動議 · 2026-08-05 · 屆國會 15

惠及所有人的未來經濟（辯論總結）

AI 經濟與產業 AI 戰略 AI 與就業 爭議度 4 · 激烈爭議

8 月 5 日晚，國會續辯並表決 Kenneth Tiong 與林志蔚提出的工人黨動議"惠及所有人的未來經濟"。交通部長蕭振祥說，經濟戰略檢討（ESR）五個委員會九個月內接觸逾 7700 人；他為以跨國企業為錨的模式辯護，稱跨國企業帶來"我們自行開發要花上多年"的 AI 能力。貿工部長陳詩龍搬出 RIE2030 五年 370 億新元，說新加坡人將轉向"結合 AI 與行業知識的複合崗位"，由新設的技能與勞動力發展局承接。Kenneth Tiong 結辯時說，ESR 是 2010 年以來第四份經濟藍圖，唯一的新東西是 AI，但在舊劇本上加章節和腳註並不構成新劇本；他重提 Louis Chua 的"算力組屋模式"，指每年約 200 億新元賣地收入只撥約 1.5 億新元辦一年期算力計劃，並要求政府在 2030 年前設定可驗證目標，而非只承諾密切監測 AI 衝擊。工人黨接受第 2、3、4 號修正案，反對把"儘管"改為"依循"的第 1 號；12 名工人黨議員兩度起立記錄異議，修正後的動議獲通過。

為什麼重要

工人黨批 ESR 只把 AI 當新增章節，要求政府定出 2030 年前可驗證的經濟目標

關鍵要點

  • • Kenneth Tiong 結辯：ESR 是 2010 年以來第四份經濟藍圖，唯一的新內容是 AI
  • • 工人黨重提"算力組屋模式"：每年約 200 億新元賣地收入，只撥約 1.5 億新元辦一年期算力計劃
  • • 蕭振祥：跨國企業帶來新加坡自行開發要花上多年的 AI 能力，本地與跨國不是零和
  • • 陳詩龍：RIE2030 五年 370 億新元，工人靠"結合 AI 與行業知識的複合崗位"保住份額
  • • 工人黨邀勞工運動支援立法規定裁員補償，以免 PME 專業人士成為 AI 轉型的附帶損害
  • • 四項修正案全數通過，12 名工人黨議員兩度起立記錄異議，修正後動議獲通過
政府立場

政府認為 ESR 已覆蓋工人黨的多數訴求，拒絕把經濟模式從跨國企業轉向本地企業：蕭振祥說跨國企業帶來新加坡自行開發要花上多年的 AI 能力，陳詩龍以 RIE2030 五年 370 億新元、Startup SG Equity 增資 10 億新元與新設的技能與勞動力發展局回應，承諾不保證每份工作原封不動，但會幫每名工人提早準備、找到可信的下一步。

質詢立場

工人黨支援第 2、3、4 號修正案，但反對第 1 號把"儘管"改為"依循"，理由是那讓國會效忠一份檔案而非一組目標。Kenneth Tiong 指 ESR 裡唯一的新東西是 AI，而政府對 AI 衝擊工人只承諾密切監測、必要時調整；他要求 2030 年前設定可驗證目標，包括本地居民佔國民收入的份額上升、實際工資跟上生產力，並邀請勞工運動支援立法規定裁員補償。

政策訊號

政府把 AI 帶來的經濟衝擊收進既有 ESR 劇本處理：靠跨國企業的能力外溢、RIE2030 的 370 億新元與技能與勞動力發展局的職業橋樑，而非新的可量化目標或立法保障。強制裁員補償仍在研究，是否立法未定；貿工部將於 2026 年 10 月 1 日改名為能源、貿易與工業部，能源與產業單列一位部長。

“這份報告唯一的新東西是 AI。但那是所有國家都必須應對的新外生因素。在既有劇本上加新章節和腳註，並不構成一本新劇本。”

參與人員 (11)

完整譯文（中文）

Hansard 原始記錄 · 2026-09-05

【程式文本】辯論繼續。【程式文本】

副議長：梁國民博士。

下午6時43分

梁國民博士（提名議員）：副議長先生，謝謝您。

我想宣告，我最近當選為新加坡工程師學會副會長，負責管理所有技術委員會，包括創新加速和技術創業。我做的第一件事是成立了一個空間工程、核工程和量子工程技術委員會。這是最新的領域。因此，我們試圖將新加坡工程師學會從建築環境轉型為最新的前沿技術叢集。

上週，新加坡著名兒子、抖音執行長周受資在南洋理工大學（NTU）博士畢業典禮上發表講話。他指出，我們正處於一個關鍵的轉折點，“變化不僅是持續的，而且是指數級和複合性的。”

我們都知道變化是不可避免的，但“指數級”和“複合性”實際上是“顛覆性”和“變革性”的另一種表達。因此，我給他發了資訊，說：“我可以在演講中引用您的話嗎？”他回答：“請便。”

那是週日晚上，所以我重新起草了演講稿。我將引用他多次的言論，因此不再重複引用。

為了在這個新環境中蓬勃發展，我想提出“3個I”：創新（Innovation）、投資（Investment）和國際化（Internationalisation）。

創新——從非常固定的藍圖轉向擁抱混亂的未知。作為工程師和教育者，我一直倡導發展我們的深科技生態系統。然而，真正的創新需要文化轉變，即如何管理風險。

在南洋理工大學，周先生挑戰博士生利用他們的超級力量，即他們的知識和研究知識，當然，並非所有博士生都掌握知識，每個人都有自己掌握的知識。他說要將這股超級力量應用於現實世界中混亂、模糊的問題，並補充說我們必須擁抱不確定性，因為那是有意義創新發生的地方。

我想引用一個黑石集團的案例。五六年前，有人參加了我在國大關於技術創業的課程。黑石集團從事水下機器人業務，即在水中游動但我們看不見的裝置。當時，他們只是嘗試做影片分析——很像學生專案——我們觸控某物以確保準確性。影片效果很好。我們試圖為此找到應用。五年內，我們考察了新加坡和海外的試驗，我不會提及具體國家，但包括湖泊、池塘、海洋，甚至夏威夷。

如今，經過多次試驗，他們被選中參加美國海軍的“我的對抗措施現代化挑戰”。他們是全球挑戰賽中兩家入選企業之一，也是唯一一家非美國企業。另一家是美國企業。

但我上週與他們交談，發現這段旅程非常艱難，因為美國企業很容易籌集3000萬美元資金；而他們最近才籌集了770萬美元。這是公開資訊。當然，得到了Cap Vista和Monk's Hill Ventures等投資者的支援。我想宣告我的利益，我是天使投資人，因為當我看到他們是真正的初創企業時，我會為他們投入一些資金，幫助他們。

因此，我們真正需要的是更積極的類似監管沙盒的機制。這不僅僅是國內的，因為在這種深科技環境下，國內有時不適用，所以我們應該考慮國內、區域甚至全球的沙盒。在這個案例中，他們在夏威夷測試了裝置。

因此，我呼籲貿易與工業部（MTI）擴大資金渠道，專門支援早期高失敗率、高影響力的深科技企業，並允許他們失敗。我們不能保證一定成功，但可以給他們機會度過這一階段，孕育下一代突破性技術。這需要六年時間。

他們需要非常複雜的裝置和實驗室。在最初兩三年，我們實際上是在國大實驗室運營。因此，我建議借鑑教育部（MOE）與文化、社區及青年部（MCCY）之間的合作模式，將未使用的設施——例如羽毛球館、足球場——開放給其他需要使用的人。我們可以在某些學校的足球場上週日踢球，對吧？

同樣，無論是大學、理工學院還是科技研究局（A*STAR），這些研究實驗室都擁有非常昂貴且複雜的裝置，所有這些深科技初創企業都可以使用。問題是如何管理。這就像共享經濟基礎上的設施。如果我們相信新加坡工程師學會，也許學會可以幫助管理。這是一個建議。

談到投資，第二個“I”，將資本轉向培養革命性想法。先生，我們的投資理念必須演變，突出這一重大趨勢。周受資指出，投資正大幅轉向強調真正影響力的早期初創企業，“將一個想法放大到數百萬甚至數十億人受益”，他說，“如果幸運的話。”

現實情況是，對於新加坡來說，獲得A輪融資非常困難，且必須證明盈利能力等。去年，科技研究局的衍生公司MetaOptics尚未盈利，收入不多，但潛力巨大——它在Catalist上市，市值約3000萬新元，現在市值約2億新元，且即將登陸納斯達克。

這為所有深科技初創企業指明瞭道路。我們不應過度依賴風險投資，也許公共資金或公共資助是更好的選擇或另一種選擇。

我召集了一群科技創業者、投資者，包括Catalist贊助商，我們在新加坡交易所（SGX）會面。SGX非常支援，給了我空間。SGX參與了我們稱之為Catalist科技企業特殊上市路徑的專案。

我們注意到香港交易所第18(A)章針對生物製藥公司，第18(C)章基本允許尚未盈利、尚無收入的公司上市，但規模巨大，約為15億至18億港元。我們有全球上市委員會，但門檻也很高。因此，甜蜜點可能不是追求10億市值，而是5000萬或1億市值，作為適當融資的路徑，因為這些是長期投資，但具有全球化潛力。MetaOptics就是第二個案例。

國際化。利用我們的知識或教育護照實現全球影響。周先生指出，新加坡歷來向外看、向上看，創造了外向型全球足跡，建議畢業生利用卓越的教育護照將他們的工作推向世界。我再舉一個空間工程的例子。Alenia，我不確定議員們是否熟悉他們或林馬克博士。他開發了基於等離子體的航天器推進技術。我邀請他加入我的技術委員會；我正在追蹤所有這些人才。他的業務顯然不太在新加坡。在新加坡，他可能只有一兩個客戶——

副議長：抱歉，梁博士。我已經給了您10分鐘的寬限時間。我開始懷疑您是否會將您的見解與動議主題聯絡起來。

我提醒您遵守議會常規第50(1)條款，這些規則適用於所有國會議員。您還有幾分鐘時間。請您將您的觀察、見解和經驗與當前動議或修正動議聯絡起來。謝謝。

梁國民博士：好的，我會完成。我們需要的不僅是鼓勵初創企業工作，還要利用生態系統，而生態系統就像新加坡工程師學會，無論是全球還是區域性組織。

就動議而言，不僅是協助，不僅是為初創企業提供資源推動。我認為動議必須涵蓋創新體系。創新體系不僅僅有幾個參與方。競爭者，尤其是跨國公司、在本地的供應商，對創造更有活力的生態系統非常重要，而不僅僅是所謂的——好吧，我就說到這裡。

