支援順利過渡到增長行業。當前任務是拓寬和深化這些路徑，連線教育、工作經驗、技能認證和就業。

我們共享給予每位年輕新加坡人公平起點的願望。我們的目標不僅是幫助年輕人獲得第一份工作，更是從一開始就建立強健的職業健康。這意味著給予他們更多通過工作學習、獲得認可技能和證書的機會，並提供包括職業與技能護照在內的工具和支援，更好地規劃職業。

我們將繼續加強這些路徑，使更多年輕新加坡人能夠建立技能、積累經驗，並在變化的經濟中自信起步。

第三，我們幫助工人更好地反彈。根據經濟戰略審查建議，我們正在研究更好支援被裁工人，幫助他們反彈的方法，包括加強技能未來求職者支援計劃。我們這樣做是因為理解當前經營環境的挑戰，並相信遭遇困難的新加坡人應獲得支援，幫助他們重返工作崗位。這就是為何我們設計求職者支援計劃以支援再就業，而非失業。

莫哈默法理先生建議引入通過保費資助、以求職和再培訓為條件、時限和最高支付比例限制的失業保險計劃。目前尚不清楚這與求職者支援計劃有何不同，後者更強調再就業。但我懷疑兩者相似。

我們沒有提出新機制，而是經濟戰略審查建議加強求職者支援計劃，特別是幫助在職業轉型中遇到困難的專業人士、中層管理人員。我們正在研究如何加強，包括是否應擴大求職者支援計劃覆蓋更多專業人士、中層管理人員，給予他們更大信心和保障。

莫哈默法理先生和畢丹星先生呼籲強制裁員補償。事實上，全國職工總會長期倡導受裁員影響的工人應獲得公平補償。我相信鄭德源先生也在早前發言中提及此事。我們將在就業法審查三方工作組中進一步研究。

副議長先生，新加坡的成功從未在保護工人與保持經濟競爭力之間做選擇。我們必須做好平衡，創造就業機會，幫助新加坡工人獲得機會，當他們面臨經濟擾動影響時，確保他們不會孤軍奮戰。

第四，我們建立強有力的流動性階梯，確保包容性增長。我們一貫將包容性增長置於戰略核心，確保沒有工人被落下。經濟戰略審查延續了這一傳統。它不是為少數人創造快車道，而是拓寬我們的共享車道，讓每位新加坡人都有空間前進，達到目的地。

我們是在良好基礎上繼續前進的。從2014年到2024年，第20百分位收入與中位數收入的比率從0.52提升至0.55。我們的努力，如漸進式工資模式和工作補貼計劃，對這一成果至關重要。

除了提升底層收入，我們還在為優質工作開闢更多路徑。這包括家政和基本服務領域的工作，目前許多工人都在這些領域就業。

對此，我簡要回應嚴燕松先生關於提升技能行業的建議。我們同樣希望技能行業能為新加坡人提供更好的工資、更強的職業地位和更清晰的職業發展路徑。我們在“前進新加坡”行動中表達了這一願望。企業轉型報告（ESR）也建議拓寬優質工作的範圍，包括提升技能行業，並使基於工作學習成為更被認可的掌握技能途徑。

我們已經在努力實現這一願望。正如人力部今年在供應委員會上宣佈的，我們已與新加坡專業技能聯盟建立合作伙伴關係，開發進入技能行業優質工作的更有結構性的路徑，首先從電氣行業開始。該舉措旨在解決嚴燕松先生提出的許多問題。

但更廣泛地說，通往更好工作的可持續路徑是提高生產力、更好的工作設計、更強的認證、現代工具和流程，以及願意與員工分享生產力收益的僱主——政府將加倍努力加強這些方面。

這引出我的下一個觀點。企業轉型和勞動力轉型必須協同進行。我們支援企業，因為它們的成功為新加坡人創造機會。這對中小企業尤為重要，因為它們僱傭了約三分之二的勞動力。當企業投資、創新並提高生產力時，它們創造更好的工作，培養更深厚的能力，並維持工資增長。

我們也希望新加坡人有不同的路徑去貢獻和成功。對一些人來說，這意味著在成熟企業中建立職業生涯。對另一些人來說，可能意味著創業。隨著人工智慧和新技術降低了開發產品、接觸客戶和跨市場擴充套件的成本，創業正成為越來越可行的路徑。

並非所有創業都會成功。這是企業和冒險的本質。但我們正在擴大對有前景的初創企業的支援，幫助它們建設、成長並進入全球市場。新加坡目前擁有超過4500家科技初創企業。企業轉型報告的建議將加強對成長資本、技術、網路和海外市場的獲取。成功的企業不僅回報其創始人，還為其他新加坡人創造就業機會。

一些議員可能呼籲加強新加坡人在經濟中的代表性。我們也希望更多本地企業興旺，但答案是扶持它們，而不是排斥它們。

以Carousell為例。由三位國大畢業生創立，Carousell起初的簡單理念是讓二手物品的銷售像拍照一樣簡單。它從一個以移動端為主的分類廣告應用，發展成為領先的線上市場和全渠道電子商務企業，業務遍及東南亞、臺灣和香港，服務數千萬使用者。

這說明新加坡企業如何通過接觸國際市場、海外客戶、全球技術和世界級商業網路實現成長。我們將繼續支援年輕新加坡人通過國大海外學院和海外市場沉浸計劃等專案出國拓展視野。強大的本地企業和全球公司並非互斥，而是相輔相成。

我們也不要忘記，跨國公司同樣支援新加坡人，而不僅僅是新加坡企業。外資企業約佔新加坡企業總數的五分之一，但僱傭了近三分之一的本地居民工人。2025年，新加坡公民和永久居民在這些跨國公司的高階管理職位中佔約85%。

我最後一點是關於三方合作的重要性。在許多國家，經濟辯論日益對立和分裂。新加坡避免了這種局面，但我們絕不能視此為理所當然。

我認真聽了本動議如何構建其經濟引擎的願景——企業家、家庭、企業、工人、資本。但名單中明顯缺少兩個夥伴：僱主和工會。這不是小問題。正是在這個空間裡，工資得以協商，工作得以重新設計，爭議得以解決，幾十年來沒有發生過一次罷工。任何對我們經濟未來的願景，如果忽視如何與這些夥伴合作，都是不完整的。

我們的三方合作伙伴關係讓政府、企業和工人共同努力，擴大經濟蛋糕，確保收益公平分享。這正是將包容性增長從願望轉化為實際成果的關鍵——更多投資、更好工作、工資上漲。

公司培訓委員會（CTCs）是三方合作實踐的一個具體例子。自2019年以來，已成立超過3800個CTCs，惠及超過30萬名工人。通過CTC資助，企業和工會重新設計工作，建設新能力，將業務轉型轉化為更好的工資和職業前景。我們將繼續與全國職工總會和新加坡全國僱主總會合作，完善這一模式，讓更多企業和工人受益。

副議長先生，本動議背後的願望是我們共同的。我們希望有一個新加坡人能夠參與、貢獻和成功的經濟。一個工人能夠建立有意義職業，企業能夠創新和成長，更多新加坡人不僅為自己，也為他人創造機會的經濟。

這正是企業轉型報告所追求的目標。不是在增長與包容、本地企業與全球聯絡、競爭力與工人保護之間做選擇，而是同時追求所有這些目標。通過更好的工作、更高的工資和更好的晉升路徑，我們將經濟增長轉化為廣泛的進步。這就是我們如何建設一個為所有新加坡人服務的經濟，並將繼續這樣做。

議長先生，我支援對動議的修正案以及修正後的動議。[掌聲]

副議長：莫哈默法理先生，您要澄清哪位議員的發言？請講。

下午6時05分

莫哈默法理：副議長先生，首先感謝國務部長對為工人立法保障裁員福利的開放態度，我希望這能儘快促成本院審議相關法案。不過，我想針對國務部長關於求職者支援計劃與裁員保險計劃的比較發表看法。如果我理解正確，他認為兩者大致相似，但我想指出以下幾點。

因為裁員保險由僱主和僱員共同繳納，賠付是自動且無縫的。求職者支援計劃則要求被裁員工人經過申請程式，且面臨被拒的可能。事實上，去年只有1萬名申請者中有4000人獲批。因此，有三個問題，副議長先生。

副議長：莫哈默法理先生，請您簡明提出澄清問題，謝謝。

莫哈默法理：好的，先生。

第一，裁員工人是否不必經歷這繁瑣且令人壓力巨大的申請和等待過程會更好？

第二，我們的自動且普遍的裁員保險計劃是否也能降低就業不足的風險，因為工人不必急於接受第一份工作？

第三，2026年4月6日CNA報道，人力部預計求職者支援計劃每年只能覆蓋60%的非自願失業者。普遍的裁員保險計劃是否更能為被裁工人提供100%的保障？

副議長：國務部長迪內希，您願意回應這三個澄清問題嗎？

迪內希：副議長先生，感謝議員。或許我可以強調，我們的立場其實並不遠。唯一不同的是求職者支援計劃要求工人表明他們正在申請再就業，這可能帶來一定摩擦。但如果議員閱讀企業轉型報告，報告也強調需要考慮保險計劃的可行性，這也是需要研究的。

我會從這個角度來說明，過程中的摩擦並非為了讓處境艱難的人更難，而是確保他們能夠反彈，並且反彈得更強。

副議長：嚴燕松先生，您有澄清問題嗎？針對誰？請講。

下午6時08分

嚴燕松：謝謝，先生。我想向國務部長迪內希澄清。

先生，他提到人力部與新加坡專業技能聯盟合作的計劃。我的問題是：提升認證和工具只有在持證從業者不被市場上的無證操作人員持續壓價的情況下才有效。那麼，這項計劃如何解決無證操作人員拉低持證本地技工市場價格的結構性問題？

副議長：國務部長迪內希，您願意回應嗎？

迪內希：我補充說，我們仍在研究這一視角。電氣行業相對容易，因為能源市場管理局（EMA）是監管機構之一。但更重要的是，成本上升可能引發其他問題，我們必須全面研究，確保不會導致服務成本上漲及其他意外連鎖反應。研究仍在進行，或許當方案更成熟時，我們可以有更全面的討論。

副議長：既無更多澄清，我們將繼續就動議及修正動議展開辯論。貿易及工業資深國務部長劉燕玲。

下午6時09分

貿易及工業資深國務部長（劉燕玲女士）：副議長先生，感謝張文傑先生和林志蔚副教授將本動議提交議院，也感謝謝秉輝先生提出的修正案，以及之前發言的所有議員，大家為這場嚴謹且實質的辯論作出了貢獻。

本次辯論的核心問題是：我們如何確保新加坡企業能在快速變化的世界中持續繁榮？

答案至關重要，因為企業是新加坡成功的核心。中小企業佔所有企業的99%，僱傭了超過70%的勞動力。中小企業創造優質工作，加強社群，提升新加坡經濟競爭力。

但所有發言的議員也一致認為，中小企業所處環境日益嚴峻。技術正在重塑產業，競爭加劇，全球性擾動成為常態。最近的中東危機再次提醒我們，外部事件如何迅速影響企業。

我們的回應不僅是幫助企業渡過新風暴，更是幫助企業長期變得更強、更具競爭力、更具韌性。我們的經濟戰略始終以改善新加坡人生活為中心，因為強大的本地企業對這一目標不可或缺。這就是為什麼我們將繼續支援企業，幫助它們建設更強能力，自信擴充套件，創新成長，走向新加坡以外。

讓我分享更多我們的做法。先從能力建設說起。

如今企業競爭不僅僅是成本，許多議員提到過。它們不僅競爭成本，還競爭創新、質量、生產力和速度。昨日的優勢不保證明日成功。持續建設新能力的企業更能領先，未能轉型的企業則面臨落後風險。

在企業轉型報告期間，我們廣泛與代表中小企業和各類企業的行業協會和商會接觸。大多數中小企業認識到轉型已非可選，問題是如何以務實、可及和可持續的方式轉型。沒有一刀切的方法。每家企業起點不同，服務不同市場和客戶，面臨不同機遇。因此，我們根據企業需求量身定製支援，無論是採用人工智慧、提升生產力、開發新產品服務，還是拓展新市場。

通過企業發展局，企業可獲得廣泛政府支援，建設能力，轉型運營。例如，Sin Chwee Mini Mart由吳添水先生於1990年在武吉甘榜開設的溼市場海鮮店。面對消費者偏好變化，第二代業主吳志明先生決定重塑業務，推出Tankfully Fresh，將傳統溼市場海鮮攤轉型為全渠道零售商。

在政府支援下，公司通過實施整合庫存管理系統加速轉型，支援其不斷增長的全渠道業務。該系統使人力效率提升50%。原本的溼市場小超市通過合同製造發展出新零售、B2B和線上銷售渠道。如今，幾年內，60%的業務收入來自線上銷售。

這個例子提醒我們，每次成功轉型都始於企業自身的決策。我們的努力旨在幫助企業建設當時最重要的能力，使其更具生產力、競爭力和韌性。

過去幾小時，議員們談及餐飲業面臨的挑戰。我們新加坡人熱愛美食，珍視獨特的飲食文化。但行業變化迅速。經營者面臨更高的人力、租金和運營成本，消費者期望持續提升。這不僅是新加坡獨有。全球各地，食客要求更便捷、更高性價比和更差異化體驗。數字平臺、食品外賣和社交媒體改變了客戶發現和消費食物的方式。

這些趨勢帶來挑戰，也帶來新機遇。事實上，許多餐飲企業正堅定應對，重新設計運營，擁抱技術，集中食品準備，採用人工智慧和數字解決方案提升生產力，更好服務客戶。

我們的角色是通過切實幫助支援這些轉型努力，幫助企業提升生產力、競爭力和韌性。

我們的目標不僅是幫助餐飲企業應對成本上升，更是幫助它們以不同方式運營，更有效競爭，因為這意味著提升生產力、重新設計流程、擁抱技術，尋找新方法為客戶提供更高價值。這就是企業發展局推出多項舉措支援轉型的原因。

企業可通過餐飲流程最佳化計劃提升生產力和重新設計運營。小型企業可通過FoodX共享製造和食品準備設施，降低成本，實現規模效益。

我們還幫助企業採用數字和人工智慧解決方案。咖啡連鎖店Kopi & Tarts在新加坡擁有約20家分店，受益於上述舉措。通過FoodX外包部分原料準備，減少了每日超過40小時的食品準備時間。40小時幾乎相當於讓他們有4名全職員工專注於更高附加值服務。

我們特別關心的另一類企業是社群企業。它們不僅是購物場所，更定義了社群特色，凝聚社群，貢獻社會結構。但像所有企業一樣，它們必須適應消費者偏好和新技術的變化。

佳馥梅女士會高興知道，我們多年來一直支援社群企業，推出了社群企業塑造資助和增強視覺營銷計劃。今年早些時候，我們將這兩項計劃的支援比例從50%提升至70%，幫助社群企業更新概念，改善店面，吸引更多人流和顧客進店。

因此，無論是年輕企業還是成熟企業，無論是傳統企業還是現代企業，每一個企業都必須不斷構建新的能力以保持競爭力。我們將繼續支援企業在這條道路上的發展。而這條道路包括走出新加坡，走向世界。因為我們的國內市場有限，企業必須走出國門才能實現增長。我們的小型經濟體除了需要健康的國內需求外，還需要強勁的外部需求。

為了幫助企業走向國際化，我們為企業在國際化的不同階段建立了支援體系。從最近加強的市場準備援助（Market Readiness Assistance）等補助金，幫助企業跳板海外，到“規模提升”（Scale-Up）等專案。讓我詳細說明。

企業發展局的規模提升專案幫助具有高潛力的新加坡公司建立有效擴充套件和國際競爭所需的能力。

迄今為止，規模提升專案已支援了來自多個行業的100多家公司——其中80家公司在加入該專案後三年內共創造了25億新元的額外收入。國際擴張貢獻了其中的10億新元增長。

其中一家公司是Mlion Corporation，這是一家專注於濱水和地下施工的鋼結構基礎解決方案公司。大約四年前通過規模提升專案優化了其市場進入策略。此後，該公司在過去四年裡成功獲得了東南亞、中東和非洲市場的大型基礎設施專案。因此，Mlion在2024年的收入增長了四倍。

另一個例子是Space Matrix，一家辦公空間設計與建造公司。該公司通過最佳化戰略、加強供應鏈和採購能力，加速了國際增長。兩年內，它已擴充套件至印度、菲律賓和迪拜，並進入生命科學和資料中心領域。公司的收入增長超過25%，盈利能力增長超過200%。

因此，企業在海外拓展時，將面臨不熟悉的法規、更高的運營成本、新的競爭對手以及地緣政治因素。

我們在全球設有35個海外中心，為希望抓住海外增長機會的新加坡公司提供市場情報、引薦當地合作伙伴及現場支援。

雖然國際化的決定必須由企業自行做出，但我們的目標是創造條件並提供支援，激勵企業在全球舞臺上競爭並取得成功。我們將持續監測全球經濟形勢，完善全球化計劃和對新加坡企業成為全球冠軍的支援。

每一個成功的企業都在更廣泛的合作伙伴、網路和機構生態系統中運作。

多年來，政府投資建設了強大而充滿活力的企業生態系統。我們的目標是創造一個企業能夠成功的環境，使其能夠創新、深化能力、獲得人才、技術和市場的支援，並抓住進入海外新市場的機會。

佳馥梅女士早前非常精彩地分享了，這個充滿活力的企業生態系統的關鍵元素，是中小企業與大型企業（包括跨國公司）之間互利互促的合作伙伴關係。正如謝秉輝先生和佳馥梅女士早前提到的，新加坡的本地和全球企業可以攜手加強能力，加速創新，從而為新加坡人創造更好的就業和機會。

看看多年來跨國公司高管層中的新加坡人擔任的職位，這就是一個重要的證明。

副議長先生，如果允許我分享我之前的工作經驗，以證明小型企業與大型企業之間的共生合作關係。我記得大約26年前作為經濟發展局官員時，我參與了本地產業升級計劃（Local Industry Upgrading Programme），該計劃按公司和行業匹配中小企業與跨國公司，基於工作計劃、願景、抱負和價值觀，建立雙贏的合作伙伴關係。該計劃使跨國公司獲得了強大的供應商基礎，同時讓中小企業向大型行業參與者學習並提升能力。

如今，該計劃已發展為能力轉型夥伴關係（Partnerships for Capability Transformation，簡稱PACT）專案。LIUP主要聚焦於加強跨國公司與中小企業之間的供應商關係，而PACT則將企業聚集在一起，共同提升技能、創新，甚至共同捕捉新機遇。

自2010年以來，PACT已支援137個合作伙伴關係，惠及2500多家新加坡企業。PACT逐步擴大支援範圍，去年我們在本議院宣佈將PACT專案擴充套件至國際化、企業風險投資和能力培訓。這使中小企業能夠進入區域及全球價值鏈，獲得新客戶和寶貴的能力建設機會，同時與大型合作伙伴共同創造解決方案並在海外業務中共同成長。

以ForeFront AM（一家本地增材製造公司）與跨國公司GlobalFoundries的合作為例。通過合作，ForeFront AM提升了增材製造能力，為GlobalFoundries的高價值半導體制造工具製造關鍵且高度定製的零件。GlobalFoundries則通過PACT專案認證了九家本地中小企業，生產了200多個關鍵工具零件。

我們還與行業領導者合作，幫助企業採用人工智慧。蔡慶威先生呼籲加強對人工智慧採用的支援，並提到去年宣佈的企業計算倡議（Enterprise Compute Initiative）。該計劃與谷歌、亞馬遜等領先雲服務提供商及諮詢合作伙伴合作，為企業提供先進的人工智慧工具、雲端計算額度、培訓和認證。企業計算倡議旨在啟動採用並積累動力。我們將持續密切關注採用情況，並在需要時調整支援措施。

類似的合作伙伴關係使本地企業能夠抓住新機遇，構建更強大、更深厚的能力，並在經濟的高附加值領域競爭。

正如安迪先生所分享，吸引跨國公司投資與支援本地企業是互補策略。一個強健的經濟需要跨國公司和中小企業的共同貢獻。

在此基礎上，我轉向我們充滿活力的企業生態系統中的另一個重要支柱——與行業協會和商會的緊密合作。

正如李堅輝先生早前指出，行業協會和商會作為可信賴的中介機構發揮著重要作用，因為它們不僅代表企業及其所屬行業，還幫助企業應對向可持續發展、數字化和勞動力轉型的轉變。它們在開發共享解決方案和匯聚行業需求方面也發揮著關鍵作用。

我們將繼續與新加坡所有行業協會和商會緊密合作，支援它們領導的將企業聚集起來應對共同挑戰、抓住新機遇的倡議。

此外，行業協會和商會在企業戰略審查（ESR）過程中提供了行業需求的見解和觀點。ESR的建議和方向反映了行業協會和商會的意見和反饋。我們重視與行業協會和商會的緊密合作與對話，因為我們不孤立工作。討論的大門始終敞開。正如李堅輝先生指出，商業競爭力行動聯盟提出的27項建議中已有24項被採納。

事實上，2024年4月，我們成立了由顏金勇副總理及多位部長領導的跨部委親企業規則審查委員會，監督各機構提升監管效率、減輕合規負擔的工作，特別是針對中小企業。該委員會在兩年內在多個領域取得了進展。

例如，93%的商業監管申請已公佈服務標準，其中80%承諾在30個工作日內處理申請。各機構也審查了許可證有效期。目前，45%的許可證有效期至少為三年，預計到2029年將增至80%。

與此同時，我們去年啟動了中小企業親企業辦公室，旨在簡化流程，幫助企業應對涉及多個機構或新興行業的監管挑戰。這種做法保持了企業生態系統的活力，使政府和監管能夠響應企業及中小企業的需求。

最近，僅在今年5月，裕廊集團（JTC）簡化了剩餘租期較短的小型工業用地租賃轉讓流程，將處理時間從兩個月縮短至一個月，幫助企業更快獲得空間，應對變化需求。

副議長先生，支援中小企業的緊密諮詢和服務網路還體現在新加坡的10箇中小企業中心。我們認識到許多中小企業沒有專門的戰略、技術或業務發展團隊。正如阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生早前熱情提到的，中小企業中心幫助中小企業識別機會，導航政府支援，並規劃切實可行的成長步驟。

僅去年，我們的10箇中小企業中心及75名業務顧問一年內支援了近3萬家公司，約每月2500家中小企業。

林志蔚副教授早前在發言中呼籲簡化補助申請流程，我們也持續審視改進方法。例如，在生產力解決方案補助（Productivity Solutions Grant）下，企業發展局已簡化流程，將處理時間顯著縮短至兩週。

這些努力共同強化了新加坡的企業生態系統，進而支撐企業的成功。它們確保企業不僅通過政府專案獲得支援，還通過強有力的合作伙伴關係、響應迅速的機構和促進增長的商業環境獲得支援。

副議長先生，請允許我用中文說幾句話。

副議長先生：請講。

劉燕玲女士（中文發言）：[請參閱方言發言。] 副議長先生，議院各位議員，新加坡經濟表現強勁，2025年經濟增長5%。今年，儘管受到中東局勢不確定性、能源價格和關稅等不利因素影響，我們仍預計經濟增長約2%至4%。這一成就是企業、工人和政府三方合作的結果。

保持長期可持續的經濟增長，確保新加坡人擁有良好工作並能安居樂業，一直是我們的目標。強大的本地企業，尤其是中小企業，對實現這一目標至關重要。

在新加坡經濟中，中小企業佔所有企業的99%，僱傭了超過70%的勞動力。它們是整體經濟生態系統的重要組成部分。中小企業為新加坡人創造了大量就業機會，加強了社群凝聚力，提升了新加坡的經濟競爭力。

多年來，貿工部與其他政府機構持續推出多項措施和專案，幫助本地中小企業成長和繁榮。我們聚焦三個方面：

（一）首先，營造親商環境，鼓勵新加坡人創業；

（二）其次，與本地行業協會和商會緊密合作，增強各行業的能力和韌性；

（三）第三，鼓勵並幫助本地中小企業開拓海外市場。

我在早前的英文發言中也提到了許多獲得實際幫助的成功企業案例。面對新冠疫情和近期中東衝突等特殊挑戰，政府也會根據情況調整措施，推出及時支援，幫助企業渡過難關。

但副議長先生，我們必須記住，新加坡是一個資源匱乏、市場狹小且人口老齡化的小國。61年來，儘管我們積累了一定的經濟實力，但不能自滿於過去的成就。像企業一樣，政府也必須保持進取精神，不斷升級、改進和創新，為下一代爭取更美好的未來。

在經濟戰略審查期間，我們與7700家企業及各行業協會代表進行了廣泛討論和交流，包括本地傳統企業和社群商會代表。我們傾聽了他們的關切，收集了他們的意見。

副議長先生，每個企業都是獨特的。每家公司處於不同的發展階段，起點不同，客戶群不同，面臨的挑戰和機遇也不同。關鍵在於企業主、合夥人和員工是否有意願尋找方法，確保企業長期可持續並實現持續成功。

我們都知道，昨日的優勢不能保證明日的成功。持續努力提升能力的企業將走得更遠。

副議長先生，新加坡的經濟發展和未來成功將依賴於國家的進取精神和人民的團結。我們相信，只要本地企業致力於提升能力，抓住國內外的發展機遇，互相合作，就能持續經營，實現穩健增長。

政府將繼續創造有利條件，助力企業繁榮，與企業和新加坡人攜手共建更美好的明天。

（英文）副議長先生，我們已就本動議展開辯論，聽取了各種觀點和建議。我們有著共同的願景——見證新加坡經濟成功，企業興旺，為新加坡人創造優質就業。

政府將繼續支援並與新加坡企業並肩同行。我們的目標不僅是幫助企業渡過新風暴，更是幫助它們成長，提高競爭力，增強韌性，實現規模化和國際競爭。我們將持續營造充滿活力和生機的企業生態系統，助力企業繁榮發展。雖然我們催化理想環境，但真正能持續創新、適應和強化能力的企業，才能繁榮並征服新市場。

讓我們攜手共建強大而有韌性的未來經濟，為更美好的生活，為新加坡。我支援謝秉輝先生修訂的動議。[掌聲]

副議長先生：林志蔚副教授，您有澄清問題嗎？關於誰？請講。

下午6時36分

林志蔚副教授：謝謝副議長先生。我有兩個補充問題要問高階國務部長。

第一個問題涉及她關於通過企業發展局推動國際化的觀點。她在發言中舉了多個本地中小企業成功國際化的例子。這一點無可爭議，議院雙方都認同。

相關的問題是，這些只是我們看到的成功案例的選擇。我想知道她是否能分享，在申請企業發展局支援的中小企業中，有多少實際成功實現了國際化計劃。申請者與成功進入外國市場並在五年後仍能維持經營的企業比例是多少？企業發展局國際化補助的內部收益率是多少？

第二個問題涉及高階國務部長劉燕玲女士也提到的餐飲業。

該行業與其他中小企業的顯著不同之處在於，絕大多數小販、咖啡店經營者和餐館老闆經營的基本上是非貿易性產品。因此，關於通過規模化來消除利潤的建議對他們來說往往顯得空洞，至少根據我們與他們的對話。他們更希望獲得某種形式的經營成本減免，主要是租金和人力成本。

我在發言中提出了兩個渠道：租金漲幅控制和不同的依賴比例上限配額，但如果政府不考慮這些，我想知道除了嘗試規模化之外，還有什麼其他建議？因為這些企業在規模化方面確實存在困難——

副議長先生：林志蔚副教授，如果您能迅速進入第二個澄清問題，我將邀請您繼續。

林志蔚副教授：我的第二個澄清是，政府正在做些什麼來幫助這些本地餐飲業者應對他們的經營成本。

劉燕玲女士：副議長先生，我要感謝林志蔚副教授提出的問題。

剛才，當我談到我們給予中小企業的各種支援時，我也特別關注了餐飲業。我提到，在過去12個月裡，我們推出了一些計劃——這些計劃並非孤立推出——例如，企業發展局推出了所謂的餐飲流程最佳化計劃。請允許我用一分鐘時間解釋一下這是什麼。

正如議員所提到的，這些是本地公司，除非通過特許經營，否則他們實際上無法走向海外。他們非常關注如何克服人力資源的限制。基於我們與他們的焦點小組討論，我們瞭解了他們的痛點。這就是我們推出流程最佳化計劃的原因。

Kopi & Tarts的例子是一個簡單但非常有力的例子。如果你在谷歌上搜索他們，請支援他們。他們提供非常棒的紅燒雞（ayam merah）——真的很好吃——還有蛋白質碗。他們將這兩道菜的食材準備外包出去。

例如，我們與餐飲業分享，你不必把所有事情都外包出去。只嘗試外包幾樣東西。他們自己也感到驚喜，因為通過外包這兩道菜的食材準備，他們每天可以節省40小時的工作時間。那是每月1200小時。這使得他們能夠重新部署四名全職員工，這些員工原本需要早早進入廚房等工作崗位。我們正一步步根據他們的痛點來解決問題。

我們還與新加坡生產力中心一起進行了生產力研究，發現流程最佳化確實幫助餐飲業中表現最好的10%實現了比表現最差群體高出三到四倍的收入。這是第一點。

第二點是我提到的FoodX，涉及資源共享等。

最近，在2026年亞洲餐飲展上，我們推出了餐飲人工智慧與數字整合計劃。Elsie's Kitchen就是一個很好的例子，他們已經實施了該計劃。他們計劃利用人工智慧幫助實現更好的廚房規劃和物流車隊管理，從而實現路線最佳化並確保食品安全。

這是一項大量的基礎性工作。我想向他保證，我們正在與行業協會合作，正如李堅輝先生提到的。在這種情況下，是新加坡餐飲協會（RAS）解決了問題，幫助他們提升了營業收入和利潤。

第一個問題是關於國際化。他問到一些大數字。如果可以的話，我請求他提交一份單獨的國會質詢，我們一定會調查並回複議員。但可以說，在企業生態系統中，不僅僅是企業發展局負責管理這些公司。我之前提到過10箇中小企業中心。在一年內，我們支援了3萬家中小企業。早些時候，一些議員提到了GoBusiness.gov.sg。我們的一些企業主非常擅長使用該平臺，從中獲取了大量資訊。

我們將繼續努力，就像我之前回應生產力解決方案補助處理時間一樣，我們會繼續探索如何利用技術更好地服務中小企業。

關於國際化，不僅僅是像Space Matrix、Mlion或我提到的製造企業ForeFront AM這樣的公司，讓我舉一個叫Hegen的例子。

我認識Yvon Bock女士將近10年了。十年前，Hegen還是一家初創公司，一些議員笑了，因為他們可能用過該公司的產品。我們幫助他們連線海外市場。他們當時參與了“雙11”。這就是我們幫助他們躍進中國各省的方式。Hegen已經成長為一個全球消費品牌，擁有非常顯著的國際足跡。事實上，他們的產品已進入25個以上的市場。

我用Hegen來說明一件事。我用Hegen來說明，如果我們共同努力，確保新加坡擁有一個充滿活力、朝氣蓬勃的企業生態系統，我們的公司不僅僅是銷售產品和服務。我們的公司還可以與代表誠信、質量和可靠性的“新加坡品牌”相結合，這正是Yvon Bock女士告訴我的。

副議長先生：既然沒有進一步的澄清，議會領袖。

英文原文

SPRS Hansard 原始記錄 · 抓取日期：2026-09-05

Mr Speaker : Mr Kenneth Tiong.

12.02 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied) : Mr Speaker, I move*, "That this House, notwithstanding 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 economic engine driven by dynamic local companies, healthy domestic demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad."

[(proc text) * The Motion was also entered on the Order Paper under the name of Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim. (proc text)]

Why this Motion? Why now?

Singaporeans face a uniquely challenging set of circumstances. The major model of Singaporeans getting on the economic ladder has been jobs. Without a job, you are not able to afford renting a place or buying a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat.

Without your own place, it is difficult to think about having children. And for these children, few dream of being entrepreneurs with nine in 10 working here, becoming someone's employee. For almost all of us, the jobs ladder is the main route up, with not many Singaporeans becoming entrepreneurs.

The reasons given are variously these: that the market is small and the cost of business daunting, that they lack social safety nets for risk taking, that not enough true growth capital exists for all the private wealth attracted here, that the biggest competitor to Singaporean startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are the Singaporean Government-linked Companies (GLCs). These we have the power to influence.

Property has been a lottery ticket to many Singaporeans, but with asset prices as high as they are, it is highly questionable if a new generation can follow this model without parental support, given initial conditions of wages lagging asset prices and declining employment prospects.

The persistence of property as a wealth vehicle breeds a rentier mindset. One generation's ideology hardens into the next generation's psychology. As inter-generational transfers come to dominate socio-economic status, they threaten to entrench inequity.

Let me recap why our job structure is threatened, though I suspect this is not news to many.

Our job structure rests on being the best place in the region for foreign companies to base themselves. We host many large companies but build few of them.

Singapore has three companies in the Fortune Global 500. All three are commodity traders. Two were founded elsewhere and moved here. Korea has 13. Taiwan has six. Theirs make semiconductors and ships. Theirs were built by their own people. Ours came here and can as easily go.

At the high value end, tariffs are pulling production home and to friendly countries, reducing the supply of marginal new investment available to Singapore. And less of what moves can be won on tax competition. For an increasing number of research and development (R&D) and manufacturing jobs, speed of iteration, equipping and supplying are decisive factors.

At the cost sensitive end, high business costs and slow manpower approvals accelerate offshoring to regional centres based in countries like Malaysia and Vietnam. The examples are not unfamiliar to this House. H&M moved its Southeast Asia Regional headquarters (HQ) from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur. Tiger Beer has been brewed here since 1932. By the end of next year, it will not be. Heineken is winding down brewing at Tuas and moving production to Malaysia and Vietnam, and about 130 jobs go with it.

For a younger generation, they face a changed playbook. The high paying entry level tech jobs that many aspired to have largely dried up. Many entry level roles have been offshored due to the high cost of business. And capable artificial intelligence (AI) agents and models are set to reduce the need for entry level hiring. But whatever the cause, it is undeniably hard for young Singaporeans to find a job today.

What follows is adaptation. Entrepreneurship by necessity, rather than by choice, second and third jobs, structural underemployment.

In a high-cost economy, the work most likely to stay is work that cannot be done more cheaply somewhere else.

The standard answer for advanced economies has been R&D. Build what others cannot easily copy so that firms come here in spite of our costs. But after decades and tens of billions, not one local R&D champion has emerged worth more than a billion dollars.

Of course, we should continue to invest, but the upshot is that our R&D complex is sadly not ready to be our growth engine. And as individual Chinese provinces and groups thereof become increasingly fiercely competitive ecosystems, every economy will need to reckon with the necessary scale, energy availability and the cost required to compete.

Alone, it is difficult. That is why I believe we must have greater industrial coordination between Southeast Asian countries and engage in transnational industrial policy, as I elaborated in both my maiden speech last September and my Adjournment Motion this July.