我還想宣告一個利益。我引用了很多周受資先生的話，我母親的孃家姓是周。他是我的侄子。以上就是我的全部發言。

副議長：梁博士，您還有幾分鐘時間。如果您能使觀點與動議相關，請繼續發言。

梁國民博士：好的，就動議而言，謝秉輝先生也參加過我在國大的技術創業課程。他理解要建設技術生態系統，我們確實需要一個完整的系統和創新，因此我支援他的修正動議。

副議長：我們繼續就動議及修正動議進行辯論。下一位發言者是黃士軒先生。

下午6時57分

黃士軒先生（實龍崗）：副議長先生，今天的辯論中，青年人和有志創業者可能會認為新加坡缺乏創意或創業精神，或者這裡沒有試驗空間。我不同意。事實上，就在六月底，我在國大校友返校日遇見了八家初創企業，均來自國務部長Dinesh提到的國大海外學院專案。

我遇見了從事機器人、社會企業和教育科技的公司，這只是國大海外學院培養的數千名創業者中的一小部分。但每一代初創企業和公司都會面臨挑戰，我們在這裡診斷並解決這些差距，幫助他們成功。

動議中表達的願望是兩黨議員都能支援的。一個經濟體中，新加坡人能夠繁榮，創業者能夠試驗，企業能夠成功，員工能夠進步，好點子能夠蓬勃發展。更重要的問題是，我們如何將這些願望變為現實？

我今天的核心論點很簡單：繁榮的新加坡人推動繁榮的新加坡企業，繁榮的新加坡企業建設繁榮的新加坡。

企業需要有技能、自信和適應力的新加坡人來發展。新加坡人反過來需要強大的企業創造好工作崗位，投資他們的能力，並給予他們領導機會。因此，我們應避免將員工和企業視為對立面。企業表現良好時，員工應分享收益。企業面臨真正的轉型壓力時，我們的政策應幫助企業和員工共同過渡。

【議長主持】

我從多個角度觀察我們的企業環境，曾在成功的初創企業工作，支援公共服務中的新加坡企業，現在經營一家中小企業。這些經歷讓我相信，好點子需要“5C”成長：客戶（Customers）、資本（Capital）、聯絡（Connections）、能力（Capabilities）和信心（Confidence）。

我將追蹤一家公司的旅程，穿越我們的企業生態系統，從將想法轉化為可行產品，到贏得首批客戶，通過資本和全球聯絡擴充套件規模，最終實現退出，將資本、經驗和信心迴圈投入下一代企業。

我們的企業政策應幫助有前途的公司完成每個轉型。在初創企業世界，競爭不再僅是點子之爭，而是採納之爭。沒人買單的好點子仍然只是個點子。

對新加坡初創企業來說，國內市場是證明自己的地方，但區域和全球市場是必須擴充套件的地方。這需要的不僅是補助、競賽和技術開發，還需要有人願意成為首批重要客戶。

然而，每位創始人都會遇到同樣令人畏懼的問題：“還有誰用過它？”這造成了一個熟悉的悖論。公司沒有大客戶就無法建立業績記錄，但沒有業績記錄又無法獲得大客戶。

我最近遇到一家名為Mottainai Food Tech的公司，“Mottainai”在日語中意為“太好而不能浪費”。這是一家本地初創企業，將食品製造副產品，包括豆渣，轉化為營養食品。其技術支援食品安全和迴圈利用，已開發出商業產品。但像許多年輕公司一樣，它仍需大量訂單證明其規模化生產和交付能力。

這一挑戰不僅限於食品科技。新加坡在可持續發展、先進製造、醫療保健和企業技術領域的公司也面臨類似障礙。因此，我歡迎企業可持續發展委員會（ESR）建議動員大型企業和公共部門的主導需求。這並不意味著僅僅因為是本地產品就購買劣質產品，也不意味著政府機構應成為每家初創企業的永久客戶。它意味著給予有信譽的公司公平機會測試、展示和改進其解決方案。它意味著幫助他們跨越從技術可行產品到商業驗證業務的艱難鴻溝。

新加坡的參考客戶不僅提供收入。如果年輕公司能證明其產品符合成熟企業或政府機構的標準，便更容易接觸海外客戶。我們的國內市場雖小，但新加坡在質量、標準和可靠性方面的聲譽重大。

新加坡的首個客戶往往是通往區域市場的護照。我早年在Brandtology工作時就體會過這種機會的價值。Brandtology是一家新加坡科技初創企業，開發自然語言處理和社交媒體分析技術，早於這些技術成為主流。新加坡政府的一份重大合同為公司提供了可信的參考客戶和團隊規模交付能力的證據。

新加坡集中了眾多跨國公司和區域總部，這進一步放大了首個參考客戶的價值。一旦我們在這裡展示了能力，許多區域決策者已駐紮於此，會問我們一個截然不同的問題：“你願意跟隨我們進入其他市場嗎？”

因此，新加坡的成功專案不僅是國內參考，更成為區域增長的平臺。

這一教訓至今仍適用。如果每個大買家都堅持要求廣泛的業績記錄，新公司將永遠沒有機會建立業績。然而，買家也有合理的謹慎理由，尤其是在採購關鍵或未經測試的解決方案時。他們必須確信技術可靠，公司能交付。

挑戰在於管理這些風險，而不讓過往業績成為唯一的信譽衡量標準。對於涉及新解決方案的適當採購，機構和主要買家可以更重視獨立驗證的技術性能、相關認證、試點結果和交付能力。

在風險可控的情況下，較小的初始合同或分階段採購可以讓有信譽的新進入者建立業績記錄，而無需買家從一開始承擔全部風險。這不是降低標準，而是確保標準衡量真正重要的內容：解決方案是否有效，是否符合要求標準，公司是否能交付。

議長先生，新加坡企業不是孤立成長的。領先的全球企業不僅帶來投資和直接就業。它們的區域管理、技術和採購職能能將本地企業連線到複雜的需求、新技術、國際標準和全球供應鏈。

然而，這些聯絡不會自動產生。較小企業可能缺乏識別合適合作伙伴、理解海外需求或預見行業發展方向所需的資訊、網路或資源。

這正是行業協會和聯盟可以發揮更大作用的地方。作為電池聯盟新加坡的特別顧問，我看到一個有效的行業平臺如何將初創企業、成熟本地企業、跨國公司和研究機構匯聚於價值鏈各環節。

他們各有優勢和利益。初創企業可能擁有有前景的技術，但缺乏生產經驗。成熟企業可能瞭解客戶和運營，但需要新技術。跨國公司可能尋找符合其標準的合格合作伙伴。研究機構可能擁有尚未商業化的寶貴智慧財產權。

行業平臺的角色是使這些聯絡變得有用。它應識別實際市場需求，促成合適合作夥伴合作，幫助有前景的解決方案從研究和試點專案轉向付費客戶。因此，其效力應以形成的合作伙伴關係、達成的標準、商業化專案和獲得的合同衡量，而非會員數量或舉辦的活動次數。

外國投資和本地企業發展不是競爭策略。它們在最佳狀態下相輔相成。

更深層次的問題不僅僅是我們吸引了多少全球公司或支援了多少本地中小企業，而是它們是否以能夠為新加坡和新加坡人建立持久能力的方式互動。

目標不應是保護我們的公司免受競爭，而是確保它們有足夠的聯絡、資訊和能力去競爭。

獲得一個重要客戶是一個重要的突破，但它往往帶來下一個挑戰：現金流。公司可能需要先購買材料、擴大生產、僱傭員工並提供銀行擔保，才能收到付款。健康的訂單簿並不一定意味著有足夠的營運資金來履行這些訂單。

企鵝國際的“電夢”專案說明了客戶和資本必須結合在一起。在獲得殼牌作為客戶後，企鵝通過企業融資計劃——綠色貸款支援設計、建造和運營新加坡首批全電動海上客渡輪及其快速岸充電器。客戶提供需求和商業驗證，而合適的融資使公司能夠大規模交付創新專案。成功交付反過來又能成為贏得未來專案的業績記錄。

隨著公司成長，融資需求也會變化。早期資金可能幫助開發和測試產品。履行首個大訂單可能需要營運資金，而擴大生產或進入海外市場可能需要長期融資。

深科技公司可能需要願意等待數年才能獲得回報的資本。因此，我們需要在每個階段提供合適的融資，從產品開發、履行首個大訂單，到海外擴張或準備收購或上市。

不同企業也需要不同形式的融資，包括股權、風險債務、私募信貸和收購融資。並非每個有前景的公司都適合風險資本模式的快速指數增長。有些公司會更穩健地增長，同時創造良好就業、積累寶貴能力併成為強大的區域性企業。我們的融資環境應涵蓋所有型別的公司。

政府幹預不應取代商業紀律或保護不可行的公司。我們的角色是解決真正的融資缺口，吸引合適的私人資本。

我還想談一點企業政策。新加坡如今已建立了龐大且活躍的初創社群。我們的下一個挑戰是幫助更多有前景的公司生存、擴大規模並走向海外。

這也應影響我們如何評估企業政策。成功往往以參與度衡量：有多少公司獲得資助、加入專案、參加貿易展或考察團，或完成試點？這些數字告訴我們支援是否已提供，但不說明企業是否取得進展。

我們還應跟蹤有多少公司從試點走向首個合同，從首個合同走向出口，從出口走向規模化。這並不意味著每家公司必須走同一路徑或以同樣速度增長，而是每個專案應明確其旨在幫助公司達到的下一個商業里程碑。若公司在同一階段反覆停滯，無論是獲得首個大客戶、獲取營運資金還是尋找海外客戶，都說明我們的支援體系需改進。

因此，企業政策的評估應不僅僅看參與度，更要看進展。

但實際上，業務進展最終取決於其人員。雖然政策、融資和聯絡很重要，但企業不會自動轉型。是人推動企業轉型。

對於中小企業主來說，人工智慧、更高的勞動力成本、海外擴張和新規並非由不同部門分別處理的獨立專案，而是全部落在同一張辦公桌上。業主必須管理現金流、催收款項、留住員工、服務客戶並解決日常運營問題，同時還要抽時間投資技術和規劃未來。業主必須在企業中工作，同時也要抽時間為企業工作。