These are structural challenges to the industrial underpinning of jobs. I acknowledge the Government continues to try to do its best under these circumstances. Investment into Singapore is holding up. The Economic Development Board (EDB) committed $14.2 billion of fixed asset investment last year, up from $13.5 billion the year before and $12.7 billion the year before that – so three years rising.

But for it, we get the opposite trend in jobs. In 2023, 20,000 jobs; in 2024, 18,700 jobs; and last year 15,700 jobs. The value added expected went from $26.7 billion to $23.5 billion to $18 billion. So, even on official statistics, the engine of investment to jobs is faltering.

Faced with such a panoply of problems, what can and should we hope for?

First, we need an updated growth model that cares not only about the headline gross domestic product (GDP) growth figure, but the structure of growth. If we truly believe this is a changed world, then our policies must change with it. The structure of growth matters, and growth and distribution are not two things to be done in sequence.

It is acceptable as an exigency to grow first and then redistribute by vouchers and rebates. But over the medium and long term, we should be building an economy where a fair distribution is produced by the growth itself, rather than repaired afterwards out of the proceeds. Pre-distribution over redistribution.

And that is why we need an economic engine driven by dynamic local companies, healthy domestic demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. Only when Singaporeans thrive and believe the ladders of opportunity are fair to all, can this country be open.

Second, we need honest measurement and prioritisation of what matters from growth. Let me offer three North Stars for the distributional aspect of growth.

One, the indigenous share of national income, which captures the contribution to national income of Singaporeans as workers, owners and entrepreneurs. Its internationally comparable cousin is the labour share – how much of what stays in Singapore goes to the people who work here. Ours, at about 40%, lags most advanced economies. We should resurrect the indigenous income series and measure the whole of what Singaporeans contribute.

Two, real income growth that keeps pace with productivity, not lag it. Overall, labour productivity has grown by 2.5% per year from 2016 to 2024. But over the same period, real mean income only grew at 1.3% per year.

Singaporeans have always been model workers. From 2016 to 2024, according to the International Labour Organization (ILO), Singapore's output per worker grew 2.3% per year, outstripping major economies, such as the United States (US) at 1.6%, Israel at 1.6%, Hong Kong at 1.3%, Korea at 1.3% and Switzerland at 1.1%.

We need to repair this lag. Singaporean workers have kept their end of the bargain. Their compensation has not kept up with it.

Three, whether Singaporeans can still afford the city they built. Not how much we produce, but how much variety ordinary Singaporeans on an ordinary wage can enjoy. The diversity of services available, how much they can afford and the leisure they can afford to take.

The independent kitchen, the second-hand bookstore. We cannot in one breath lose our heritage businesses and our art spaces, and in the next tell Singaporeans that the city is thriving. Cities compete on the variety of things there are to consume, not only on what they produce, and high-amenity cities grow faster.

So, we should measure it. How varied the choices are and how many choices an ordinary wage can afford.

These three North Stars point us towards 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.

Mr Speaker, the various Members of Parliament of the Workers' Party (WP) will touch on eight questions to answer the challenges I have laid out.

First, I will discuss innovation under constraint. How do we foster a dynamic enterprise and innovation system that maximises value regardless of the high business cost and physical constraints?

Second, my colleague, Jamus Lim, will discuss dynamic local firms. How can we create a business climate in which dynamic local firms emerge as drivers of innovation and become future cornerstones of the economy?

Third, my colleague, Louis Chua, will discuss land and the roof over the household. How do we ensure that attractive affordable housing is available for every Singaporean household?

Fourth, my colleague, Andre Low, will discuss the start of a working life and ask how we ensure our tertiary students and young workers find meaningful opportunities and good jobs in a challenging economy.

Fifth, my colleague, Gerald Giam, will discuss pathways to a middle-class livelihood. Taking tradespersons as his exemplar, he will ask how we create accessible pathways for them to earn a middle-class livelihood.

Six, my colleague, Fadli Fawzi, will discuss replacement and re-entry and ask whether our system of continuing education actually works. The journey, the destination and the proof.

We close the WP contributions with our two most expansive views of the economic model.

Seventh, my colleague, He Ting Ru, will discuss the lesser measured parts of the economy, in the domestically oriented sectors and ask what parts of this economy our national statistics fail to capture?

And eighth, my colleague, Eileen Chong, will discuss venturing abroad. How do we empower Singaporeans to seize opportunities in the region and beyond?

Mr Speaker, beyond these questions, there really is one question. What does it mean to take a changed world seriously?

If we mean to rebuild the ladder of opportunity in this generation, the answers to these problems must be the centre-piece of our evolved economic model. In these speeches, my colleague will lay out in eight steps, structural solutions to structural problems.

Today, the problem I will tackle is enterprise and innovation under constraint.

For two generations, we have been good at bringing other people's companies here. We have been slow to put the same land that we own behind our people building their own. Why do we take a high land price as a law like gravity? Universal land pricing is a coherent and convenient accounting ideology, but in the last accounting, the people of Singapore need to decide if this ideology still serves them.

Families already know this. Tuition is expensive and no tutor can promise a good job 20 years out. We pay anyway. Investments require outlays. We do not ask a child for an immediate pay-off.

So, the proposition: Singapore should stop treating market land value as a natural price for every socially productive use of land. And the test: a university-centred special zone where state land is priced at development cost rather than market scarcity value.

What is our offer to the young? We should remake the system with the young as the first consideration rather than the last adjustment.

Today, we tweak – a discount on a co-living room, a grant, a priority band in a ballot. Adjustments at the edge of a system designed around somebody else in a different decade. Treating the young as a first order principle means the opposite. We design for the 20-something year old foremost.

This is a supply side problem of policy.

Before we can remake society to be young, we must remake society for the young. The bargain has four parts: a place to live, near where the work and the research happen; at a price a starting salary can carry, in service of something the country needs – more local enterprise and R&D – with the upside staying with the risk-takers and a say in the rules.

What we should create a special zone surrounding Nanyang Technological University (NTU), where the state land is charged as cost recovery rather than market scarcity value and takes its returns in the companies that grow there, rather than rent. This experiment will span land rates for both residential and commercial space, spanning co-living, local enterprise and R&D.

It must be centred around an existing core, a university – because one cannot rustle up a cluster from nothing. But one can take one that exists and play to its strengths. It will be zoned for organic messiness, a district that is pro-worker and pro-business, built around the needs of young people and young companies.

And this experiment is reversible. If it does not work, we can simply revert to the Master Plan. But surely, today's Singaporeans should have as much say over scarce land as the master planners of decades ago.

So, let me take the argument in this order: land, our tertiary institutions, then governance and money.

First, land. Thirty years, tens of billions in R&D and more again on fostering entrepreneurship. Both R&D and the ladder of growing local giants have underperformed. We are worldclass at marshalling inputs but commercial outcomes, in terms of Singaporean-grown companies, have not appeared at the rate the spending implies.

On talent, we want to attract the very best to work alongside a strong local core. On capital, we disagree about design but perhaps not ideology.

But there is a serious methodological point. The state runs on taxpayers' money. Prudence is its duty. Innovation requires the opposite: calibrated risk-taking. Which is why risk capital belongs in a policy investment bank rather than inside Government, as the Prime Minister proposes. A prudent-first posture is difficult to unlearn.

Where we do have an ideological disagreement is the price of land. My colleague, Mr Louis Chua will also speak about this later.

The Economic Strategy Review (ESR) organises itself around inputs to production: capital, labour, productivity. But land is an input distinct from capital. It is discussed as revenue and not as a cost – a constraint to live within and not as a lever to change. And it is not a small cost.

In December 2022, the Government put the development cost of that year's 13,506 completed flats at $396,000 each – $234,000 of land against $154,000 of construction. Land was 59% of the cost of a flat.

But of course, we can test and change this cost. We have been here before. The Centre for Liveable Cities, the Government's own urban research arm, records what happens when One-North was planned: "The idea of providing residential uses in the form of affordable housing was put forth. However, it was difficult for HDB to change its public housing policies for a single project like One-North. Therefore, the JTC approached the private sector."

National policy then could not bend for One-North. But it should have. What we need for R&D and entrepreneurship matters more than dogmatic inflexibility.

A high price homogenises. It prices out the independent kitchen and the lab with no revenue yet, and leaves to whoever can pay the rent – chains and franchises.

It also programmes space. And market scarcity rate, selects for what can be proven in advance – and nothing new can be proven in advance.

By definition, the novel has no track record. Thus, the experimental messiness of life is competed out.

A zone of lower commercial pressure is a zone for messiness, a zone where land is cheap enough for the young to make their own places and their own future organically – the first variable and not an accommodation.

If land pricing is an unnecessary drag on the young, on enterprise, on an R&D cluster, how do we test it? There is a formidable constraint: Singaporeans need land prices low – to start something, to live somewhere – and we need them high, because many of our savings sit in HDB flats and the state leans on land revenue.

To have both high land pricing and low land pricing simultaneously, we must do away with the constraint of universal land pricing. There are at least three ways to vary a price. First, across time, the island-wide price itself. Second, across a policy-targeted group, as the Build-To-Order (BTO) does for young parents. Third, across a geographic boundary – fence one area and change the pricing function inside, in service of agglomeration and enterprise, people and firms packed close enough to make each other more productive.

I believe that the third is the least disruptive theory of change if one believes that our land pricing assumptions need to be tested. And the question becomes where to test such a zone. For the young, for the R&D economy and for an entrepreneurial spirit. It belongs around our tertiary institutions. And looking at the map, I believe NTU is the obvious candidate.

Why NTU? The research cluster is already there. A large number of labs are sited on campus. And unlike the National University of Singapore (NUS), whose Kent Ridge and One-North districts have little room left, NTU can still expand. And yet, what is planned for Bahar and CleanTech Park, with 116 hectares adjoining NTU? It is another industrial park – the same answer the Party opposite has given again and again.

If we are to clear scarce greenery, the use case must be distinctive enough to be worth the sacrifice. I believe ours is, and another industrial park is not. That is something priceless and irreversible, traded for something cookie cutter.

Take Punggol Digital District. It is 50 hectares, JTC-developed and anchored on Singapore Institute of Technology's (SIT's) campus. It proves that the Government will build a district around a university. But it is more of the same we have done – a business park with a campus in it, on market terms.

If one accepts the first-principle case for a special zone, then two empirical facts must be dealt with.

First, the Jurong Region Line is being dug into NTU, with campus stations arriving at the end of the decade. Tengah's flats are rising beside it. Kept as separate plans, they make one more park that people commute into. The Jurong Innovation District, 620 hectares, holds in Bahar the next greenfield precinct, already zoned with the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) underway. The better bargain is a district for living, working and playing, and for enterprise, and this new district around NTU would be our last chance to run this sort of experiment. Whatever we settle on this parcel becomes how we price the ground beside every campus after it.

Second, the Johor Zone Agreement was signed in January 2025. It is an experiment we must try to make succeed. But for all our hopes on foreign economic policy, it sits in another country and carries the risk that comes with that. We can and should run these experiments for ourselves, by ourselves, if we can – and we can.

If we want to re-orient our culture towards the spirit of independent living, towards the spirit of risk taking, towards the spirit of collaboration, then we must provide the conditions for the spirit to flourish. We should not be distracted by procedural arguments that Bahar and Jurong are already zoned in a Master Plan. The experiment can be run as things stand. The question is whether we will.

So, NTU as a centre of a live, work, build district, distinguished by charging land for housing at cost recovery. By cost, I mean cost in the ordinary sense, with all scarcity value excluded – the actual cost of constructing, financing, servicing, maintaining and renewing the buildings, not the hypothetical market value of the ground beneath them.

What would that come to? We have a few indications. At NTU this academic year, a non-air-conditioned double room costs about $412 a month, and an air-conditioned single room about $657. At NUS, a double in hall runs about $494. Under the co-living scheme announced in late July this year, under the SG Youth plan, a room starts at $1,800 a month at 1925 Quarters; $1,950 at Coliwoo Boon Lay and $2,000 at Coliwoo Lutheran, before utilities and deposits – roughly 30% below the usual rate, with operators absorbing the difference.

The one at Boon Lay is about four kilometres from NTU and cost roughly five times what the university charges its own students. Is it affordable? I do not think it is. The median fresh graduate from our six autonomous universities earns $4,500 a month last year. After Central Provident Fund (CPF), about $3,600 in hand. The Boon Lay rate, plus its fixed utility charge, takes about 60% of it after the discount.

This is not treating our young as a first order consideration. Our young want space of their own and financial autonomy as a precondition for life, not as a byproduct of marriage.

And 30% below market is measured against the scarcity market. Before the discount, the same room took more than three quarters of a graduate's take-home pay. Affordability must be benchmarked against what a young Singaporean actually has to spend rather than market rate discounts.

So, what can we offer with a different basis?

On a cost recovery basis, a room comes to well under the half the going rate, closer to a third. Take one calculation that owes nothing to a university subsidy. A 500 square foot unit at $200 a square foot – above the construction cost implied by the Government's own 2022 figures, so, it is a conservative assumption and not a hopeful one – if you put three people in it and amortise over 10 years at 5%, it comes out to about $1,061 a month, or $2.12 per square foot, roughly $380 a head, with a sinking fund in. Stretch amortisation to 20 years and it is $1.32 per square foot. Other calculations land in the same place. The university's own rate, annualised over 12 months rather than the 35 weeks a term, actually runs, comes out to about $478 to $549 a room.

The universities are already housing people at close to cost. So, we can arrive at a figure between $350 and $550 a month a room.

I know the reply this will draw. All state lands form part of the reserves. Land must be sold at fair market value. Otherwise, the reserves are depleted. So, let us look at practice and not just theory. Start with an instrument we have already written.

The Land Betterment Charge (Concessionary Relief) Order 2022, waives the betterment charge on state lease university land, put to education and institutional use, and defines "university" as NUS and NTU. So, concessions already exist for the universities.

Nor is that the only place the state prices by decision. Land for a place of worship or a civic and community institution is already valued at half of full land value. On the Land Betterment Charge Table effective this March, this is about a tenth of what residential land in the same sector is assessed at.

That red line is not only for rates of places of worship. Educational and institutional use sits in the same group and is charged at three rates across the whole island, while every residential and commercial rate moves across 118 sectors.

For one class of use, the state already sets a price by decision rather than location. And in 2023, the Government moved places of worship from competitive tender to fixed price ballot, precisely because bidding had driven prices to levels that distracted religious bodies into fundraising. Prices fell. Apparently, nobody raided the reserves.

What can we surmise?

For the Party opposite, fair market value is already a function of the interest granted. It is not a single number attached to a plot. Once you change the use class, the fair market value changes with it lawfully, with the Chief Valuer still doing the valuing. The Government identified a market mechanism was pricing a use out of its own purpose, replaced it with an administered price, got a lower number and the Chief Valuer still called it fair market value. So, let us use the rules as they are. Let us create a use category for non-tradable restricted-tenure, mixed housing and enterprise land, and let the Chief Valuer value that restricted interest.

A clear valuation to build productive capacity for the next generation is not a raid on the reserves. It is the outlay side of an investment. It is what every family who pays for tuition for better economic prospects for their kids already knows: it is long-term economic foresight over short-term economic thinking.

How would the zone work if demand exceeds supply? We could ballot. Once in, the rent stays low once you are part of the zone – studying, working, building or serving it. A firm gets a fixed term and an option to renew and graduates out upon success. And a person who loses a job or whose startup dies, gets a year's of grace before the rent resets. And if the housing is rented, never sold, it does not become an asset to be traded.

Mr Speaker, the price of land matters greatly. But it is not sufficient on its own. You must get the other conditions right too.

On governance, an innovation district is a place where things are tried and most of them failed. That requires us to tolerate some untidiness. Most of what I am asking requires no new legislation. JTC let its land on contracts it writes itself – rent formulas, renewal test, quotas, carve outs, occupancy covenants. These are lease terms and not statutes with already existing latitude.

We should lift the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) planning circular, capping non-academic use of a campus at 5% of floor area or 30,000 square metres. We can hasten visa decisions for deep-tech researchers and for the people the enterprises need, and aim to have every major decision in such a zone made within two weeks.

We should aim to devolve operational decisions to the zone's own board, small and nimble, with the anchor university on it, able to make the bundled decisions on space, pilots, housing allocation, visas and procurements. And the board should be responsive to the people living in the zone who should have a say in how it is run.

On money, we should give this zone the ability to back its founders and enterprises. Lower rent is part of a draw. The bigger draw should be growth capital – the zone taking a stake in the enterprises that grow inside it.

Singapore and China established Suzhou Industrial Park in 1994. The zone grew its own investment arm, Oriza Holdings – state-owned, controlled by the Parks Administration Committee, incorporated in 2001, with about US$14 billion under management today.

So, while we are not involved in Oriza Holdings, a zone-based financing body is not unknown to us. Many financial innovations have come from zones. China's New Third Board, its national over-the-counter equity market for unlisted small companies, began in 2006 as a Zhongguancun Science Park Share Transfer pilot and went nationwide in 2013.

So, we should capitalise a zone authority that can invest while providing optimal conditions for its startups and enterprises to succeed, taking a capped equity or revenue stake, and allow it to appropriate a portion of the funds it generates to further develop the zone. A zone of lower immediate commercial pressure for these enterprises is a place where experimentation and diversity can flourish.

Speaker, the zone is one bounded, reversible way to try on available land at a price that takes nothing from the reserves, with land prices outside the zone exactly the way they were – a way to make more Singaporeans involved in enterprise and R&D, and not only employees.

So, the ask is threefold: a zone around NTU; a new use category for restricted tenure, non-tradable, mixed housing and enterprise land, valued as the restricted interest it is; and a zone authority that runs its own operations and takes stakes in the enterprises it grows.

It is a controlled experiment in whether Singapore's land pricing regime is suppressing agglomeration, entrepreneurship and indigenous capital formation. If there is a Singaporean secret sauce that inheres beyond the cost pressures of land and wages, then a zone here, alongside the one in Johor, will tell us. It is a test we should run for our younger generation.

We have spent 30 years making this country a good place for other people's companies to succeed. I am asking that we spend the next 30 making it a place where our owners can – not just a better deal for the young, a country which is built categorically for the young.

Speaker, in closing, there has been much talk that the world has changed and it is not changing back. We can all feel it. So, here is the test of whether we are serious. We must reform significant parts of our present economic structure to deal with a changed world, to pursue growth that distributes more fairly and to measure what makes that growth worth having – a fair share of national income, real income growth in line with productivity and a widening range of what an ordinary wage can afford.

Many of these changes must come at the national level, but some are assumptions, long in the tooth, that must be tested. Universal market land pricing is one. And a policy laboratory at real scale is how we test it. The zone is one part.

In this Motion, each of my hon friends will bring another – structural solutions to structural problems. Singaporeans deserve serious answers; and serious answers are what the WP will provide. That is why we have moved this Motion to create an economy of the future that works for all. Sir, I seek to move. [ Applause. ]

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

12.33 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang) : Mr Speaker, I second the Motion in the name of my hon friend Kenneth Tiong.

I cannot agree more that we need both dynamic local companies and opportunities for businesses to succeed, which is why my contribution to this debate will focus on how we can wean ourselves away from a top-down foreign investment, reliant multinational corporation- (MNC-) centric economic model; and instead build a bottom-up domestic capital led small and medium enterprise- (SME-) focused one. I will also weave in constructive critique on the recently released ESR.

To start, it is useful to sketch out what our traditional growth model has been. Essentially, the strategy was to accumulate. Accumulate more of what economists call factors of production, to ride on increases in the labour force due to demographic change, while simultaneously building up complementary capital, both manufactured in the form of machines, factories, equipment, as well as human through education.

For the former, we marshalled foreign savings with heavy foreign direct investments from MNCs in the early years and since the turn of the century, inward portfolio investment from global funds and family offices. We supplemented this with forced domestic saving from households in the form of CPF and from the state by maintaining large fiscal surpluses.

For the latter, we cranked up educational attainment by rapidly educating our school-aged children, then starting in the 1990s, by increasingly absorbing skilled workers from abroad.

We coupled this build-up of factors with fundamentals, exploiting our geographical location, we fostered an economy open to trade in goods, services and finance.

We also placed emphasis on quality institutions and attractive low tax climate, respect for property rights and rule of law and a high functioning civil service.

We fired on all these cylinders, which brought us famously from a per capita income of around $1,600 at Independence; to more than $121,000 today – a massive increase by any stretch of the imagination.

Notwithstanding how we were already ahead in the 1960s, at least relative to the rest of the developing world, our growth story is undeniably impressive.

This model is not unique to us. It was successfully deployed by Japan in its early industrialisation and the approach, with some idiosyncratic variations, was how the other East Asian dragon economies of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea became wealthy. And starting in the 1980s, China has adapted the self-save model.

As successful as this traditional model was, it had embedded within it several pathologies. It made us obsessed somewhat with courting foreign capital and fearful of right-minded pro-worker policies that would reduce our attractiveness as regional headquarters. Our educational system to churn out a formidable number of excellent operators, but far fewer risk-taking entrepreneurs. And in the drive to economise on scarce land, our Government's leasehold model has fostered a rent-seeking mindset in real estate, rather than treating land as just another normal input to production.

Perhaps the most damning drawback is a known design flaw in the relentless pursuit of accumulating inputs to production, we have lagged in productivity growth. To be fair, this was also the case with the other dragon economies. Yet even among them, Singapore has fared the worst.

Just as important, these other economies, once they entrenched their high-income status, began to evolve their model toward a more internally driven, self-sustaining productivity led one. We have yet to do so decisively.

Some may argue that we should make no excuses for growth. I believe that this is incomplete at best and misguided at worst. After all, we already know how to drive good growth – crank up capital expenditure to the detriment of labour income and productivity.

Indeed, this has been the consistent criticism of Singapore's growth model during its rapid growth phase from the 1960s through to the 1990s and was arguably the impetus for the menagerie of productivity campaigns and bodies that, alas, has not overturned our nation's productivity woes.

And while it is tempting for us to look at bolstering growth from tried and tested tools, such as building up yet more of our already intensive capital stock, we must resist because it is clear that disproportionately prioritising resource allocation into hard infrastructure investment, especially in real estate, is running up against diminishing returns.

Sir, what would such a new model look like? For starters, we must evolve away from our traditional reliance on foreign MNCs as a driver of our growth and pivot toward SMEs as our homegrown economic engine.

While the ESR speaks about both, it betrays, somewhat, an implicit bias toward the former. We need a conscious shift from not too much fixation with tax competition and undervalued exchange rate and the wooing of footloose MNCs. We must instead promote bottom-up formation and growth of our indigenous companies and unleash the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of our local workforce. This means weaning our companies off a race-to-the-bottom focus on cost cutting as the only means to be competitive.

Revenue and wages should instead hinge on productivity gains, not a relentless search for cheaper inputs. Margins can and should be driven by elevating value add and quality. What we want is a "made in Singapore" to be synonymous with better, not just faster or cheaper, which is best left to economies lower down the income ladder.

To be clear, this is not simply an appeal for faster growth, not just for growth's sake. It is of existential importance, especially in the age of AI. Research shows that worldwide, small firms drive destructive innovation, and startups are the bulwark of sustainable growth through this process of creative destruction. Yet, while SMEs account for 99 out of 100 registered enterprises here and provide jobs for seven out of 10 Singaporean workers, they currently only contribute to half of the economy's value added.

If our SMEs are stifled because business or funding opportunities are crowded out by the bigger players, we will never discover our own homegrown globally competitive unicorns. Or if they simply choose to coast along without feeling empowered to challenge large incumbent firms, we will never build a vibrant body of SMEs that form the backbone of our economy, like Germany's Mittelstand or Japan's Taiheiyo Industrial Belt.

To enable this transformation, we need a domestic body of medium-sized enterprises capable of growing to become the next wave of national corporate champions and driving a 21st century innovation-led economy. We need Singaporeans to start Singaporean companies and for these companies to grow and succeed domestically and on the world stage.

Singapore is no stranger to support for SMEs. The Government would undoubtedly point to a veritable grab bag of schemes, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit, Enterprise Development Grant, Market Readiness Assistance, Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package – I could go on.

The question is not whether these are useful. They are. The issue is whether these catalytic grants will spur SME activity sufficiently to allow them to systematically advance to the next stage of growth, or whether there are other structural impediments that inhibit them from transforming themselves from small local firms to medium sized, globally competitive ones.

Businesses themselves report several key constraints to growth. Most notably, SMEs struggle with low levels of productivity, something that the Government itself has explicitly acknowledged. Many report an inability to attract and retain the sort of talent that will allow them to elevate their efficiency and output.

To be fair, our SMEs have to confront business costs among the highest in the world. And to compound the challenge, SMEs must secure financing for investment, which is especially scarce once they exit the startup stage. Our SMEs must stand ready to be the source of development innovation, the "D" in R&D.

I have shared with this House previously about how at less than 2% of GDP, our nation's R&D remains squarely below the global average and significantly behind that of leading innovation nations. But I also explained that this was because of anaemic R&D spending by the private sector, not the Government. Alas, among SMEs, this is even worse. The overwhelming majority of business R&D expenditure (BERD) is likely to be from large enterprises.

The ESR talks about R&D, but it does not underscore the importance of this pivot.

I note that the Prime Minister's Office announced last year a $37 billion commitment to research, innovation and enterprise funding over the next five years. This will bring our public expenditure to around 1%, which will be among the global leaders. But we need to accelerate private R&D, not just with more public funding, but with complementary funding from our private capital markets as well.

To be fair, tax incentives for corporations to undertake R&D are already very generous, with up to 400% deduction for the first $400,000 of qualifying expenditures every assessment year, supplemented more recently by up to 100% in Refundable Investment Credit. SMEs have been major beneficiaries, making up 85% of R&D claims.

But improving productivity is not about innovation alone. Research has shown that one important impediment to improving the efficiency of smaller firms is the quality of management. This means there may therefore be a case to expand the scope of qualifying R&D activities for the purposes of tax deductions for this group. This is especially for activities aimed at product commercialisation, enhanced internal business operation or overseas expansion.

What is also missing is a coherent innovation pathway for all SMEs, not just those oriented towards sexy, cutting-edge fields. Founders of old economy startups may not necessarily possess the technological sophistication to navigate the GoBusiness Directory or the awareness to seek out business advisors in Enterprise Singapore. They may not be able to string together the myriad packages available or even put together credible applications.

What is needed is a push rather than pull strategy, where new business registrants are automatically and routinely offered information on how they can access support from the Government to roll out business development innovations over the course of their initial years. Even better, startups can match with seconded experts that grow their R&D capabilities in-house, akin to the Agency for Science, Technology and Research's (A*STAR's) Technology for Enterprise Capability Upgrading (T-Up) programme.

There remains additional room for the state to act as well, through its indirect influence on GLCs. Despite being half of our economy's value-added R&D spending by domestic enterprises account for only $1 of every $5. Our GLCs can lead the way by dedicating more of their retained earnings toward expenditures in applied R&D, subject to a reasonable return on investment period. Over the medium run, they can look more towards elevating their spending to more closely match those of other MNCs.

Finally, we can also support SME productivity indirectly by tackling our sky-high business costs. Speaking to SMEs, the subject of crushing manpower and rent inevitably emerges. Yet scaling up and relocating is not always an option. Hence, we need to look for alternatives. One simple strategy is to cap the maximum quantum that rents may increase every year to the historical increase of about 3% annually.

This is a limit on the rate, not the level. Market rents will still prevail in the long run. Still, doing so will give time for businesses to adjust to jumps in their fixed costs. Such restrictions have been employed by many jurisdictions worldwide. Even if we limit it to Government and agency landlords, such as the HDB or JTC, it will be a major step forward.

It may also be time to revisit the dependency ratio ceiling for certain sectors, like F&B, where Singaporeans continue to shun open positions that are advertised even at attractive wages.

Sir, at the heart of the challenge of raising up our local SMEs is the difficulty of attracting and retaining talented workers. Singaporeans often view small firm jobs as small-time, second-tier operations compared to a more lucrative prestigious MNC career. The ESR report, while rightly emphasising the importance of good jobs, remains largely silent on the gap between SME and MNC positions and how they may be bridged.

Bridging this gap must recognise that smaller firms often struggle to round up sufficient financing for investment compared to larger ones. Relieving internal and external access to finance for the purposes of easing cash flow that will unlock hiring is first order if we wish to improve the viability of our young dynamic companies.

There are already schemes that support small enterprise business development. For example, the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) is aimed at projects and the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) is aimed at IT equipment. They ostensibly relieve financial constraints. The EDG even explicitly recognises human capital development projects as a core capability.

Our PSG should do the same since productivity is boosted as much by human capital as it is by IT equipment.

While one may argue that the Workforce Development Grant (WDG) does much the same thing, the WDG appears overly restrictive, reliant on an approved consultant panel and is not available on an ongoing basis.

I believe the scope should be more flexible and allow SMEs to bolster compensation and benefits to better match starting salaries offered by MNCs.

Beyond salaries, jobseekers may be attracted to work in SMEs because of the promise of greater work variety and flexibility, and greater exposure to business roles and functions. Internship and apprenticeship programmes, including those from polytechnics, universities and the Graduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme should actively look to enfold SMEs into their slate of potential employers. The Career Conversion Programmes should not be limited to the wholesale trade but be expanded to encompass a wider range of SME sectors.

That said, application and reporting requirements for these programmes are often onerous, stretching the already thin resources of small businesses. While I accept the need for prudence in managing public funds, we should not turn SMEs into another Government bureaucracy. There should be a simplified application process for grants and reporting process requirements should focus on fraud audit rather than extensive documentation compliance.

Moreover, funds are provided on a reimbursement basis at the moment. But any small business owner, especially one that is starting up, knows that one of the principal challenges that they face is sustaining cash flow. We should also reimburse any support we offer upfront and trust SME owners to deploy these grants wisely. Of course, supporting SMEs with young talent can occur even earlier upstream. SMEs in search of skilled workers often seek out interns. Unfortunately, many young would-be graduates remain unmatched to potential SME employers.

This is not for lack of trying. Most tertiary institutions already include a job exposure scheme, but take-up remains low. In 2024, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) supplied 1,300 students while autonomous universities sent 800. This is despite how attachments often translate into jobs. Perhaps more importantly, SME participation remains low. Around 300 firms have joined such programmes, which are less than 1% of registered SMEs.

One factor behind the low take-up rate could be because companies that hope to partner with tertiary institutions must co-design and co-deliver bespoke curricula. This can be insurmountable for smaller companies with limited resources and understanding of how to go about doing so.

It may be better to take a cue from the German approach, where more than one in 10 companies participate in their equivalent programme, by expanding the scope of potential applicants, allowing interns to be hired using SkillsFuture funds and accepting simpler application criteria from SME employers.

Yet even when directed towards hiring talent, there is little structure to ensure the systematic transfer of skills such that the benefits of human capital are spread across the firm. That is especially the case for foreign talent.

There is room to place greater emphasis on local capability development built into schemes, such as the Pioneer Certificate Incentive, and Development and Expansion Incentive to better embed skills transfer to Singaporean employees. Larger grants in particular should be paired with a clear proposal and timetable for ensuring skills transfer, including the possibility of a sunset of foreign Employment Passes after a designated duration if no additional transfer is taking place. When local employees are sent for skills upgrading, employers of micro and small enterprises can be partially reimbursed with make-up pay to cover the costs of temporary hiring or overtime, similar to make-up pay when NSmen fulfil their reservist commitments.

Sir, let me close.

Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Lim, you have a minute left.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim : I hear you.

To be clear, what I am calling for is not a wholesale overhaul of our GLC-heavy, MNC-led and foreign capital-reliant model, which has to date served us well. Sidelining these actors would amount to killing off the golden goose, which have established themselves as cornerstones of our corporate and industrial landscape. Our GLCs have also been increasingly competitive on international shores, projecting the economic influence of Singapore Inc worldwide.

Nor am I proposing that we abandon our foreign investment and shut the door to foreign capital flows. This will hollow out our capital base. No modern economy, much less a globalised one, like ours, operates without due attention to international players. But what I am calling for are policy and institutional shifts that will usher in a changed mindset for how we should view our homegrown companies in an already wealthy, advanced economy. The shift will place small, but especially, medium-sized firms at the beating heart of our nation's economic model, away from the interests of large foreign-based MNCs or even our GLC behemoths.

What we need is creative destruction. By destroying, we will create simultaneously an economy ready for the 21st century.

Mr Speaker : Mr Mark Lee.

12.53 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member) : Mr Speaker, the Motion sets out aspirations that few would disagree with – a more inclusive economy, greater space for entrepreneurs to experiment, opportunities for businesses and workers to succeed, and a stronger base of Singapore companies and capital capable of venturing abroad.

These are not Government aspirations or Opposition aspirations. They are Singapore imperatives. The real question is not whether we want them. It is how we achieve them and who must act.

But we should begin with two truths.

First, Singapore's economy grew by 5.7% in the second quarter of this year. Manufacturing expanded by 12.2%, driven largely by AI-related demand for electronics and precision engineering. This growth is real and welcomed.

Second, it is not being felt evenly. On the ground, I have heard that unless your business is AI, then it must be BI, BI means "bei ai" (悲哀), which means "to be sorrowful", in Mandarin.

Many businesses, especially domestic-facing ones, continue to grapple with uncertain demand and persistently high manpower, rental and operating costs. For these businesses and their workers whose livelihoods depend on them, headline GDP does not feel like growth. It feels like daily firefighting. That concern is real.

Our response must therefore work on two horizons – practical, time-bound relief for viable businesses under immediate pressure and longer-term transformation support to help them raise productivity, scale and reach new markets.

But relief without transformation merely postpones the problem. The Government must build the runway for our economy through sound regulation, infrastructure, education, fair regulation and a strong social safety net. But firms, entrepreneurs and workers are the planes that must still take off. From a business perspective, this means three imperatives – enabled enterprises, expand opportunity and embed responsibility.

To enable enterprise, we must build an inclusive economy, one that gives people and businesses equal dignity, genuine access to opportunity and meaningful support when they face disadvantage or disruption. But fairness is not sameness. A traditional SME trying to digitise has different needs from a technology start-up developing intellectual property. A promising local enterprise preparing to expand overseas needs different support from a company whose business model that may no longer be viable.

Fairness means understanding what each business needs to progress and being clear about the outcomes public support should achieve. If support is spread too thinly, we fail to give enough runway to companies with the potential to break out internationally. At the same time, inclusion cannot mean guaranteeing the survival of every business.

A dynamic economy requires entry, experimentation, occasional failure and renewal. Entrepreneurs should have the room to fail responsibly and try again. But public support cannot remove every commercial risk or socialise every business loss. The Government's role is to create a fair and enabling environment. Businesses' role is to use it to improve, invest and compete.

This is where our business institutions must step up. My practical message to businesses is simple. Whatever stage of development you are at, your first port of call should be SBF or your relevant chamber and trade association.