因此，企業轉型不能簡化為給公司一筆資助購買裝置或採用新系統。我們還必須投資於中小企業主、董事和企業領導者的能力。領導力發展應務實，幫助他們解讀新技術、評估海外機會、瞭解融資選項、管理人員並決定何時調整、擴張、轉型或多元化。這很重要，因為創業必須繼續是有能力的新加坡人的可行路徑。

我們加強了對工人的保護、支援和晉升，這理所當然。與此同時，我們應認識到企業主承擔的風險往往不那麼顯眼且缺乏緩衝。

業主可能投入個人儲蓄、擔保貸款並在困難月份放棄薪水，同時仍需按時支付員工、供應商和債權人。我們不應浪漫化企業所有權，因為當老闆往往意味著每個客戶、債權人和員工都成了你的老闆。負責任的企業家需要指導、合適的融資、強大的人脈和誠實商業失敗後的合理第二次機會。

冒險不等於不負責任。希望企業家嘗試的經濟必須區分真正的商業失敗和不當行為。並非每個初創企業都會成為跨國公司，許多企業將在中小企業領域找到可持續的位置，成為僱主和能力建設者。

但新加坡人必須繼續視創業和發展業務為值得走的道路。這也關乎信心。企業家需要信心，相信一個可信的想法會得到公平對待，真正需求出現時融資會到位，一次誠實的失敗不會終結他們的創業旅程。

這讓我回到工人與企業的關係。經濟政策容易被看作是支援工人與支援企業的選擇。但企業通過人成功，工人通過企業變得更有生產力和競爭力而進步。

每一次成功轉型都取決於員工是否理解、參與並分享其成果。資助可能幫助公司購買新機器，但員工必須學會操作。人工智慧可能提升生產力，但管理者必須重新設計崗位並裝備員工有效使用。國際化可能開闢新市場，但新加坡人必須準備領導團隊、服務客戶並跨文化運作。

工資標準提供重要底線，但持續的實際工資增長還必須依賴更高的生產力、更強的能力和創造更大價值的企業。關鍵是，工人必須通過更好工資、更強職業發展和更多承擔技術及領導角色的機會分享這些收益。

工人還需要信心，轉型不僅帶來擾動，更帶來更好技能、工資和機會。因此，工人與企業不是對立利益，他們的成功相互關聯，我們的經濟政策必須幫助他們共同進步。先生，請用中文。

（中文）：[請參閱本地語言發言。]俗話說，唇亡齒寒。企業和員工必須相互依賴。只有企業發展良好，員工才能享受更好的薪水；只有員工不斷提升，企業才能更具競爭力。兩者必須共同成長，共享成果。

（英文）：總之，本動議的願景與經濟策略審查（ESR）有很大共識。方向正確，下一步是執行。

我們應聚焦四個實際優先事項。第一，幫助有信譽的年輕公司獲得首個大客戶，同時保持嚴格標準並管理買方風險。第二，通過行業平臺連線全球公司、本地企業和研究機構，確保實際合作、專案和合同。第三，確保公司在從產品開發到訂單履行、擴張和國際化過程中獲得合適融資。第四，投資於負責轉型的企業領導者和員工，確保雙方共享成果。

在這些領域——

議長：黃士軒先生，你還有大約一分鐘。

黃士軒：——我們應以進展而非僅參與來評估企業政策；關注公司是否從試點走向首個合同；從首個合同走向出口；從出口走向規模化。

最終，未來的經濟必須以人為本。繁榮的新加坡人推動繁榮的新加坡企業，繁榮的新加坡企業建設繁榮的新加坡。我們的任務是給予新加坡人公平機會，從新加坡建立、發展和領導成功企業，ESR的建議闡明瞭如何實現企業和員工的共同目標。

我支援修訂後的動議，特別是(b)部分，即本地和全球企業應相互互動，而非孤立發展。

議長：財政部第二部長兼交通部長蕭振祥先生。

晚上7時17分

交通部長兼財政部第二部長（蕭振祥）：議長，首先感謝各位議員對我們經濟進行的深思熟慮、廣泛且建設性的辯論。許多人指出，我們的世界已改變，約束更緊，經濟未來更不確定。我很高興各方議員都認識到新加坡必須更新經濟戰略。這正是我們一年前啟動經濟策略審查（ESR）的原因。

ESR是近年來最廣泛的審查之一。五個ESR委員會在九個月內與超過7,700人交流，包括大型和小型企業的商業領袖、代表中小企業的行業協會和商會、支援和維護工人利益的工會人士，以及擁有數十年經驗的專家，包括學者、風險投資家、高階公務員和全球執行長。許多人處於經濟前線，今天做出的決策將塑造我們未來經濟的方向。

ESR是所有這些新加坡人的集體努力，這使我們能夠制定出基於經驗和現實的全面經濟藍圖。

今天，我們聽到了工人黨多場演講。儘管涉及眾多關注點，我發現我與工人黨在不少經濟理念上有共識。

例如，有關如何更好支援中小企業和初創企業、打造更強大的本地公司基礎的建議。這些目標無可爭議，ESR報告提出了具體建議，無論是更廣泛支援海外擴張，還是培育下一代新加坡全球企業。

雖然我們可以辯論細節，但顯然工人黨的建議並非完全不同的經濟劇本，而是與ESR方向高度一致。因此，我們有相當多的共同點。我們都希望擁有充滿活力的本地企業和為新加坡人創造的良好就業機會。實現這些目標的手段存在一些分歧，但無需誇大這些差異。

然而，我們需要解決一個重大分歧，即我們如何理解新加坡的經濟模式。從我聽到的演講來看，工人黨似乎認為新加坡的經濟模式失衡，需要根本性調整。他們將新加坡描繪為跨國公司創造財富的地方，存在某種浮士德式交易，中小企業被壓制，新加坡人通過再分配獲得利益。

我不同意這種描述。這不僅是學術上的分歧，而是對我們將追求的政策至關重要的分歧。如果最初的診斷或假設錯誤，提出的解決方案將把我們引向錯誤方向。錯誤的藥方可能弊大於利。

舉例來說，張文傑先生提到政府採用統一的土地定價模式，這完全不實。

我們的框架已經是差異化的。土地根據其預期用途（住宅、商業、工業、社群、教育或宗教）以公平市場價定價。我們可以討論當前框架是否足夠靈活，是否可以或應該進一步差異化，但這與說當前框架根本有缺陷完全不同。相反，我們清晰透明的框架確保了對有限土地資源的負責任管理。

我要強調，人民行動黨政府的經濟戰略始終圍繞新加坡人，無論是作為工人、專業人士、投資者、企業家還是企業主。我們的人民，而非公司，是我們一切工作的中心。經濟增長從不是目的本身，而是創造更好工作、更高收入和更好生活的手段。以此衡量，新加坡的經濟模式一代代為新加坡人帶來了成果。

工人黨的觀點似乎認為跨國公司和本地企業在爭奪固定蛋糕。林志蔚副教授建議政府對本地中小企業的支援不及跨國公司，必須從跨國公司轉向中小企業。但正如我的同事謝秉輝先生已指出，這是錯誤的選擇。為了經濟繁榮，我們需要跨國公司和中小企業在新加坡都成功。

在更困難的全球環境中，我們必須更努力爭取外資，也必須更努力支援本地企業。

我們不是零和博弈。事實上，本地企業和跨國公司的增長相輔相成。中小企業對我們的經濟至關重要，僱傭了大多數勞動力。許多有抱負的新加坡人創辦自己的企業，開闢自己的道路，追求夢想。

劉燕玲高階國務部長詳細介紹了對中小企業的強大支援生態系統。財政部國務部長迪內希分享了我們多年來如何建設初創生態系統。我不再重複他們的內容。

但很少有國家像新加坡這樣支援本地企業。政府每年為本地中小企業提供近20億新元的直接資助和貸款，幫助它們增強能力、開展新專案併成功競爭全球市場。

目前並非所有計劃都被充分利用。我們可以做更多，幫助企業更充分利用現有支援。如果這些計劃的需求因更多企業參與而增長，我代表財政部宣告，我們準備提供更多資源支援。

當然，如果只是多花錢，我們早就有更多世界級公司。但許多人明白，建立公司非常困難。李堅輝先生和阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生熱情分享了他們作為企業領導者的經驗，以及他們現在支援中小企業的角色。建立企業需要多種因素：更強的領導力、深厚的技術能力、資本和人才的獲取，以及走向海外的信心。

這就是為什麼我們在2018年重組了貿易與工業部的機構，成立了企業發展局——一個新的法定機構，使命明確，支援本地企業的全方位發展：能力建設、創新、融資、人才和國際化。

我有幸擔任企業發展局首任總經理。我們深受使命激勵，辦公室裡堅持使用新加坡製造的產品——本地咖啡和茶、椅子和墊子，甚至自動售貨機裡的零食——每天提醒我們支援和倡導本地企業的使命。

每一家新加坡公司的成功——新產品、新市場、新投資——都是我們共同慶祝的成功。我們的官員與中小企業攜手同行。我們的企業知道我們與他們並肩作戰。因為當新加坡企業繁榮時，就業和機會也隨之增加。我們都與他們的成功息息相關。

在全球經濟更加碎片化的今天，中小企業走向海外確實更難。關稅上升，產業政策重新流行。從本地企業到全球企業的路徑似乎比以前更陡峭。

但這並不意味著我們應當內向。工人黨主張如果外部市場更不確定，我們應退縮，更依賴國內需求。這不現實。我們的國內市場太小。領導新加坡工商聯合會的李堅輝先生指出，國內需求不能成為我們增長的主要引擎，我完全同意。

答案不是內向，而是相反：加強我們的企業，使其更有效地競爭更多海外市場，更具韌性。

這就是為什麼在去年美國解放日關稅之後，我們成立了由副總理顏金勇主持的新加坡經濟韌性工作組，幫助我們的企業適應變化。許多公司從我們的努力中受益。例如，Castlery是一家線上傢俱公司，其70%的收入來自美國，在企業發展局的支援下多元化了其製造基地。事實上，Castlery轉型非常成功，最近在紐約市開設了第一家實體店，我希望不久後能去參觀。

即使我們加倍努力支援本地企業，也不能忘記跨國公司對我們經濟的重要性。跨國公司吸引新加坡，不僅因為我們提供的激勵措施，更因為我們完整的生態系統——我們的能力、我們的員工、我們的中小企業。