A company should not need to understand the entire Government organisational chart before it can obtain help. If you need to understand a policy or regulation, start with us. If you need guidance on financing, start with us. If you need to transform your workforce, adopt AI, enter a new market or find the right Government support, start with us. We may not have every answer. But we will own the handover and help every company find the right door.

Take All Hearts, a homegrown training provider. As it grew, manual processes led to mounting errors and delays. Through SBF's Technology Implementation Advisory Service, developed with support from Enterprise Singapore and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), we helped the company adopt a single integrated tech solution. Manual data entry fell by half, reports became almost immediate and the staff gained more time to train and support learners.

For an established SME, the next step may be new financing, stronger management capabilities or entry into an overseas market.

UTRACON, a Singapore engineering firm seeking to grow in the Middle East, had the capability but lacked local partners and market access. Through GlobalConnect@SBF, supported by Enterprise Singapore, SBF connected it to a United Arab Emirates (UAE) partner and opened doors to regional projects. Our role is not to venture for companies but to shorten the distance to their first opportunity abroad. Enabling enterprise also means ensuring our regulations remain fit-for-purpose.

Regulations are necessary to protect workers, consumers, public safety, the environment and the integrity of our economy. But over time, rules can accumulate and create unintended friction. The answer is not deregulation for its sake. It is disciplined experimentation. Test changes carefully, learn from evidence and adjust where rules no longer work.

The Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Competitiveness demonstrates how this can work. It brought businesses, trade associations and chambers and public agencies together through 25 engagement sessions. So far, 24 of 27 recommendations has been adopted in some shape and form. These included changes to foreign manpower sources for select occupations; retention of experienced Work Permit holders; more flexible industrial leases; faster solar-panel deployment approvals; and the creation of the SME Pro-Enterprise Office.

The value of the AfA was not that Government agreed with every business request. It was that businesses explained where rules created problems, and that agencies explained the safeguards and trade-offs they had to manage. Sometimes, businesses changed their views after understanding the policy reasons. In other cases, agencies adjusted the rules after understanding operational realities.

This is what good collaboration looks like. Not Government always saying yes, not business always being right. But policy learning through engagement and improving over time.

Mr Speaker, the Motion also speaks of healthy domestic demand and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. I agree.

For Singapore, domestic demand can only provide a buffer, but it cannot be our principal engine of scale. To grow, Singapore companies must venture abroad, find new customers, build new production capacity, acquire technology and participate in supply chains beyond our shores. So far, SBF has facilitated 108 overseas projects for 79 Singapore companies across 44 markets. That is the ambition we need to enable – Singapore companies venturing out, while keeping their most valuable capabilities anchored here.

Golden Bridge Foods is one example. With SBF's facilitation, this Singapore agri-food company invested more than RM50 million to establish a new manufacturing capacity in Johor, Malaysia, while retaining Singapore as the base for managing its regional business. This is why the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) matters. Its potential can be strengthened by linking it more closely with Batam, Bintan and Karimun (BKK). SBF has initiated a strategic study on how better physical and digital connectivity, smoother customs arrangements and closer regulatory coordination could bring the JS-SEZ and BBK together as a wider regional cooperation.

But expanding our hinterland is no free lunch. Better connectivity also gives consumers more choices and exposes businesses here to greater competition.

SBF's Johor Bahru–Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link study, done together the Restaurant Association of Singapore and the Singapore Retailers Association illustrates this trade-off. After the RTS Link opens, Singapore consumers could spend an additional $1.05 billion annually in Johor Bahru, while Johor visitors could spend an additional $756 million in Singapore.

Our response cannot be to stop people from crossing the border. Neither can Singapore businesses compete on price alone. We must compete on quality, trust, productivity, innovation, distinctive products and better experiences.

As we expand markets to create new opportunities, competition will come. The answer is not protection. It is to help Singapore companies build the capabilities to venture abroad, anchor value here and become strong enough to compete.

This brings me to my third point on embedding responsibility. Companies that benefit from access to global talent must also help develop Singaporeans by mentoring them, build local successors and give Singapore employees regional and global exposure. We should not frame this as a choice between developing Singaporeans and remaining open to foreign or global talent.

Foreign professionals bring networks, technical knowledge and experience in overseas markets. But openness will remain socially sustainable only if it comes with real integration, knowledge transfer and investment in local leadership. The Alliance for Action on the Integration of Foreign Professionals, convened by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and SBF, shows how this can be done. It produced practical recommendations to strengthen workplace integration while keeping Singapore open to global talent.

SBF, with support from MCCY, now has an Integration of Foreign Professionals Programme Office. It works with trade associations and chambers to run orientation for new Employment Pass holders, provides workplace-integration resources and conducts cultural-sensitivity workshops.

Finally, Mr Speaker, economic success must strengthen our wider society. Businesses benefit from Singapore's stability, infrastructure, educated workforce, rule of law and social cohesion. Giving back to society is not charity, but reinvestment in the foundations that enterprise depends on. That is why the work of the SBF Foundation and our social impact programmes matters.

Through VolunteerInc., we help companies, including SMEs, mobilise their employees to contribute skills and time in the community. Through EmployWell and MigrantWell, we create employment pathways for vulnerable groups and support migrant workers' well-being.

More than 5,200 companies have taken part in these programmes. But the human outcomes matter more. Through EmployWell alone, over 2,100 individuals facing barriers to work received employability support, and more than 1,000 re-entered the workforce. This is how businesses strengthen the social compact.

Mr Speaker, what do these examples show? They show what becomes possible when businesses and Government work together. Business leaders serve in SBF and our trade associations and chambers not because they have time to spare. Far from it. But because they know that no company can build a competitive ecosystem alone. Government cannot know every operational difficulty that businesses face. Businesses may not fully appreciate every national trade-off that Government must manage. Unions must understand that better jobs depend on viable companies, while employers must recognise that transformation cannot succeed without workers.

That is why our tripartite and public-private partnerships remain important. The parties do not need to agree on everything. But there must be enough trust to discuss difficult trade-offs honestly and enough commitment to act after the discussion.

If each of us plays our part, Singapore will not merely respond to the future. We will shape it together. That is the economy of the future I believe Singapore must build. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Mr Speaker, the current global economic outlook is uncertain. Fluctuating oil prices and frequent tariff changes have seriously affected economies and business worldwide. Singapore, as a small open nation with no natural resources, is likewise under considerable pressure.

Fortunately, we have a robust financial system. Businesses have been actively diversifying their investment and managing risks and the Government has recently introduced a range of support measures that can in the short term ease the pressure faced by SMEs and the people from external pressures.

Looking ahead, we still face several structural challenges. While AI is driving technological transformation, it is also pushing up energy demand and we need to develop renewable energy. The ageing population is also a serious concern – an inefficient youth population will lead to a dual shortage of both the workforce and consumer base.

These challenges are real and cannot be ignored. We must adapt in a timely manner. We all share the same goals. Our differences lie only in the path forward. As the saying goes, if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together. If everyone acts independently and looks only after their own interests, some short-term progress may be made, but it will not last. Only by supporting one another and working together can we move forward steadily and sustainably.

Therefore, businesses should actively seize opportunities while giving back to society. Workers should continue learning and upgrading skills and the Government should continue building a fair, open and transparent business environment.

I firmly believe that as long as the tripartite partners work together, we will be able to weather the difficulties and achieve long-term development.

( In English ): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the wording of the Motion suggest that these aspirations somehow stand apart from the ESR. I am not entirely persuaded by that framing. As such, I cannot support the Motion in its current form.

Mr Speaker : Mr Edward Chia.

1.10 pm

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah) : Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I declare that I own and operate a biotech startup that provides circular food solutions to local companies and global enterprises. I rise to speak on the Motion on an Economy of the Future that Works for All. I agree with the broad aspirations behind the Motion.

We all want a more inclusive economy – stronger local companies, good jobs for Singaporeans and growth that gives our people confidence in the future. But I believe the Motion can be strengthened by making clear that these aspirations are aligned with the ESR, and by better reflecting the realities of Singapore's small and open economy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your consent to move amendments to the Motion.

Mr Speaker : May I have a copy of your proposed amendments?

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui : Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker : You can hand it to my Clerk. [ A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker. ]

Okay, I see you have four proposed amendments. They are in order. Are copies available for Members?

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui : Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker : We will get this distributed to all Members. [ Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members. ]

Alright, looks like every Member here has been given a copy. Mr Chia, you may move your amendments.

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui : Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, I move that:

"In line 1, to delete 'notwithstanding', and insert 'in line with'."

"In line 5, to delete 'economic engine driven', and insert 'economy powered'."

"In line 5, after the words 'local companies', to insert 'global enterprises'."

"In line 5, after the words 'healthy domestic', to insert 'and external'."

The proposed amended Motion will therefore read, "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 innovations 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."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments strengthen the Motion in three ways.

First, it makes clear that the aspirations of inclusion, entrepreneurship, innovation and good jobs are aligned with the ESR, not pursued in spite of it. Second, it recognises that the Singapore's future economy needs both dynamic local companies and global enterprises. Third, it recognises that healthy domestic demand must be supported by strong external demand, especially for a small and open economy, like Singapore.

I will therefore speak to the proposed amended Motion by making three points.

First, is that the ESR provides a strategic foundation for an inclusive and innovative economy. The ESR recognises that the world has changed fundamentally. In a more fractious environment, Singapore cannot simply preserve what worked in the past. We must renew our strategy. Its three imperatives are clear: sharpen Singapore's value proposition; enhance agility and adaptability; and build resilience alongside efficiency.

These recommendations did not emerge in isolation. The ESR was shaped through extensive engagements with businesses, unions, workers and industry stakeholders. It should therefore be seen not merely as a Government report, but as a national strategy, co-created, shaped with the people and enterprises that helped carry it out.

So, the next challenge is execution. And we start from a strong base. Investments in R&D have anchored research talent in Singapore and also catalysed business expenditure in R&D. Business expenditure in R&D has reached about $9 billion in 2023.

So, what we need to do next is to strengthen research translation. Singapore not only must produce more research, but translate more ideas into products; more intellectual property to businesses; more innovation into globally competitive Singapore enterprises.

This requires strong partnerships between our universities, research institutions, investors and enterprise. We need clearer pathways for promising technology to commercialise more industry-led research collaborations and better access for startups and SMEs to capital, customers and global markets.

Second, we must help workers move up, move across and move forward. Even as technology disrupts jobs, the answer is not to slow down technology adoption. That will make our firms less competitive and ultimately, weaken opportunities for Singaporeans. The answer is to give workers access to relevant training, better career guidance, industry-recognised skills and real pathways into growth sectors. An economy that works for all must create a broad range of good jobs for technicians, operational specialist, tradespeople, associates, and professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), service workers, mid-career workers and mature workers.

My second point is that Singapore's economic engine must be powered by both dynamic local companies and global enterprises.

Dynamic local companies matter, but we should not frame local companies and global enterprises as competing choices. Singapore's success has never been built on such false choice. Instead, our focus should be on helping MNCs, large local companies, SMEs and startups build up one another. Global enterprises bring investments, technology and international networks while local enterprises contribute agility, innovation and specialised capabilities. Together, they create an ecosystem that builds capabilities, accelerates innovations and creates better job opportunities for Singaporeans.

We have already seen how this works in practice. AEM, a homegrown Singapore company, designs an advance system that test semiconductors before they reach the market, including the thermal control technology needed to screen today's power-hungry AI chips. Through a partnership with a global semiconductor MNC in the 2010s, AEM evolved from a contract manufacturer into a trusted innovative engineering partner to the semiconductor industry, delivering tests, thermal automation solutions to AI, high-performance computing and memory devices.

From a Singapore base, it has grown into a global test leader, with operations across Asia, Europe and the US, and it is now extending its expertise to the world's most advanced AI processors. This shows how partnership with a global enterprise can help a Singapore company build proprietary capabilities, move up the value chain and compete and win on the world stage. And I just last checked, AEM's market capitalisation is around $2.8 billion.

So, the challenge before us is to deepen these partnerships so that more Singapore enterprises can innovate, scale and internationalise. These connections strengthen research translations by bringing researchers, startups, SMEs, investors and industry together to move innovation more quickly from the laboratory to the marketplace. We must help our SMEs and startups scale while ensuring that global enterprises continue to find Singapore a trusted and valuable base. If we become less open, less connected and less attractive to global capital and talent, it is actually our local companies that will lose access to markets, partners, technology and opportunity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point is that Singapore's future must be open and outward-looking while ensuring that growth strengthens our social compact and benefits Singaporeans. This is why we need both healthy domestic and external demand. Domestic demand matters. It sustains many local enterprises, supports jobs and reflects confidence among households and businesses. Yet our whole market alone cannot provide the scale needed for every sector. We therefore need both a vibrant domestic market where locally focused enterprises can thrive and strong global connections that help other firms reach larger markets.

In 2025, Singapore's exports for goods and services amounted to approximately 178% of our GDP. This reflects how deeply our economy is connected to regional and global markets. We must continue to serve the world from Singapore as a trusted hub for finance, trade, technology, logistics, aviation, maritime, data, arbitration, greenfields, professional services and innovation. At the same time, the benefits of this external orientation must flow back to Singaporeans through good jobs, wages, skills and enterprise opportunities. This reinforces confidence and demand at home.

This is why the ESR emphasis on Singapore as a connected and trusted hub is so important. In a more fragmented world, connectivity alone is not enough. We must become a place where flows are orchestrated, finance governed, translated into economic value. This is how we remain relevant. This is how we create high-value jobs. This is how we secure our future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amended Motion also refers to Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. This is important, but this must be done from a strong and open Singapore base from which capital, talent and enterprise can scale into the region. We want Singaporeans to lead, manage, invest, build and operate across borders. We also want global partners to use Singapore as a launchpad and to create opportunities for Singaporeans from Singapore.

This is especially important in Southeast Asia. Our region is growing, but it is also diverse, complex and uneven. Singapore companies need support to understand local regulations, build partnerships, manage risk, access financing and scale operations. The Government can do this to help local enterprises internationalise through market access platforms, financing support, overseas networks, talent development and stronger partnerships with regional governments and businesses. But this must sit within an open and outward-looking strategy. We become stronger by helping the world solve problems from Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this brings me to the broader question of inclusion. Sometimes, economic debates frame equality and competitiveness as opposing objectives. I do not agree. For Singapore, competitiveness is what gives us the resources to be inclusive. Without growth, there will be fewer jobs. Without investments, there will be fewer opportunities. Without productive companies, wages cannot rise sustainably. Without fiscal resource, we cannot fund education, housing, healthcare, social support and skills upgrading.

So, the question is not whether we choose growth or inclusion. The question is what kind of growth we pursue and how we ensure that Singaporeans will benefit from it. We want growth that will create good jobs; growth that allows workers to move into better roles; growth that strengthens local enterprises; and growth that supports families, seniors, lower-wage workers and mid-career workers.

This is the exactly the kind of growth the Government has emphasised in its broader economic strategy. Progressive wages help lower-wage workers. Workfare supports workers who need additional help. SkillsFuture helps Singaporeans upgrade and reskill. The Forward Singapore agenda strengthens social support across different life stages. The ESR builds on this by focusing on good jobs, lifelong learning, enterprise transformation and resilience.

There is also another dimension to enterprise that we should not overlook. We should view enterprises not only as economic units but also as social actors. Companies create jobs, pay wages and generate growth, but at their best they can also strengthen communities, support vulnerable groups, care for the environment and contribute to a stronger society. The National Volunteer And Philanthropy Centre's (NVPC's) Company of Good Movement is one example. It has just marked its 10th anniversary and recognises businesses that embed corporate purpose and create positive impact beyond traditional economic indicators. The movement encourages companies to act across five areas: people, society, governance, environment and economic.

This is not just philanthropy. It is about how companies execute purpose through their core business and operations. Some companies do this through inclusive hiring and people-first workplace cultures. Others do this through employee volunteering, mentoring SMEs, supporting community partners, reducing waste, improving sustainability practices or using their products, services and supply chains to create wider social impact. Examples include Sheng Siong's people-first culture, HPE's waste recycling, HP's Planet Partners programme and Fraser's Property's efforts to shape environments and communities through its role as a real estate developer. In just three years, the movement has conferred 1,046 companies, more than 70% of them local companies. This is encouraging progress with room to grow further.

This matters because an inclusive economy cannot be built by the Government alone. Startups, SMEs, large local enterprises and MNCs can be a force for good when they embed purpose into how they hire, buy, build, serve and grow. A future economy that works for all must be one where businesses do well and also do good.

Sir, inclusion cannot mean insulating everyone from change. The role of the Government is not to freeze the economy in place. Instead, the role of the Government is to help workers and businesses adapt before disruption hits and to provide support when transitions are difficult. This requires honesty. The reality is that not every existing job will remain unchanged. Not every firm will survive in its current form and Singapore cannot avoid global competition.

But we can commit. We can commit to helping Singaporeans build new skills, access new opportunities and navigate change with confidence. We can commit to helping businesses transform, adopt new technologies, access new markets and build the capabilities needed to compete in a changing world. This is a more honest and sustainable form of inclusion.

This is why the proposed amended Motion matters. It reflects the balance Singapore must strike. It is aligned with the ESR. It supports dynamic local companies and global enterprises as part of one ecosystem that creates opportunities for Singaporean entrepreneurs and workers. It values healthy domestic demand while recognising the necessity of strong external demand. It encourages Singaporeans and Singaporean capital to venture abroad while remaining anchored in a trusted, open and resilient Singapore.

Our future economy must be open, competitive and inclusive at the same time. We must attract the best from the world while developing the best in Singaporeans. We must support local enterprises while staying plugged into a global network. We must embrace AI and technology, not to replace human capability, but to expand it – using AI to strengthen workers' judgement, free up time for meaningful interactions and support roles where trust remains central. We must grow externally while ensuring that Singaporeans benefit domestically. We must build resilience without becoming closed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the ESR provides serious and forward-looking roadmap for the next phase. It recognises the real anxieties that workers and businesses face, but it also recognises that Singapore cannot respond to uncertainty by becoming smaller in our ambition. We must be bolder. We must take calculated risk. We must back our enterprises. We must invest in our people. We must strengthen our role as a global trusted hub and we must ensure that every Singaporean has a fair chance to contribute and benefit from the future economy.

An economy of the future that works for all is not built by choosing between openness and inclusion. It is built by making growth translate into good jobs. It is built by making innovation accessible to enterprises and workers. It is built by making change less frightening, because Singaporeans know that we will face it together. This is the economy we must build.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek Members' support for the amended Motion. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Mr Tiong, hang on, let me go through the process. There are four amendments proposed by Mr Edward Chia to the Motion:

Amendment No 1: "In line 1, to delete 'notwithstanding' and insert 'in line with'.".

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

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

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

It may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement to this?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated agreement. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker : Assent of the majority of Members is given. The question is the amendments as moved by Mr Edward Chia. The debate can range over the original Motion and the amendments.

Before I call on Mr Louis Chua, Mr Tiong, do you want to make a clarification? You certainly have the right of reply at the end, at the closing. Do you want to raise a clarification now? Sure.

1.32 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat : Thank you. Just one clarification for the hon Member Edward Chia. While we will have comments on some of the other amendments, for the second amendment, which is to delete "economic engine driven" and insert "economy powered", I am not quite sure what the purpose of this amendment is. It appears to me, to use a favourite word from a Minister opposite. Quite otiose.

Mr Speaker : Mr Chia.

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui : Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we do not want to really debate on the choice of words or semantics at this point. But I think it is basically really saying that an economy must be powered by both local companies and global enterprises. And I think we could hear from the Member at his closing.

Essentially, I think the crux of the amendment is to first say that the spirit of your Motion, the intent, the original Motion is aligned with the ESR. And to support local companies, we must also take the view that global enterprises must be part of the single ecosystem that in turn supports local companies.

Mr Speaker : Mr Louis Chua

1.34 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang) : Mr Speaker, in May this year, the ESR presented 32 recommendations across eight thrusts, the product of five committees and consultations with more than 7,700 stakeholders, with the full report released in June.

It is a serious piece of work and I commend those involved. But as I noted in this House last September, Singapore has never lacked task forces and committees – the Economic Strategies Committee in 2009, the Committee on the Future Economy in 2016, the Future Economy Council, the Industry Transformation Maps, the Emerging Stronger Task Force in 2020, and now the ESR and the Singapore Economic Resilient Task Force.

At this rate, reviewing the economy risks becoming a growth industry in its own right.

The ESR asks searching questions of our businesses and our workers: sharpen our value proposition, be agile, be resilient. These are fair propositions. But there is one economic actor of whom the report asked remarkably little – the Government itself and specifically, the Government in its most lucrative role as our landlord.

The state owns some 90% of the land in Singapore and it is by a wide margin the biggest landlord in the country.

My contention today is a simple one. The ESR ambitions for enterprise and innovation will not be realised so long as the Government continues to see itself as a landlord and as long as Singaporeans continue to share in the Government's rentier mindset.

In fact, even as economists often identify the key factors of production, being land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship, there is not a single mention of land in the 32 recommendations of the ESR report, even as the report itself had acknowledged that land, energy and demographic constraints are expected to tighten.

Mr Speaker, rent-seeking behaviour permeates our society and the tone is set at the top. As I have shared in my speech at the opening of this term in Parliament, policy should not inevitably reward the highest bidder at the expense of wider societal outcomes.

And it is in upstream land costs that we must go further. State land forms part of our reserves, but excessive land prices push up development costs and rents, impacting tenants and companies, and eventually consumers.

As a local C-suite member of one of Asia's largest real estate groups has shared in the past, in Singapore, land costs now form roughly 70% of total project development expenditure, up from just 4% in the 1980s for Raffles City. These costs do not vanish. They cascade from developer to tenant, from tenant to hawker, clinic, shopkeeper and finally, to every consumer.

I anticipate the familiar reply that rental is not the largest cost businesses face. Indeed, when this House debated hawker culture, the Senior Minister of State cited a National Environment Agency (NEA) survey showing that rental forms less than 10% of store holders' operating costs against 56% for raw materials and 20% for manpower.

But this argument proves too little. Where does the hawker suppliers operate from? A rented industrial unit on state priced land. Where does the wholesaler store his goods, the logistics firm parks its lorries, the essential kitchen prepares its ingredients? All on land whose price the state sets and extracts.

High land prices feed into rentals and rentals feed into every line of the cost structure, including the 56% we are told to look instead. Rent is not one cost amongst many. It is a cost embedded in all the others and an important, fixed overhead that cannot be avoided.

Members will recall the $52,000 monthly rental bid for a general practitioner (GP) clinic in an HDB estate. Minister Ong Ye Kung himself acknowledged that this must feed through to healthcare costs one way or another and that the highest rental bid does not deliver the best care for the community. I agreed with his view then and I continue to hold this view. During this year's Committee of Supply, I appreciate that HDB is expanding the Price Quality Method for commercial tenders of neighbourhood shops.

But if we accept this logic downstream at the level of a single shop tender, we must have the intellectual honesty to apply upstream to land policy itself.

Mr Speaker, there is a structural reason why these costs keep rising. Our land sales system is built so that prices can only ratchet upwards. Sites are awarded to the highest bidder generally, subject to a reserve price that is not published for any individual site. When the market bids above the reserve, the land is sold and a new benchmark is set. When the market bids below it, the tender is simply not awarded, barring other specific circumstances and the state waits for a better day. Heads, land prices rise. Tails, land prices are not allowed to fall.

In a reply to my Parliamentary Question in July 2021, the Minister for Law disclosed that the reserve price is pegged to 85% of the estimated market value assessed by the Chief Valuer's office; and that of the 133 sites launched for tender between 2016 and 2021, 17 were not awarded because the highest bids were deemed not reflective of the fair market value of the land.

That is roughly one in eight tenders aborted rather than allowed to clear at what the market was actually prepared to pay.

The pattern continues in February 2024, when the URA declined to award the Marina Gardens Crescent white site because the sole bid of $770 million, or $984 per square foot per plot ratio, was assessed to be too low.

The history of Paya Lebar Quarter, one of my favourite mixed-use sites in the East, tells the same story. In November 2011, URA rejected the sole bid from a consortium of UOL Group and Singapore Land for a mixed-use site in Paya Lebar Central at $529.5 million, or $566 per square foot per plot ratio on the grounds that it was too low. The consortium asked for reserve prices to be made public, given the cost and efforts of submission of such a scale. URA declined, saying disclosure would not be in the public interest.

When the site was eventually tended and awarded in April 2015, it was sold at $1.67 billion, or $943 per square foot per plot ratio, at a rate some two thirds higher than the bid the Government had earlier refused. The land waited four years; the price went up by about two thirds. The state coffers are higher by a billion, even as the site area is now bigger, and we saw private residential prices in that area reach new highs after Park Place Residences was eventually launched. Is this a healthy development?

The irony is that the Government understands this perfectly well in certain cases. NEA proudly sets no reserve rent at all for hawker stall tenders since 2012 and does not set a minimum bid price for hawker stall tenders.

My first call, therefore, is that maximising revenues from land and building should no longer be a primary consideration of land policy. As I have argued in this House before, we should bring back the two-envelope concept and price tenders as the default for strategic and community facing sites, so that land is awarded on the quality and value of what is built and not simply to whoever bids the most.

The Government is the biggest landlord of all benefits, but it does so at everyone else's expense.

The same logic applies to households. Home loans make up at least 70% of total household liabilities in Singapore and mortgage borrowing grew 5.8% year on year in the first quarter of this year. Our own regulatory framework, the total debt servicing ratio, contemplates households committing up to 55% of gross monthly income to debt service obligations.

A household servicing a 30-year mortgage at anywhere near that level does not leave the perceived security of a monthly paycheck to start a company with no visibility over cash inflows for years. It optimises for the next paycheck because it must. Moreover, according to ADP Research, 60% of workers in Singapore were living paycheck to paycheck as of 2024.

What capital is there for entrepreneurship? It is no wonder that risk aversion in Singapore is not some cultural mystery, but a lived balance sheet reality. That is why in the last term of Parliament, I moved an Adjournment Motion calling for rental housing to be developed as a genuine housing model and not merely a residual safety net for those with no other options.

The build-to-own model has served asset accumulation well, but it frontloads a lifetime of leverage onto Singaporeans in precisely the decades when they are most able to take entrepreneurial risk. In many other global cities, young professionals rent for years without stigma, preserving the flexibility to move, retrain and build.

My second call is therefore for a meaningful public rental option for young and middle-income Singaporeans with tenure-security and rent set with reference to income rather than market value. We already have a variance of this in the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme for married or engaged couples with more modest incomes and who wish to rent a temporary flat while waiting for their new home to be built.

If we want a generation of founders, we should stop shackling them to mortgages in their 20s and 30s.

Mr Speaker, since the Government seems to relish its position as being the largest landlord in the country, let me offer a new estate to develop. In the AI economy, compute is to value creation what land was to the industrial economy, the scarce foundational input on which everything else is built.

We have made a start and I acknowledge that an Enterprise Compute Initiative was announced at Budget 2025 with up to $150 million of funding support. This is however only meant to be a short-term programme that will only run for one year for the respective launch dates of each cloud service provider. By October 2025, we had reportedly paired some 1,000 firms with cloud partners, but this is a very modest figure as compared to the 385,000 or so firms in Singapore's enterprise landscape in 2024, as identified in the ESR's final report.

I also recognise that the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) AI-Ready SG subsidises half the subscription cost of eligible AI tools for members, if you first go for an approved course. In other words, the principle of subsidised access to compute has been accepted by the Government. The questions that remain are of scale, duration and ambition.

Some examples from overseas may be instructive. Hong Kong built its own AI Supercomputing Centre at Cyberport and allocated HK$3 billion to a three-year AI subsidy scheme, under which eligible users receive subsidies of up to 70% of a centre's service list price. That is a state-owned facility with a published rate card and a discount.

Canada's Sovereign AI Compute Strategy pairs public supercomputing investment with a C$300 million Access Fund that covers two-thirds of eligible costs for local cloud-based AI computing services, on projects with compute costs of up to C$5 million. Note the word local, and that these are targeted at SMEs.

The United Kingdom (UK) having found itself with only 1.3% of global compute capacity in late 2022, committed up to £2 billion by 2030 under its Compute Roadmap, and its AI Research Resource now allocates compute directly: 10,000 GPU hours for first-time users and 20,000 GPU hours for SMEs, awarded as capacity rather than cash.

Consider also the asymmetry closer to home. We extract some $20 billion in a single year in land sales proceeds also and yet, we are only setting aside $150 million for the digital land on which our own companies must build, and $1 billion over five years in overall national AI research. And for all our first-place finishes in AI-readiness, only 4% of firms had embedded AI into core business processes by 2026, with adoption at 15% among SMEs, against 63% for larger firms. AI diffusion is a big concern.

I could not have summed it up better than a 2025 World Bank report on Digital Progress and Trends report, that governments should create an enabling environment to facilitate access to compute resources, catalysing AI adoption, adaptation and innovation. This can include targeted interventions such as compute subsidies for SMEs and researchers, regional data centres and public-private partnership.

More recently, NVIDIA CEO, Jensen Huang, also remarked that a strong AI ecosystem is not a foregone conclusion. Policy-makers have an important opportunity to act, such as through expanding access to compute for startups and researchers, and investing in shared training assets. This is not a one off or time limited effort, but instead we should spare no effort until a significant majority of our local enterprises have truly embedded AI into their core business processes.

My third call is therefore a so-called "HDB model for compute". The HDB public housing model made the Government's objective of home ownership for the people programme during our early years attainable through subsidised access to state land. Similarly, a national compute programme should offer a subsidised allocated capacity to local companies and particularly, SMEs and entrepreneurs. This will draw on capacity in which the state has an ownership interest, priced below market with a published rate card with tenure certainty and eligibility weighted towards local ownership and local value capture. As what Liang Wenfeng, chief executive officer (CEO) of DeepSeek said recently, "人才的差距，本质上也是因为算力的差距". Let us not have a talent gap in Singapore, simply because of a lack of access to compute.

Mr Speaker, I can already anticipate the Government's response to the proposals I have raised: that pricing land or compute below the highest market bid amounts to raiding the reserves. Allow me three responses.

First, the reserves belong to all Singaporeans, not to the government of the day. Foregone rent extraction that flows into the productive capacity of Singaporean households and firms is not a raid, but an investment in our collective future. It is the owners of the reserves investing in themselves.

Second, on the Government's own explanation to this House, leasehold land reverts to the state at the end of its term and is protected as past reserve once again. The debate is therefore about the pricing philosophy for the use of land over 99 years, not about giving the freehold away.

Third, we do not apply this stinginess to foreign investment promotion. We extend generous low tax incentives and charge as low as 5% corporate income tax, instead of 17% to attract MNCs via a series of incentive schemes. Why is a discount for a foreign MNC prudent economic strategy, but a discount for a Singaporean entrepreneur a raid on the reserves?

Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mr Speaker, on what the real risks are for Singapore.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Mr Speaker, what are the real risks facing our country and our economy? Is it that we are pricing a small number of land parcels, rental flats or GPU clusters below the highest level that the market can bear? Or is it that generation after generation, Singaporeans will quietly come to the conclusion that, in their own country, the most lucrative business is to be a landlord and the safest life is to become a homeowner burdened by mortgage repayments for half their lives?

I welcome the final recommendation report of the Economic Strategy Review Committee and I support that Motion moved by Mr Kenneth Tiong and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. But, as long as the state remains the most successful rent maximiser in our economy, the grand vision of this strategy will remain only on paper. The Government should stop seeing itself as Singapore's biggest landlord and should instead see itself as more actively as the people's greatest enabler.

Mr Speaker, I support the Motion proposed by Mr Kenneth Tiong and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Speaker : Ms Mariam Jaafar.

1.50 pm

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang) : Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the amendments moved by the hon Member Mr Edward Chia.

Let me begin by acknowledging something important. The hon Members Assoc Prof Lim and Mr Kenneth Tiong have tapped into a sentiment that some Singaporeans genuinely feel: some business owners feel the economy has grown harder to navigate; some SMEs feel squeezed by costs, including rents, by manpower, and they feel crowded out for business and funding opportunities by larger competition; some workers, including younger workers, wonder if opportunity for them is expanding as fast as the economy itself.

Those feelings are real. If Singaporeans feel anxious about the future, it is our job to listen carefully. But listening carefully also means diagnosing carefully. Understanding how people feel is not the same as understanding why they feel that way and more importantly, what to do about it.

And that brings me to the central question before this House: how does a small country like Singapore continue to create prosperity in a changing, more volatile world?

It is a question every generation of Singaporeans has had to answer. Singapore's answer has never been abundant resources nor a domestic market of scale. Nor has it been abundant land. We have never had those luxuries. Everything we have achieved has depended on our ability to create far more value than our size would suggest possible. That has been Singapore's story for the last 60 years. It must be Singapore's story for the next 60.

Mr Speaker, a successful economic strategy for Singapore has to do two things: first, create as much value as a small nation possibly can; second, make sure Singaporeans create, capture and own a growing share of that value. Both questions matter. But they must be answered in the right order, because no nation has every captured value it did not first create. Chapter one must come before chapter two.

Sir, I have spent the bulk of my career advising companies on growth and competitiveness. One lesson has remained remarkably constant: the strongest organisations do not succeed because of one advantage. They succeed because they build complementary capabilities that reinforce one another – technology, talent, capital, customers, partnerships, compounding together. None of these strengths is sufficient on its own. Together, they create greater value than the sum of the parts.

The modern 21st century economy works the same way. It is not built around one company or one sector. It is built around ecosystems.

Singapore has never competed by trying to be bigger than anyone else. We have competed by bringing complementary strengths together faster and better than other countries many times our size. We connect capital with ideas, research with enterprise, talent with opportunity, local ambition with global markets, global enterprises with capable local suppliers. Each connection strengthens the next. Each success attracts another. Over time, those connections become an ecosystem that is far more competitive than any individual company, institution or sector can be on its own.

Singapore's advantage has been our ability to combine complementary strengths that reinforce one another into ecosystems that create more value.

I suspect there is broad agreement across this House that we want more Singaporean enterprises to succeed globally. The difference is not the destination. It is the path we believe gets us there.

That is why we should be careful about thinking of our choices as trade-offs, a tug of war, a zero-sum game – local enterprises versus global enterprises, domestic demand versus external demand, growth versus inclusion. These are not opposing forces. They are mutually reinforcing.

Take the relationship between global enterprises and local enterprises. Dynamic local companies are essential to Singapore's future. They embody Singaporean entrepreneurship, innovation and ambition. We should want more of them, larger ones, more productive ones, more that succeed well beyond our shores.

Global enterprises are equally indispensable, not because they are larger, not because they create jobs, but because they expand the productive frontier of the entire economy. They bring frontier technologies. They bring world-class management practices. They develop Singaporean talent, some of whom will one day set up their own companies. They connect Singapore companies to global customers and supply chains even if those supply chains are re-configuring. They create demanding customers for local suppliers. They expose our companies to international best practices. They raise the standards of the ecosystem around them.

In short, they expand the frontier of what Singapore's economy is capable of achieving.

But none of this happens by accident. It is built deliberately. When EDB approves a major investment, it is not simply asking how much capital will come or how many jobs will be created. It also asks what capabilities will be anchored here and how Singapore enterprises will benefit. In 2025, working alongside Enterprise Singapore, EDB generated 19 MNC-local enterprise partnership projects. That is not simply investment promotion. It is deliberate capability building, deliberate ecosystem deepening.

A small precision engineering firm here might start by supplying components to an MNC here. If the ecosystem is working, that story does not stop here. Exposure to global standards, new technologies and production methods, and demanding customers lets that firm deepen what it can do – move from making parts to designing solutions, from serving one market to several, from supplier to competitor in its own right. Eventually, it is no longer simply benefiting from the system. It is strengthening the system for the next generation of Singaporean companies. That is how capability compounds. That is how stronger Singapore enterprises are built.

I have had the privilege, particularly over the last few years, to work with more local SMEs. What is holding them back from scaling globally is rarely a lack of ambition or a lack of demand for what they make. The constraints are usually different – access to growth capital, management with experience running operations across borders, or leading technology transformation, networks that open overseas markets, risk appetite.

These are capability gaps and they are unlikely to be closed simply by wining ourselves off connections with our global capital. If anything, they are closed by making those connections work better for many more Singaporean enterprises.

That is why the real question is not whether local enterprises matter. It is not whether we should support them more strongly. We should. The real question is how we can build an economy where local and global enterprises reinforce one another, makes the other stronger. The real question is whether we are helping enough Singaporean enterprises get connected to the ecosystems, acquire the capabilities that allow them to climb the value chain, compete internationally and ultimately, become ecosystem builders themselves. And that is precisely what the ESR seeks to do.

The same logic applies to domestic and external demand. Domestic demand is important. It sustains heartland businesses. It provides resilience. But for a country of six million people, domestic demand cannot sustain the growth, wages and opportunities we aspire to. We must continue to compete in far larger markets.

Of course, many Singapore enterprises are not exporters. As the Member of Parliament for Woodlands, I perhaps feel more keenly than others, that heartland businesses are feeling the pressure and the RTS Link may accelerate this.

But the answer cannot be simply to strengthen domestic demand. We cannot ask consumers to ignore value, we cannot ask consumers to spend differently, we cannot ask them not to spend their money elsewhere. Our response has to be to help business compete differently.

Also, ultimately, domestic demand, for every hawker, every family business, every heartland retailer, ultimately depends on Singaporeans' spending power. That spending power comes from productive jobs, rising wages, competitive industries and companies succeeding in global markets. In turn, a vibrant domestic economy provides the stability, talent and confidence that enable more firms to grow and venture abroad. Again, these are not competing priorities. They are complementary strengths.

Mr Speaker, some Members have asked in the past: who ultimately captures the value? It is the right question. But I think we should answer it in the right way.

Ownership matters. It matters who owns the intellectual property. It matters who owns successful enterprises. It matters who owns the next generation of globally competitive companies. But ownership does not just become reality simply because we declare it to be our objective. It is built patiently, capability by capability, enterprise by enterprise, institution by institution. Capability makes ownership possible.

Take PSA. It began as a domestic port operator. Today, it operates over 70 terminals across more than 180 locations in 45 countries. But the most valuable thing PSA has now is not simply a larger portfolio of terminals. Managing ports across the world's major trade routes gives PSA a unique view of global supply chains. By combining operational expertise with digital technologies, data, automation and AI to design solutions its customers cannot get from a single-port operator. The ports were the entry point. The data advantage, the capability, that is the competitive advantage. And ownership follows.

Ownership is most durable when it is built on capability, because capability is what allows ownership to endure and grow.

Singapore will not own every company shaping the global AI economy. Nor do we need to. These companies create enormous value for Singaporeans, through jobs, supplier ecosystems, knowledge spillovers, capability building. And yes, an MNC may one day leave Singapore. Investment can move. Capability stays.

The most important question is whether Singaporeans are building the capabilities to create value alongside them – as founders, as engineers, as researchers, as investors, as suppliers, as technology leaders and increasingly, as owners of globally competitive enterprises themselves.

Ownership in a modern economy takes many forms: a founder building the next regional champion, an employer with stock options in a growing company, a Singapore supplier moving into higher-value-added design and engineering, an investor participating in the growth of world-class businesses, our sovereign wealth funds investing on behalf of every Singaporean. These are all ways in which Singaporeans participate in, capture and own the value that our economy creates.

The goal is therefore not simply to own more assets. It is to build an economy where more Singaporeans have meaningful ownership in the value they help create. And we do this by building the whole innovation ecosystem: research, talent, capital, patient financing, market access, regulation, strong global partnerships. These are complementary strengths. And when they come together, they create something larger than any one policy, say on research, could achieve.

I want to go back to where I started. If an SME owner says, "I don't feel these benefits," we should listen. If they say, "I feel crowded out," we should listen. If they say, "This ecosystem seems to work for everyone except businesses like mine," we should listen.

Global firms do compete with local ones for talent, for capital. Wages feel the pressure and it falls unevenly and this is real. Openness is not costless. But the answer to that real cost is not to become a less open economy, when openness is where the capability comes from. The answer is to make sure more Singaporeans capture the upside instead of only absorbing the cost, skills that move a worker toward the frontier rather than away from it, capital markets deep enough, partnerships between MNCs and local firms that help more local firms becoming suppliers, adopters, internationalisers and owners in their own right. And that is firmly, firmly embedded in the ESR strategies.

Mr Speaker, we all want to see more large successful Singapore companies. More value captured here. More Singaporeans venturing abroad. But if we make rebalancing the organising principle of our strategy, we may not end up with more of those companies. We get fewer. Target ownership before capability and competitiveness, and we do not own more of the pie. We own more of a smaller one.

That is why I support the hon Member Mr Edward Chia's amendments. They recognise something this House has known for 60 years and cannot afford to forget for the next 60. Our strength has never come from any one source alone. It comes from strengthening the connections between them – dynamic local companies, global enterprises, domestic demand and external demand, Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing confidently into the world. These were never separate engines to be weighed against each other. They are complementary strengths, working together as one system, working together to lift ordinary Singaporeans.

Singapore never succeeded by asking the world to make room for us. We succeeded by becoming useful, indispensable to it, even as the world changes around us.

Our task is now to continue to build an economy of the future where each reinforces the other, where the best companies, foreign or local, want to be. And to make sure more Singaporeans have the capability, the confidence and the opportunity to shape that future, to create value, to capture it and increasingly, to own it. So that every generation of Singaporeans begins with opportunities greater than the generation before. Mr Speaker, I support the amended Motion. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Mr Andre Low.

2.05 pm

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member) : Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the ESR is organised around workers adapting again and again. It proposes training, pathways and career bridges between jobs. But it gives far less attention to the all-important first transition from education or National Service (NS) into stable work, and to whether young people get a fair start.

In February, during the Budget debate, I called this phenomenon the broken bottom rung of the career ladder – when young Singaporeans are unable to make that first meaningful step. The first job is where someone takes a chance on you. It is where you gain the experience that every subsequent employer expects you to have. A young person cannot create that opportunity alone. When firms stop taking chances on beginners, Singapore eventually stops producing experienced workers.

Today, I want to ask the Government a practical question: if a young Singaporean has prepared for work, searched earnestly and still cannot secure stable employment, what must change so that their sustained effort can lead them somewhere?

Today, most graduates still manage to find work. Among autonomous- university graduates in the labour force, those who secured employment of any kind within six months of completing their final examinations amounted to 88.9% of the 2025 cohort, a slight drop from 91.2% in 2024. So, eight out of nine graduates found work last year, but that figure is a broad measure. It includes graduates in full-time permanent employment; but also, those in part-time, temporary or freelance work; those who have accepted a job that starts later; and those taking steps to start a business.

However, those in full-time permanent employment amounted to 74.4% of the cohort last year, down from 79.4% the previous year. That means only three out of four – down from four out of five – found more stable, long-term roles and could start building an actual career.

I would not sound the klaxons just yet, but these are among several worrying signals, both in Singapore and from around the world, that it is getting harder for our youngest amongst us to find work.

The signals grow stronger when we look across different educational paths. Among surveyed fresh graduates from full-time external degree programmes at private education institutions, 78.9% secured employment and 46.9% were in full-time permanent employment. So, another 24% were in part-time or temporary work, including 9.7% who said this was involuntary. It is clearly not a bed of roses for everyone. The transition into stable work looks materially different depending on where you graduate.

Behind these figures are young people who have done what was asked of them and still cannot get started. I have heard from young graduates who told me about searches running into the hundreds of applications. One submitted more than 500 applications over six months and received few interviews. Another submitted close to 200 in four months without securing a single one.

For these young people, the first transition meant repeated effort, very little response and no clear place to turn should their efforts repeatedly fail to net a reward.

A confluence of factors is likely driving the cooling job market for young Singaporeans. With the increased adoption of both AI and "old-school" technological and productivity advancements, a firm may make the entirely rational decision to automate away the basic tasks once given to junior employees. It may decide that training a beginner is too costly in today's high cost environment and when that person can ultimately leave after gaining critical experience.

Take those same rational decisions and scale them across the economy, and we can start to see the problem. If every firm, local companies and global enterprises alike, makes the same calculation, the economic engine gradually stops producing experienced workers. What works for one company's balance sheet damages the national workforce.

The Government has introduced several measures to support the transition into work. The SG Youth Plan has introduced Job Tasters to help young people explore an occupation. Training helps them prepare. Matching services connect them to vacancies. Work-Study and Company-Led Training can combine a real job with structured workplace learning.

However, each helps at a different stage. Taken together, however, a young person can still move from exposure to training to job matching without getting a fair start. Exposure is useful, but exposure is not employment. That is the gap we must fill.

And Mr Speaker, that is why I propose a "Fair Start Promise" to all our youths – a national commitment to work towards a simple goal. If you are a young Singaporean under 30 making the transition from education or NS into working life, that you will get a fair start, through stable employment or a proper paid career-building pathway. That means we must rebuild the broken bottom rung of the career ladder.

The establishment of the Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) gives us an important opportunity to make this promise real. By bringing skills and employment under one roof, the Government can now judge the whole journey by one outcome: whether young Singaporeans actually get a fair start.

The Government should make fulfilling the "Fair Start Promise" a core mission of SWDA, with staged targets that show whether Singapore is moving closer to the goal.

For the individual young Singaporean, what this means is targeted and individualised support from SWDA case officers and that should begin early. Six months into the transition is a sensible checkpoint at which to assess outcomes. Any young person still searching at that point should continue to receive active support and no one should be left to flounder alone.

But a national goal alone will not create opportunities. So, we must create more genuine ways for young people to get their fair start.

First, we should open more ordinary entry-level jobs to capable beginners, where an employer has real work that can develop a beginner through the ordinary course of employment, the priority should be that proper job.

My colleague Eileen Chong spoke during the SWDA Bill debate about the implementation gap in skills-based hiring. Singapore has produced tool kits and established institutions to promote this, but we still do not know clearly whether employers are changing how they hire or if they are lagging behind. She called for the Public Service to lead by example and for a published baseline tracking skills-based job postings by sector and employer size. I support these proposals.

I have also previously proposed that the Careers and Skills Passport evolve from a digital filing cabinet into a dynamic, living credential. I now propose extending that idea: making it work better for hiring. The Passport already allows Singaporeans to share verified qualifications, training and employment records with employers.

For a fresh graduate, however, that record will naturally be thinner. The SWDA should establish standards through which the institutes of higher learning (IHLs) and employers can verify substantial projects, internships, Work-Study learning stints and other assessed competencies through the Careers and Skills Passport. Employers should then match that evidence to the actual skills required for the job and where appropriate, let applicants demonstrate these skills through a structured practical assessment.

The Public Service should apply the same discipline to its own entry-level roles: identify what must genuinely be known on the first day, remove degree and prior-experience requirements that cannot be justified and publish whether its hiring practices are changing. The Government should again lead by example.

These measures would improve the match between capable beginners and entry-level jobs that already exist in the market. But matching alone cannot build the workplace experience that some jobs genuinely require and Singapore must therefore also create more places where beginners can acquire it.

That brings me to my second point. We should build proper paid apprenticeships. In some occupations, competence can only be built through sustained, supervised practice. Employers want experience because the work genuinely takes time to learn. Yet, every firm has an incentive to wait for another firm to bear the cost of producing that experienced worker.

Singapore already has workplace programmes for young entrants. GRIT, for example, offers a three- to six-month allowance-based traineeship and can provide useful short-term experience. But where an occupation requires sustained, supervised practice over a longer period of time, we need a different, more well-developed route: a proper apprenticeship framework providing paid employment, full employee status, CPF, structured training and portable competences.

That is why Singapore should build a national market for proper paid apprenticeships. SWDA should identify occupations where employers need workers but beginners need sustained workplace training, and work with employers and sector bodies to expand apprenticeship places that meet a common quality floor. That means recruiting firms and coordinating the teaching assessment and supervision needed to build competence while making sure every place provides enough real work.

Shared capacity is especially important for SMEs. A smaller firm may have valuable work but lack a training department, a full curriculum or enough varied tasks to train an apprentice alone. Sector bodies and consortia can provide common teaching roving mentors and independent assessment while coordinating rotations between these SMEs, where these are needed to fully develop a range of competence.

Employers would still provide the job and the wages and the workplace supervision as well as their own share of investment.

The quality floor must be clear. A proper apprenticeship is paid employment. It should carry a contract of service, wages, CPF and ordinary workplace protections. The apprentice should perform productive work, learn through a structured plan and have a named mentor. Wages should progress with competence. These skills should also be recognised independently of any one employer and carry value elsewhere across the market. The same employer need not guarantee permanent conversion, but before the pathway ends, there should be credible decision on conversion or progression.

The Government should support the shared infrastructure and portable occupational training that individual firms are unlikely to provide alone. Employers must remain substantial investors from the first day. That is the bargain we strike. The Government solves the coordination problem, firms provide real work and help build the worker.

Proper apprenticeships are central to a fair start for young people. The same principles have wider application across the economy. My colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, will speak next about the application to the skilled trades, where verified competence should lead to recognised mastery and real progression.

Third, the Government should use its economic leverage to create genuinely additional job opportunities. Some employers have productive work but still hesitate to hire a beginner because of the initial wages, supervision and lower productivity. The Government can change that decision selectively.

One lever is expanding targeted temporary risk-sharing arrangements. Support should be available where an employer can show that they will create a genuine additional employee job or proper apprenticeship, and that the opening would not proceed on the same terms without help. The employer must contribute throughout and take responsibility for wages, CPF, real work supervision and development.

Another lever is public procurement. Where workforce development is relevant to a substantial public contract, procuring agencies can require or recognise proportionate commitment to proper apprenticeships and genuine employee entry level roles. The purpose is to connect public purchasing demand to the development of Singapore's future workforce without imposing a blanket quota on every contractor.

Both levers should face the same test: did public intervention change the employer’s decision and create a productive opportunity that would not otherwise have existed? Public money should not pay employers to relabel planned vacancies, displace existing workers or cycle young people through temporary seats. Support should depend on additional work and real development. Money should be recovered where an employer misrepresents the role or fails to provide the job, wages or development promised.

These measures will not eliminate every difficult transition for our youths, but they can however increase the number of genuine first opportunities without compelling private employers to hire or manufacturing make work in the economy.

Finally, we must measure whether young people actually get that fair start. The Fair Start Promise should be judged by whether they enter stable employment or a proper paid career building pathway and can build from it. The SWDA should publish a baseline and staged targets for those outcomes. It should report whether employment lasts, whether job responsibilities and wages progress, and whether the results differ across groups.

The results must also show how many young people remain without stable employment at the critical six-month mark, for how long and for what broad reasons. A youth should not disappear from the figures because a referral failed or a programme ended. Keeping these outcomes visible will show where vacancies, training capacity or practical support remain inadequate.

A downturn may also make progress towards the Fair Start Promise harder. That is when honest measurement matters most. It tells Parliament and the public how much opportunity has disappeared and whether the national response is strong enough.

The Fair Start Promise sets the national ambition. The three proposals I suggested are the practical ways to move closer towards making that a reality: opening existing jobs to capable beginners with skills-based hiring, building proper paid apprenticeships and creating additional opportunities where public intervention changes the calculus and hiring decision for any employer. Transparent results will also show where progress is being made and where the Government must do more.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Fair Start Promise asks something of everyone. Young people must prepare, search earnestly and engage with suitable opportunities. Employers must provide real jobs and invest in beginners. The Government must build the conditions in which sustained effort can lead to progress and lead to a stable career.

The Government must not stand aside when every employer waits for someone else to provide a first chance. It must not let young people disappear between programmes and institutions.

Mr Speaker : Mr Azhar Othman.

2.21 pm

Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Member) : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Motion "An Economy of the Future that Works for All".

I would like to declare that I am the Deputy President of the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI), Chairman of SME Centre @ SMCCI, a Council Member of the East Asia Business Council and an Executive Chairman of Enercon Asia Pte Ltd.

I would just like to highlight that the Motion itself is quite important. More importantly is the collaboration between the private sectors and the Government. The reason I say this is because we do not want to go into a Motion whereby we want to re-invent everything. I think the most important part is not break what is already working.

I say this in my context of travelling with the SME Centre to one of the Central Asian countries. We did a business study over there. The government of the day or the chamber that we met was quite amazed with what we have – a system, from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, down to Enterprise Singapore, down to the SME Centre, that creates a cohesiveness between the Government to the ground. This does not exist in other countries. This is something that we should be proud of. We should retain – the ability to grow together.

The fundamental of our livelihood cannot be disrupted or changed. And that is trade. We live in an era of heightened geopolitical tensions and a multi-polar world. Countries are turning inwards, protectionism is rising, supply chains are being re-configured along political lines. In such a climate, the instinct of many nations is to build walls.

For Singapore, that cannot be our response. Trade is the lifeblood of this nation. We must not become a trade barrier. We must be the bridge of trade. Our strategy must clear, open, connected, trusted and resilient. We must double down on what makes Singapore unique – a credible, rules-based hub that can link markets, capital, talent and ideas across a fragmented world.

I would like to highlight importance of working together – that includes the Government, GLCs, Enterprise Singapore, private sectors, SMEs, unions that represent the workforce, trade associations and chambers. Member Mark Lee has commented on how important the trade chambers are.

There are seven parts to my speech which I believe will put a clear perspective to achieve a concentrated network of help as one ecosystem of support to tackle the challenges ahead and devise a set of common strategies to ensure we progress and be very successful.

The first one. Trade as our lifeblood in a protectionist world. Mr Speaker, Singapore's prosperity has always been anchored on trade. In a world where major economies are derisking, diversifying and sometimes decoupling, we must be the connector others can rely on.

To do this, we must expand our network of free trade agreements (FTAs). We must pursue FTAs with as many countries as possible, not just big economies but also, emerging markets. Africa, Latin America, Central Asia. Every new FTA is a new door for our SMEs, a new channel for our services and a new vote of confidence in Singapore's open economy.

Position Singapore as a bridge of trade. While others raise tariffs and impose quotas, we must lower friction. We must be the neutral ground where East meets West, where North connects with South. Our legal system, financial infrastructure and logistical capabilities make us ideal for this role.

Empower Enterprise Singapore to be a global conduit in creating Queen Bee companies from GLCs that supports SMEs. This is something that I would like to share for us to be able to be a strong economy which is unique to our country – whereby the cohesiveness of working together is very important.

Enterprise Singapore's international presence must be leveraged more aggressively. Their overseas centres should act as business matchmakers, linking Singapore companies with partners, distributors and joint venture opportunities abroad. They should not just be officers, they should be deal makers.

Recently, I attended an Enterprise Singapore talk on the Middle East situation and shared with local businesses about what to expect and what are the opportunities. Of course, there are challenges. Of course, there is risk. But through that informed setting, we are able to make good judgements on whether we should come in or should not come in. But overall, the value that is given to companies is that it allowed us to evaluate with certainty and with clarity. That is the part that I see as going together, of having Enterprise Singapore overseas and bringing information back to the ground.

For GLCs, I think they play an important role as well. Similarly, I attended a session organised by the SBF, where they were trying to connect the Queen Bee or GLCs to local businesses in Singapore. That is very important as well. We are overdue on such kind of collaborations. We have companies that go all over the world, that tender for big projects. The ability to work together is more important than ever. This is quite crucial. Through that collaboration and interaction, we also show that we have the right sentiment whereby businesses can work with the Government and GLCs very, very well.

Moving on, we can reduce the cost of error for SMEs going overseas. Expanding abroad is risky, especially for SMEs. A single misstep can be fatal. The Government should enhance grants – as what we have seen before – and financial support to derisk internationalisation. This includes shared warehousing or logistic hubs in key markets, tax incentives for re-investing overseas profit back into R&D or capability building.

When we reduce the cost of failure, we increase the courage to try. That is how Singaporean companies grow into regional and global champions.

Second, Singapore as the hub of hubs. Mr Speaker, in a fragmented world, Singapore's greatest advantage is our ability to be everything to everyone – a one-stop hub for all main industries. We must consciously position ourself as a: financial hub – continue to deepen our capital markets, attract asset managers and investment, and become the leading centre for green finance and fintech in Asia; logistics hub – leverage our port and airport connectivity to be the premier transshipment and distribution centre for the world; transport hub – expand our aviation and maritime networks to remain the gateway between various countries; education hub – attract top global universities and research institutions and nurture homegrown talent to serve regional and global needs; management hub – position Singapore as a regional headquarters for MNCs and the base for professional services in law, accounting, consulting and so on; medical hub – build our world-class healthcare system to attract medical tourism, clinical trials and biotech innovation; and of course, AI hub – invest in AI research, talent and infrastructure to become the leading AI ecosystem in Southeast Asia; sustainability hub – another part that is important in creating a centre of excellence and trust for sustainability reporting and deployment.

This "hub of hubs" strategy is not about doing everything ourselves. It is about creating an ecosystem where global players want to base their operations, where Singaporean SMEs can plug into global value chains and where talent from around the world wants to work and innovate with.

Third, empowering SMEs to thrive locally and globally. SMEs make up 99% of our enterprises and employ about two-thirds of our workforce. They are the backbone of our economy. Yet they face rising costs, tight labour markets and intense competition. We must do more to help them not just survive but thrive.

SME Centres, which are one of the hubs that can offer to companies, must be the first port of call for every small and medium business. They have provided and should enhance their services. SME Centres do provide business advisory services, free of charge, with the support of the Government, workshops on digitalisation, sustainability and internationalisation, access to templates, tools and best practices for governance and compliance.

Leverage trade associations and chambers. Organisations like SBF, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, SMCCI, the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprise and others must be empowered to do more and not limited to the following: organise business missions and networking events; host sector-specific forums on growth areas like green economy, AI and healthcare; educate members on regulatory changes and emerging opportunities; advocate for SME concerns at the policy level. And I think one that has been doing very well is mentorship programmes, pairing seasoned entrepreneurs with startups. This is something that even the SMCCI has started doing.

Next, to encourage businesses to adapt to changing demand. The market does not wait. SMEs must be ready to pivot, whether it is adopting e-commerce, shifting to sustainable products, or tapping into new customer segments. Government, and the trade associations and chambers can help by providing real-time market intelligence and trend analysis.

The next part is promoting "Buy Singapore, Support Singapore". The reason I raised this issue is regarding GLCs supporting local SMEs. I think that is where we can work together to lift everybody up. And doing so, this recognises every dollar spent is circulated in our economy, creates jobs and builds resilience. Government procurement can lead by example, prioritising local SMEs where quality and value are comparable.

The fourth part, embracing sustainability as a competitive edge. Sustainability is no longer optional. It is a business imperative. As Singapore aims for net-zero by 2050 or earlier, companies must embed sustainability into their operations. Incentivise green adoption. The Government should expand grants for energy-efficient or even increase the grant and of course, carbon accounting and reporting tools, sustainable packaging and supply chain solutions and build green capabilities.

We would also like to see Singapore positioned as a green hub. We can attract green investments by offering tax breaks for sustainable ventures, fast-track approvals for green projects, a one-stop shop for sustainability certification. Companies that adopt sustainability early will not only comply with regulations but also, gain a competitive edge in global markets where consumers and investors demand responsibility.

Fifth, manpower and lifelong learning in the age of AI. Mr Speaker, I must address the challenge of AI. AI is not coming; AI is already here. It is transforming industries, automating tasks; in some cases, replacing workers. This is a distant threat; it is a present reality.

We cannot stop technological progress, but we can ensure that no Singaporean is left behind. Workforce must be ready to learn and relearn. The half-life of skills is shrinking. What you learned five years ago may be obsolete today. Every worker must embrace lifelong learning, not as a slogan, but as a survival strategy.

Government to fund training and AI tools. The SkillsFuture framework is a good start, but it must go further – allow training credits to be used for subscribing to AI-powered productivity tools, fund memberships in trade associations and chambers, and business networks that provide continuous learning, provide stipends for mid-career workers undergoing reskilling, not as a support but as a programme.

Focus on human-centric skills. AI can automate routine tasks, but it cannot replicate creativity, empathy and leadership. Our education and training systems must emphasise these uniquely human skills.

We must support workers in transition. For those whose jobs that are displaced by AI, we need stronger monthly income support during retraining, career conversion programmes tailored to growth sectors, counselling and mental health support to manage anxiety and uncertainty. Constant learning is the only way to stay competitive and employable. The Government must make it affordable, accessible and relevant.

The sixth part, supporting R&D and reducing cost pressures. Innovation is the engine of future growth. But R&D is expensive, especially for SMEs. The Government must increase R&D grants and tax incentives, expand the Research and Development Tax Incentive scheme, create co-funding pools for industry-academia collaborations, support proof-of-concept and pilot projects that bridge the gap between lab and market.

Of course, the next one is mitigating high cost of living and operating. Singaporeans are feeling the pinch. Businesses are grappling with rising rents, utilities and manpower costs. We must review regulatory fees and streamline compliance burdens, provide targeted relief for SMEs in high-cost sectors, ensure housing and transport remain affordable to retain talent. A thriving economy requires both innovation and affordability.

The last part, part seven, keeping the Singapore Dream alive. Mr Speaker, at the heart of this Motion is a simple question: what kind of future do we want for Singapore?

The Singapore Dream must remain alive. It is the belief that with hard work, determination and a fair chance, every Singaporean can achieve aspirations, whether in arts, sports, academia, business or culture. We must ensure that no one feels left out. Inclusive growth means that the benefits of progress are shared broadly. We must uplift the vulnerable, support the middle, and celebrate the successful.

Pride in our nation. Singaporeans must be proud of their country. They must see themselves in our economic story, not as bystanders, but as protagonists. Mr Speaker, do allow me to speak the following in Malay.

( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Mr Speaker, the Motion before us calls for an economy that is equal, inclusive, and driven by dynamic local companies. In a world that is increasingly turning inward, Singapore must stand firm as a beacon of openness.

We must be the bridge for trade, not a barrier. We must become the Centres of Excellence – in finance, logistics, transport, education, management, medical, sustainability and AI.

We must empower our SMEs to thrive both locally and globally.

We must embrace sustainability as a competitive advantage.

We must prepare our workforce for the AI revolution.

And we must ensure that the Singapore Dream remains alive for all.

Let us build an economy where every Singaporean can prosper, where every enterprise can grow and where our nation continues to punch above its weight on the global stage.

( In English ): Allow me to do a pantun on this.

( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] The changing world brings uncertainties;

Singapore companies brace and prepare;

Steered by the Government's strategies;

Together as one, we forge ahead from there.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the Motion before us calls for an economy that is equal, inclusive and driven by dynamic local companies. In a world turning inward, Singapore must stand firm as a beacon of openness. We must be the bridge of trade, not the barrier. We must become the hub of hubs – financial, logistics, transport, education, management, medical, sustainability and AI. We must empower our SMEs to thrive locally and globally. We must embrace sustainability as a competitive advantage. We must prepare our workforce for the AI revolution and we must keep the Singapore Dream alive for all.

Let us build an economy where every Singaporean can prosper, where every enterprise can grow and where our nation continues to punch above its weight on the global stage. Mr Speaker, I support the amended Motion on the context that we have to work together as one. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Mr Gerald Giam.

2.38 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied) : Mr Speaker, for decades, skilled trades persons – from electricians and plumbers to lift engineers and infrastructure and technicians – have not been accorded the prestige and pay that match their vital economic contributions. We have relied on foreign labour arbitrage and allowed unlicensed workers to perform tasks meant for certified practitioners, inevitably suppressing local trade earnings over time.

With a median monthly income of just $2,700 in 2023, skilled trades are seldom seen as a career of first choice for young Singaporeans. Over the past decade, the local craft workforce has shrunk by 40% to 50%. Of the 186,000 craftsmen and trades workers in Singapore – only 28% are locals and their ranks are ageing with a median age of 56 years old.

Yet, skilled trades persons form the bedrock of our national infrastructure. While AI can automate administrative reports, and overseas remote workers can process corporate accounts, they cannot physically rewire a server room, repair a water main, or maintain critical infrastructure in Singapore. These crafts are inherently localised, highly skilled and resistant to remote replacement.

If we want to offer genuine economic mobility to our vocational graduates, we cannot leave the skilled trades trapped by undercutting from unlicensed workers, rigid licensing regimes and limited career progression pathways. We must elevate these vocations into respected high earning avenues of trade, entrepreneurship and national pride.

While upskilling is essential, classroom retraining has limited utility in technical crafts, compared to master-led apprenticeships, and training alone cannot resolve deeper market distortions.

As we look to elevate skilled technical vocations, reliance on frameworks patterned after the Progressive Wage Model or the Career Progression Model will reach natural structural limits. While these models establish important wage floors across foundational sectors, their design relies heavily on climbing fixed corporate ladders into administrative or supervisory roles, positions that are inherently limited in number, and compel artisans to abandon their practical craft just to earn a higher income.

To enable our artisans to achieve true long-term wage progression, we must look beyond administrative ladders and restructure the underlying market so that technical mastery naturally commands the true market value of their craft.

To achieve this, we must introduce a market-friendly trade competency framework that elevate skilled trades into highly respected avenues of independent enterprise and professional advancement. We must enable trades persons to contribute to and build prosperous, scalable businesses, ensuring they do not feel stuck in demanding jobs with limited prospects.

The ESR report rightly acknowledges that essential physical trades are vital to Singapore's economic resilience. However, its recommendations continue to rely on incremental tweaks within employer-led models. While the ESR points to outsourcing and weak skills recognition, it remains silent on the deeper structural distortions depressing trade wages.

The report features an inspiring young electrician whose grit is truly commendable. Yet, his pathway is telling – unlocking high earnings required four academic degrees, including a master's degree from Nitec all the way to a master's degree. I applaud his drive but question the system. Why force a master craftsman through an academic obstacle course instead of directly valuing hands-on mastery and independent enterprise?

This paradigm shift must begin with how these essential vocations are regulated and protected in the open market.

Consider all our current licensing regimes, almost all fixed electrical work legally requires an Energy Market Authority (EMA)-licensed electrical worker, while regulated plumbing requires a PUB-licensed plumber. While non-compliance carries statutory fines of up to $10,000, a jail term of up to three years, or both, daily practice reveals a massive gap between the rates charged by licensed trades persons and unregulated marketplace alternatives. This economic gap tempts cash constrained buyers to opt for uncertified options across many routine property maintenance tasks.

Such choices carry serious public safety risks. Uncertified electrical work can cause loose connections, arcing, structural fires or electrocution, while improper plumbing joints can lead to concealed leaks, sewage backflow or water supply contamination.

In 2016, the improper wiring of a water heater to a three-pin plug by workers unlicensed to do electrical work resulted in the tragic electrocution of a 15-year-old boy in his HDB flat. Similarly, in 2020, an elderly couple and their son were electrocuted to death in their Jurong flat due to similar unsafe installation of a water heater.

To protect public safety and shield local artisans from wage depressing undercutting, regulators, including EMA and PUB, must enforce strict regulatory baselines for all market players, whether local or foreign, to ensure local artisans compete on a true level playing field of technical quality and safety. This will require the agencies to staff sufficient inspectors and auditors to conduct enforcement and respond to whistle-blowing complaints.

Second, we must streamline how local talent enters and moves through the vocational talent pipeline. Local manpower supply is currently constrained by rigid structures that force junior workers and mid-career entrants through a long, uncertain route just to secure a licence. We should promote the skills traits to students and mid-career switches as viable, respected alternatives to polytechnic diplomas and university degrees.

Training pathways already exist, whether through full-time ITE programmes or certification courses at the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Academy or Singapore Institute of Power and Gas for mid-career switches. However, despite completing their classroom education, aspiring tradespersons face structural challenges when attempting to translate those qualifications into licenced, independent careers. The structural bottleneck lies in the post-graduation licensing requirements of completing two years of relevant practical experience, covering a full spectrum of trade work.

Trade practitioners I spoke to have highlighted that in reality, almost no small contractor covers the entire spectrum of work, expecting a residential service plumber to log experience across industrial supply systems creates a practical bottleneck as current evaluation criteria favour multi-year commercial construction projects over day-to-day residential maintenance.

We can resolve the licensing bottleneck by implementing a modular trade endorsement pathway. Instead of requiring two years of full spectrum experience before a worker can practise independently, this pathway certifies specific verified competencies task by task. Each cleared module would legally authorise the tradesperson for that specific scope of work, whether in water heater installations, sanitary piping or wiring loops. These milestones are verified via hands on practical assessments, customer ratings and structured peer reviews by master practitioners. This allows local apprentices to start practising legally and earning a respectable living for the task they have mastered, while progressively expanding their certified scope over time.

To operationalise these modular endorsements, we need a modern digital architecture, an official tradesperson skills ledger platform. This platform serves a dual purpose. It allows tradespersons to log task-specific trade endorsements, verified under the supervision of licensed artisans, creating an immutable record of their practical milestones. It can also double as a national trades marketplace, connecting buyers, both enterprises and homeowners, directly with licensed tradespersons, based on verified modular competencies, domain expertise and clear rate schedules set transparently by the artisans themselves.

Clear benchmark call out rate bands can be established, providing upfront price transparency for property owners, while guaranteeing fair off-hours compensation for artisans, eliminating both predatory surge gouging and artificial wage caps. By streamlining, matching and reducing administrative overhead for both small contractors and buyers, the system enables tradespersons to establish sustainable commercial clients, secure corporate procurement contracts and build long-term business equity.

Fourth, we must eliminate the structural overload reliance on an employer's sole discretion to advance an apprentice's career. Across skilled trades, the Government currently enforces safety through rigid employer-tied licensing requirements, inadvertently, granting employers veto power over an entry-level worker's advancement.