安迪詳細講述了跨國公司如何反過來為經濟帶來積極溢位效應。當全球公司在這裡建立深厚能力——研究中心、區域總部、高階製造線時，他們並非僅僅佔據本地公司可能填補的空間，而是帶來了我們尚未擁有的資源、能力和技術，包括需要多年才能自主開發的人工智慧能力。

許多本地公司因與跨國公司的關係而成長和成功，而非儘管有跨國公司。例如，Sunningdale Tech是一家新加坡精密工程公司，起初是小規模塑膠製品製造商，現已成長為大型企業，與惠普（HP）、Illumina和戴森（Dyson）等藍籌客戶並肩。去年我參加一個大型工業貿易展時，看到許多比Sunningdale更小但準備成長的本地製造商向全球觀眾展示他們的創新和產品，我感到非常自豪。

同樣重要的是，全球公司創造了優質就業崗位——高技能、高薪職位。如今，新加坡跨國公司中超過三分之二的高階管理職位由新加坡人擔任。這些職位通常承擔區域甚至全球職責，這意味著新加坡可以在經濟決策中發揮更大影響，超越我們小國的規模和人口。

許多崗位也為年輕新加坡人創造。我去年訪問了應用材料公司（Applied Materials）。應用材料是一家美國公司，為臺積電（TSMC）、三星（Samsung）和美光（Micron）等半導體制造商生產高階裝置。安迪提到應用材料最近投資在淡濱尼建造第二個園區；當我訪問他們位於上樟宜的第一設施時，他們興奮地告訴我這件事。

在上樟宜，我遇到了蔡凱旋女士。凱旋在國大機械工程學習期間曾在應用材料實習。她很高興畢業後被錄用，可以繼續她開始的專案。她迄今最大的成就是能比同事更快穿戴個人防護裝備（PPE）。我嘗試與她比賽，結果自然輸了。

但凱旋作為年輕畢業生的故事並不獨特。許多像她一樣的人在新加坡的全球公司中建立他們的初期職業生涯。在我們走訪民宅時，我相信許多人會遇到自豪地告訴我們他們的兒女在谷歌（Google）、微軟（Microsoft）、貝萊德（BlackRock）、摩根大通（JP Morgan）、美光（Micron）、環球晶圓（GlobalFoundries）、波音（Boeing）或勞斯萊斯（Rolls Royce）工作的家長。如果這些公司不在新加坡設立基地，新加坡人要進入這些公司工作將更加困難。

我們為吸引外資和支援本地企業提供的支援是互補且相輔相成的。我們投入吸引投資的資源並非以犧牲支援本地企業為代價，反之亦然。如果減少支援生態系統的資源，不僅跨國公司可能離開新加坡，連本地企業也會考慮在其他司法管轄區運營。

因此，在各國花費前所未有的資金吸引和迴流戰略投資之際，我們的回應絕不能是減少投入。放棄這些投資意味著更少的高質量就業和更少的新加坡人機會——這絕不是我們的做法。

議長先生，請允許我總結。經濟韌性工作組始於一個簡單而緊迫的前提：世界在變化，新加坡必須自我革新。但在此過程中，我們應明確什麼需要改變，什麼應保持不變。

我們的任務不是拋棄使新加坡成功的因素，而是為變化的世界更新和強化我們的成功公式。我們不是在中小企業和跨國公司之間做選擇，我們兩者都需要。我們也不是在國內需求和外部市場之間做選擇，我們兩者都需要。這就是為什麼我完全支援謝秉輝先生提出的動議修正案，它全面準確地反映了我們的經濟戰略。

議長先生，我們的企業抱負遠超我們的國界，甚至可能超出工人黨所認為的能力。我們的工作是幫助企業實現抱負，而非阻礙他們。

最終，經濟韌性工作組的評判標準不是我們制定了多少計劃，或花費了多少錢，而是其成果：更好的就業、更高的收入、更大的社會流動性和更強的韌性，以及新加坡人是否有信心為自己和子女創造更好的生活。

這就是為什麼經濟韌性工作組必須是全社會的努力，由新一代企業、工會、社會和政府領導人共同領導，共同承擔這些成果。

議長先生，縱觀歷史，每當世界變化時，新加坡都能適應。我們保持開放，持續提升能力，並始終投資於人才。這就是我們贏得世界地位的方式，也是我們將繼續為自己創造機會的方式。議長先生，我支援修正後的動議。[掌聲]

議長先生：李堅輝先生，您有問題要向議員澄清嗎？

晚上7時36分

李堅輝先生：議長先生，我想向國務部長迪內希提出一個澄清點。在討論強制遣散福利時，勞工部是否也審視了對僱主的潛在影響，特別是強制遣散福利是否可能導致僱傭成本或行為上的意外變化，尤其是對中小企業和公司？

迪內希：議長先生，這不是我們第一次提出遣散福利立法問題。我們過去也考慮過，當時並不適宜。我們定期研究。正如議員所知，根據三方指導原則，至少九成以上的工人獲得補償，正如之前強調的。[請參閱《勞工國務部長澄清》，官方報告，2026年8月5日，第96卷，第34期，書面宣告更正部分。]

但情況已發生變化。我們正在關注此事，因為我們在演講中強調過，經濟韌性工作組也建議加強對工人的支援。這是我們正在研究的內容。是否能超過90%補償比例，我們也在考慮。

目前我們尚未決定是否立法。政府一貫做法是，會諮詢新加坡全國僱主聯合會、工會，並在諮詢後作出審慎決定。

議長先生：林志蔚副教授，您有澄清要做嗎？請講。

林志蔚副教授：謝謝議長先生，也感謝蕭振祥部長給我機會澄清工人黨的一些立場。

我和同事呼籲重新平衡時，並非暗示中小企業和跨國公司在爭奪同一塊蛋糕，也不是說對本地中小企業的更多支援必須以犧牲現有跨國公司或懲罰這些“金鵝”為代價。事實上，我在演講結尾非常小心地強調，我們不能邊緣化跨國公司和政府關聯公司，也不應關閉外資。

蕭部長歸咎於工人黨的觀點，是一種我們未曾提出的錯誤二分法。這是一個方便的稻草人論點，或許是為了贏得辯論——如果我們真的提出過的話。

同樣，我們也不否認僅靠國內需求不足以驅動經濟引擎。但說我們希望有健康的國內需求，並不等於說不需要外部需求。相反，我們想強調的是，消費者需求的增長曆來比其他同等發展水平的先進經濟體要弱。

所以，我的問題是，部長是否認為我們當前的中小企業生態系統足夠強大，能夠在區域經濟國際化中競爭？他是否認為我們當前的國內需求足夠健康，無需在重塑和改革21世紀全球經濟時進一步推動？

蕭振祥：感謝議員澄清。我們之所以有這種印象，主要是因為動議中未提及全球企業和全球經濟，直到謝秉輝先生特別提出修正動議。

林志蔚副教授的演講中明確表示應向中小企業轉型。因此，當他說“轉型”時，我假設他心中有一種零和博弈的印象。

但如果我誤解了，我很高興他澄清工人黨確實與我們的經濟戰略一致，認為跨國公司和中小企業都重要，我們應努力加強雙方的策略。

具體到他的問題，關於中小企業生態系統是否足夠強大，或本地需求是否足夠，我認為不會有一個臨界點說今天已經準備好。這個過程是持續的。企業發展局和貿易及工業部的同事們正努力不斷強化中小企業，使其具備全球競爭力，持續創造機會並支援其成長。我們就是以這樣的精神看待這件事，並將繼續努力幫助中小企業成功。

議長先生：陳詩龍部長。

晚上7時42分

貿易及工業（能源與工業）部長（陳詩龍博士）：議長先生，首先感謝張文傑先生和林志蔚副教授將此動議提交國會，也感謝所有發表建設性和深思熟慮意見的議員。

針對林志蔚副教授早前向蕭振祥部長提出的觀點，也許議員會考慮支援並投票贊成修正後的動議。

我們聽到了不同的觀點、診斷和建議，但也有實質的共識。我們都希望有充實的職業生涯，都希望新加坡同胞有良好成果，都希望企業家充滿信心，願意嘗試、創新和成長，都希望有更多新加坡企業在全球取得成功，也希望新加坡人能夠自信面對未來，即使技術和全球競爭正在重塑我們的經濟。

張文傑先生說，如果用一個問題總結這項動議，那就是：“普通新加坡人如何獲得國家成功的持久份額？”這是一個公平且重要的問題。讓我嘗試回答。

新加坡人通過有意義地參與經濟，獲得持久的成功份額，包括良好的就業、持續的實際工資增長和通過工作獲得滿足感；通過獲得和構建隨著技術演變而保持相關的技能和能力；在遭遇挫折後，抓住學習機會，獲得支援以恢復和重新建設。

部分新加坡人能夠做得更多，比如創業或發展成功的企業；將創意轉化為產品或服務；或從新加坡領導區域或全球團隊。我們的人民塑造經濟，但他們也被經濟塑造。

新加坡人從不是經濟增長的被動受益者。若我們的人民只是無動於衷的數字，我們絕不會走到今天。我們的人民一直是積極的參與者、貢獻者、建設者和這座島國的所有者。這一直是新加坡經濟戰略的核心。

我們經濟戰略的最終目的從不是為了增長而增長，而是確保增長滲透並貫穿更廣泛的經濟，通過良好的就業、收入增長、社會流動性和抵禦挫折的韌性改善人們的生活。

以這些標準衡量，新加坡模式歷代都取得了成果。我們現在的責任是確保它在一個非常不同、變化的世界中繼續發揮作用。

經濟韌性工作組由三大任務指引：提升新加坡的價值主張；增強企業、員工和機構的敏捷性和適應性；構建韌性與效率並重。

這些不是抽象概念，而是拓寬通往成功的實際路徑。無論是研究突破、新服務、餐飲概念還是特許經營機會，有創意的人能否找到導師、首批客戶和資本，建立可行企業？中小企業能否採用技術並實現規模化？專業人士能否獲得國際經驗，領導全球業務？工人能否在被替代前獲得相關技能，或失業後找到可信的重返有意義工作的路徑？

經濟韌性工作組致力於強化這些路徑。不是每個人都會走同一條路。

吳多泉副教授提出了有益的區分：政策應以公平而非單純平等為導向。這意味著防止劣勢固化，同時根據不同需求和情況調整機會和支援。

議長先生，請允許我談談我個人的經歷，在2020年當選國會議員之前。

我大約27歲時開始創業。與幾位合夥人一起，我們創辦了裕康醫療集團，起初只有一間位於義順的診所。我必須宣告，我沒有裕康的股份，所以這不是推銷。

我們都很年輕，資本有限，毫無創業經驗，也沒有今天創業公司可利用的廣泛支援計劃。我們的創業成功沒有保證。我們是醫生，我可以告訴你，醫學培訓不包括如何建立企業組織的課程。我們邊做邊學——運營、財務、人員管理和質量控制。後來我們還學會了如何建立一個能超越我們自身的機構。