Under the current market structure, established employers have little commercial incentive to sign off on the logbooks and testimonials of apprentices, who may later become direct competitors. While on-the-job training under senior practitioners remains essential, we must ensure that if an apprentice faces unreasonable administrative delays or employer gatekeeping, an independent audit mechanism exists.

An apprentice should be able to submit their immutable digital work logs and project portfolios to an independent technical panel for verification. This preserves direct supervisory accountability while protecting apprentices from career stagnation and employer hold-up.

Finally, to tie these pillars together, I propose establishing a new autonomous entity called the Singapore Guild of Skilled Tradespersons, which will define baseline competencies, advocate for fair commercial rates, manage the tradesperson skills ledger and empower local tradespersons to self-regulate and scale their operations.

Existing industry bodies, like the Singapore Plumbing Society, the Singapore Electrical Contractors and Licensed Electrical Workers Association, and the Specialist Trade Alliance of Singapore, possess relevant sectoral familiarity. These trade societies can be reformed and integrated as dedicated chambers under this guild. This will give every tradesperson a direct voice, remove corporate employer gatekeeping and empower artisans to govern their craft under a self-regulatory model similar to those enjoyed by doctors, engineers and accountants.

Under this four-sided partnership of shared accountability, employers provide structured apprenticeships with all. Progress and milestones log transparently in the Tradespersons Skills Ledger. The Singapore Guild of Skilled Tradespersons acts as an independent quality auditor and serves as a safety guardian. Tradespersons maintain verified digital profiles and direct statutory accountability for work within their endorsed scope and consumers gain direct access to a trusted, transparent marketplace with verified quality assurance.

Mr Speaker, elevating our physical crafts requires more than just policy tweaks. It demands restoring the social standing and institutional dignity of our artisans. When we give skilled tradespersons the autonomy to govern their own professions, command transparent commercial returns for their mastery and build independent, high earning businesses, we can fundamentally change how society views this form of blue-collar work.

By replacing rigid academic trade mills with direct market rewards for technical excellence, entering a trade will no longer be seen as a second-best option, born of academic detour, but a proud, lucrative and respected pathway into entrepreneurship and master craftsmanship. Through independent representation, technology driven competency tracking and structured apprenticeships, this comprehensive structural redesign will restore our workers' leverage, and ensure that national economic progress serves the dignity and prosperity of every Singaporean.

So, I support the original Motion standing in the names of my hon friends, Mr Kenneth Tiong, the Member for Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC), and Assoc Prof James Lim, the Member for Sengkang GRC.

Mr Speaker : Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

2.53 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh) : Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first declare that I work in a foreign financial institution based in Singapore, serving SMEs and corporates.

I rise to speak on the Motion before this House. There is much in the Motion's aspirations that I support. We want stronger Singapore enterprises. We want our entrepreneurs to succeed and internationalise. We want good jobs and rising opportunities for Singaporeans. Ultimately, economic progress must translate into better lives for our people.

I also recognise the argument made by Members proposing this Motion. Singapore's traditional economic model has served us well, but the competitive environment has changed. On this, there is common ground. Costs have risen. Technology has made it easier for corporate functions to move. Other economies have developed deeper capabilities. Geopolitical fragmentation is reshaping investment and supply chains.

So, yes, Singapore's economic strategy must evolve.

But a more competitive environment does not make external demand or global companies less important to Singapore's next phase of growth. It makes our ability to compete successfully for them and to capture greater value from their presence here, even more important. Healthy domestic demand can strengthen our resilience, but we should be cautious about suggesting that it can substitute for the scale and opportunities provided by our global economic connections.

Mr Speaker, there has been a suggestion that Singapore needs a new economic playbook. I agree, but this is precisely what the ESR already seeks to address. The ESR was informed by more than 80 engagements involving more than 7,700 businesses, workers, unions and trade associations, some of whom are in this room.

It recognises that assumptions underpinning Singapore's success are changing. Its response is not simply to repeat the strategy of the past six decades; it is to upgrade it. And in fact, many of the ESR's recommendations are strikingly similar to the aspirations contained in today's Motion.

The ESR's recommendations will drive the next bound of economic growth and workforce transformation amidst drastically changed global environment. The ESR calls for stronger support for entrepreneurship and access to growth capital, more and better jobs, stronger career transition support and lifelong learning for workers, strengthening Singapore's position as a global leader in AI and a hub for global flows, and building a more dynamic enterprise ecosystem so that more Singapore-based companies can start, scale and succeed globally.

These are not merely aspirations on paper. Many have already begun to find expression in Government policy, including measures announced in recent Budget, enhancing enterprise financing, supporting SMEs and internationalisation, strengthening workforce transitions and investing further in our AI capabilities.

This suggests there is considerable common ground between the aspiration in today's Motion and the direction Singapore is already taking through the ESR.

The useful question for today's debate, therefore, to me, is where the substantive difference lies, whether they concern the overall economic model or the balance, emphasis and policy choices within that model. So, I think that distinction matters because the debate is not really between an old playbook and a new one. It is about what should be in the new playbook, and where we may differ on the balance and emphasis.

One area where I believe we should be careful is the weight we place on external demand and global companies in Singapore's next phase of growth. We have heard many speeches before me on this, but I just want to reiterate it again, briefly.

There is one economic reality Singapore cannot escape. For a small country, like ours, domestic demand alone cannot provide the scale of opportunities that Singaporeans aspire to. In 2025, Singapore's merchandise trade reached almost $1.4 trillion, equivalent to several times the size of our GDP. That gives some sense of just how deeply Singapore's prosperity is connected to demand beyond our shores.

Our semiconductor plants do not produce mainly for Singapore consumers; our pharmaceutical facilities do not manufacture only for patients here; our port, airport and financial centres serve markets far beyond our shores. Domestic demand supports our economic engine. External demand provides much of its scale, and the same applies to global companies.

We should absolutely build more Singapore champions, but this is not a choice between global companies and local enterprises. The ESR itself calls for Singapore to support high-potential enterprises, both homegrown and global.

And this remains the very real source of economic opportunity. In 2025, EDB secured $14.2 billion in fixed asset investment commitments, with the investment commitments expected to create around 15,700 jobs when realised over the next five years. But the model must evolve.

The relevant question today is no longer simply how much investment did we attract, it should increasingly be how much value do we anchor in Singapore. Our strategic functions located here – are Singaporeans progressing into specialists and leadership roles? Are our SMEs becoming suppliers and partners? Are technology and capabilities diffusing into the wider economy?

The ESR seeks to address precisely these linkages, as I infer from its report. It calls for us to go beyond simply attracting investment and to embed these investments more deeply into Singapore through stronger local supplier networks, partnerships with our research institutions, deeper innovation capabilities and stronger pipelines of skilled talent.

We have already built considerable capabilities. Private sector R&D expenditure more than doubled from $4.3 billion in 2013 to $9 billion in 2023. The next challenge, as the ESR recognises, is to connect these capabilities more tightly to industry needs.

Indeed, spillovers extend beyond the firms themselves. A 2025 Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) study estimated that between 2012 and 2019, each EDB-supported firm generated net spillover benefits averaging $48.5 million in value added annually for non-EDB-supported firms.

Significantly, this spillover benefits accounted for 41% of the firms' total direct and spillover economic contribution and much of this came through the labour market, as skills and capabilities developed in these firms benefited the wider economy. Being an economist, I read the report. It is quite rigorous. I can see that the numbers actually do show benefits on Singapore's front.

In other words, the objective is not simply to bring global companies here but to anchor more of their capabilities here and ensure that their presence strengthens Singapore companies and Singaporean workers as well. That should increasingly be our test of successful foreign investment.

Let me make this less abstract, Mr Speaker. My office is in One Raffles Quay in Raffles Place. Almost every morning, I take the lift up and down. I see young Singaporeans going into offices occupied by global companies, including firms, such as ByteDance, financial institutions and technology companies. They work in technology, data, finance, compliance and regional functions. These are young Singaporeans, building careers in global businesses while remaining based in Singapore.

When these companies choose Singapore as a regional hub, they do not simply rent office space. They create jobs and demand for local services. They bring technology and managerial capabilities. They contribute to the vibrancy of our business districts. And this brings me to the concern about a "two-speed economy" narrative.

We should take that concern seriously. Indeed, I note that the ESR itself recognises the capability and cost constraints faced by SMEs and the difficulties smaller firms can face in navigating and accessing existing support. In areas, such as AI adoption, ESR specifically calls for support to extend beyond leading firms to the wider business base.

So, the challenge facing smaller enterprises is not absent from the ESR. The more important question is whether our transmission mechanisms are strong enough to reach them. But the answer is not to slow down firms operating at the productivity frontier. It is to strengthen the transmission mechanisms and help more firms move towards that frontier, to create convergence upwards.

A Singapore SME supplying an advanced manufacturer may have to meet exacting global standards. In doing so, it builds capabilities that can help it win other customers and enter new markets. Workers trained in MNCs carry skills and experience throughout the economy. Technology and management practices can diffuse, and anchor companies create demand for suppliers, professional services, logistics and specialised skills.

But these spillovers are not automatic. That is where policy matters. Openness must create capability and this principle applies to workers too.

Take the administrator or driver working in the logistics and supply chain industry, for example – and I serve as a union advisor to the Supply Chain Employees' Union. As AI, automation and digitalisation transform supply chains, our objective cannot simply be to preserve today's job exactly as it exists. We must help workers move up the same value chain that we want Singapore's economy to move up.

That is also why capability transfer matters. We already have the Capability Transfer Programme, supporting companies in bringing foreign specialists to transfer capabilities to our local workforce as well as overseas training for Singaporeans. Could we go further, for example, by facilitating more structured capability transfer from foreign professionals already working here to Singapore colleagues?

This is precisely the transmission mechanism we should strengthen. Openness must create capability. Global expertise anchored here, with Singaporeans progressively equipped to take on more sophisticated roles. That is not a retreat from our hub strategy. It is an evolution of it.

Mr Speaker, there is one further area I would like to touch on – costs and the policy choices involved. Singapore cannot compete with much larger economies principally on cost. We must compete on value through skills, connectivity, trust, infrastructure, innovation and our ability to manage complex regional and global operations.

I think Members on both sides of this House would agree that many local enterprises face significant cost pressures. That is not in dispute. But if business costs are an important concern in today's debate, or in other speeches later on, I hope we can also have greater clarity on the policy choices that would address them. For many SMEs, particularly in sectors, such as services, retail, logistics and F&B, significant cost pressures include labour, rental and energy.

So, the question I have is: so, what are the policy choices? I have heard some from the earlier speeches. If labour costs are the principal concern, are Members suggesting that we significantly relax our foreign manpower policies? If rental costs are the concern, are Members proposing some form of rent regulation or greater intervention in commercial leasing? If energy costs are the issue, are Members suggesting energy price controls or longer-term subsidies?

These are not rhetorical questions. They are genuine policy questions. Because every proposal involves trade-offs. We all want our businesses to remain competitive and to manage their costs. But measures to reduce one cost can have consequences elsewhere.

At the same time, Parliament has debated proposals before aimed at strengthening wages and retirement adequacy, as well as more ambitious environmental measures. These may be legitimate policy objectives, but they illustrate the trade-offs involved – measures that advance important social or environmental objectives can affect business cost structures

So, when we call for lower costs and greater support for local enterprises, I think the next questions should be: what are the concrete policy choices? What are the trade-offs? And who ultimately bears the costs?

So, I hope today's debate and later speeches can therefore move beyond identifying the challenges facing SMEs, on which there is considerable common ground, towards a clearer discussion of which policy choices we or they are prepared to make and which trade-offs we are prepared to accept. Essentially, economic policy ultimately requires choices, and choices require prioritisation. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Mr Speaker, before I touch on the efforts within the Malay/Muslim community, allow me to summarise one important point. As a small country, Singapore cannot depend on domestic demand alone. We need global markets, global investment and international economic linkages to create greater scale for growth and opportunities for our people. But our objective is not simply to bring more global companies to Singapore.

What matters more is how much value, capability and opportunity we can anchor in Singapore.

Are Singaporeans getting better jobs and opportunities to progress? Are our local SMEs becoming suppliers and partners to global companies? Are technology, skills and expertise spreading across our wider economy? Efforts to address these questions are aligned with the key thrusts of the Economic Strategy Review, or ESR, report. We do not have to choose between global companies and local companies. We need to ensure that both can grow together.

If different parts of our economy are moving at different speeds, the answer is not to slow down those that are most competitive. Instead, we need to help more enterprises and workers build their capabilities so that they can progress together. Economic openness and inclusion are also not conflicting objectives.

Our challenge is to remain open to the world, while ensuring that more Singaporeans, workers and Singapore enterprises can seize the opportunities that this openness creates. All this is aligned with the recommendations of the Economic Strategy Review report.

This is also the spirit that we want to bring to the Malay/Muslim community. National strategies will only bring about meaningful change when our communities understand the changes taking place and are able to seize the opportunities available. Within the Malay/Muslim community, the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs has announced the establishment of the Committee for Economic Resilience, which I co-chair with Dr Wan Rizal. We want to listen to the aspirations and economic concerns of our youths, workers, professionals and entrepreneurs, and help translate the ESR recommendations into more tangible opportunities.

Our purpose is not to create a separate economic strategy for the Malay/Muslim community. Our objective is to ensure that our community is prepared for change and well positioned to seize and create new opportunities. Our priorities are aligned with the ESR.

First, technology and AI. How can we help more Malay/Muslim business owners use AI to raise productivity, strengthen competitiveness and grow their businesses? This is where M³+, business leaders and community networks can serve as a bridge between national programmes and needs on the ground.

Second, growth and internationalisation. For enterprises with the aspiration and potential, Singapore should be their starting point, not their limit. We want to help more enterprises build capabilities, become suppliers and partners to global companies, and eventually venture into ASEAN and wider markets.

Third, jobs, skills and career transitions. Technology will change jobs and the skills required. We need to help workers understand these changes early, upgrade their skills and seize opportunities in growth sectors.

We should not wait until someone loses his or her job before we act. Economic resilience also means preparing before change occurs. From awareness to participation.

Mr Speaker, ultimately, our ambition cannot stop at simply raising awareness about the ESR. We need to move from awareness to participation in the ESR strategy.

Can more Malay/Muslim SMEs become suppliers and business partners to global companies? Can more of our entrepreneurs expand into ASEAN? Can more of our young people enter sectors such as advanced manufacturing, digital technology, AI, the green economy and other emerging sectors? These are among the questions that we want to examine through the Committee for Economic Resilience.

Inclusion is not simply about redistributing the gains from growth after they have been created. Inclusion also means widening opportunities so that more members of our community can participate in the very process that creates that growth.

And our aspiration should be clear.

The Malay/Muslim community should not merely be prepared for the economy of the future. We should have the confidence, skills and capabilities to help shape that future economy and succeed in it.

Allow me to conclude this Malay section with a pantun:

Sailing our boat on tranquil seas;

Stopping awhile at Pulau Ubin;

Knowledge acquired, talent grows with ease;

Progressing together, a secure future is attained.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, as I said at the outset, there is considerable common ground between the aspirations in this Motion and the direction already set out in the ESR.

The question is therefore not whether our economic model must evolve. It must. The question is how it evolves and which foundations of Singapore's economic success we must preserve even as we strengthen local enterprise, resilience and inclusion.

One such foundation is our openness and connectivity to the world. We can build stronger Singapore companies, strengthen resilience and broaden participation in growth. But these objectives should complement our global orientation, not substitute it.

Our task is to create convergence upwards, so that more Singaporean companies and workers benefit from the technology, capabilities, investment and opportunities flowing through our economy. Because the choice is not between being global and inclusive. Our challenge is to remain global while ensuring that more Singaporeans, businesses and communities participate in the opportunities our global connections create.

So, Mr Speaker, while I support the aspirations underlying this Motion, I cannot support the Motion as it stands. I will, however, support the Motion with the proposed amendments by Member of Parliament Mr Edward Chia. And I will also support, especially the second line, where the word "engine" needs to be replaced, because it is not just a single economic engine. It is about the whole economy, powered by multiple factors. It makes the second sentence clearer to me. The amendment may seem minor but it makes it clearer in that sense.

So, that is, in that sense, with the amendments, how we build stronger companies, create better jobs and build an economy of the future that truly works for all. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Mr Fadli Fawzi.

3.13 pm

Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied) : Mr Speaker, I speak today in support of the original Motion filed by my hon friends, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Kenneth Tiong. The ESR recognises that the global economy is changing in ways that are structural rather than cyclical. My speech will focus on Thrusts 6 and 7 of the ESR. While their broad aims are laudable, I hope to advance some different recommendations for consideration, in the shared hope and spirit of better preparing and protecting our Singaporean workers.

I will frame my suggestions through three questions.

The first question concerns the journey. What is the journey for Singaporean workers who find themselves displaced in the workforce or at risk of being made obsolete?

The second question is about the destination. What is the destination for those who undertake skills training or upgrading and how can we ensure that such retraining or upskilling results in a job on the other side?

The third question ties the previous two together. What is the proof that our continuing education system actually works?

Mr Speaker, I begin with my first question. What is the journey like for Singaporeans who undertake reskilling or retraining opportunities? More importantly, how can we make sure that these workers can and do benefit from these opportunities, and what can be done to make the journey easier for them?

My answer is two-fold: one, is to offer a robust safety net so that workers, especially those who are displaced, can pursue retraining and reskilling opportunities without anxiety or worry; two, is to unlock sources of funding for those who may wish to pursue deeper mid-career upskilling.

Sir, Singaporean workers deserve a robust safety net. Upskilling and retraining sounds good in the abstract as a response to job displacement. But we have to remember that Singaporean workers are not video game characters, progressing through a skill tree to get an achievement unlocked. To workers made redundant or are on the verge of losing their jobs, upskilling and retraining may not sound like solutions in the immediate moment, but rather as another source of stress and uncertainty.

Let us not understate the psychological distress and desperation that precarious employment can cause. Other than anxiety and disappointment, workers can also feel shame and embarrassment, especially if they are breadwinners with children or elderly depending on them.

We must thus manage workforce transformations and transitions with sensitivity. We need our Singaporean workers to feel secure and have confidence that they can and will overcome an employment disruption if and when they face one. We need affected workers to be confident that they have the full backing of society and the Government as they endeavour to overcome this setback.

Sir, that sense of security, hope and confidence can only come by offering our workers the protection of a robust safety net, namely through: one, mandatory retrenchment benefits; and two, a universal redundancy insurance scheme.

Mr Speaker, the ESR in Thrust 6 calls for earlier intervention in retrenchment support. Early intervention makes sense. However, I want to ask whether this alone is sufficient or even fair for the affected workers who have sometimes contributed years of service.

Crucially, employers are encouraged to abide by the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment. As a result, retrenchment benefits remain at the discretion of the respective employers. This is a policy choice that unfairly disadvantages our workers and leaves them vulnerable. To me, this is wrong. We must protect hardworking Singaporeans and legislate mandatory retrenchment benefits.

Sir, now, I turn to another concern raised in Thrust 6 of the ESR about strengthening support for our PMEs.

We believe that a redundancy insurance scheme offers better protection for all workers, including our PMEs. In contrast to the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme, our proposal is meant to be universal and funded by joint contributions from both employers and employees, amounting to a combined 0.1% of the worker's monthly salary. Because every worker pays into it, every worker will be eligible to benefit from it. The basic idea is for each retrenched worker to receive 40% of their last drawn salary, which will be further capped at 40% of Singapore's prevailing median income. These payouts will last up to six months at most.

Sir, one of the advantages of our redundancy insurance scheme is that the payouts are straightforward. Workers will not have to go through an application process or face an agonising wait about the outcome or stress themselves out further about what they should do if their application was rejected. Our proposal offers displaced workers the assurance, peace of mind and financial buffer to properly reskill and seek a better job fit since the worker would not need to jump at the first offer that comes along. This will also reduce the prospect of underemployment.

Mr Speaker, at this point, I can already hear the murmurs about moral hazard from hon colleagues across the aisle. I want to reassure them that our redundancy insurance features the following "4Cs" to address this. The 4Cs are coverage, conditionality, caps and cushion.

First, coverage is restricted only to cases of involuntary redundancy, thus eliminating the concerns that workers may quit in order to collect benefits.

Second, conditionality payouts for the second and subsequent months will be made conditional on the individual's job searching and/or retraining efforts.

Third, caps. The payouts are modest and limited by a double-40 cap, that is, only 40% of the last drawn salary, which is also further subjected to a cap at 40% of median income.

Lastly, cushion. These payouts are time limited and not meant to fully replace lost income. Rather, it is intended to merely cushion the harsh impact of retrenchment and provide a semblance of security and assurance to the worker and his/her family and dependants in their immediate future.

Beyond the 4Cs, Mr Speaker, let me make a more fundamental point about the redundancy insurance scheme. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is here in the House, because he would perhaps best appreciate how our universal redundancy insurance scheme can reflect and foster a "we first" spirit by pooling our resources collectively and engaging in risk sharing. It is a reminder that all of us Singaporeans are in this together and that we mutually help and support each other when things get difficult.

Sir, I return to the question about the journey. What else can we do to better support workers who are retraining or upskilling? What I want to suggest here is especially pertinent for Singaporeans who have spent time in the workforce and may now want to upskill in a major and deeper way. This could mean taking on a postgraduate degree. In doing so, workers would then gain the qualifications and competencies needed to either value add to their current work or even to pivot to new industries.

However, such deep upskilling is often more demanding, very time- and energy-intensive, and involves a longer-term commitment. It can also be financially exacting.

Here, I am in agreement with ESR's diagnosis and recommendation in Thrust 7, which calls for expanding funding support to cover a broader range of deeper rescaling pathways, including post-graduate programmes offered by institutes of higher learning (IHLs). I have two specific proposals in this regard.

First, the Government should directly offer mid-career Singaporeans undertaking a postgraduate degree with access to education loans that are interest free for at least the duration of the course and with repayments to start at a modest rate before progressively increasing after a certain period. What I have in mind here is something like the MENDAKI study loans, which has a repayment arrangement that scales up over a period of time.

Second, the Government should expand the CPF Education Loan Scheme to cover part-time and full-time Master's programmes at our IHLs. This is currently not possible.

Finding the funding for postgraduate studies is often a challenge for many working professionals. Yet, postgraduate degrees remain useful in improving employability. For instance, employers sometimes reduce the years of working experience needed for applicants with a postgraduate degree.

Sir, these suggestions partly emerged from my own experience of pursuing a mid-career switch a few years ago. I left the Public Service to pursue a postgraduate Juris Doctor (JD) programme at Singapore Management University to become a lawyer. The temporary transition back to being a full-time student was difficult, not least due to the loss of a stable income for the three years of the JD programme.

However, securing an interest-free education loan from MENDAKI was helpful for me. Also, while being a JD student, I was in a slightly better financial place as a result of holding a Master's in sociology, that enabled me to secure part-time employment teaching at Singapore Institute of Management, which helped me with my day-to-day expenses.

Today, retraining and upskilling is something unavoidable for the Singaporean worker. However, we in this House would do well to recognise that the process of retraining and especially deeper upskilling involves opportunity and real cost, some of which can and should be alleviated.

Mr Speaker, I now arrive at my second question – the destination. Training by itself is not an economic outcome. Obtaining a certificate does not necessarily translate into a livelihood. If retraining ends with the worker returning home to search job portals alone, then we have merely replaced one form of insecurity with another.

I am thus encouraged by the opportunity presented last month by the merger of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore into a single Statutory Board. SWDA has the potential to serve a new integrated system where workers can be supported actively by the state throughout the entire process of displacement, retraining, job matching and re-employment. I believe that this is in line with the recommendation in Thrust 7 of the ESR.

As such, SWDA should avoid merely becoming a larger training administrator. Instead, it should be connecting together employers, training providers and workers so that retraining culminates in a real opportunity for employment.

SWDA should serve as a premier one-stop employment centre where every involuntary unemployed jobseeker can be assigned with a dedicated caseworker. Jobseekers will meet with the caseworker for a one-on-one guidance on the job search process. After a careful consideration of the jobseeker's circumstances, skills and experience as well as the expected vacancies in the job market, the caseworker can then either match the jobseekers to available jobs or else recommend retraining or upskilling courses that can prepare these jobseekers to transition into another role.

To properly fulfil this bridging and matching function, SWDA will have to do two things in tandem: (a) tracking the macro developments in the job sector; and (b) ensuring that its programme offerings are fit for purpose.

The first task is for the SWDA to have a good understanding of the ever evolving needs and demands of the job market so that they can better match or train jobseekers for these jobs. Here, SWDA can work with employers to understand which sectors are expanding, which firms are expected to have vacancies over the next six to 12 months and which industries face persistent worker shortages.

The second task requires the SWDA to build a culture of rigorous evaluation so that taxpayers' monies are funding courses and training programmes that actually provide good employment outcomes for workers or at the very least provide skills needed by the industry. For example, in many industries, there are companies that compete commercially but require many of the same foundational competencies. SWDA can work with industry partners to build training programmes that focus on sector-wide skills during the first few months, followed by a shorter company-specific immersion.

SWDA should also work with industry professionals to design training curricula for workers. It should regularly collect employers' requirements across each industry or perhaps even receive curricular proposals from these employers, as suggested before by two of my hon friends, Mr Gerald Giam and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Training providers should then demonstrate how their own programmes meet these industries' identified needs. If this is not the case already, industry representatives should sit on these curricula's steering committees.

SkillsFuture providers should also be governed by tougher quality assurance frameworks with frequent audits on providers and trainers. There should also be industry input on the assessment standards for SkillsFuture courses. Every SkillsFuture programme, from curriculum to assessment, should require sign off from three stakeholders: an employer or industry representative, the Government and the training provider.

Finally, SWDA should work with employers to provide probationary opportunities for successful graduates from SkillsFuture programmes. This will demonstrate that they are solid training programmes that can prepare workers to enter new jobs or new industries.

I believe that a new SWDA can best serve our workforce by becoming the national convener for matching displaced workers, employers and training institutions into a single coherent system of retraining and rehiring. SWDA can then develop a niche in creating the career bridges which the ESR talks about in Thrust 6 – those structured pathways for at risk workers to gain employment in more resilient occupations.

Mr Speaker, my third question is the proof. How can we be confident that our system of continuing education actually works? Where is the evidence to tell us that our training programmes actually succeed?

We spend billions of dollars supporting workforce development, but surprisingly, little outcome data enters the public domain. We know, for example, that around 55% of previously unemployed trainees who participated in the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme found new jobs within six months. But we do not know which courses perform better at helping trainees to find new jobs, which providers consistently deliver stronger outcomes, whether wages rise after retraining and whether workers remain employed one year later.

I understand that SkillsFuture and continuing education more generally should not be narrowly evaluated in terms of employment outcomes. SkillsFuture also serves the purposes of enrichment and lifelong learning, which is why one of my hon colleagues shared with me even her 88-year-old mother receives SkillsFuture credits.

However, Mr Speaker, the point remains. If the Government is primarily relying on SkillsFuture as a platform to deliver workforce retraining and upskilling, then surely our evaluation of SkillsFuture and its offerings must reflect that priority. The Government should thus publish more metrics to help workers assess the effectiveness of specific SkillsFuture programmes in relation to employment prospects. For example, for each provider and course, we should publish how many trainees found new jobs within six months and the average wages of these new jobs.

The availability of such data will transform accountability throughout our training ecosystem. Providers will be forced to complete on outcomes rather than marketing and workers would make better informed decisions before going for training. Government spending should then flow towards programmes that demonstrably succeed.

Mr Speaker, one last point on why we invest in the upskilling of our workers. Singapore has built one of the world's most generous systems of continuing education. Without a doubt, the Government has invested significantly in our people, But as always is the case with Government expenditure, where the money goes and how it is spent matters as much as how much is spent.

The recently released report of the Auditor-General raises questions about whether the money has been fruitfully used. The Auditor-General's Office (AGO) flagged some issues with the Career Conversion Programme and Mid-Career Pathways Programme. In page 65 of the report, the AGO found that six group of 30-related entities had engaged in patterns that suggested "potential gaming of the programmes to maximise grant claims rather than genuine training initiatives".

While I understand that Workforce Singapore has addressed some of these findings, my concern is about the vulnerabilities in the system that can be exploited. The Government must remain vigilant in detecting any abuse of the system and plugging these gaps, so to ensure public monies can deliver genuine training of our workforce, because every dollar diverted and wasted is a dollar not spent to re-train or upskill a worker to stay employable. And we must ensure that taxpayers' money that we spend to support reskilling and career conversion should produce genuine workforce outcomes and meaningfully help displaced workers rebuild their careers.

To recap the proposals in my speech: one, legislating mandatory retrenchment benefits; two, implementing universal redundancy insurance; three, introducing interest-free education loans and allowing CPF to be used for postgraduate studies; four, consolidating SWDA into a one-stop shop for employment and upskilling, with dedicated caseworkers; five, collaborating more closely with industry partners to finetune SkillsFuture offerings and curricula; and six, publishing more public outcome data by provider and course.

Mr Speaker, the ESR rightly observes that Singapore's greatest asset has always been its people. And to maximise our competitive advantage, we must enable Singaporeans to move confidently from one stage of their working lives to another. Ideally, the worker should begin re-training or upskilling with a clear idea of the destination ahead, he or she should be able to see, right from the start, a credible career bridge, rather than resting on some vague hope that re-training will lead to some hazy notion of somewhere better. With that, I reiterate my support for the original Motion. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

3.32 pm

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member) : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would first like to declare my interest as a faculty member at an autonomous university.

Mr Speaker, the ESR sets out how Singapore can remain competitive in a fast-changing world. Its central themes are adaptability and resilience. It also calls for a more dynamic enterprise base, stronger support for career transitions and AI that augments workers.

The movers of the original Motion have described it as complementary to, but distinct from, the ESR. And I agree with many of the aspirations in paragraph (a) of the Motion. Entrepreneurs should be able to experiment, businesses should have room to succeed and workers should thrive and innovation should flourish.

But agreement with those aspirations is not the same as support for the original framing of the Motion. My concern is that the wording does not adequately address the trade-offs involved.

I will begin with fairness, then turn to enterprise dynamism and the relationship between workers and innovation.

Let me start with the phrase "a more equal and inclusive economy". A more equal outcome is not always a fairer one. Equal pay for equal work may be fair, but we also give more help to households with greater needs. It can also be fair to reward greater contribution or responsible risk-taking. The appropriate principle really depends on the issue. So, the question is not simply whether outcomes are equal. It is whether they are fair.

This does not mean we should simply accept inequality. Large differences in income and wealth can generate wide social and economic costs. They can entrench advantage, weaken mobility and leave people with very different capacities to pursue opportunities or recover from setbacks. Where essential costs overwhelm lower-income households, greater support should be provided. Where family resources determine access to education or career opportunities, the pathways available to those with fewer means should be widened. So, the response to the social and economic costs of inequality should be to target those specific costs, rather than assume that equality is always the appropriate remedy.

We should also not only look at the distribution of wealth, but also, at how that wealth is put to use. This points to a broader understanding of inclusion. People should not only have access to opportunity at the outset; they should have the ability to change direction throughout their lives.

The ESR's proposal for proactive career bridges for workers in at-risk roles is an important step in that direction. And I would extend the same principle more broadly – across education and work, employment and entrepreneurship, and transitions between different careers.

Consider university students who discover during their first year that they have chosen the wrong course. When they transfer programmes, the subsidised semesters already used count against the tuition grant available for the new programme. Any additional study required may therefore attract non-subsidised fees. The fiscal rationale for that is understandable. But the ability to correct an early mismatch can then depend on family means.

Could there be a limited, one-time course-correction allowance for a first transfer made during the first year? For example, one or two subsidised semesters could be disregarded, subject to appropriate academic advising and maximum recognition of credits already completed.

This is not a case for unlimited switching or subsidy. It is about ensuring that an early mismatch does not become financially irreversible. It may also reduce the pressure on families to secure the "right" course at the first attempt.

Our systems can sometimes behave like conveyor belts. They work very efficiently when the destination is known, but they are a lot less forgiving when someone needs to change direction. So, a more adaptable system should allow people to switch pathways without losing all the progress they have already made. That is how I would calibrate the Motion's reference to inclusion: not identical journeys or destinations, but real opportunities to change directions as people develop.

Sir, my second point concerns opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment and for businesses to succeed. The ESR is right to emphasise enterprise renewal, including restructuring and exit. Indeed, enterprise dynamism must work for people too, not just for capital. Experimentation involves uncertainty, so some ventures will pivot, others will end. And when that happens, the learning should not be lost and the entrepreneur should not be permanently penalised.

A worker who leaves a job to pursue a venture should be able to return to employment, regardless of the venture's eventual outcome. Employers should recognise the judgement and practical experience gained, rather than viewing that period as a blemish in that person's career.

At the same time, business success should not be defined only by scale or profitability. Consider Bettr Group, it is a homegrown specialty coffee company that combines its business with training and inclusive employment for people facing social and economic barriers. Its value lies not only in its commercial activity, but also in the skills and opportunities it helps create.

Bettr Group reminds us that enterprise dynamism should make room for a wider range of enterprises and forms of value. A healthy economy should allow experimentation and exit. It should also give enterprises that create wider societal value a fair opportunity to develop.

And so, my final point concerns the Motion's call for opportunities for workers to thrive and for ideas and innovation to flourish. Both the proposed and amended Motions' use of the word "thrive" is one I support. It sets a higher aspiration than simply keeping people employed and it is worth striving for. Workers should be engaged in their work and able to build a good life through it. They should also see a path to develop and progress. This builds on the ESR, which calls for AI to augment workers through job redesign and training, and for learning to be integrated more closely with real work and employers' needs.

Realising this higher aspiration requires reciprocal commitments. Let me turn first to workers and then to employers.

As routine tasks become more automatable, workers will need to exercise more judgement and deal with problems that do not have formulaic answers. Reskilling cannot stop at attending courses. Workers must be willing to apply what they have learnt and take on new responsibilities. Employers, in turn, can decide how technology changes work. They can use it mainly to do the same work with fewer people, or they can use it to help the organisation grow and create more valuable roles for workers.

Where workers take on greater responsibilities and help generate productivity gains, this should be reflected in their pay or greater autonomy over their work and time. This does not mean preserving every task or preventing disruption. It means that workers should take responsibility for adapting, while employers should use innovation not merely to reduce costs, but to grow the organisation and share the resulting benefits with those who produce them.

Mr Speaker, my concern is not with the aspirations in paragraph (a). It is with compressing distinct principles and trade-offs into a single proposition. Fairness does not always require equal outcomes. But inequality should not become a lasting barrier to opportunity.

Enterprise dynamism requires room for experimentation and exit. It should also recognise wider societal value. Workers and innovation can flourish together, but only through a reciprocal commitment: workers must adapt and employers must create more valuable work and share the gains.

I therefore retain reservations about paragraph (a) as presently framed. I would have preferred a more nuanced and calibrated formulation, one that preserves its aspirations while making the trade-offs and responsibilities clearer.

That said, the amendments proposed by Mr Edward Chia brings the Motion closer to my position and it is more consistent with the points I have made. And on balance, I would support the Motion as amended. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Mr Pritam Singh.

3.43 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied) : Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the original Motion. The full report of the ESR released on 24 June goes to the heart of what kind of economy and what kind of society we want to build for Singapore and for our workers. It is situated within a world increasingly shaped by AI, technological disruption, geopolitical fragmentation and intensifying economic competition.

In addition, the ESR speaks extensively about jobs and strengthening resilience, with section (b) of the report specifically devoted to it. Thrust 6 makes a specific call to shorten the current requirement for companies to submit a mandatory retrenchment notification within five working days after workers are notified.

My speech expands on this and will focus on worker resilience, the reality of how retrenchment hits our workers and how we can better support them, because a resilient economy cannot be built on the backs of insecure workers.

That is why I believe the time has come for Singapore to legislate minimum retrenchment benefits, a subject I have pursued previously in this House, most recently in April this year, and separately, in the context of the ongoing review of the Employment Act.

In advocating for the legislation of retrenchment benefits, my speech will cover four broad sections: first, I will provide an overview of the retrenchment situation in Singapore; second, I will summarise the legal position on retrenchment benefits in Singapore. thirdly, I will explain why retrenchment benefits are important for workers; and fourthly, I will address the common reasons against the legislation of retrenchment benefits and how they should be reviewed in light of the ESR's broader recommendations.

First, the local situation. Last Friday, The Straits Times published an article titled "Singapore adds more jobs in Q2 even as retrenchments rose". Within the story, it was reported that the 4,500 retrenchments from April to June this year were the highest since the last quarter of 2020. Over the last 12 months, Lazada, Gardenia, Shopee, Asia Pacific Breweries, Agoda, DHL and Yeo Hiap Seng are just some of the household names that have announced retrenchments, which made the headlines in Singapore, with some moving operations across the border to Malaysia. In 2024, the major technology companies in Singapore such as Meta, Tiktok, Dyson, Microsoft and Google collectively cut at least 9,000 jobs in Singapore.

In this regard, two specific data points are noteworthy.

Firstly, in 2024 and 2025, total employment in Singapore grew, and the unemployment rate has remained low at around 2% in 2024 and 2025. However, recorded retrenchments have increased in recent years from 6,440 in 2022 to 13,020 in 2024, and 14,490 in 2025.

Secondly, from 2020 to 2025, eight out of 10 eligible employees were paid retrenchment benefits at or above the prevailing tripartite guideline of two weeks' salary for every year of service. This bodes well for a baseline legislated minimum retrenchment benefits starting point for all workers. This data point provided by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), however, does not specifically reveal how many workers receive the unionised norm of one month's salary for every year of service, although I understand this is not uncommon in many collective agreements.

Critically, though, what we can reasonably extrapolate from both these data points is that in 2024, for example, potentially close to 3,000 retrenched workers in Singapore either received no retrenchment benefits at all or received less than what is prescribed by the tripartite guidelines. That is not a small number by any stretch.

Today, many economies in Asia provide some form of legislative statutory protection for retrenched workers. However, workers in Singapore have no statutory entitlement to retrenchment benefits. Outside contract, retrenchment benefits remain largely governed by tripartite norms and employer practices. To receive retrenchment benefits, workers in Singapore are dependent on the goodwill of employers, the terms of their employment contracts, or the strength of their bargaining position after they have already lost their jobs.

This legislative omission in our employment laws sits in stark contrast to the reality our workers face as set out by the ESR report: first, that Singaporeans should not assume that economic growth will automatically result in the same extent of job creation as before; and secondly, that despite Singapore's positive employment situation, worker anxiety has increased across a wide range of sectors.

I now move on to the second section of my speech on the legal position. Singapore's courts and tribunals have reaffirmed a legal position that does not sit easily with workers. In JIF v JIG , the Employment Claims Tribunal held that section 45 of the Employment Act does not create a statutory entitlement to retrenchment benefits. The tribunal held that retrenchment benefits are payable only when they arise from a contract of employment, collective agreement, or some other legal basis. Tripartite guidelines do not create such a legal basis. Indeed, this position can be traced back to the Court of Appeals decision in Bethlehem Singapore Pte Ltd v Ler Hock Seng , which made it clear that section 45 does not compel employers to pay retrenchment benefits simply because an employee has completed a qualifying period of service.

The significance of the tribunal judgment in particular is magnified by its timing and it forces us to confront an important policy question. At the very moment, the ESR is asking Singaporeans to prepare for an era of more frequent restructuring, more rapid technological disruption and greater economic uncertainty, the Courts have reminded us that workers facing retrenchment possess no general statutory entitlement to retrenchment benefits.

The question before Parliament is whether the law remains adequate for workers and the economy that the ESR hopes to evince.

In my view, the law has fallen behind. Let us look around the region. China legislates economic compensation for workers affected by redundancy and restructuring. South Korea imposes significant legal requirements before redundancies may be carried out. Taiwan legislates severance entitlements. Malaysia legislates termination and lay-off benefits. Thailand legislates severance payments based on years of service. Indonesia legislates retrenchment compensation. The Philippines legislates separations pay.

These countries differ enormously in their political systems, labour markets and stages of economic development. Yet they have all reached a common conclusion: business flexibility for employers and worker protection are not mutually exclusive.

I now move on to my third section on why retrenchment benefits are crucial for our workers.

Retrenchment benefits matter because they support workers and their families precisely at the stage of life when financial obligations can often be at their greatest. They represent an important layer of support provided by employers, complementing taxpayer-funded assistance such as the Jobseeker Support Scheme.

In the Singapore context, this additional financial relief is especially important, given how leveraged many households are. According to DBS Bank's 2025 instalment of its financial wellness series, which analysed aggregated and anonymised data from approximately two million DBS and POSB retail customers, Gen Zs and Millennials aged 25 to 44 are increasingly shouldering heavier liabilities and are falling behind their older counterparts in building retirement savings. Among pre-retirement age groups, those aged 35 to 44 are the most financially stretched, with debts slightly overweighing liquid assets, largely due to housing vehicle and credit card loans.

Outside these age bands, when a worker in his 50s loses his or her job, the consequences extend far beyond immediate income loss. CPF contributions stop, retirement balances grow more slowly, housing obligations continue, healthcare expenses continue, caregiving responsibilities continue. Retrenchment is not merely a labour market issue. For many, it is also a retirement adequacy issue, a housing issue, a family issue and a social stability issue.

As Singapore transits towards a high wage, high-cost economy, the effects of retrenchment will become even more severe, if workers are unable to secure employment at a comparable income level. The mental health dimension of job loss and financial insecurity cannot be understated either.

Taxpayers are playing their part financing the Jobseeker Support Scheme, and the Government and Labour Movement are devoting significant resources towards retraining. Employers must play their part too, based on the available data on retrenchment benefits, we know that many employers are already prepared to shoulder that responsibility and pay retrenchment benefits to workers.

The fourth section of my speech will deal with the arguments against the legislation of retrenchment benefits. Throughout Singapore's history, many worker protections were initially criticised as threats to business competitiveness. When Workfare was introduced, concerns were raised about costs, even as Workfare was taxpayer-funded. When the progressive wage model was expanded, concerns were raised about costs, especially after Government wage support tapers off. When platform workers were granted stronger protections, concerns were again raised about costs.

In fact, when the Government announced the review of the Employment Act last year, the Singapore National Employers' Federation cautioned that the review should not, and I quote, "inadvertently mandate progressive employment practices that may reduce flexibilities for employers and undermine business competitiveness".

Yet, advancing major pro-worker reforms are always important because economic growth alone is never enough.

Today, we regard things like Workfare as part of a mature and balanced economic system. Retrenchment benefits should be viewed in exactly the same way.

Over the years, MOM has advanced several arguments against legislating retrenchment benefits for our workers. However, the risks it has hitherto identified should be carefully examined and weighed afresh against the increasingly unpredictable economic landscape facing workers in the years ahead, as outlined by the ESR report.

The first argument is that mandatory retrenchment benefits may make employers more hesitant to offer long-term or permanent employment contracts. Yet, the existence of mandatory retrenchment benefits in many economies, including advanced economies, has not eliminated permanent employment. It is clear that such demands are influenced by a range of factors, including labour demand, skills and manpower shortages, productivity and broader labour market regulations. In the Singapore context, a generally tight labour market could have the opposite effect with employers competing to hire the best with a permanent contract, an important lure.

Second, the Government has argued that legislating a minimum retrenchment benefit may result in employers converging on that very minimum. However, the facts do not fully support this concern. There is already a tripartite guideline. There are already collective agreements that prescribe retrenchment benefits and the vast majority of employers converge at those benchmarks anyway, with a very small number paying more than the one-month norm for each year of service.

It is therefore not obvious that legislation would necessarily result in a different status quo with employers prevented from paying a higher amount should they deem it appropriate to do so.

Finally, it has been argued that mandatory retrenchment benefits may affect the viability of companies already facing financial difficulties and could place remaining employees at greater risk. This concern must be weighed against the reality that financial difficulty does not automatically extinguish obligations of distress firms, such as unpaid wages, CPF contributions, taxes, supplier debts or bank loans. Businesses do also account for employee leave encashment, gratuity obligations, contractual liabilities and debt repayments. Retrenchment benefits can be similarly treated as a foreseeable employment cost as they are today by progressive employers.

More importantly, this argument assumes that retrenchments only occur when companies are losing money. But that is not always the case. Many retrenchments occur when profitable firms restructure, automate functions, consolidate operations, relocate activities or seek to improve profitability – as we have seen in Singapore over the last few years. In such circumstances, retrenchment is often a strategic business decision rather than a last resort.

Indeed, this helps explain why some unions have successfully negotiated for enhanced retrenchment benefits in the absence of statutory protection, precisely because not all firms retrench workers due to financial distress. Like earlier efforts to strengthen worker protection, legislating retrenchment benefits will inevitably attract concerns from businesses.

Those concerns deserve attention and respect, because it is neither simple nor straightforward to start, build or sustain a business. However, we should not forget that many responsible employers already provide retrenchment benefits: eight out of 10 eligible employees already receive retrenchment benefits up to the tripartite guideline of two weeks salary for every year of service.

As I mentioned earlier, this can serve as the starting point for legislative retrenchment benefits. This would largely formalise an existing practice while ensuring that workers who fall through the gap that cannot be bridged by non-binding tripartite guidelines are protected. Responsible employers would no longer be disadvantaged relative to those who provide the bare minimum or nothing at all.

A statutory framework could also be enhanced by subsidiary legislation directing higher payouts for larger firms, such as up to the union norm of one month salary for every year of service, something which larger global MNCs in particular would not necessarily baulk at, especially since they are already subject to legislative regimes governing retrenchment benefits in other countries where they operate.

The ability of smaller employers to pay retrenchment benefits often comes up as a concern against legislating retrenchment benefits completely. The concerns of these small businesses are not irrelevant or unimportant. A business with a revenue of half a million dollars is certainly a different enterprise compared to one that records $50 million in revenue.

Various countries address this particular issue differently, even as they legislate for retrenchment benefits. Some create backstops, such as national insurance schemes, while others advance wage guarantee agreements, while yet others treat retrenchment benefits as a preferential debt through insolvency laws.

These are not uncharted waters, and a perfect legislative retrenchment benefits regime does not need to be the enemy of a good regime that protects more workers than it does today in Singapore.

In conclusion, the call for legislating retrenchment benefits is about what kind of society we want Singapore to become. The ESR calls on more international enterprises to set up regional headquarters Singapore and is fundamentally an economic plan for the future. It sees international trust in the Singapore brand as a strategic asset that Singapore rightly seeks to leverage in advancing its economic value proposition.

Yet that trust hosts an important domestic dimension that builds that very Singapore brand. Trust and commitment to an employer is strengthened when workers know that after years of service, if restructuring occurs through no fault of their own, they will receive fair and meaningful protection. Therefore, as part of the Government's implementation of the ESR, I urge the Government to convene employers, unions and workers to develop a statutory retrenchment benefits framework with the objective of introducing legislation.

A resilient society requires workers who know they will not be left to bear the burdens of economic change alone, because in line with the call of the Labour Movement in NTUC, no less, while not every job can be protected, every worker deserves protection.

I support the original Motion in the names of Members Kenneth Tiong and Jamus Lim, which calls for an inclusive and equal economy for all Singaporeans. [ Applause. ]

4.00 pm

Mr Speaker : Order. We have been in session for close to five and a half hours, so I propose to take a break. I suspend the Sitting and will take the chair at 4.20 pm. Order. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm.

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

An Economy of the Future that Works for All

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

Mr Deputy Speaker : Assoc Prof Terence Ho.

4.20 pm

Assoc Prof Terence Ho (Nominated Member) : Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the amended Motion. I would like to declare my interest as the Executive Director of the Institute for Adult Learning, Singapore’s National Centre of Excellence for Adult Learning.

It is, without doubt, critical for Singapore to sustain an inclusive and dynamic economy. We are building on firm foundations and the ESR provides a robust blueprint to take our economy forward. That said, more ideas to spur inclusive economic growth should be welcome. There are many dimensions to this Motion and I will focus my remarks on our workforce and people as the key to an inclusive and dynamic economy.

An inclusive economy must benefit its people. In Singapore, the main channel through which economic growth benefits Singaporeans is good jobs and incomes. This remains the central socio-economic strategy, as affirmed in the recent debate in this House on an AI transition with no jobless growth. While we will have to consider new ways to strengthen social support and protection, and to step up redistribution for more equitable outcomes, we must continue to prioritise employment and good jobs.

The first limb of today's Parliamentary Motion speaks of providing opportunities for workers to thrive. It is worth reflecting on what this means.

To me, it means that workers are not locked into pre-set pathways or dead-end jobs on their basis of the past educational qualifications. Instead, they must have opportunities to continually grow and develop in their careers. It also means that workers are not confined to tasks that are mundane or repetitive because all the interesting work has been taken over by AI. Instead, workers must have autonomy to express their talent and creativity, and to find meaning and self-actualisation in their work.

Three sets of factors are needed: first, workers must be nimble and adaptable; second, organisations must transform to activate skills and unlock the potential of workers; third, we need a refreshed work and learning ecosystem enabled by public policy to support workers and organisations, and help them thrive.

First, nimble and adaptable workers. Singapore tops the world in test scores of 15-year-olds, but can we top the world in the skills and learning agility of 45-year-olds? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD's) survey of adult skills suggest that we are only in the middle of the pack relative to OECD economies in adult literacy and numeracy.

Framing our ambition is important. We should set our sights high, not just to have the world's best students, but also to have the world's most agile, adaptable and innovative workforce. We must reaffirm that people are our key competitive advantage, and not just technology or infrastructure. In Singapore, we often say that people are our only resource, hence, the sustained investment the Government has put into education and human capital development through the years.

Today, it is not just about developing hard skills and competencies. The human skills, or critical core skills, are coming to the fore, and the meta-skill of learning to learn is perhaps the most important of all. We need to emphasise learning agility and adaptability amid disruption, and dynamic innovation beyond static excellence. AI and automation will analyse and execute, but it is human beings who set the agenda, prioritise tasks, frame the questions, weigh up the options that AI suggests, make decisions and ultimately, take responsibility for outcomes. All this requires judgement and creativity rooted in continual learning.

As individuals, we must get out of our comfort zones to seek new opportunities to learn and grow. We must also plan for our careers and invest in our career health. We should not limit ourselves to being just students, employees, freelancers or employers at any one time. Everyone can be a worker-learner and a worker-entrepreneur. And because learning never stops, there should be no hard boundary between Pre-employment Training and Continuing Education and Training. And everyone, regardless of occupation, needs to have the mindset and instincts of an entrepreneur to contribute and succeed in the future economy.

Second, let us focus on what organisations can do. They must transform to activate the skills of the workforce and unleash the creativity of their people. Otherwise, the gains from training and reskilling will not be fully realised. A body of research, including findings from the Institute for Adult Learning's Skills and Learning Survey, suggests that much of what people learn in formal training is not applied at work, often because there is no opportunity to do so, or because the workplace is not conducive.

Learning must therefore be dovetailed with organisational strategy and not treated as a standalone activity. Enterprises must become learning enterprises, where learning is embedded in corporate DNA. Leaders, human resource (HR) professionals, line managers and unions all have a role to play in enabling learning by activating mindsets, securing training resources, embedding learning and work, and creating conducive environments for learning and experimentation.

It should also be a priority for organisations to adopt skills-first practices, where skills, rather than credentials, become the key consideration for hiring, career development and advancement. This will give employers access to a larger pool of talent, while workers will enjoy greater career mobility as they are not limited by their previous educational qualifications or work experience, but can leverage the skills they have picked up through work to take on new job roles or cross into other sectors.

It is important that employers conduct regular structured career conversations with employees across all career stages and not just older workers. Such conversations help individuals understand the strengths, aspirations and development opportunities, while enabling organisations to better develop and deploy talent. Finally, organisations should encourage ground-up innovation by looking to the workforce as a source of insight and innovation.

In a complex and uncertain environment, it is particularly important for workers to make sense of the evolving context and to be empowered to co-create solutions with opportunities to hone their instincts and build their confidence. Workers' tacit knowledge is also valuable in human-centric work redesign, where involving workers in redesigning work can lead to greater ownership and better outcomes.

Third, a refreshed, integrated work and learning ecosystem is necessary to foster an agile, adaptable and innovative workforce, along with a labour market characterised by quality jobs, skills alignment and strong labour mobility.

Let me first acknowledge what is already in place under SkillsFuture. There is generous support for training and reskilling. We have a common skills taxonomy and a Careers and Skills Passport that support skills certification, recognition and portability. There is also a network of training providers whose quality standards are closely monitored. Labour market intelligence is made available to individuals, firms and training providers via a suite of online tools and dashboards.

What more can be done?

First, I think we need to accelerate efforts at making skills-first practices more prevalent and indeed, the default for firms and organisations. The Institute of Adult Learning will be launching a skills-first framework for action in October, which will set out concrete actions and behaviours that we hope will become widely adopted by individuals, employers and training providers.

Second, we need to develop robust skills credentialing. Today, there is a gap in the Careers and Skills Passport in that it primarily captures formal training and credentials, along with work experience. As workplace learning becomes an increasingly important part of lifelong learning, we need to be able to assess and recognise skills acquired on-the-job and demonstrable at the workplace. The Institute of Adult Learning has pioneered skills credentialing for the training and adult education sector, and we are working with partner agencies to adapt this methodology for other sectors.

This is important, as a more complete skills passport would enable and encourage adoption of skills-first practices. IHLs, too, can support this by designing student testimonials to better reflect skills acquired through coursework, internships and co-curricular activities.

Third, there is a need to support enterprises in becoming learning organisations by providing practical tool kits and resources to strengthen organisational capabilities, while helping leaders, HR and organisational development professionals place learning at the heart of organisational strategy and unlock the potential of their workforce.

Fourth, there is scope to further invest in personalised career guidance and job-matching capabilities, not just recommending jobs based on skills, but also on values, aspirations and personality fit.

A senior consultant psychiatrist recently told me that job fit is a major factor for human health and happiness. He observed that different kinds of work may be better suited to different personability types. Forcing a square peg into a round hole may lead to stress, burnout and poor mental health. Conversely, a good job fit is likely to result in personal fulfilment, more engaged and energised workers along with higher productivity and creativity on the job.

A more comprehensive and effective system of career coaching and guidance, not just for displaced workers but also for those in employment, can moreover support better career health and resilience.

Fifth, we can strengthen support for micro entrepreneurship. Thanks to AI, individuals can now put their business ideas to the test with much lower barriers to market entry. AI is making one-person companies increasingly viable. The Government could review what more could be done to support such ventures, whether through financing, access to AI compute, business networks and mentoring, or other targeted forms of support to encourage micro entrepreneurship as a viable career pathway or source of supplementary income for Singaporeans.

Finally, we need to invest significantly in understanding the nexus among technology, adult learning, employability and business performance.

Every chief HR officer I spoke with recently has shared that one of the central challenges facing their organisation is AI and its impact on work and their workforce. In this new reality of rapidly advancing AI, no organisation or government has all the answers. We need to experiment, test, iterate and scale up what works in AI-enabled learning, work redesign and employability across a range of sectors and organisation types.

Just as we have built up considerable expertise in pedagogy that has placed Singapore at the forefront of global education for school-age children, we need to similarly build up expertise in lifelong learning and employability. We should bring to Singapore the world's leading experts – not just academic researchers but practice-oriented academics who can bridge the world of academia and industry with timely research that informs practice in a fast-changing landscape. By building up our research and practice ecosystem, Singapore can be at the cutting edge of learning and employability in the AI age.

Let us match our ambition for our workforce with sustained investment in expertise and capability. Our guiding star should be to give our people the best chance of succeeding and contributing in the AI age, which is critical to a dynamic and inclusive economy and fundamental to renewing our social compact.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Ms He Ting Ru.

4.33 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang) : Mr Deputy Speaker, post-Independence, we were laser-focused on pursuing economic growth as a young nation trying to stand on our own two feet, opening ourselves to foreign investment, connecting ourselves with networks of global trade and providing fertile ground for businesses both global and local to flourish. This resulted in vast improvement of the quality of life for large swathes of our population. For many, the promise of a better future for our next generation was a beacon of hope for which we worked towards.

Yet, in recent years, it is not unheard of for our residents to ask: should economic growth be our ultimate endgame?

The latest ESR report provides us a valuable opportunity for reflection and to rethink what progress means to Singapore. But at a time when retrenchments dominate newspaper headlines, anxious residents worry about unstable livelihoods and our little red dot feels ever-rising heat from climate change, it is timely for us to think how we can put economic growth in service of broader societal progress.

We need a Singapore economy that provides breathing room for each and every one of our people to be the best version of ourselves.

A few years back, I spoke about Kate Raworth's concept of doughnut economics, which envisions an economy that places at its heart a collective well-being and equality to achieve a safe and just space for humanity whilst protecting our earth from further environmental destruction. This is more relevant than ever. Our economic policies must embody an ethos of equity, and collective and planetary well-being while providing opportunities for all in our society to thrive.

I will address three key areas today towards this goal: first, tackling our care system; second, providing the right ecosystem for creatives and entrepreneurs to thrive; and third, protecting our planet.

If our economy is to be rooted in equity and collective well-being, we must first look at who determines how our economic pie is sliced. Of the members and five committees involved in the ESR, it appears to mainly comprise C-suite and the NTUC union leaders.

Even as we recognise their insights, organisations representing migrant workers, women's rights and persons with disabilities should also have been more clearly represented. Our economic trajectory must be shaped by the people, with the people and for the people. Diversity and perspective, representing the diverse stakeholders in our economy, must be used to identify potential blind spots and marginalised communities, and how these diverse communities live and experience our policies, economic and otherwise.

When we talk about economic contribution, our economic structure often focuses on the elite worlds of finance, tech and commerce. Yet, our economy is kept dynamic by a very diverse group of professionals whose contributions are invaluable for their collective economic success.

In particular, our care economy comprising both paid and unpaid labour in childcare, eldercare, healthcare and various social services. A foundational building block for any economy, our care infrastructure is what leads to the broader growth, well-being and human development for current and future generations. Building our care infrastructure must be seen as a priority, not just an afterthought, a problem to fix due to demographic changes.

In this line, Thrust 5 of the ESR recommended that we improve the attractiveness of AI-resilient sectors, such as allied health, early childhood education and social work. Many proposals were raised, such as job redesign, clarifying progression pathways, and strengthening skills development and certification. But also it mentioned increased wage support.

Granted, this is a tricky balance. An example can be seen in action by the UK's latest attempt to reform social care, which is envisaged to be a long and costly process involving difficult decisions even as there is room for statements that carers need to be the best paid in society rather than the worst.

Yet even in Singapore, wage support is solely needed for our caregivers. Latest MOM data as of June 2025 indicates the median gross wage earned by registered nurses at $5,129 per month. Social workers earn $4,565, preschool teachers earn $4,150. These numbers are lower than the overall median gross monthly income from employment of $5,775.

Even as we acknowledge that wage support is overdue, care workers must also be better acknowledged and supported for their invaluable contribution towards our society, regardless of their ability to weather AI-induced disruptions. Wages in the care economy must commensurate with the rising cost of living.

We also need to address the heavy emotional toll faced by care workers. A 2022 study published in the Academy of Medicine, Singapore's official journal measuring burnout in the public healthcare sector between July 2019 and January 2020 found that 37.8% of respondents had high emotional exhaustion scores; 29.7% had high de-personalisation scores and 55.3% had low personal accomplishment scores. Another study conducted in the second half of 2024 in our National University Polyclinics also found that nearly 10% of participants stated that they intended to leave their current position in the next six months. The authors of the study found this concerning, noting that the resignation rate of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic was just 4%.

Just as the Law Society recently started to review the prevailing work culture for lawyers, it is time for our regulatory bodies to work with industry and non-governmental organisations in care economy segments to officially track workplace well-being and examine prevailing workplace standards.

Support for local entrepreneurship in the care economy is also key. The care economy is highly labour-intensive, and our general grant supporting capital needs in entrepreneurship and capability building needs closer scrutiny. While the current existence of the VentureForGood Grant administered by raiSE SG supports early and growth-stage social enterprises for up to $300,000 in capital expenditure and operating costs, how can we support more startups and commercial enterprises in this space to bring sustainable investments into the care economy? raiSE SG must work with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and the Ministry of Social and Family Development jointly to review the care economy investment ecosystem to build a more sustainable investment and employment ecosystem.

Caregiving is also borne by informal carers, such as family and friends. This labour of love is not reflected in GDP figures, but its importance is underscored by the inaugural Duke-National University of Singapore study, which valued the economic contribution of informal caregiving for seniors at $1.28 billion annually.

The efforts of our caregivers often come at a cost – sacrificing health, careers and leisure time to care for loved ones. It is also why I have been calling since 2020 for official regular time-use studies for us to better understand our carers' needs and to measure the hidden economic and personal costs behind care. Carers also need better support, which is why our Party's manifesto has called for, amongst others, compensation for family caregivers and the expansion of respite care.

Singapore must bridge the gap of seeing care beyond being a cost. We must see caregiving as a growth segment that builds not just the economy of today, but the society of tomorrow.

Our society of tomorrow must also support creatives and entrepreneurs who dare to dream and pursue their own passions. How do we ensure that our local entrepreneurs and dreamers can have their passion made possible in Singapore?

To create the conditions for entrepreneurship to grow, we must first, as a society, foster a culture of self-discovery and exploration from young. Expanding entrepreneurship-related programmes in schools and encouraging critical thinking and empathy as prescribed in the ESR report only goes so far if our system does not reward risk-taking or having room to make mistakes and learn.

How do we explain the gap between the decades' long efforts to build an education system to be more holistic against the reality that these additional layers simply create new pathways for education arms races? What do we need to do to address parents' or would-be parents' fears for the next generation in an age of million-dollar HDB resale prices, ever-soaring Certificate of Entitlement prices and the never-ending sense of scarcity?

While this is a whole other topic, it is relevant to our economic policies for the future. For today, I would like to instead focus on our creatives and entrepreneurs.

Our creatives are risk-takers and visionaries. They turn ideas into commercial and cultural value and inspire the wonder that a thriving society needs. Yet a career in the arts remains a difficult choice in Singapore. Regulatory hurdles have forced artists to alter or remove public artworks while beloved art spaces have shuttered under rising costs and redevelopment pressures. These are not small setbacks. They kill the very activity we say we want to nurture.

The one-off Culture Pass is only a first step. What our creatives need is sustained support, dedicated work, display and commercial spaces to hone their craft and earn a decent living, backed by sensible commercial space regulations. These should sit alongside spaces for budding entrepreneurs, much like the creative and cultural parks we see in cities, such as Beijing and Taipei, proof that culture and commerce can thrive side by side.

Next, supporting the growth ambitions of our businesses, large and small. Small home-based businesses can be a testbed for aspiring founders to launch businesses. But the next step is often daunting, with commercial overheads quickly becoming prohibitive. Can the Government, across agencies, provide more affordable short-term stalls and shop spaces across HDB, URA and JTC-managed properties for first-time entrepreneurs, taking inspiration from the now ubiquitous shared office facilities to offer smaller modular units with lower renovation and deposit requirements and allow tendency periods that are shorter or easier contractual conditions for potential exit?

For SME looking to scale, the ESR report acknowledges that companies still find it difficult to secure growth stage capital and that Temasek already participates in SME co-investment. But what our businesses need to grow is bolder and broader base access to financing catalysed by private and public capital.

Enterprise Singapore-co-invested companies, through the Startup SG Equity Scheme, should be re) mainboard or catalyst, and ESG should work with SGX on governance and disclosure requirements for co-invested companies to ease the path to listing. Together with the Equity Market Development Programme, this can improve liquidity in our domestic equity market and attract more liquidity into these companies. Such companies should also be explicitly tracked on the impact they have beyond returns, for example, their contribution to activity and employment in Singapore. This is similar in spirit to Ireland's Strategic Investment Fund which has a double bottom-line mandate. To further encourage would-be entrepreneurs, we also need an ecosystem with structural measures to protect necessary risk-taking for success.

After I spoke in early May this year about supporting entrepreneurship amongst youths, including a call to adapt our current bankruptcy framework, a Straits Times' article on 26 May indicated that business failure is among the top reasons why individuals go into personal bankruptcy. Yet, working out a bankruptcy is often difficult, with practical limits on day-to-day activities and no automatic discharge. This can hold back those with bold ideas from taking the plunge.

Pro-data reforms have been found to be linked to better entrepreneurship and innovation outcomes. A European Union (EU) expert group report in 2011 that, "A second chance policy that enables formally bankrupt entrepreneurs to restart may represent one of the most promising and under-exploited policy options for company creation and job growth."

The EU has since adopted a more balanced preventive restructuring approach for bona fide entrepreneurs seeking a second chance. I will thus repeat our call to see if our bankruptcy regime can be reformed to encourage more would-be entrepreneurs to step up.

Finally, thriving humans need a flourishing planet. Yet, the relentless pursuit of economic growth on this planet has resulted in the over extraction of precious natural resources, damaged ecosystems and disruption to communities.

Thrust 8 of the ESR recommended that businesses prepare for a low-carbon and climate-resilient future. Noticeably, a heavy emphasis was placed on preparing businesses to shield themselves from the harmful effects of climate change, while not acknowledging that historically, it has been corporations and industrial development that have been the very reason we are now experiencing planetary distress. We need more attention and details on how our policies will make our enterprises and economies to be part of the solution to climate change, particularly in Thrust 2 of the ESR involves making Singapore a global leader for AI.

As I said during the debate on Singapore's use of AI, there's undoubtedly potential to harness the power of AI for greater economic and societal good. Yet, we, at the same time, hear about how low-wage workers, in developing nations are forced to view explicit content to train AI, as well as concerns about adverse effect on cognitive development and critical thinking. More expressly, data centres driven by AI-induced demand, guzzle up large amounts of energy and water, increasing carbon emissions, driving up utility prices and disrupting the lives of nearby communities.

The earlier 2019 moratorium on new data centres, as well as higher operating costs here, drove operators to set up shop in neighbouring Johor and Batam, with Singaporean companies owning the largest proportion of data centre capacity in both regions. This has caused disamenties for local communities, even prompting a group of Johor residents to protest against the construction of a nearby data centre.

Moving data centres further away also does not solve the problem. During my trip to Thailand in June, I noticed that while policy-makers were excited about investment and growth opportunities for AI in partnership with countries, like Singapore, there were also concerns about the environmental and sustainability impact of such investments.

While the planned resumption of data centre construction in Singapore requires the use of greener energy sources, how exactly are we balancing the needs for our precious land? Does this result in land that could otherwise be maintained to be for nature and green spaces to be ultimately razed to meet industrial and housing requirements?

Such green spaces are key to bolstering our heat resilience and are rapidly disappearing in the name of growth and economic survival. Concern is mounting over forests being cut down for housing, both at Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks, alongside a patch of forest near Woodlands Checkpoint, which would be cleared for the development of a new commercial hub, while over 52 hectares of forested land would be cut down for the next phase of the Jurong Innovation District.

Intensifying business and industrial operations ultimately affect our energy consumption. EMA noted that electricity consumption increased by 4% year-on-year in 2024, with commerce and service-related businesses consuming the highest proportion that year at 40.2% of our total electricity use. The situation is worse for water, particularly with data centres being huge consumers. Already, non-domestic water consumption takes up 55% of our total water use and PUB estimates that this is expected to increase to 60% by 2065. What are we doing to mitigate this impact?

Even before we craft our policies to address the impact on the climate, we must first measure the environmental impact. As I first mentioned during my Budget speech in 2022, a critical first step will be to track and monitor our policies, environmental outcomes via an environmental dashboard. This could be aided by the recent introduction of the Singapore classification for environmental purposes, which is used to classify data relating to environmental activities and products.

We would do well to remember that Mother Earth is not humankind's personal automated teller machine (ATM). We must ensure that our economic policies should not result in further destruction of our planet and a transparent accounting of its environmental outcomes would be a helpful tool keep us on our toes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, progress towards tomorrow does not mean that we compromise on our collective well-being for the sake of GDP growth. Progress means that we, as a society, support balance and well-rounded lifestyles with strong safety nets for our people, recognise all who contribute meaningfully to society, provide opportunities for everyone to dream big and uphold our responsibility as stewards of Mother Earth. The society of tomorrow that is built in Singapore must be one where all of us will thrive and enjoy the fruits of our effort together, and I believe that we can achieve that, and so much more for us and the generations that come.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Mr Patrick Tay.

4.52 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer) : Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Motion before this House, and I support the amendments proposed by hon Member Edward Chia.

The aspirations expressed in this Motion to support local businesses – help workers succeed, build a Singaporean footprint overseas and ensure shared prosperity – are aspirations that all of us in this Chamber can support. Indeed, these have been central to the work of NTUC and the Labour Movement, our unions and our tripartite partners for many decades. They are also aligned with the spirit and direction of the ESR.

For many Singaporean workers and business owners, the future economy is already being felt in very real ways in uncertain demand, rising costs, sharper competition, new technologies and industries that are changing faster than ever before.

I am now into my 25th year in NTUC, and currently serve as the Executive Secretary of the United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI). Over the more than two decades, I have walked with workers through many storms, from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), to the Global Financial Crisis to the COVID-19 pandemic. Every crisis was different.

Every transition was painful in its own way. But the lesson was the same: workers must never be treated as collateral damage in economic change. At every phase of Singapore's development, we needed clear national direction and most importantly, the assurance that those who work hard, adapt and contribute will not be left behind.

The ESR is our latest national roadmap to create a broader range of good jobs, stronger enterprises and growth that benefits Singaporeans fairly and tangibly.

Today, I want to focus on three priorities, what I call the "3S" that are essential to build an economy that works for all.