最早給我們機會的一些公司是索尼（Sony）、愛華（Aiwa）、禧瑪諾（Shimano）、朝日電視玻璃（Asahi TV Glass）、惠普（Hewlett-Packard）和寶潔（Procter & Gamble）等跨國公司。事實上，其中幾家已不再在新加坡存在。

當時它們規模龐大，是成熟的全球公司。我們是年輕的新加坡創業企業，在組屋和工業區找到相對空白的市場，當時企業集團醫療服務的概念尚處於萌芽階段。這些跨國公司的信任給了我們立足點，使我們建立了業績記錄。

我們必須不斷達標，滿足他們嚴格的標準。但一旦證明我們能交付，贏得下一個客戶的信心就變得更容易。

因此，我從未將全球企業和本地企業視為對立。在我個人經歷中，成熟的全球公司幫助本土新加坡企業起步、建立信譽和成長。他們沒有擠壓我們，而是給了我們成長和競爭的機會。我知道這也是許多新加坡中小企業的經歷。

機會本身不足。我們仍需交付成果。我們必須提升服務，關心員工，管理成本，一次又一次贏得客戶信任。

隨著時間推移，組織成長、轉型、多元化，實現可持續規模，我們都成功退出。

後來，我在更大、更國際化的層面構建、轉型和擴充套件組織。開診所並未自動讓我能管理網路，更不用說領導擁有全球業務、在歐洲和亞洲運營、員工超過55,000人的三級醫院集團。我必須不斷學習，超越醫學，涉足管理、財務、技術和組織領導，與人合作，尤其是向在我專業之外領域知識遠超我的導師學習。

我40歲後才畢業於商學院，因此我相信終身學習。即使現在，我仍在向在座各位學習。

我不是獨自完成的。裕康由幾位創始人共同建立，他們有同樣的願景——或許有些冒險地聽從我，與我共同承擔風險——還有致力於組織的員工、信任我們的客戶和幫助我們發展的合作伙伴。

這段經歷也讓我明白政府能做什麼，不能做什麼。李堅輝先生說得很貼切：政府必須鋪好跑道，但創業者和工人仍需在跑道上奔跑並起飛。

政府應保持健全的制度、開放的市場和明確的規則。政府必須且應始終減少可避免的摩擦，減少政策的波動，連線企業與知識和市場，並在有更廣泛經濟利益的情況下分擔部分風險。

在那段時間，我曾受教於一位非常著名的會計師。在新加坡，我們擁有知識，但更重要的是擁有“know-how”（實操能力）。所以，知識固然重要，實操能力更佳。但當你走向海外時，最重要的是“know-who”（人脈關係）。

因此，政府不能為我們尋找客戶，不能組建商業團隊，不能代表創業者做出商業決策或堅持到底。政府的支援應是企業的跳板，而非商業模式。

但這並不意味著讓創業者和中小企業自生自滅。高階國務部長劉燕玲已全面闡述了我們如何幫助企業應對眼前壓力、採用技術、強化運營和開拓海外市場。這些計劃旨在幫助有潛力的企業提升生產力、增強競爭力和韌性。

需要明確的是，並非每個創意或初創企業都會結出果實。然而，這並不意味著這些援助計劃無效或創業者失敗。每一次關閉反而意味著避免了多年的機會成本。節省下的努力、資本和時間可以重新投入到其他更有前景的創意或機會中。

如果你與足夠多成功的創業者交談，他們最終抵達的目的地——最終的終點——往往與他們最初的目標不同。但這正是創業者的韌性、堅韌和毅力所在。

你們中有些人和我一樣年紀，應該記得《洛奇》系列。畢丹星先生微笑著，我想他應該知道洛奇這個角色是誰。《洛奇》就像一個創業者。對創業者的勸誡是，他不是那個能打出重拳的人，而是那個能承受重拳、重新站起來並繼續前進的人。這就是創業者獲勝的方式。

議長先生，新加坡已為創業建立了可信的基礎。新加坡在StartupBlink 2025全球初創生態系統指數中排名第四——這一排名從2020年的第16位躍升至今。如今，我們擁有超過4,500家科技初創企業，約220個孵化器、加速器和風險構建者，以及超過500家風險投資公司。

我們的雄心不能僅以成立多少家公司來衡量。必須以多少好創意成為可行業務，多少可行業務能夠擴充套件，以及多少核心能力、智慧財產權和優質就業機會紮根新加坡來衡量。

創業者必須跨越幾個艱難的鴻溝。我想說這並非詳盡無遺，但總體而言，整個旅程涉及五個艱難的跨越：從志向到首次創業；從創意或研究突破到創新和企業；從產品或服務到首個客戶；從早期吸引力到持續擴充套件；以及從在新加坡的堅實基礎到全球市場。

政府政策無疑可以在每個階段提供幫助，但它無法使這段旅程無風險。

讓我解釋一下。第一個鴻溝是志向與首次創業之間。為此，Startup SG Founder為首次創業者提供啟動資金，同時提供導師指導和社群支援，幫助創始人學習、建立信心並駕馭不同的成長階段。專門空間如LaunchPad@one-north為創始人提供合作、相互學習、會見投資者、發展人脈網路和完善創意的場所。

目標不是讓每個人都成為創業者，而是給予嚴肅的創意一個公平的測試機會。

第二個鴻溝是從研究到市場價值創造的轉變。許多未來的創始人可能不會從診所、商店或辦公室開始，而是在實驗室。他們的初始資產可能是科學發現、醫療裝置、新材料、軟體或通過多年研究開發的智慧財產權。

作為醫生，我知道好的科學成果還不是治療方案。一個有前景的原型還不是產品。一個好產品還不是可持續的公司。研究創造知識，創新應用知識，創業將其推向市場，規模化則使其產生更廣泛的經濟和社會影響。

我們在研究、創新和企業（RIE）領域的長期投資正在產生成果。政府支出催化了私營部門研發的增長。產業研發就業人數已超過30,000人，本地員工佔70%以上。過去五年，科技研究局（A*STAR）和我們的大學已孵化出300多家公司。

但創造知識只是旅程的一部分。更難的是如何將研究轉化為產品、業務和經濟價值。我們正通過多種方式加強這種轉化。

通過企業能力升級技術計劃（T-UP），科技研究局的研究科學家和工程師可被借調支援本地中小企業的研發專案，最長可達兩年。我們還建立了連線研究與商業化的轉化平臺。通過MedTech Catapult和我們的半導體創新設施等平臺，公司可以原型設計、測試和商業化新技術，而無需承擔全部成本。

當我們的公共研究人員與全球領先企業和本地供應商合作時，轉化也在發生。

由勞斯萊斯、新加坡航空發動機服務公司（SAESL）和科技研究局共同建立的智慧製造聯合實驗室就是一個例子。該合作開發了改善風扇葉片製造和飛機發動機維護、修理及大修的新技術，也使本地中小企業有資格成為全球航空航天公司的供應商。

這就是我們如何將投資深度錨定在新加坡。我們不僅僅是生產的東道主，而是將全球公司與我們的研究人員和本地供應商連線起來。這就是知識轉化為產業能力、本地公司進入全球供應鏈的路徑。

在RIE2030計劃下，我們提升了雄心，將進一步加強這些連線。未來五年，我們將投入370億新元，支援基礎研究和更強的轉化，重點領域包括半導體、交通、健康長壽和脫碳。

我們的目標是確保更多研究轉化為有用技術；更多有用技術轉化為商業能力；更多能力轉化為企業、就業和紮根新加坡的價值。

並非每個專案都會產生突破。早些時候，梁國民博士和吳多泉副教授都指出，創新和創業需要承擔風險和負責任的失敗。我是預算的管理者；我們都是預算的管理者。我不確定是否能像他們那樣支援風險承擔和失敗。

但我們將以負責任的方式確保成功能夠持續。因此，我們只資助結果較為確定的創意。但我們也不能只資助那些結果已確定的專案——因為如果只這樣做，我們將錯過許多可能定義未來的突破。

因此，這種風險承擔必須且將與紀律相匹配。政府必須投資於新加坡能夠建立有意義優勢的領域。我們稱之為我們的“參與權”。

研究人員必須保持嚴謹。我們的投資者必須行使商業判斷。創業者必須解決客戶願意為之付費的問題，因為即使是最好的技術，如果沒有人願意使用和付費，也無法規模化。

這引出了第三個鴻溝——如何將產品帶給首個客戶。黃士軒先生強調了首個客戶的重要性。它使公司能夠測試和展示其解決方案，建立業績記錄，證明其能滿足嚴格標準，從而更容易贏得下一個客戶或投資者。這在我開始在Healthway工作時是真實的，對今天的初創企業依然如此。

這就是為什麼經濟發展局（EDB）和企業發展局通過PACT計劃連線跨國公司與本地初創企業和中小企業。我不再贅述，因為高階國務部長劉燕玲已詳細說明。

我們的公共部門也可以成為早期客戶。在創新採購夥伴關係下，初創企業可以參與招標，提出創新解決方案進行試點測試。如果試驗成功，機構可以選擇繼續與同一公司合作，擴大和部署解決方案。

這就是我們試圖構建的更廣泛生態系統：成熟公司、初創企業、研究機構和公共部門共同合作；企業獲得證明自己的機會；優秀解決方案更快地從試點走向規模化。

第四個鴻溝是從早期吸引力到持續擴充套件。許多有前景的企業在這裡遇到困難。

不同階段需要不同形式的資本：首次創業的適度資金；深科技發展的耐心股權；增長階段的風險債務或私募信貸；成熟公司的公開市場和可信退出。因此，正如我剛才分享的，我們已加強了所有這些支援。

我們已向Startup SG Equity追加10億新元資金，以催化早期和成長階段深科技公司的私人投資。ESR還建議發展風險債務和私募信貸，配合風險資本。對於成熟公司，股票市場審查和第二筆15億新元的Anchor Fund將支援更強的公開市場和更高質量的上市。

所有這些成功退出都會將資本、專業知識、信心、信任和聲譽迴圈投入新企業。但我們不能只關注融資。因為僅靠融資無法打造偉大公司。公共資本應吸引商業資本和專業知識，而非取代它們。風險仍需被正確理解和承擔。政府不能也不會僅憑開出更大支票就創造冠軍企業。