First "S", safeguard the rules; second, share the gains; and third, strengthening our Singaporean Core.

First, safeguard the rules. Part (a) of the Motion speaks of an economy where "workers thrive". But workers cannot thrive on aspiration alone. They need fair rules, fair opportunity and fair protection. When the economy changes faster than workers can adapt, many feel that the odds are stacked against them. Our duty is to level the playing field for them to compete fairly.

AI will disrupt jobs at a speed and scale that we have not seen before. It can raise productivity and create new possibilities. But if poorly managed, it can also widen insecurity, compress career pathways and place too much risk on workers. Workers must not be asked to carry the burden of this transition alone.

There are two topics in this space, firstly, on retrenchment benefits and unemployment support. And on the topic of mandating retrenchment benefits, the NTUC and the Labour Movement, including myself, have been working with tripartite partners to ensure that no worker is left behind. NTUC and the Labour Movement, including many of our union leaders and unions, we have been negotiating collective agreements, unionising companies to ensure that they are well protected in the event that there is a lay-off and retrenchment benefits can be paid out.

In fact, we have such strong existing mechanisms, such as conciliation and MOM, and even the Industrial Arbitration Court – very unique, creature of statute – which I appeared before on multiple occasions to support and obtain retrenchment benefit payouts for workers, including PMEs. In fact, we have been trying to lobby, myself inclusive, in this House, for the past decade, including earlier this year, for further strengthening of the retrenchment protection regime here in Singapore.

It is in the common intent of everyone, I am sure, in this House, to ensure that affected workers are taken care of as every worker matters.

In fact, the tripartite partners, as I am involved in the negotiations for the Employment Act as well as all the relevant statutory provisions as well as advisories, we remain open in negotiating and discussions are underway, whether it is the Employment Act reviewing the Tripartite Advisory to strengthen it to tripartite guidelines, which I have raised before in this House, and even stronger measures against companies that flopped or failed to, comply with advisories.

These are things that we have been raising and I believe it is a journey, a journey which require all our tripartite partners to work closely together so that we achieve what we always say, a win-win-win outcome. It is always in the NTUC's and the Labour Movement's interest in our agenda to look after workers and their families, especially if they are affected by lay-offs.

And there are a whole plethora of measures and support measures to help them land the next job, support them well in the company as well as on many occasions. I have done this, in fact, in the last couple of years in my capacity as Executive Secretary of the UWEEI, I have been very, very involved in the many lay-offs that you see in the manufacturing sector.

The key is, we will continue to lobby, advocate on behalf of our workers. But more importantly, to work with our tripartite partners closely to ensure that we have the regime and the mechanism. We are also observing that the tripartite partners are very open to see new ways and mechanisms to overcome this to ensure no worker is left behind in the event of a lay-off or retrenchment.

On the topic of unemployment insurance support, this is something I spoke about more than a decade ago, lobbying for some form of unemployment support for workers in Singapore. I am very happy that it has been introduced last year, on 26 April – I remember the fateful date – the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme was implemented.

What is unique about the scheme is that, unlike in an unemployment insurance, where there are premiums to be paid by both employers and employees, this is a situation where Government picks up the tab and gives that needed support through and with active labour market policies. That is something which will lessen the burden on workers having to fork out premiums.

And I have, at the same time, in this same House, also lobbied for this area to be further expanded and rebuilt, now that we are seeing in the last 24 months more PMEs being affected by lay-offs. So, that is an area which we can review, whether the income threshold of the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme can be raised – because currently, that is $5,000 – whether it can be raised to the median salary of PMEs, so, that is one avenue to explore. Or even another new scheme to support PMEs now that we know they are equally vulnerable as rank-and-file workers.

Local PMEs, I must say are a definite group which I have constantly spoken up for in this House. They form the broad middle of our workforce. They are also those most exposed to technical or, should I say, technological disruption and yet, may not always enjoy sufficient representation and protection.

Over the years, NTUC has worked closely with our tripartite partners to build stronger institutional safeguards, for example the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) framework for Employment Passes to the newly enacted Workplace Fairness Act.

I am therefore heartened that the ESR recognises PMEs as a group deserving enhanced support and that it prioritises investment in AI technologies that augment rather than displace workers. I think that is the right direction.

Earlier this year, MOM, NTUC and Singapore National Employers Federation announced the formation of the Tripartite Jobs Council. Initiated by NTUC, this Jobs Council brings together unions, employers and Government as a central node to coordinate existing and new programmes to help workers reskill, and to help businesses redesign jobs responsibly so that AI becomes a tool for uplift, not displacement.

I think the difficulty of landing a new job is not a new discovery – I have raised this on numerous occasions – and we must pay particular attention to younger PMEs entering the workforce. They may be among the hardest-hit if AI compresses entry-level roles and creates a "broken rung" of sorts at the very start of their careers. And we unanimously agreed that if our young graduates cannot get that first meaningful foothold, their long-term progression may be affected. We cannot allow the first step of a career to become the weakest link in our labour market.

This is why I have lobbied also for, in this House, coaching, mentoring and expanding the SkillsFuture credits for use in the area of coaching and mentoring which has been supported, and really to have a stronger mechanism to help those transiting from school to work effectively, efficiently and seamlessly.

Through the GRIT programme, NTUC works hand-in-hand with Government and employers in sectors such as financial services, information and communication technology, manufacturing to give young graduates structured, industry-relevant experience.

Beyond the traineeship period, NTUC and Workforce Singapore, through the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and Careers Connect, help these young workers move into full-time roles and build confidence with AI tools so that they are not just job-ready for today, but career-ready for tomorrow.

And I have suggested for this scheme before in this House to be further expanded, to cover more areas, more sectors and maybe a review of whether it should be made permanent to really help new job entrants entering the job market which remains an issue and challenge.

The second "S" is share the gains. Part (b) rightly highlights the importance of healthy domestic demand. But for a small and open economy like Singapore, external demand is equally critical. According to the SBF, overseas revenue accounts for more than 40% of the total revenue for half of our businesses.

I am glad that the ESR has identified a dynamic enterprise ecosystem for Singapore-based companies to succeed globally as a key thrust. Domestic demand and external demand are not competing choices. We need both engines working together.

External demand helps Singapore grow the pie. But growth alone is not enough. The real test is whether that growth translates into better jobs, higher wages, stronger skills, and expanded opportunities for Singaporean workers and local businesses.

Global enterprises locate in Singapore not only for our domestic market, but to tap growth in Asia and beyond. But if Singapore is to remain a trusted global node, our workers must also move up the value chain. This is where the NTUC Company Training Committees (CTCs), play a critical role.

Since 2019, our CTCs have brought company management, workers and union leaders together to drive business and workforce transformation. In 2022, the Government provided NTUC with $100 million to scale up this initiative and subsequently another $200 million after it showed results in producing real shared gains for workers.

When companies modernise or adopt new technologies, our unions sit down with management to ensure workers are trained for higher-value roles and that productivity gains are reflected not only in company results, but also in workers' pay packets and career progression.

Let me give a practical example from our NTUC Electronics, Marine and Engineering Cluster. Through a CTC Grant project, a company introduced automation to its production process so it could take on more orders. But automation did not mean displacement. The union and management worked together on a structured training roadmap – 24 workers were reskilled, production capacity improved by 12%, and more importantly, these workers received a 5% wage increase over and above their annual increment, in addition to career development support.

To date, more than 15,000 workers have benefited from NTUC's CTC Grant projects, with workers in these projects receiving an average wage increase of 5% above their increment through this scheme.

Wage increases in tandem with productivity increase. This is what real sharing of gains look like. Not theoretical redistribution, but negotiated, sustainable outcomes where better productivity leads to better pay. This works in tandem with the National Wages Council, a tripartite body which responds to the uneven and sometimes unpredictable outlook for different sectors and different companies.

The last "S" is strengthen our Singaporean core. As our economy globalises, we must ensure that Singaporeans are not bystanders to our own success. We need both global enterprises with substantial operations here, and dynamic local companies with the ambition to venture abroad. But wherever Singaporean capital flows, Singaporean talent must flow too – to lead, not just to support. Singaporeans must have a fair shot at leadership, regional exposure and global careers.

Local SMEs cannot grow well and grow fast on the domestic market alone. In high-tech manufacturing and commercial services, many local firms have scaled by first becoming trusted partners to global MNCs based in Singapore; then, using that credibility to venture into overseas markets, including high-tech and industrial parks in Southeast Asia, China, and India. They build operational strength at home so that they can seize opportunities abroad.

Government schemes are important enablers. The Market Readiness Assistance Grant helps SMEs co-fund up to 50% of eligible overseas market entry costs, capped at $100,000 per new market. The Enterprise Development Grant supports SMEs in building core capabilities to compete internationally. These schemes help our local enterprises take the first step ahead with greater confidence.

But as Singaporean capital expands overseas, we must be intentional about building Singaporean corporate leaders. Our workers and PMEs must not only support regionalisation from the back office. They must be given the chance to lead, to manage, to build networks and to represent Singapore confidently in overseas markets.

I am glad that the ESR has recommended expanding the Overseas Markets Immersion Programme to give young professionals overseas and leadership exposure, and to support their progression into international postings. I encourage the Government to monitor and strengthen the proportion of Singaporeans in management positions, so that local PMEs have fair opportunities alongside their foreign counterparts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, building an economy of the future that works for all is not just a slogan. It is hard, continuous, collective work. It is work that NTUC and our unions have carried out for decades, sometimes visibly, sometimes quietly, but always with one purpose – which is to safeguard the rights, wages, welfare and work prospects of our workers.

In fact, I want to use this opportunity to thank my fellow union leaders who stand in line, to lend a hand, to watch their backs, give a shoulder to cry on sometimes in events of ups and downs in the economy.

But make no mistake – tripartism is not easy. Balancing the needs of workers, businesses and the nation is not easy. But precisely because it is hard, it forces us to find practical solutions that endure.

The ESR gives Singapore a comprehensive roadmap to stay globally competitive. Our task is to make sure that this roadmap is also worker-centric, inclusive and fair.

So, let us continue to strengthen this practical, tripartite partnership. Let us Safeguard the rules, Share the Gains, and Strengthen our Singaporean Core anchored by strong and lasting tripartite relationships. I support the amendments by hon Member Edward Chia to the Motion. [ Applause. ]

Mr Deputy Speaker : Ms Eileen Chong.

5.09 pm

Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member) : Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last July, the Prime Minister noted that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN's) per capita GDP today is around $6,000. And that if it reaches $10,000 or more, it is, in his words, a complete game changer. A young region, a rising middle class on our doorstep.

His observation is not new. The latest ESR report identifies Southeast Asia as an engine of growth. The Emerging Stronger Taskforce in 2021, under its Stronger Together pillar, had called for the deepening of partnerships, especially with Southeast Asia. So did the Committee on the Future Economy in 2017, in the first of seven strategies.

Every major economic blueprint of the past decade has named the region as key to Singapore's future. So, the question is not whether Southeast Asia matters. We have consensus that it does, but what have we actually done about it?

This Motion believes that an economy of the future that works for all includes an economic engine driven by Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad. The ESR is explicit about the latter and several Members of the House have echoed this. The report asks that more of our own companies start, scale and succeed globally. It seeks deeper trade and supply chain links across the region and it envisions a Singapore where capital is raised, structured, deployed and recycled across the region and the world. Around each sits a familiar architecture of support, grants and market entry support for our companies, while our public institutions co-invest, de-risk and finance their expansion, which draws private Singaporean capital out alongside them.

The WP supports all of this, but capital does not manage itself in a market it does not know. Someone has to be there to turn capital that has been deployed into capital that is productive. The more successful we are at sending capital and our companies into the region, the more pressing the question that ESR does not answer: who are we sending with it?

Two weekends ago, the Government unveiled the new SG Youth Plan. A separate blueprint for young Singaporeans just a month after the ESR report, guided by the same conviction that our future lies in the region. It picks up on this threat that the ESR left hanging. It puts young Singaporeans and regional exposure at its centre and comes with some numbers. It commits to expanding overseas exposure for young Singaporeans: 17,000 short-term exposure places a year by 2030, up from the current 9,000; 3,000 overseas internships in ASEAN, China and India, doubled from today's 1,500. It expands on what young Singaporeans say we want. 63% agree that regional work experience would help us advance faster and half of us are willing to take up internships or jobs elsewhere in Southeast Asia.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is encouraging. The appetite is there. If half of us are already willing to go, then what we should be looking at is whether the state invests in building us something worth going to and something worth coming back to. And on this note, I want to highlight three gaps.

The first is offtake. The SG Youth Plan outlines a game plan focused on supply. More trips, more internships, earlier access. Every one of its regional commitments is about sending young Singaporeans out. But what happens when we come home is the most decisive, because if we return to a job market and promotion board that treats six months in Jakarta as a detour rather than an asset, then only one obvious conclusion will be drawn – that such experiences are a penalty rather than a premium.

Do enough employers in Singapore value and reward regional experience? While I cannot speak for all employers, I would like to share a perspective from our largest employer, the Government.

In April, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking where Government scholars have studied in the past decade. The answer I received was, "Taking into account all Government scholarships, including Public Service Commission, over the last three years, from 2023 to 2025, on an annual average basis, 49% of the recipients studied at local autonomous universities; 30% in the UK; 15% in the US; and 6% in other countries".

Six percent for the entire rest of the world, the whole of ASEAN included. I also asked if there were minimum targets for scholars to study in non-English speaking countries and or regions. The answer was no.

I am not doubting the quality of an Oxford, Cambridge or an Ivy League education, but these numbers mean that when we select and invest in young Singaporeans who will return to serve in the Public Service, a small group of whom might even take public office in the future, 10 out of 20 of them stay home, while another nine go west. If the Government is not prioritising and encouraging region readiness in the Public Service, how can we ask young Singaporeans to believe that there is market demand for this?

The second gap is depth. Exposure does not equal fluency or capability – 17,000 young Singaporeans spending some time in the region is not 17,000 region-ready Singaporeans. The SG Youth Plan included the story of an Institute of Technical Education student who came home after being sent to Hanoi. She was more confident and eager to explore opportunities beyond our shores. But inspiration is only a beginning. It is not an outcome.

Real region readiness is built over years, not weeks. The language learnt, the workings of the market understood from the inside, the network that answers when you call. Have we invested sufficiently in structures that will deepen this?

Key third languages offered to our students remain French, German, Japanese and Spanish – when blueprint after blueprint emphasise that our future lies with neighbours whose languages we do not teach. If we are serious, is it not time to ask whether Thai and Vietnamese also belong on that list? A short trip creates a memory. Language and cultural understanding are often the difference between a visitor and a partner.

The third, and perhaps most important, gap is whether and how any of this will be measured. Because we have heard this aspiration before, especially in 2018 during our term as ASEAN Chair. It was appropriately a year of speeches about how the region was our future and how the Government will help Singaporeans seize it.

In September 2018, in a written reply to a question on our progress in going regional, then Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Chan Chun Sing, set out what we were doing for talent. We had the Youth Talent Programme, which targeted sending 1,000 students each year for work opportunities in overseas markets. We had a Professional Conversion Programme for Southeast Asia Ready Talent to reskill professionals for roles in the region. We also had an ASEAN Leadership Programme to help senior business leaders understand and grow into Southeast Asian markets.

And what became of them? It appears that the first two, in one form or another, are still with us. The Youth Talent Programme was folded into the Global Ready Talent Programme, which we were told supported 29,470 students between 2020 and 2024. The Professional Conversion Programme was renamed and runs today as the Career Conversion Programme for Internationalisation Professionals.

But what is less clear is what outcomes they have achieved eight years on.

The 29,470 figure for the Global Ready Talent Programme includes both domestic and overseas placements. It is only starting this April that local internship support has been discontinued. So, how many actually went abroad? And of those who did, where did they go? How many of them went on to work in the region or in a region-facing role?

For the Career Conversion Programme, how many professionals converted? From what sectors and into what roles? Has it helped their career trajectory?

What about the ASEAN Leadership Programme? How many leaders went through it? What became of their companies’ regional ambitions?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have looked and struggled to find answers to the above questions from the public record. We have been generous in announcing schemes to build region-ready Singaporeans but seemingly less willing to measure whether they worked. If yes, what worked well? If not, what fell short of expectations?

Some figures that I do have are from the ESR report. While 50% of Singaporeans expressed interest in working abroad, only 3% have actually done a stint of six months or more. So, with the new SG Youth Plan aspiring to 17,000 regional immersion opportunities for young Singaporeans, I would like to ask what has changed this time, so that in 2030 we will be able to say whether it worked. How will the Government track not just how many places were filled, but how many young people go on to work in region-facing roles or to build a career in the region? Because if not, we are simply announcing a larger number to not measure.

And as we chair ASEAN again in 2027, I hope we will not only articulate our ambition to plug into the region but actively track and report on our investments in resourcing this ambition.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to now highlight a scheme, the Overseas Market Immersion Programme (OMIP), that best captures how our ambition and strategy diverge. The OMIP aims to give young Singaporeans real regional work experience, not just a taste of it. It works by helping employers send younger Singaporeans on structured postings abroad. It was launched in 2024 with the goal of 250 places over two years, significantly lower than the 2018 target of 1,000 a year. To date, it has supported more than 180 professionals.

The SG Youth Plan will expand the OMIP, not by scaling it so there are more places but by widening the eligibility by dropping the two-year rule so that younger professionals may qualify. This means more will be eligible without a commitment to send more people.

Widening the gate is not the same as sending more people through it. Eligibility without capacity is an invitation without a seat.

On behalf of fellow young Singaporeans, I have two asks: one, complement the eligibility widening by scaling the number of available places; and two, de-link it from employers. An employer-led scheme means a young Singaporean can only go if a company chooses to send them. It is dependent on the company having the HR capacity to manage an overseas posting. Rather than run a people scheme through companies, let us focus it on the people instead. Fund the OMIP directly as a fixed-term stint, at fair wages, open to all graduates from our tertiary institutions. Let us select based on our graduates’ drive, curiosity and seriousness, rather than our companies’ ability to shoulder the administrative burden of overseas postings.

We would not be the first to do this. France's Voluntariat International en Enterprise (VIE), the International Corporate Volunteer Programme, proves that it is possible to do more and even shows us how. The VIE places more than 11,500 young people abroad every year. They can directly search and apply for open positions that range from six to 24 months on the VIE platform. When selected, these young people sign a contract with Business France, a state agency, instead of the host company. Business France looks after payroll, health coverage and social protection. The host company picks the candidate, supervises their work and pays the allowance to Business France. The state sits in the middle and absorbs the friction that neither an individual nor a small company can carry alone.

It works. And the French government has the numbers to prove it because they measured it. Nine in 10 young persons on a VIE assignment find a job within six months of completing their stint. More than seven in 10 come back fluent in the language where they were posted. It is a scheme that produces more than inspiration. It kickstarts careers and builds capabilities. And tellingly, Singapore is among its top 10 destinations. We are on the receiving end of another country’s talent pipeline but are struggling to build our own.

I am not saying that we copy the French VIE programme wholesale. But we should draw inspiration from its design – explore how the state can offer support for what individuals and small companies cannot do on their own. And we should measure the outcomes of our programmes like France does for the VIE – publish not just how many places are filled but how many are in a role with explicit regional mandate or impact two and five years after completing the OMIP stint.

Let us fund the appetite that young Singaporeans have and measure outcomes rather than output.

And finally, we should go beyond the scheme and consider how we can tear down the wall that young Singaporeans find ourselves up against. The SG Youth Plan will see the launch of a new programme called “Adulting 101”. It will teach us about CPF, public housing policy, marriage and parenthood. It correctly identifies the very things that weigh on a young person deciding whether to take an overseas work opportunity. But these are not just facts to be explained. They are structures that will need to change for those who aspire to be regionally mobile.

A young Singaporean weighing three years in Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh is not only weighing salary against salary. She is weighing it against a BTO queue that rewards those who stay home; against CPF contributions a regional employer will not make; against the challenges of coming home to a housing and healthcare system she stepped out of. We have built a domestic architecture so finely tuned for staying home that leaving often means accepting penalties.

During his Institute of Policy Studies lectures last year, Mr Philip Yeo acknowledged this wall. His account of his EDB years was blunt – send officers out while they are young and single, because by their mid-30s with children and a mortgage, it becomes too hard.

So, developing region-ready Singaporeans means we should also consider how we can better support those who choose to go out. Explore how we can ensure that a regional posting does not complicate BTO opportunities and obligations; that children who go on post with their parents can have a seamless re-entry into school in Singapore. These cost only a fraction of the benefit they could bring and could go a long way to quell a family’s hesitation.

Let me close by drawing these threads together.

The ESR speaks of creating good jobs and the SG Youth Plan echoes it with the moves to help young Singaporeans land them. But for too long, we have pictured the good job as a high-value role inside an MNC that chose to base itself here, in Singapore. It is a good job that depends on someone else’s decision to come.

There is another kind of good job; one we seize because a field is taking shape around us and Singapore is well placed to lead it – the growing social impact sector in Southeast Asia. And here, I declare my interest as a professional in the social impact space.

As the public and private sectors in the region turn towards impact to close gaps in issues ranging from health and education to financial inclusion and climate resilience, someone has to convene players, develop benchmarks and innovate for solutions. These are building blocks of a new pool of good jobs that a small country like Singapore can punch above our weight in.

But it is also the kind of ambition that goes unrealised if we do not build a pipeline to seize it. For years, our answer to the regional talent gap has been to draw in the region’s brightest, educate them here and hope they stay. That worked well when we were the obvious best choice. But our region is catching up and this advantage shrinks each year as our neighbours close the gap.

As fellow Member, Mr Edward Chia, said earlier, we must attract the best from the world while developing the best in Singaporeans. The talent we import appreciates for a while then goes home. The Singaporean we equip to work in the region appreciates for a lifetime. A region-ready Singaporean holds capability that is hers – portable, not contingent on a company’s decision to base itself in Singapore. We have been slow to build the bridge that carries our people out and quicker to build a wall that keeps them home.

So, next year, when we assume the Chairmanship of ASEAN, it will, once again and appropriately so, be a year of speeches about how the region is our future and how the Government will help Singaporeans seize it. I hope that this time around, we will not only name the potential of the region as we did in 2018 but also help more Singaporeans seize it.

I rise in support of the original Motion tabled by my colleagues, Mr Kenneth Tiong and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Dr Wan Rizal.

5.26 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar) : Mr Deputy Speaker, the question before us is not whether our economic strategy points the right way. It is whether it reaches the worker who needs it. That is the work of NTUC and NTUC’s e2i, connecting workers to jobs: our youths who are taking their first step. Our lower-wage workers. Our mature PMEs. And those who start further back than most.

Every worker matters. That has been my conviction since I first stepped into this House. The ESR gives us a clear direction, and our task now is to turn that direction into something a worker can feel. Together with fellow Member, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, we co-chair the Committee for Economic Resilience, or Jawatankuasa Daya Ekonomi, for the Malay/Muslim community. And our job is to mobilise the community, so that these strategies become opportunities for our youths, businesses can scale further and higher wages for our workers.

And we should be honest about our size. Our domestic market is limited, and we have to tap demand in our region and beyond. The global enterprises based here support a large number of local workers. They have been a source of innovation, management practices and technology that helped our local businesses grow. They have also spurred the development of startups and new local enterprises.

What I want from our global enterprises and our local enterprises is the same thing – stand by our workers; help those who are retrenched bounce back with dignity; and help the rest become AI-ready before the changes arise, rather than after.

Today, I will speak on three things: first, supporting our lower-wage and mature workers; second, on building career clarity and safeguarding mental well-being as AI transforms our workplaces; and third, strengthening pathways for our underserved communities and our youths.

First, on supporting ourr lower-wage and mature workers. When we talk about lifting the bottom, the conversation usually turns to where the floor should sit. That is a fair question, and I understand why it is being asked. But a floor on its own only tells a worker where the first rung pays. It does not tell him whether there is a second rung or who will help him reach it.

That is the thinking behind the Progressive Wage Model. It sets a wage and it attaches a ladder to it, with training and a higher wage at each step, differentiated by different sectors. Cleaning, security, landscape, retail, food services, waste management, lift and escalator. Each of those sectors took years of negotiation because wage floors do not rise on their own.

And the work is still live. Just last month, as Chairman of the Tripartite Cluster, I was part of the announcement extending the Progressive Wage Model to our pest management workers. Alongside it, we have the Local Qualifying Salary that sets a floor for local workers in firms that hire foreign workers and Workfare tops up the income and CPF for our lower-wage Singaporeans.

So, the question is – has it worked? Over the past decade, incomes at the 20th percentile grew by 2.9% a year, ahead of the 2.1% at the median. And the ratio between what a worker at the 20th percentile earns and what a worker at the median earns has risen to 0.55. That gap is narrower in 2020, and narrower than it was in 2015.

To put it plainly, over the past decade, workers at the bottom of our ladder have been climbing faster than workers in the middle. But I will not pretend that our work is over. It is progressive, it is sector by sector. A segment of our lower-wage workers still sits outside these layers, many of them in platform and freelance work. And we have made real progress there. The Platform Workers Act now gives our delivery riders and private hire drivers CPF contributions, work injury compensation and formal representations. But as that segment continues to grow, I would ask the Government to study how our wage and protection floors can follow the worker rather than the job title.

Sir, behind every retrenchment statistic is a person, often someone who has given decades of their lives of loyal service and who is now unsure whether he or she still has a place in that workforce. That is why the NTUC set up the Job Security Council in February 2020. Managed by e2i, the Council supported more than 110,000 workers with job matching between 2020 and 2024.

Let me be clear about what the Council is for. Retrenchments edged up in the first quarter of this year, though the incidence remains within the non-recessionary norms. In an economy that keeps restructuring, some displacement will happen and we should be honest about that. But the majority of these retrenchments came from businesses re-organising themselves and restructuring. Firms are reshaping themselves and they will keep doing so.

So, the test is not whether the retrenchments happen. The test is what happens to the worker afterwards. On that test, unemployment has held steady even as retrenchments rose. The share of retrenched residents back in work within six months has also improved for a second consecutive quarter, to 60.7% in the first quarter of this year, and that does not happen on its own.

We also watch closely whether the help actually works. The Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation brings together MOM, NTUC, e2i, Enterprise Singapore and SWDA, and it has tracked our outcomes carefully. Between 2022 and 2024, about seven in 10 retrenched workers who received career coaching from our agencies and e2i were placed within six months. The median time to placement over that period was around three months.

Close to half of those placed came in at similar or higher wages than before. And more recently, among workers who took up the Taskforce's help before their last day of employment, about two-thirds were back in work within six months, better than the median for retrenched residents. That is the case for reaching our workers earlier, and not later. Numbers like these matter.

Let me tell you about one person. Mary Ho is a senior worker at Mandai Rainforest Resort. Through an agreement between the resort, e2i and the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers' Union, she was offered a redesigned role suited to her needs. What stayed with me was what Mary said herself. She was struck by how we had been involved at every step, making sure she was placed in a role that suited her.

That is what personalised support looks like. Someone walking beside a worker until they land a job.

To reach more workers, e2i now runs 27 National Career Centres across Singapore, expanded since 2024. That brings career, training and employment support closer to where our workers already live and work.

Sir, second point on career clarity and mental well-being at the AI age. In my Budget speech this year, I shared the story of a mid-career worker who had completed several courses over three years. She showed me her certificates with pride. Then she asked me a simple question. Had she upgraded in the right direction? I could not tell her the answer.

Effort without direction creates frustration. Effort with direction builds confidence and clearly, it gives a lot of clarity. And that is why I welcome the formation of the Tripartite Jobs Council. It brings our partners together to help workers reskill and to help businesses redesign jobs responsibly as AI reshapes our workplaces.

For this Council to succeed, its work must reach workers where they already are. That means the trusted touchpoints that I had mentioned earlier, on the ground, the very career centres and coaches that workers, like Mary, could turn to.

And the Labour Movement is not waiting. Through AI-Ready SG, we are already helping our workers and continue to do so, especially our PMEs, our youths, to gain practical confidence with AI, while supporting businesses to redesign jobs responsibly.

Our CTCs are where the real work happens. More than 3,800 CTCs have been formed, benefiting over 300,000 workers. And AI is now the centre of gravity. About 31% of CTC Grant projects supported this year are AI-related, up from about 17% for the whole of last year.

That is what turning technology into practical help looks like. Training that workers can use that same Monday morning. Because the anxiety is real. The fear of being replaced. The fear of falling behind is scary. The fear of being too old to start again causes confusion.

That anxiety does not stay in the workplace. It follows a person home and it wears on their health. I have long advocated in this House for a whole-of-society approach to mental well-being, including a Motion I had co-filed with fellow Members on this very subject. At the recent economic resilience dialogue with businesses and youths, may came forth and mentioned how important mental well-being is in a stage like this. Their ability to have support matters to them. And that is why the Committee for Economic Resilience will work very closely with community leaders and businesses to ensure that we give support for our community.

As we equip our workers for an AI-enabled economy, our support must address not just their skills but their peace of mind. Only then can they face the future with confidence, with clarity.

Sir, my third point on strengthening pathways for our underserved communities and our young people. The ESR focuses on strengthening lifelong learning and on linking training more closely to employment outcomes. I welcome that. But I would like to add this. Some workers start further back than others, whether because of their age, their background or simply because they lack the networks to open doors for them.

Part of my role at e2i is to sharpen our focus on reaching these groups, our lower-wage and mature workers. The aim is for our career services and programmes to be designed around their needs, like what we did with Mary, rather than around conveniences.

For our young people, clarity has to begin before they graduate, and we will come forward to them at an earlier stage than before, ensuring that they have the right clarity and a pathway to go into areas and sectors that have been assigned in the ESR.

A student who has stood inside a real workplace and who has a mentor she can call, makes a very different first decision from one who is guessing. And that is why early career exposure and structured mentorship and internships matter so much, and we will have many of those in the pipeline. Sir, please allow me to continue in Malay.

( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Sir, the Economic Strategy Review report is comprehensive, and it gives us a clear direction for the economy of the future. For our young people, their first foray into the working world is often the most daunting. Through NTUC Youth, our younger members receive career guidance and industry exposure. There is also a structured Career Mentorship Programme, with more than 400 volunteer mentors from over 20 industries, offering our members a four-month mentorship.

Our objective is simple.

So, that a young person does not have to figure out their first steps alone. This complements the work of the Tripartite Jobs Council that I mentioned earlier, as well as the Graduate Industry Traineeships programme, so that our young people are supported throughout their first transition. This is also why NTUC signed a memorandum of understanding with the MENDAKI Foundation this year. It aims to strengthen the skills of Malay/Muslim workers, and to help more of them secure employment in growing sectors.

Within the Focus Area of M 3+ , NTUC, e2i, NTUC LearningHub, SWDA and the Lifelong Learning Institute have collaborated with MENDAKI. Together, we have supported more than 6,000 Malay/Muslim workers through career fairs and skills carnivals. Nearly 20% of them went on to receive more in-depth mentorship.

Now, as AI begins to transform the way we work, the same worry is felt in our homes too. So, allow me to offer this assurance.

NTUC and e2i are ready to move forward together with our Malay/Muslim workers, especially our young people. We will help them upskill, adapt, and access meaningful employment opportunities, whether in global companies or in local enterprises, where we want them to develop further.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, before I entered this House, I spent nearly 25 years as an educator. I learned that no one should be written off just because of a label that has been placed on them, not the academic stream that were put at them in schools and not the sector that they happen to work in.

And that belief still guides me in my work today. An economy of the future means an economy where every worker has someone walking alongside them, and gives them a clear path forward. Whatever their age, whatever their background, whatever their starting point. It means that our national strategies on AI, on skills, on enterprise growth, are only as good as how well they reach the worker who really needs them. They will be judged in the career centres, in the union offices and in the community partnerships where the real support is being delivered.

Let us make sure that no one, no Singaporean is left to struggle alone in this journey of AI where clarity is needed the most. Because every worker matters. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Motion, as amended by Mr Edward Chia. [ Applause. ]

Mr Deputy Speaker : Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash.

5.43 pm

The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth, and Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash) : Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for bringing forward this Motion and support the amendments proposed by Mr Edward Chia.

At the heart of this Motion is an important aspiration: that Singapore remains an economy where our people have opportunities to succeed and our workers can look to the future with confidence.

I believe every Member of this House shares this aspiration. The Government certainly does. It has always been at the heart of our economic strategy. Our objective is not simply to grow the economy, but to improve the lives of all Singaporeans. We do this by creating better opportunities, better jobs and raising incomes, by ensuring that the benefits of growth are widely shared.

Let me make three points: first, Singaporeans have been, and always will be, at the centre of our manpower policies; second, we must transform enterprises and uplift a broader range of jobs together; third, our tripartite model is a fundamental source of strength, turning these aspirations expressed at this House into practical outcomes.

Our approach has delivered good outcomes for Singaporeans across the workforce. Our resident unemployment has remained low at 2.9% in March 2026. Real incomes have risen across the board. From 2021 to 2025, real income at the median grew cumulatively by 7.4%. Lower-income workers have seen faster income growth than the median worker. Over the same period, real income at the 20th percentile rose by 10.1%. Income inequality has also fallen.

Few advanced economies have been able to achieve all these outcomes at the same time. Some Members have contrasted Singapore with other industrialised economies, arguing that their greater reliance on local champions had produced better productivity models and better outcomes for their workers. But on comparable measures, Singapore's wage outcomes are higher than these economies, not only at the median but also at the lower levels of income.

In recent years, real wage growth has also kept pace with and exceeded productivity growth. From 2021 to 2025, real value added per worker increased by about 0.7% a year. Over the same period, real median income of full-time employed residents rose by about 1.8% a year while real income at the 20th percentile grew much faster.

This did not happen by accident but through sound growth policies and strategies and tripartite efforts like the Progressive Wage Model, Workfare and the Local Qualifying Salary that have uplifted wages.

More recently, despite a challenging external environment, Singapore's labour market has remained resilient. While retrenchments in some companies may have dominated the headlines, employment expanded for the 19th consecutive quarter in the first quarter of 2026. Resident employment continued to grow, unemployment remained low and firms continued to hire.

These outcomes are the result of deliberate policy choices. We have kept our economy competitive while ensuring that Singaporeans have access to opportunities, better jobs and clear pathways to progress. This has only been possible because Government, employers and unions have worked closely together.

Thus, the evidence does not support the conclusion that Singapore's economic model is a failure. We are navigating a structural transition, however difficult and uneven, from a position of strength. The system has served us well, but we must and will remain adaptable to the changing world.

Importantly, we are not standing still. We know the pace of change has accelerated. Workers expect more churn and disruption. Those who are displaced worry about how long they will take to find another job and whether the next job will be as good as the previous.

So, how should we respond? Some fundamentals remain. As an open and small economy, Singapore's prosperity has always depended on our ability to compete successfully in global markets while ensuring that Singaporeans benefit from that success. I am glad that there is broad agreement in this House on this fundamental point.

The ESR provides an actionable blueprint to address the very challenges that our economy faces. It was not a theoretical exercise. It was shaped by engagements with more than 7,700 stakeholders, including businesses, unions and workers, and grounded in Singapore's realities.

The ESR also puts workers at the heart of its strategies. Let me elaborate this in four ways: first, clearer pathways from skills to jobs; second, a stronger first step into work for our younger workers; third, a trampoline back to work; and finally, stronger ladders of mobility.

First, it is to make it easier for Singaporeans to access career and skills support. After more than a decade of SkillsFuture, we have built a stronger culture of lifelong learning. We will now focus even more sharply on employment outcomes so that training leads to better jobs, better wages and better career progression.

Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about the outcomes of our workforce programmes. In 2025, more than 62,000 jobseekers secured employment after benefiting from Workforce Singapore's programmes and services. Among jobseekers who received career-matching services in 2023, about six in 10 found employment within six months.

Our Career Conversion Programmes show what we can achieve when we journey with our workers. In fact, about nine in 10 participants remained employed for 24 months after embarking on the programme and about six in 10 earned more than their previous salaries.

These are not perfect outcomes and we must continue to improve them, but it made a real difference to those 62,000 jobseekers. They show why we should strengthen the system, not dismiss it.

Mr Fadli Fawzi also called for more robust reviews of SkillsFuture training programmes and for funding to be channelled to industry relevant training. We agree. We have been strengthening quality assurance and sharpening our focus on courses that address identified skills gaps, improve employability and support workforce transformation. We are also looking at to strengthen signals of industry demand so that training remains relevant and delivers value.

At the same time, we recognise that we can do more to tighten the nexus between training and jobs. This is why we merged SkillsFuture Singapore with Workforce Singapore into the new SWDA. SWDA will enable us to align future skills more closely with future jobs, identify at-risk workers earlier and provide more seamless support from training to placement. This will help us close the gap between learning and earning. We will share more at the SkillsFuture Festival Launch event in September.

Second, a stronger first step into work, giving young Singaporeans a stronger start. In today's uncertain economic environment with AI reshaping entry level tasks, many fresh graduates and their parents are understandably anxious about entry into the workforce. We recognise these concerns.

The WP argues that entry pathways for young people are broken. But the current picture is more resilient than suggested. In 2025, vacancies continued to outnumber jobseekers. In the first quarter of 2026, there were about 32,800 entry-level PMET vacancies, exceeding the number of graduates looking for jobs. Against this background, around nine in 10 university graduates from the 2025 cohort found employment within a year of graduation, comparable to previous cohorts. I believe my learned colleague from the WP has also highlighted a similar point.

The system has served us well, but must continue to evolve with a new generation of workers and a changing work environment. As part of the ESR, we saw the need to bring learning and work closer together, including formally recognising on-the-job training as part of qualifications. We do this precisely because we want our young to have a good headstart in their jobs.

In this regard, we agree with Mr Andre Low on the value of expanding work-based pathways like apprenticeships. This is already a key direction of our efforts. Through initiatives such as SkillsFuture Work-Study Programme, the AI Apprenticeship Programme and sectoral programmes such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore's Young Talent Programme for AI in Finance, we are helping more Singaporeans gain industry level skills while working and supporting smoother transitions into growth sectors. The task now is to broaden and deepen these pathways to connect education, work experience, skills recognition and employment.

We share the aspiration of giving every young Singaporean a fair start. Our goal is not just to help young Singaporeans get their first job, but to build strong career health from the start. This means giving them more opportunities to learn through work, gain recognised skills and credentials, and access tools and support, including the Careers and Skills Passport, to better navigate their careers.

We will continue to strengthen these pathways so that more young Singaporeans can build skills, gain experience and make a confident start in a changing economy.

Third, we are helping workers bounce back better. In line with the ESR's recommendations, we are studying ways to better support displaced workers and help them bounce back, including enhancements to the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme. We did this because we understand what a challenging operating environment we are in and we believe that Singaporeans who fall on hard times should receive support to enable them to return to work. That is why we designed the Jobseeker Support Scheme to support re-employment, not unemployment.

Mr Fadli Fawzi suggested the introduction of an unemployment insurance scheme that is funded through premiums and conditional on job search and retraining, time limited and capped at a certain percentage of your last drawn pay. It is not clear how this differs from the Job Support Scheme, except that the Job Support Scheme places more emphasis on re-employment. But I suspect both schemes are similar to one another.

Instead of coming up with a new mechanism, the ESR has recommended that we strengthen schemes like the Jobseeker Support Scheme, especially for PMEs navigating more difficult career transitions. We are also studying how to do so, including whether the Jobseeker Support Scheme should be enhanced to cover more PMEs and give them greater confidence and assurance in their search for their next job.

Mr Fadli Fawzi and Mr Pritam Singh called for mandatory retrenchment benefits. In fact, NTUC had long advocated that workers affected by retrenchments should be fairly compensated. I believe Mr Patrick Tay had also mentioned this in his speech earlier. We will study this further under the Tripartite Workgroup on the Employment Act Review.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore's success has never come from choosing between protecting workers or keeping our economy competitive. We have to get it right by creating job opportunities, helping Singaporean workers access them, and when they face the effects of economic disruption, ensuring that they will never have to navigate difficult and uncertain times alone.

Fourthly, we are putting in place strong ladders of mobility to ensure inclusive growth. We have consistently put inclusive growth at the heart of our strategies to make sure that no worker is left behind. The ESR follows that tradition. It is not about creating a fast lane for a few and a slow one for the rest. It is about broadening our shared lanes to give every Singaporean the space to move forward and to get to their destination.

We are building on good foundations. From 2014 to 2024, the ratio of income at the 20th percentile to the median improved from 0.52 to 0.55. Our efforts like the Progressive Wage Model and Workfare have been critical to this outcome.

Beyond uplifting the bottom, we are also building more pathways for good jobs. This includes jobs in domestic and essential services, where many workers are currently employed.

To this, let me briefly address Mr Gerald Giam's suggestion on uplifting the skills trades. We share the aspiration for the skills trades to offer better wages, stronger professional standing and clearer career progression for Singaporeans. We expressed that aspiration in the Forward SG exercise. The ESR similarly recommended broadening the range of good jobs, including by uplifting skills trades and making work-based learning a more recognised route to mastery.

We are already working to realise this aspiration. As MOM announced in the Committee of Supply this year, we have formed a partnership with the Specialists Trade Alliance of Singapore to develop more structured pathways into good jobs in the skills trades, starting with the electrical trades. This initiative seeks to address many of the issues that Mr Giam had raised.

But more broadly, the sustainable route to better jobs is higher productivity, better job design, stronger certification, modern tools and processes, and employers who are willing to share productivity gains with their workers – all of which the Government will double down on to strengthen.

This leads to my next point. Enterprise transformation and workforce transformation must work together. We support enterprises because their success creates opportunities for Singaporeans. This is especially important for SMEs as they employ about two-thirds of our workforce. When firms invest, innovate and raise productivity, they create better jobs, build deeper capabilities and sustain wage growth.

We also want Singaporeans to have different pathways to contribute and succeed. For some, that will mean building a career in an established enterprise. For others, it may mean starting a venture of their own. With AI and new technologies lowering the cost of developing products, reaching customers and scaling across markets, entrepreneurship is an increasingly viable pathway.

Not every venture will succeed. That is the nature of enterprise and risk-taking. But we are expanding support for promising startups to build, grow and reach global markets. Singapore now has more than 4,500 tech startups. And the ESR recommendations will strengthen access to growth capital, technology, networks and overseas markets. Successful ventures do more than reward their founders; they create job opportunities for other Singaporeans.

Some Members may call for stronger Singaporean representation in our economy. We too, want more of our local businesses to thrive, but the answer is to build them up, not to shut them out.

Take Carousell for example. Founded by three NUS graduates, Carousell began with a simple idea – to make selling pre-owned items as easy as taking a photograph. What started as a mobile-first classifieds app, it has since grown into a leading online marketplace and omnichannel e-commerce business operating across Southeast Asia, Taiwan and Hong Kong, serving tens of millions of users across the region.

This illustrates how Singapore firms grow as they access international markets, overseas customers, global technologies and world-class business networks. We will continue to support young Singaporeans to go abroad and gain exposure through programmes, like the NUS Overseas College and the Overseas Market Immersion programme. Strong local enterprises and global companies are not mutually exclusive. They complement one another.

Let us also not forget that MNCs support Singaporeans too, not just Singapore businesses. Foreign-owned firms make up about one-fifth of firms in Singapore today but employ nearly one-third of resident workers. In 2025, Singapore citizens and permanent residents held about 85% of senior management roles in these MNCs.

My final point is on the importance of tripartism. In many countries, economic debates have become increasingly confrontational and divisive. Singapore has avoided this outcome, but we should never take this for granted.

I have listened carefully to how this Motion frames its vision of our economic engine – entrepreneurs, households, businesses, workers, capital. Two partners are notably missing from that list: employers and unions. That is not a small omission. It is precisely the space in which wages are negotiated, jobs are redesigned and disputes are resolved without a single strike in decades. Any vision for our economic future that is silent on how we will work with these partners is an incomplete one.

Our tripartite partnership brings Government, businesses and workers to work together to expand the economic pie and ensure that gains are fairly shared. That is what turns inclusive growth from an aspiration into practical outcomes – more investment, better jobs, rising wages.

The Company Training Committees (CTCs) are one practical example of tripartism in action. Since 2019, more than 3,800 CTCs have been formed, benefiting over 300,000 workers. Through the CTC Grant, companies and unions redesign jobs, build new capabilities and translate business transformation into better wages and career prospects. We will continue working with both NTUC and SNEF to build on this model, so that more enterprises and workers can benefit.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the aspiration behind this Motion is one that we all share. We want an economy where Singaporeans can participate, contribute and succeed. An economy where workers can build meaningful careers, enterprises can innovate and grow, and more Singaporeans can create opportunities not only for themselves, but for others as well.

This is precisely what the ESR seeks to achieve. Not by choosing between growth and inclusion, local enterprises and global connections, or competitiveness and worker protection. But by pursuing all of these together. This is how we turn economic growth into broad-based progress – through better jobs, better wages and better pathways for advancement. That is how we have and will continue to build an economy that works for all Singaporeans.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker : Mr Fadli Fawzi, you have a clarification of which Member please? Yes, please proceed.

6.05 pm

Mr Fadli Fawzi : Mr Deputy Speaker, first I would like to thank the Minister of State's openness towards the legislation of retrenchment benefits for the workers and I hope that this would lead to a Bill for this House's consideration sooner rather than later. However, I would like to address the Minister of State's statements on the Jobseeker Support Scheme in comparison to the Redundancy Insurance Scheme. He suggests, if I caught his point correctly, that both schemes are broadly similar, but I just want to make the following point.

Because the Redundancy Insurance is funded by joint contributions from employers and employees, the payouts are automatic and seamless. The Jobseeker Support Scheme, however, requires the retrenched worker to go through an application process and face the prospect of rejection. In fact, last year, only 4,000 out of 10,000 applicants were successful. Hence, there are three questions, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Yes, Mr Fadli Fawzi if I could invite you to ask your clarifications promptly. Thank you.

Mr Fadli Fawzi : I will, I will, Sir.

One, would it not be better if retrenched workers did not have to go through this arduous application and waiting process which can be very stressful to such workers in that situation?

Two, would our automatic and universal Redundancy Insurance Scheme also not reduce the risk of underemployment since the worker would not have to jump at the first job available?

And three, it was reported in CNA on 6 April 2026 that the Ministry of Manpower expects the Jobseeker Support Scheme to cover only 60% of the involuntarily unemployed each year. Again, would a universal Redundancy Insurance Scheme not be better in providing 100% coverage to our retrenched workers?

Mr Deputy Speaker : Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash, would you like to reply to those three clarifications put to you?

Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash : Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member. Maybe just to highlight that the positions are not really very far. The only difference is perhaps the fact that for the Jobseeker Support Scheme, the need for the worker to indicate that they are in the process of applying for re-employment; and perhaps their friction is for that particular purpose. But if the Member reads the ESR report, the ESR report also highlights the need to consider whether an insurance scheme of sorts is indeed useful and that is something that will have to be studied as well.

So, I will probably frame it from that perspective and to add that friction in the process is not one that is intended to make it difficult for someone who is already going through difficult times but it is to make sure that they can bounce back, and bounce back stronger.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Mr Gerald Giam, you have a clarification? Of whom, please? Yes. Please proceed.

6.08 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song : Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification to seek from Minister of State Dinesh.

Sir, he mentioned about the Specialist Trade Alliance of Singapore initiative that MOM is working with. My question is: the upgrading certification and tools only work if certified practitioners are not continuously undercut in the open market. So, how will this initiative address this structural problem of uncertified operators who drag down market rates for properly accredited local tradespersons?

Mr Deputy Speaker : Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash, would you like to reply to that clarification?

Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash : I would just add that we are still studying that particular perspective. It is a bit easier from the electrical trades because there is EMA as one of the agencies who oversee parts of the system. But more importantly, increasing costs in itself may result in other considerations that we have to study fully to make sure that it does not end up in a situation that results in an increase in cost of the service and then we will have other unintended knock-on effects. It is still being studied and perhaps we can have a fuller discussion when the scheme is a bit more ready to be discussed.

Mr Deputy Speaker : There being no further clarifications, we will move on with the debate on the Motion and the amended Motion. Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling.

6.09 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) : Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Kenneth Tiong as well as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for bringing this Motion before the House, as well as Mr Edward Chia for the amendments that he proposed to the Motion, as well as all the Members who spoke before us for contributing to what has been a very rigorous as well as substantive debate.

At the heart of this debate is a fundamental question: How do we ensure that Singapore enterprises can continue to thrive in a rapidly changing world?

The answer matters because our enterprises are central to Singapore's success. SMEs make up 99% of all enterprises and employ more than 70% of our workforce. SMEs create good jobs, strengthen our communities and bolster Singapore's economic competitiveness.

But all the Members who spoke before us also shared that the environment that the SMEs operate in is becoming more challenging. Technology is reshaping industries. Competition is intensifying. And global disruptions have become a recurring nature and feature in the global economy. The recent Middle East crisis is the latest reminder of how quickly external events can affect our businesses.

Our response is not just to help the enterprises weather the new storm. It is to help our enterprises become stronger, more competitive and more resilient over the long term. Our economic strategy has always been centred on improving the lives of Singaporeans, because strong local enterprises are indispensable to that goal. That is why we will continue to stand alongside our businesses, help them build stronger capabilities, expand with confidence and innovate and grow beyond Singapore.

Let me share more about how we do so. Let me start with capability building.

Businesses today compete not just on cost, many of the Members said that. They do not just compete on cost but on innovation, on quality, productivity as well as speed. Yesterday's strengths are no guarantee of tomorrow's success. Enterprises that continue to build new capabilities will be better placed to stay ahead. Those that do not do so risk falling behind.

During the ESR, we engaged widely with trade associations and chambers representing SMEs and various businesses. Most SMEs recognised that transformation is no longer optional. The question is not whether to transform, but really how to do so in a practical, in an accessible as well as sustainable manner. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Every enterprise starts from a different position, serves different markets, customers and faces different opportunities. That is why we tailor our approach to support the company's needs, whether it is adopting AI, improving productivity, developing new products, services expanding into new markets.

Through Enterprise Singapore, businesses can access a wide range of Government support to build capabilities and transformation their operations. For example, Sin Chwee Mini Mart started as a wet market seafood store by Mr Goh Thiam Chwee in Bukit Gombak in 1990. Faced with changing consumer preferences, the second-generation owner Mr Jimmy Goh, his son, made the decision to reinvent the business. He launched Tankfully Fresh, transforming what had been a traditional wet market seafood stall into an omnichannel retailer.

With Government support, the company accelerated its transformation by implementing an integrated inventory management system to support its growing omni-channel business. The system enabled a 50% improvement in manpower efficiency. What used to be a wet market, small minimart, grew into new retail, B2B and online sales channels through contract manufacturing. Today, within a few years, 60% of the business revenue comes from online sales.

If anything, this example reminds us that every successful transformation begins with a decision by the business itself. The aim of our efforts is to help enterprises build the capabilities that matter most to their business at that point in time, so that they can become more productive, more competitive and more resilient.

Members over the last few hours have spoken about the challenges facing our F&B businesses. We Singaporeans, we love our food and we treasure our distinctive food culture. But the industry is changing rapidly. Operators face higher manpower, rental and operating costs, while consumer expectations continue to rise. This is not unique to Singapore. Around the world, diners are demanding greater convenience, better value and more differentiated experiences. Digital platforms, food delivery and social media have transformed how customers discover and consume food.

These trends present challenges, but also new opportunities. In fact, many of our F&B businesses are responding with determination. They are redesigning their operations, they are embracing technology, they are centralising food preparation and adopting AI and digital solutions to improve productivity and to serve their customers better.

Our role is to support these transformation efforts with practical assistance that helps businesses become more productive, competitive and resilient.

Our objective is not simply to help F&B businesses cope with higher costs. It is to help them operate differently and compete more effectively because that means improving productivity, redesigning their processes, embracing technology and finding new ways to deliver better value to their customers. That is why Enterprise Singapore has put in place a range of initiatives to support the transformation.

Businesses can improve productivity and redesign their operations through the F&B Process Optimisation Programme. Smaller businesses can lower costs and achieve greater scale through FoodX, by sharing manufacturing and food preparation facilities.

We also offer help for businesses to adopt digital and AI solutions. Coffee chain, Kopi & Tarts, which has about 20 outlets all over Singapore, they have benefited from these initiatives that I talked about. And across their outlets in Singapore, it has reduced more than 40 hours of food preparation time each day by outsourcing part of their ingredient preparation through FoodX. Forty hours a day is almost equivalent to allowing them to avail four full-time staff to focus on greater value-add services.

Another group of businesses close to our heart are the heartland enterprises. They are more than places to shop. They help define the character of our neighbourhoods, bring communities together and contribute to our social fabric. But like all businesses, they must adapt to changing consumer preferences and new technologies.

Ms Mariam Jaafar will be glad to know that we have been the heartland enterprises through the years with many initiatives, such as the Heartland Enterprise Placemaking Grant and the Enhanced Visual Merchandising Programme. In fact, earlier this year, just a few months ago, we enhanced both of these schemes by increasing the support level from 50% to 70%, helping our heartland enterprises refresh their concepts, improve their storefronts and to attract more footfall, more customers into their shops.

So, whether young or established, traditional or modern, every enterprise must continue building new capabilities to remain competitive. We will continue to support our businesses in this journey. And this journey includes going beyond Singapore to the world. Because our domestic market is limited, enterprises must venture beyond our shores to grow. Our small economy also needs strong external demand in addition to healthy domestic demand.

To help enterprises go global, we have established support for enterprises across their different stages of internationalisation. From grants like the recently enhanced Market Readiness Assistance, which helps businesses springboard overseas, to programmes like the Scale-Up. Let me elaborate.

Enterprise Singapore's Scale-Up programme helps high-potential Singapore companies build the capabilities they need to scale effectively and compete internationally.

To date, Scale-Up has supported more than 100 companies from diverse sectors – 80 of these companies have generated a combined $2.5 billion in additional revenue within three years of joining the Scale-Up programme. International expansion accounted for $1 billion of this growth.

One of these companies is Mlion Corporation. This is a steel foundation solutions company specialising in waterfront and underground construction. It sharpened its market entry strategies through Scale-Up just about four years ago. Since then, the company was able to, in the last four years, secure large-scale infrastructure projects in Southeast Asia markets and the Middle East and Africa. As a result, Mlion saw a fourfold increase in their revenue in 2024.

Another example is Space Matrix, a workplace design and build firm. The company accelerated its international growth by sharpening its strategy and strengthening its supply chain and procurement capabilities. Within two years, it has expanded into India, the Philippines and Dubai, and moved into the life sciences and data centre sectors. The company's revenue has grown more than 25%, and their profitability more than 200%.

So, as enterprises venture overseas, we know they will navigate unfamiliar regulations, higher operating costs, new competitors and geopolitical forces.

We have a network of over 35 Overseas Centres around the world, providing market intelligence, introductions to in-market partners and on-the-ground support for Singapore companies that want to capture growth opportunities overseas.

While the decision to internationalise is one that the enterprises must make for themselves, our goal is to create the conditions and provide the support that will spur them to compete and to succeed on the global stage. We will continue to monitor the global economic landscape and refine our globalisation schemes and support for Singapore enterprises to become global champions.

Every successful enterprise operates within a wider ecosystem of partners, networks and institutions.

Over the years, the Government has invested in building a strong and vibrant enterprise ecosystem. Our goal here is to create an environment in which enterprises can succeed, one that enables them to innovate, to build deeper capabilities, to gain access to talent, technology and market, and to be able to seize opportunities to enter new markets overseas.

And Ms Mariam Jaafar shared very eloquently earlier, a key element of this vibrant enterprise ecosystem is that mutually beneficial, mutually re-enforcing partnerships between our SMEs and our larger companies, including MNCs. As Mr Edward Chia and Ms Mariam Jaafar mentioned earlier, local and global enterprises in Singapore can work together to strengthen their capabilities, accelerate innovation and in doing so, create better jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans.

Look around at the MNCs' C-suite executives over the years, the positions are also taken up by Singaporeans. That is an important proof point.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may share my previous working experience which attests to the symbiotic working relationship between the smaller companies and larger companies. I recall, as an EDB officer some 26 years ago, I had worked on the Local Industry Upgrading Programme that matched the SMEs and the MNCs, company by company, sector by sector, matching them based on their workplan, their vision, their ambition and their values, but in a win-win partnership. And the programme allowed the MNCs to gain a strong base of suppliers, while allowing the SMEs to learn from the larger industry players and upgrade their capabilities.

Today, the programme has evolved to become what we call the Partnerships for Capability Transformation (PACT) programme, While LIUP focused primarily on strengthening supplier relationships between MNCs and SMEs, PACT brings the companies together to skill up, to innovate and in fact, to capture new opportunities together.

Since 2010, PACT has supported 137 partnerships and benefited more than 2,500 Singapore-based companies. PACT has progressively expanded to support a broader range of partnerships. Members will remember that last year, in this House, we announced expansion of the PACT programme to include internationalisation, corporate ventures and capability training. This has enabled SMEs to gain entry into regional as well as global value chains. In addition, SMEs get access to new customers and valuable chance to build stronger capabilities. They also co-create solutions and grow with the larger partners in their overseas operations.

Take the partnership between ForeFront AM, which is a local additive manufacturing firm, and GlobalFoundries MNC. Due to their collaboration, Forefront AM was able to increase its capabilities in additive manufacturing to create critical, highly customised parts for GlobalFoundries' high-value semiconductor manufacturing tools. And on the part of GlobalFoundries, the company qualified nine local SMEs to produce more than 200 critical tool parts as a result of the two PACT programme.

We also partnered industry leaders to help companies. Take AI adoption, for example. Mr Louis Chua called for greater support for AI adoption and acknowledged that the Enterprise Compute Initiative was announced last year. This is a scheme that where we work with leading cloud service providers like Google and Amazon as well as consultant partners to give enterprises access to cutting edge AI tools, cloud credits, training and certification. The Enterprise Compute Initiative is meant to kickstart adoption and to build momentum. So, we will continue to monitor the take-up closely and refine the support where needed.

Partnerships like these have enabled our local enterprises to capture fresh opportunities, build stronger and deeper capabilities, and compete in higher-value segments of the economy.

As shared by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, attracting MNC investments and the support we provide to local enterprises are complementary strategies. A robust economy needs the contributions of both the MNCs and SMEs.

On that note, let me now turn to another important pillar in our vibrant enterprise ecosystem – our close partnership with trade associations and chambers.

As Mr Mark Lee noted earlier, the trade associations and chambers play an important role as trusted intermediaries because the trade associations and chambers not only represent the enterprises and their respective sectors, they also help the businesses cope with shifts, like moving towards sustainability, digitalisation and workforce transformation. They are also instrumental in developing shared solutions as well as aggregating industry needs.

We will continue to work closely with all our trade associations and chambers in Singapore as they lead initiatives that bring businesses together to address common challenges and to seize new opportunities.

And furthermore, the trade associations and chambers have contributed their insights and industry perspectives on the needs of their sectors as part of our ESR process. The ESR recommendations and the directions we are taking reflect our trade associations and chambers' input and feedback. We value our close partnership and dialogue with our trade associations and chambers because we do not work in silos. The door is always open for discussion. And as Mr Mark Lee pointed out, 24 of the 27 recommendations by the Alliance for Action on Business Competitiveness have been accepted.

In fact, in April 2024, we sent up the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Pro-Enterprise Rules Review chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong as well as the various Ministers to oversee the agencies' efforts to improve regulatory efficiency and to reduce compliance burdens especially for SMEs. And the Inter-Ministerial Committee has achieved progress in these few areas within two years.

For example, 93% of all business regulatory applications have published service standards, with 80% of them committing to processing the applications within 30 working days. Agencies have also reviewed their license validity period. Today, 45% of the licences have validity period of at least three years. This will increase to 80% of licences by year 2029.

In parallel, we also started the SME Pro-Enterprise Office last year to cut red tape and to help our businesses address regulatory challenges, especially where it involves multiple agencies or emerging nascent sectors. This approach keeps our enterprise ecosystem vibrant as Government and regulations stay responsive to the needs of our businesses and to the needs of our SMEs.

And recently, just three months ago, in May this year, JTC streamlined lease transfers for smaller industrial sites with remaining tenures, reducing the processing time from two months to one month, to help our businesses acquire space and respond more quickly to changing needs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the close consultation and support provided to our SMEs can also be found in a network of 10 SME Centres across Singapore. We recognise that many SMEs do not have dedicated teams for strategy, technology or business development. As mentioned by Mr Azhar Othman very passionately earlier, SME Centres help our SMEs identify opportunities, navigate available Government support and chart practical next steps for their growth.

Just last year, our 10 SME Centres with 75 business advisors supported close to 30,000 companies in one year. That is about 2,500 SMEs in a month.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim earlier in his speech has called for simpler grant application processes and we have continuously been reviewing ways to improve. For example, under the Productivity Solutions Grant, Enterprise Singapore has streamlined the processes, and reduced processing times significantly to two weeks.

Together, these efforts strengthen Singapore's enterprise ecosystem, which in turn underpin the success of our enterprises. They ensure that the businesses are supported, not only through Government programmes but also through strong partnerships, responsive institution and a business environment that enables growth.

Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Please proceed.

Ms Low Yen Ling ( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Mr Deputy Speaker, fellow Members of this House, Singapore's economic performance was strong, with the economy growing by 5% in 2025. This year, although we are affected by adverse factors such as uncertainties in the Middle East, energy prices and tariffs, we still forecast an economic growth of around 2% to 4%. This achievement is the result of the collective efforts of businesses, workers and the Government, that is, our tripartite partners.

Maintaining long-term, sustainable economic growth and ensuring that Singaporeans have good jobs and can live and work in peace and stability have always been our goal. Strong local enterprises, especially SMEs, are crucial to achieving this goal.

Across Singapore's economy, SMEs make up 99% of all enterprises and employ more than 70% of the workforce. They are a very important part of our overall economic ecosystem. SMEs create many job opportunities for Singaporeans, strengthen community cohesion and enhance Singapore's economic competitiveness.

Over the years, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, together with other Government agencies, has continued to roll out many measures and programmes to help local SMEs grow and thrive. We have focused on three areas:

(a) First, creating a pro-business environment and encouraging Singaporeans to start businesses;

(b) Second, working closely with local TACs to strengthen the capabilities and resilience of each of the sectors; and

(c) Third, encouraging and helping local SMEs venture into overseas markets.

In my English speech earlier, I also mentioned many successful examples of enterprises that have received practical assistance. When facing exceptional challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent conflict in the Middle East, the Government will also adapt our measures based on the circumstances and introduce timely support measures to help enterprises tide over immediate difficulties.

But Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must remember that Singapore is a small country with no natural resources, a small market and an ageing population. In the last 61 years of our independence, although we have accumulated a certain level of economic strength, we cannot simply rest on our laurels and live off past successes. Like businesses, the Government must also maintain an enterprising spirit, consistently upgrading, improving and adopting so as to secure a better future for our next generation.

During the Economic Strategy Review, we held extensive discussion and engagement with 7,700 enterprises as well as representatives from TACs across various sectors. These included local heritage businesses and representatives from heartland merchant associations. We listened to their concerns and gathered their views.

Mr Deputy Speaker, every enterprise is unique. Every company is also at a different stage of development, with a different starting point, different customer segments and different challenges and opportunities. The key is whether the business owners, partners and employees have the will to find ways to ensure the business can sustain in the long term and achieve continued success.

We all know that yesterday's strengths do not guarantee tomorrow's success. Businesses that continue to work hard to upgrade their capabilities will be able to go further.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's economic development and future success will depend on our country's enterprising spirit and the unity of our people. We believe that as long as local enterprises commit themselves to upgrading their capability, seizing development opportunities at home and abroad and cooperating with one another, they will be able to sustain their operations and achieve sound growth.

The Government will continue to create favourable conditions for businesses to flourish, and work hand in hand with businesses and Singaporeans to build a better tomorrow together.

( In English ): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have debated this Motion and heard a range of views and suggestions. We share the same vision – to see Singapore's economy succeed, businesses thrive and good jobs created for Singaporeans.

The Government continues to support and stand alongside our Singapore enterprises. Our goal is not just to help businesses weather the new storm, but to help them grow, to help them improve their competitiveness and strengthen their resilience to scale and compete internationally. We will continue to create the conditions of a vibrant and effervescent enterprise ecosystem to help them flourish and thrive. While we catalyse the ideal environment, it is the enterprises that continuously innovate, adapt and strengthen capabilities that will thrive and conquer new markets.

Together, we can build a strong and resilient economy for the future, for better lives, for Singapore. I support the Motion as amended by Mr Edward Chia. [ Applause. ]

Mr Deputy Speaker : Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, do you have a clarification? Of whom? Please proceed.

6.36 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim : Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.

The first concerns her point about internationalisation through Enterprise Singapore. During her speech, she offered more than a few examples of local SMEs that have successfully internationalised. This is without dispute something that both sides of the House can agree on.

The relevant question, however, is that this is a selection on what we have seen. Successful cases. I wonder if she will be able to share how many Enterprise Singapore-supported SMEs, out of those that have applied, have actually succeeded in their internationalisation plans. What is the ratio of applicants to these programmes versus those that have successfully managed to break into foreign markets and remain there after, say, five years? And what is the internal rate of return for Enterprise Singapore's internationalisation grants.

My second question has to do with the F&B sector, which Senior Minister of State Low also spoke about.

One notable difference between this sector and other SMEs is that the vast majority of our hawkers, coffee shop operators, restaurateurs deal with essentially a non-tradeable product. This is why suggestions that erase profits by scaling up often ring hollow to them, at least based on our conversations with them. Rather, what they seek is some form of relief from business costs, principally, rent and manpower.

I had suggested two channels in my speech on rental rate increase controls and different dependency ratio ceiling quotas, but if this is not something that the Government will entertain, I wonder what other suggestions, other than trying to scale up, which is something that these companies struggle with doing —

Mr Deputy Speaker : Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, if I could invite you to promptly come to your second clarification?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim : My second clarification is what the Government is doing to help these local F&B operators with their business costs.

Ms Low Yen Ling : Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his questions.

Earlier on, when I talked about the range of support that we gave to SMEs, I had also taken a focus on F&B. I talked about how we have within the last 12 months rolled out – and these programmes were not rolled out in isolation – for example, Enterprise Singapore rolled out what they called the F&B Process Optimisation Programme. Allow me just one minute to explain what this is.

Like the Member mentioned, these are domestic companies, they cannot really go overseas unless through franchising. They are very much looking at how they can overcome manpower constraints. Based on our focus group discussion with them, we understand their pain points. That is why we came up the Process Optimisation Programme.

The Kopi & Tarts example is a simple example, but it is quite powerful. If you google them, do support them. They serve really wonderful ayam merah – it is really good – and protein bowls. They outsource the ingredient preparation for these two dishes.

For example, we shared with the F&B, you do not have to outsource everything. Just try a few things. They themselves were pleasantly surprised because by outsourcing the ingredient preparation for these two dishes, they can save 40 hours a day. That is 1,200 hours a month. This allows them to then redeploy their four full-time staff, who have to come in early into the kitchen and so on, into other positions. So, we are tackling, step by step, based on their pain points.

We have also done a productivity study together with the Singapore Productivity Centre and identified that the process optimisation really helps the top 10% of F&B achieve three to four times higher revenue than the bottom group. That is one.

The second one is FoodX that I talked about sharing of resources and so on.

More recently, at Restaurant Asia 2026, we launched the F&B AI and Digital Integration Programme. Elsie's Kitchen is one good example where they have done that. They plan to use AI to help them to achieve better kitchen planning and a logistic fleet so that they can have route optimisation as well as to ensure food safety.

It is a lot of grunt work. I want to assure him that we are working with the trade associations, like what Mr Mark Lee has mentioned. In this case, it was the RAS who addressed the issues and helped them to grow their top line and as well as bottom line.

The first question is on internationalisation. He asked about some of these big numbers. If I could request for him to file a separate Parliamentary Question, we will surely look into it and come back to the Member. But suffice to say, within the enterprise ecosystem, it is not just Enterprise Singapore that account manages each of these companies. I have talked about the 10 SME Centres. Within a year, we supported 30,000 SMEs. And earlier on, some of the Members talked about GoBusiness.gov.sg. Some of our business owners are very adept at that. They are gleaning a lot of information from that as well.

We will continue, just like how earlier on I responded to the Productivity Solutions Grant processing time, we will continue to look at how we can use technology to ensure that we can serve our SMEs better.

On internationalisation, it is not just companies, like Space Matrix or the Mlion or the manufacturing company I talked about, ForeFront AM, let me cite an example called Hegen.

I have known Ms Yvon Bock for close to 10 years. Ten years ago, Hegen was a startup, some Members are smiling because they probably used the company's products. We connected them overseas. They took part in "double 11" back then. That was how we helped them to leapfrog to China, to various provinces. Hegen has grown into a global consumer brand with a very significant international footprint. In fact, their products are available in more than 25 markets.

I am using Hegen to say one thing. I am using Hegen to say that, if we work together to ensure that in Singapore, we have a vibrant, effervescent enterprise ecosystem, our companies are not just selling products and services. Our companies can also twin it with a Singapore brand, which stands for integrity, quality, reliability, which is what Ms Yvon Bock told me.

Mr Deputy Speaker : There being no further clarifications. Leader of the House.

Hansard 原始記錄

引用此條

Markdown 版 報告錯誤

新加坡 AI 觀察. 打造惠及所有人的未來經濟（主辯論）. 檢索日期 2026-09-07, https://sgai.md/zh-tw/debates/motion-3008/

同主題更多

經濟與產業採用 算力基建與研究 就業與勞動力