企業還需要經驗豐富的領導力、專業人才、良好治理以及管理更大業務的能力。企業發展局的Scale-Up計劃正是應對這一更廣泛能力挑戰。其首七批次的80家公司在三年內創造了合計25億新元的額外收入，其中10億來自海外擴張。

這是我們必須加強的旅程：從勇氣創業，到創新能力；從首個客戶，到擴充套件所需的融資和領導力；最終進入遠大於我們自身的市場。

健康的國內需求很重要，因為它反映信心，支援面向國內的企業，併為企業提供測試產品和建立品牌的首個市場。

我在剝離Healthway後第二次涉足的是加入並建設Parkway旗下的醫院業務。Parkway Holdings本身起源於新加坡，曾擁有格倫伊格爾斯醫院、伊麗莎白山醫院和東岸醫院三家醫院。

但新加坡的國內市場本身無法為雄心勃勃的企業或先進產業提供所需規模。它是建立信譽、信任、聲譽、驗證可行性、建立可信品牌和運營模式的良好平臺；然後以此為跳板，擴充套件到區域乃至全球。

國際化很難。讓我告訴你，這非常難，我相信難度還在增加。進入另一個市場的公司必須瞭解不同的客戶、法規、文化和合作夥伴。我們今天所處的更加分裂的世界使得多元化和良好的市場支援更加重要。正如阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生所說，新加坡必須保持貿易橋樑，而非成為貿易壁壘。

答案不是撤回到國內市場，而是做更多工作幫助新加坡企業進入更多市場，尋找可信合作伙伴，更有效競爭。因此，我們正在加強這些實際路徑。

自成立以來，我們推出了全球創新聯盟（GIA）。它支援近1,200家公司進入新市場並與海外合作伙伴共同創新。超過240家初創企業在海外實現了商業或融資突破。

在GIA2030計劃下，我們將推出專案，幫助企業測試產品市場契合度，尋找更早期的客戶。

並非每家新加坡企業都能或必須成為全球企業。為本地社群服務的鄰里服務提供者或傳統餐廳在社會中同樣重要。他們創造就業，直接滿足新加坡和新加坡人的需求。但對於那些立志成為區域或全球冠軍的公司，不能被本土市場規模所限制。我們希望幫助他們走向海外成長，但希望總部、戰略決策、研發、公司大腦、智慧財產權、財務、產品管理、區域領導力和優質就業機會都紮根於此。這一直是我們的努力方向。

簡而言之，我們幫助企業走向海外成長。但隨著他們成長，更強的能力和機會將繼續牢牢紮根於新加坡。

議長先生，大多數新加坡人最直接感受到經濟的是通過工作。並非每個人都會創業，但這並不減少他們對新加坡成功的直接和持久利益。好工作今天提供收入，也應使人隨著時間積累技能、經驗和信心。

作為醫生、創業者、僱主以及曾任人力部長，我一直在思考這個問題，當然，今天我更加關注。

作為僱主，我瞭解到，組織只有當員工與之共同成長時，才能可持續發展。引入技術而不重新設計工作、培養員工，將製造焦慮，最終限制自身能力。我很早就意識到，歸根結底，我們都是在發展、培養和最大化人力資本的事業中。

作為人力部長，我遇到過因變革而感到不安的工人。失業帶來收入擔憂；多年經驗是否仍有價值；是否年紀太大無法重新開始；下一份工作是否能用上自己的經驗和能力。

這些擔憂是真實的。我們不應僅用總體統計資料或可用課程數量來回應。完成課程並不等於成功轉型。文禮佳博士說得好：無方向的努力帶來挫敗，有方向的努力建立信心。何偉倫副教授補充說，培訓和再技能提升的收益，只有在工人有機會在工作中應用所學時才能充分體現。

因此，支援必須更早開始，並與真實機會相連線。

ESR提出“職業橋樑”，通過培訓、指導和崗位匹配，將處於風險崗位的工人連線到更有韌性的職業。新的新加坡勞動力發展局（SWDA）將整合這些服務。

僱主必須將勞動力轉型——重新設計崗位、培訓員工並將生產力提升轉化為更好的工作和晉升——視為重要任務。

另一方面，工人也必須承擔責任。政府可以提供便捷的培訓，僱主可以創造機會，工會和勞工運動的兄弟姐妹們可以支援工人，但沒有任何機構能代替個人學習。

隨著我領導的組織日益複雜，我必須不斷學習。新加坡人也將越來越需要這樣做——深化專業知識，轉向結合人工智慧與行業知識的混合崗位，中年轉型或晚年創業。

創業不限於年輕人。張忠謀先生在55歲時創立了全球最成功的半導體公司之一臺積電，此前他在德州儀器工作了25年。這顯示了積累的知識和判斷力如何支撐晚年再造。

我們的職業生涯將變得不那麼線性，但不必變得不那麼有意義。

失業或再培訓期間的經濟支援為個人和家庭提供喘息空間，但必須與前進路徑相連。我們的目標是幫助每個人自信地重返可持續工作，而不僅僅是讓失業更易忍受。

我們無法承諾每個崗位都保持不變——我認為我們也不應嘗試這樣做——不能僅為凍結崗位而阻止技術發展。但我們承諾、努力並盡最大努力幫助每一位工人更早準備，獲得相關能力，找到可信的下一步，並在變革中不被孤立。因為每一位工人都重要。[掌聲]

這就是工人獲得持久經濟成功份額的方式。不僅通過變革後的補償，更通過持續貢獻、收入、適應和晉升的能力。

議長先生，請允許我回到張文傑先生的問題——普通新加坡人如何獲得國家成功的持久份額？

當一位年輕的新加坡人將科學創意轉化為公司；當一家本地企業贏得首個重要客戶並進入全球價值鏈；當一名技術員晉升為更高技能的崗位；當一位被裁的專業人士能夠基於多年經驗而非從零開始；當一家新加坡企業在海外發展壯大，同時加強本地的研發和領導職能；當一位在跨國公司工作的新加坡人培養出領導區域的能力和人脈，甚至日後創辦自己的企業；當遭遇商業或職業挫折的人能夠恢復、學習、嘗試並再次成功。這就是持久的共享。這不僅僅是價值創造後獲得的轉移，而是參與打造、創造、塑造和維持該價值的機會。這就是新加坡人能夠贏得勝利的方式。這就是成功的實現方式。

議長先生，修訂後的動議涵蓋了新加坡所需的完整組合：一個平等包容的經濟體，為企業家、家庭、企業和工人提供機會，促進思想和創新的繁榮；一個由充滿活力的本地公司和全球企業驅動的經濟，擁有健康的內需和外需，以及新加坡人和新加坡資本在海外拓展。

所有這些都是相輔相成的統一經濟戰略的組成部分。

有句著名的中國諺語說：“天時地利人和”——正確的時機和機會，正確的地點，正確的人。這些元素常被認為是成功的必要條件。

政府將發揮其作用：維護一個值得信賴、開放的經濟體；進行長期投資；解決真正的能力、融資和市場準入缺口；幫助工人準備應對變化。這就是“地利”。（英文：Right place）

其他各方也必須發揮作用。企業必須轉型，投資於人才；工人必須持續學習；投資者要進行明智的風險投資；企業家要建設、競爭、堅持並承擔責任。這就是“人和”。（英文：Right people）

我們不能保證每個創業專案都會成功，每個工作崗位都會保持不變，或者每次轉型都會毫無痛苦。這本身就是“天時”。（英文：Right timing and opportunity）

因為我們無法提供時機和機會，這是企業家和企業創始人必須決定的最關鍵部分。但我們始終可以確保新加坡是一個讓每個人都有公平嘗試機會、擁有進步路徑並獲得挫折恢復支援的地方。

我們深愛的新加坡的成功從未被保證。每一代人都必須通過保持開放、加快學習、進行審慎風險投資以及在困難時刻團結一致來建設它。下一章節將要求同樣的精神。未來的經濟不會由某一類公司、某一來源的需求或某一政府計劃驅動，而是由所有能夠建設、領導、擁有、創新、適應和成長的新加坡人共同驅動。

這就是我們為新加坡確保最佳未來的方式。這就是我們確保新加坡未來經濟真正惠及所有新加坡人的方式。

議長先生，基於此，我支援修訂案及修訂後的動議。[掌聲]

議長先生：陳詩龍部長，您走了一條少有人走的路，確實取得了長足進步。輕鬆一點說，我們都來自同一時代，像您一樣，我也喜歡看西爾維斯特·史泰龍的電影，不得不承認我看過《洛奇》好幾次。

我現在想邀請張文傑先生髮言——哦，抱歉，有澄清發言？阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生。

晚上8點19分

阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生：謝謝議長。我感謝部長分享經驗。就我個人做生意的經驗而言，我們知道這非常困難，但回報非常甜美。

我想澄清的是：我們現在在全球範圍內競爭。過去我們純粹是公司對公司競爭；現在我們要與中國、美國及所有國家競爭。我的觀點是，在新加坡獨特戰略的背景下，競爭可以藉助我們公司成長的支援而變得更容易。

我們得到了企業發展局、新加坡工商聯合總會、貿工部等的支援。

我只是想澄清，希望這種支援能夠持續，並且進一步加強，因為這就是新加坡的獨特故事。我們的公司成長，不是通過其他國家政府視為限制的競爭，而是視我們的政府為幫助企業家和企業全球發展的橋樑，無論我們去哪個國家。

議長先生：陳詩龍部長，您願意回應嗎？

陳詩龍博士：我們一定會盡力支援所有新加坡本土企業。事實上，如果您關注最近的內閣改組，貿工部將於2026年10月1日起更名為能源、貿易與工業部。

我們的總理具有遠見，他看到了所有潛在的變革和廣闊的機遇。因此，鑑於我們必須完成的任務的規模和範圍，副總理顏金勇憑藉其監督貿易和宏觀經濟戰略的經驗，我將負責能源和工業，並積極與貿易協會和商會接觸。我們並不壟斷知識或資訊，我們將尋求儘可能多的專家指導，並邀請可能的合作機會，看看如何更好地支援新加坡企業和新加坡人。但當然，主要目標是他們必須紮根於我們深愛的家園。

議長先生：張文傑先生。

晚上8點22分

張文傑（阿裕尼）先生：議長先生，我感謝本院雙方所有發言的議員。

我們提出這項動議，是為了回應每位新加坡人最關心的經濟問題：是否有工作，工作是否持久；年輕人是否能找到有前途的工作；是否能買得起組屋；小店是否能負擔得起租金；工人參加的課程是否能帶來工作；我們宣佈的增長是否反映在工資上；想創業的新加坡人是否能負擔得起高成本結構。我們從生產要素——土地、勞動力、資本、生產率的角度系統地看待這些問題。

在這項動議中，我們系統地回答了九個問題。我將再次回顧。

第一，如何培育一個充滿活力的創新生態系統，克服高商業成本和物理限制，最大化價值？

我建議在南洋理工大學周邊設立一個特別區域，國家土地按開發成本而非市場稀缺價值計價。採取與國大和One-North地區缺乏靈活性不同的做法。設立一個區域管理機構，能在數週內快速決定簽證、空間和採購，並設有自己的投資機構，為新興企業提供成長資本並持股。這是對年輕人和新加坡未來的投資。

感謝阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生提出擴大研發稅收優惠和產學合作基金池的建議。

感謝梁國民博士指出科技研究局和大學與中小企業整合不足，並建議鼓勵實驗室在非工作時間共享。我們贊同他提出的高失敗率、高影響力的國家資金支援，但認為此類公共研發支出必須配套主權回報機制。

感謝黃士軒先生傳達的創業生命週期“5C”方法。

感謝蕭振祥部長支援我關於土地定價的觀點。公平市場價值已是授予權益的函式，而非附著於地塊的數字。因此，我們的國家土地和租賃政策應對年輕人和年輕企業最大限度地靈活。無論土地如何定價，市場稀缺價值仍是預設基準。我們建議設立一個以開發成本而非稀缺性為基準的區域，並歡迎部長表現出的更靈活的態度。

第二，充滿活力的本地企業。如何營造商業環境，使充滿活力的本地企業成為創新驅動力和未來經濟基石？

林志蔚副教授建議將支援機制由推式改為拉式。自動向企業提供支援——先發放補助，而非報銷，因為小企業的主要限制是現金和時間，而非方案的存在。他建議擴大合格研發支出範圍，派遣專家進入中小企業，因為本地企業僅佔本經濟商業研發支出的五分之一，這一差距不會因企業努力而縮小。他還建議將Catalist上市與國家共同投資掛鉤，因為缺失的資本是首次公開募股前的資本。

感謝李堅輝先生提到他認為增長資料與企業實際之間的橋樑是三方過程。我們感謝他對更包容經濟核心願景的支援。

感謝謝秉輝先生表達他認為現有工具包是答案，包括漸進工資、工作補貼、技能未來、前進新加坡。我們至少在建設充滿活力的本地生態系統這一重要目標上達成共識。

感謝阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生的發言。我們同樣關注微型企業面臨的地面壓力，特別是中年工人面臨的租金和勞動力成本上升。

感謝安迪先生要求我們超越識別挑戰，提出具體政策選擇。我們溫和指出，我們已在本次辯論的發言中闡述了這些具體選擇，包括對勞動力、租金和結構性支援的立場。事實上，安迪先生問我們的傳導機制是否足夠強大以覆蓋小企業，但並未回答自己的問題。如果可以，我想請他說明應採取哪些政策選擇的傳導機制以實現小企業的向上融合？

第三，家庭的屋頂。如何擺脫地主心態，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？

蔡慶威先生建議土地政策不應以最大化土地收入為首要目標。因為租金不僅是一項成本，它已滲透到所有其他成本中。他建議戰略地塊預設採用概念和價格招標，因為最高出價者獲勝、保留價未公開且未授予地塊可等待的制度，只會推高價格。他還建議建立“組屋模式的計算”，因為我們每年通過土地銷售收入約200億新元，卻僅為一年的計算專案預留約1.5億新元。

第四，工作生活的起點。如何確保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？

劉宇揚先生提出“公平起步承諾”，即國家承諾確保30歲以下、剛從教育或國服轉入職場的年輕新加坡人通過穩定就業或適當的帶薪職業發展路徑獲得公平起步。他建議基於技能的入職，使用驗證的技能證據和實際評估，將有能力的初學者與現有勞動力市場需求匹配。

他還倡導擴大帶薪學徒制供應，建立全國市場，協調僱主和共享培訓能力，特別是為中小企業提供帶薪就業、公積金、結構化學習和可轉移能力。他建議通過有針對性的臨時風險共擔安排創造真正新增的就業機會，並在適當的政府招標中給予額外員工崗位和學徒制的適當加分。

國務部長迪內什大致同意劉宇揚先生的建議，並承認他與我們有共同願望，即給予每位年輕新加坡人公平起步。特別是，他同意擴大和加強基於工作路徑的重要性，包括學徒制。

吳多泉副教授建議一次性課程調整津貼，使大學一年級轉學不受家庭經濟狀況影響。他建議可忽略一兩個補貼學期。感謝他倡導我們動議旨在為所有新加坡人鞏固的包容性。

第五，中產生活路徑。如何為技工創造可及的中產生活路徑？

嚴燕松先生建議建立由從業者主導的行會，由現有行業協會發展而來，因為僱主聯合會無法公正認證工人的能力，因其成員利益在於保留工人。他建議在數字技能賬本上進行任務特定的認證，通過實際評估驗證，並建議將許可納入工藝教育課程，由獨立小組審查，學徒可提出申訴。

感謝何偉倫副教授對職業與技能護照的寶貴見解，強調重視職場學習的重要性，承認存在需改進的差距，以真正促進以技能為先的招聘，正如我的同事劉宇揚先生指出的。

第六，失業與再就業。我們的繼續教育體系是否真正有效？旅程、目標與證明。

莫哈默法理先生建議建立全民裁員保險計劃，僱主和僱員共同繳納月薪的千分之一，支付最後工資的40%，上限為中位數的40%，最長六個月，無需申請，因為必須申請且可能被拒的工人無法規劃未來。

感謝國務部長迪內什提到我們的立場相近。我們希望這意味著不久將為所有工人提供全民裁員支援，而不僅是為60%人群提供的求職者支援計劃。

莫哈默法理還建議強制裁員福利，因為目前是酌情的，且合法可為零，服務多年的工人不應依賴善意。他建議免息研究生貸款、公積金支援碩士課程，並按課程和提供者公佈成果，因為深度再培訓資金緊缺，我們需要知道哪些課程有效。

阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生要求在再培訓期間提供更強的月收入支援。我們原則上同意。我們也非常贊同文禮佳博士所說的“無方向的努力只會帶來挫敗感”。我們需要為人民提供更多方向。

第七，被裁工人。新加坡工人在被裁員時實際獲得什麼？

畢丹星先生詢問並回答了新加坡被裁工人的權益。根據法律，目前沒有任何保障。他建議立法設定裁員福利的法定底線，按照三方標準，每服務一年支付兩週工資。他還建議制定附屬法規，對大企業支付更高賠償，最高達工會標準的每年一個月工資，並建議立即實施，因為法院已確認存在法律空白。

今年，僱傭申訴法庭裁定《僱傭法》第45條不創造任何權利，三方指導方針無法律依據。我們周邊所有發達經濟體——中國、韓國、臺灣、馬來西亞、泰國、印度尼西亞、菲律賓——均有相關立法，而我們沒有。

感謝鄭德源先生對辯論的寶貴貢獻。我們在工人絕不應成為經濟轉型中的附帶損害、必須積極保護專業人士免受人工智慧替代風險的信念上找到共識。然而，我們恭敬地將本動議視為為工聯長期爭取的保護提供部分法律支援。因此，我們邀請勞工運動支援裁員福利的立法要求。

第八，我們的統計未涵蓋的經濟部分。國家統計未能捕捉經濟的哪些部分？

何廷儒女士建議為護理工作建立正式的工資階梯，因為註冊護士、社會工作者和學前教師的收入均低於國家中位數，而這些行業被經濟韌性報告視為韌性行業。當前未建立工資底線覆蓋他們。她建議對家庭照顧者給予補償，擴大臨時照護，並定期進行官方時間使用研究，因為非正式老年照護價值12.8億新元，卻未計入國家賬戶。我們尚未衡量提供照護者的成本。她建議建立環境儀表板，跟蹤政策的環境成果。

第九，海外拓展。如何賦能新加坡人抓住區域及海外機遇？

蔣佩姍女士建議按照法國模式，將海外就業計劃資金直接撥付個人而非通過僱主，由國家機構持有合同，因為將崗位綁定於贊助僱主的增長計劃限制了其野心。她建議擴大崗位數量，而不僅僅是放寬門檻，因為新加坡青年計劃取消了兩年資格限制，但未承諾增加派遣人數。

她建議在兩年和五年時公佈成果，因為2018年的方案設定了目標但未公佈結果，我們仍然不知道出國是否能在回國時帶來收益。她建議打破回國時圍繞BTO排隊、公積金和子女返校的壁壘。

我們感謝阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生，他提出了關於海外倉儲、促成交易的官員以及將海外利潤再投資於研發和能力建設的稅收激勵的政策建議。

我想回應一些關於工人黨政策提出的觀點。

佳馥梅女士說，要先創造再佔有。這個觀點真實，但診斷錯誤。能力是實現所有權的前提，而不是反過來。如果我們以再平衡作為戰略的組織原則，可能不會擁有更多這樣的公司，反而可能更少。若以所有權為目標而忽視能力和競爭力，我們不會擁有更大份額，只會擁有更小份額中的更多。

當然，我們必須具備能力。對此我們無異議。但讓我們用她演講中的PSA例子。PSA並非因為擁有資料優勢而收購碼頭，而是因為擁有碼頭才獲得資料優勢。所有權先行，能力由此積累。沒有能力的所有權是死衚衕，但沒有所有權的能力無法在分裂的世界中建立韌性。我們的立場是兩者兼備。

雖然我們同意打造具有全球競爭力的新加坡企業的目標，但我們認為所有權不是過早的目標，而是必不可少的下一篇章。經過60年通過跨國公司成功創造價值，我們的動議旨在確保新加坡人今天能從價值創造走向價值捕獲和所有權。

我相信國務部長迪內希提出了一些建議，有人說新加坡的經濟模式正在失敗。請允許我溫和地建議，他可能聽錯了，因為我沒聽到有人這麼說。

我相信蕭振祥部長誤解了我們的政策，認為我們想依賴國內市場作為主要來源。對任何稍加思考的人來說，這顯然行不通。我們說的是國內需求是必要的，但不是充分的。

我感謝陳詩龍部長支援我們的觀點，即國內市場是百匯醫療進入海外市場的平臺。

關於修正案，謝秉輝議員提出了四項修正案。

關於第一號修正案，刪除“儘管如此”並插入“符合”，工人黨不能接受該修正案。該修正案不僅僅是刪詞，而是顛倒了句意。我們的動議說本院相信這些原則。修正案則說這些原則將隨審查採納而來。我們的動議承諾目標，修正案承諾檔案。獨立標準可檢驗任何計劃，無論是政府的還是我們的。

讓我明確說明“儘管如此”一詞所針對的內容——不是審查報告的建議。我們分享的許多診斷都是針對一個政府檔案被視為全院經濟思考的全部風險。“儘管如此”僅表示我們的承諾既不侷限於該檔案，也不源自該檔案。

這正是憲法中“儘管如此”一詞的用法。憲法第148A條允許總統批准撥款法案，儘管他認為可能動用過往儲備。如果批准，該意見必須書面告知議長並刊登憲報。

因此，“儘管如此”一詞並不推翻總統，也不說他的意見錯誤，只要求該意見是真實持有、記錄在案且不決定結果。這三者兼具。這正是我們用法。經濟審查報告繼續推進，我們的信念記錄在案，二者互不決定。

我們接受第二號和第四號修正案，對第三號修正案有些保留。原因是這不僅僅是將“全球企業”納入動議文本。如果修正案是“由全球企業支援的充滿活力的本地企業驅動的經濟”，我們會較少異議。

我們不在全球與本地之間選擇。這是錯誤的二分法。工人黨堅決支援開放經濟。正如林志蔚議員所說，我們“並非呼籲全面推翻以政府關聯公司為主導、跨國公司引領和依賴外資的模式”。

我們必須承認，國內企業長期以來未感受到國家足夠支援，難以發展壯大並在本土及海外競爭。事實勝於雄辯。如果該模式歷史上確實成功支援了許多本地企業，為什麼會有這些擔憂？我請所有議員，尤其是反對黨議員，誠實反思這些問題。

此時值得強調，正如林志蔚議員在演講末尾指出，我們並非意圖削弱跨國公司對經濟的貢獻，也非阻斷外資進入。相反，我們呼籲調整跨國公司和政府關聯公司在經濟中的主導地位，轉向更年輕的本地企業和中小企業，因為它們更具根基且能帶來顛覆性創新。明確說，我們不對立外資與本地，兩者皆需。否則是錯誤的二元對立，是方便的稻草人，但不是我們的論點。

不過，我們不會糾結第三號修正案的語義，因此接受該修正案。

回到第一號修正案。經濟審查報告能否承擔其所賦予的地位？報告有許多優點，編寫認真，廣泛諮詢，指出真實挑戰。但它是漸進的，屬於自2010年以來一系列報告的傳統。

經濟審查報告是自2010年以來第四個國家經濟藍圖。2010年經濟策略委員會、2017年未來經濟委員會、2021年“更強任務組”，以及現在的2026年審查，四者目標幾乎相同：提升價值鏈；培育本土冠軍；國際化；再培訓。

本報告的新內容是人工智慧，但這是所有國家必須應對的新外生因素。給現有劇本加章節和腳註不等於新劇本。

我們是否達到了過去報告的中長期目標？隨著追蹤減少，難以判斷。

2010年經濟策略委員會設定兩專案標。

一是生產力——“未來十年實現每年2%至3%的生產力增長”，該目標達成。

一是企業數量——“未來十年將此類企業數量顯著提升至1000家”，指年收入超過1億新元的本地企業。2017年後未再追蹤，當時約有800家，因此不知是否達標。

2017年未來經濟委員會設定兩專案標。

一是增長——每年2%至3%，達成。該指標為頂層數字，必要但不足。

一是製造業——“建議中期內打造佔GDP約20%的全球競爭力製造業”，未達成。2016年製造業佔GDP 17.4%，2025年仍為17.4%。

2021年“更強任務組”未設宏觀經濟目標，轉向不設目標。

2026年經濟審查報告唯一類似目標的句子出現兩次：“我們應設定雄心勃勃的目標，大幅增加總部設在新加坡、年收入超過10億新元的企業數量”。

2010年目標是2020年達到1000家本地企業，2026年則建議設定目標，且統計物件從本地企業變為總部設在新加坡的企業。

這讓我覺得政府可能有些迴避被量化評估。

2017年5月，貿易及工業部稱每個產業轉型圖都有“具體指標和目標以衡量策略效果”。2024年7月，其回顧報告告知讀者，行業成果不應與初期預測比較。

目標被淡化為預測，指標變成願景。我們對此已有所熟悉。去年11月，食品政策“30%自給”目標被縮減為更窄的目標，五年後。明確目標變成更具挑戰性的願景。

我未從政府聽到除頂層增長目標外的下一層經濟目標細節，比如增長型別或分配，政府只說一旦監測警報觸發會迅速反應。報告本身也建議對人工智慧和工人影響密切監測，必要時調整政策。

議長先生，迅速反應是政府的基本職責。更重要的是政府將在2030年前設定哪些結構性且可證偽的目標。畢竟，願景是什麼，如何判斷達成？

我們將自我問責的目標是：本地收入份額上升，實際工資與生產力增長同步，普通工資購買力範圍擴大。

我讀過報告，認為缺乏成績單和目標，也未釋出四個藍圖的綜合成績單。

我們的黨領畢丹星先生今年2月要求提供一份，將承諾與可衡量成果區分開。無追蹤，連貫性與重複無異。儘管存在不確定性，我們應承諾除頂層增長外的宏觀經濟目標。

所以，我直截了當地提問。支援審查報告、希望經濟更平等包容、由充滿活力的本地企業驅動的議員，已經相信（a）和（b）。這些是審查報告要服務的目標。投票支援動議僅此而已，不批評審查報告，也不約束任何人接受我們的提案。

我們的動議請求本院承諾原則，修正案請求承諾一套操作計劃。我請各位議員，尤其是反對黨議員，保留“儘管如此”一詞，接受原文動議。

議長先生，最後，我們想向新加坡人展示一個未來，在日益嚴峻的全球環境中，他們看到自己蓬勃發展。新加坡人應擁有一個願意嘗試必要措施，給予他們最大成功機會的國家。

我們的動議寫道：為創業者提供試驗機會，因為試驗的土地和資本對既得利益者定價；家庭和企業成功，因為高地價在經濟中造成結構性挑戰；工人繁榮，因為工資階梯必須有效；更廣泛社會中，工人需有試驗空間、成功路徑和失業時的經濟緩衝；思想和創新蓬勃，因為研發支出需轉化為有意義的商業成果；經濟引擎由充滿活力的本地企業、健康的內需和新加坡人及資本走向海外驅動，因為新加坡人需理解有一套鼓勵他們經濟繁榮和未來夢想的體系。

新加坡人不缺動力、抱負或想象力。我們需要的是進一步賦能和支援，在不同的全球環境中取得下一階段成功。我們將竭盡全力保障新加坡人在不確定時代的安全。

議長先生，感謝本院就經濟未來結構方向辯論，我推薦原文動議。謝謝。[掌聲]

議長：有任何澄清嗎？蕭部長。

晚上8點48分

蕭振祥：謝謝議長。我感謝張文傑議員澄清工人黨支援謝秉輝議員提出的四項修正案中的三項。我很感激他和林志蔚副教授支援我們不是零和博弈的觀點，我們不是主張零和轉向；中小企業和全球企業都重要，全面經濟策略必須兼顧兩者。

這解釋了三項修正案。遺憾的是，今天未能就修正動議達成共識，分歧在於“儘管如此”一詞，而非我們提議的“符合經濟審查報告”。

相較於工人黨提案，我認為經濟審查報告有許多共通點，儘管張議員稱其為漸進。實際上，今天的發言中我也未聽到能取代經濟審查報告的“偉大構想”。我認為工人黨是在基於經濟審查報告的建議補充不足。張議員本人在新聞釋出會上也說他們是在填補經濟審查報告的空白。

沒有替代方案或大構想可供比較，我敢說我們今天討論的許多內容目標一致，朝著相同方向努力，細節和引數或有差異，但目標相同。

最重要的是，我們處於競爭日益激烈的艱難世界。我們應尋找共識，展現本院對新加坡人的共同立場。共同推動比尋找不存在的分歧更好。

因此，我遺憾今天無法達成共識。希望工人黨未來能重新考慮，支援我認為全面、完整、前瞻的經濟策略，為新加坡和新加坡人服務。

議長：張議員，您要回應嗎？可以嗎？還有其他澄清嗎？國務部長迪內希。

迪內希：議長，我想澄清張議員關於求職者支援計劃和失業保險的說法。我說的是我們的目標可能相同，工人應受保護和支援，尤其在裁員時。但我沒說保險是唯一齣路。關鍵是設計和資金方式，可能不同。我還說過，我們的做法一直是支援再就業，而非僅僅失業。

我只是想澄清我之前的簡化說法。

議長：張議員，您要回應嗎？可以嗎？還有其他澄清嗎？佳馥梅女士。

佳馥梅：議長，我想澄清張議員關於我提到的PSA例子的評論，他說所有權先於能力。

讓我們看順序。PSA多年來是本地運營商，先建立了世界級港口運營能力，然後利用該能力收購其他港口。它並未一開始就設定“我要擁有45個國家的港口”的目標。它先建立能力，然後擴充套件。

他提到的資料優勢不僅來自所有權，還來自數字技術、人工智慧和自動化能力，否則無法具備競爭優勢。

所以我堅持我的觀點，在此案例中，能力先行，所有權隨後。但我不想糾結順序，正如我演講所說，能力和所有權是相輔相成的。我們一直說兩者都要，但如果必須選擇，能力才是企業全球成功的關鍵。謝謝。

議長：張議員，您要回應嗎？沒有？好的。還有其他澄清嗎？李堅輝先生。

李堅輝：謝謝議長。我感謝張文傑議員同意我關於三方合作和公私夥伴關係仍然重要的觀點。關於裁員福利和強制性問題，應考慮企業意見。我相信需要澄清工人黨提出的一些觀點和建議。

首先，公司在裁員時所處的情況各不相同。目前的慣例實際上是每服務一年支付兩週到一個月的薪水，但議員提議大型公司至少支付一個月的薪水。這是一個顯著的增加。對於那些面臨嚴重現金流問題的公司來說，如果此類支付成為強制性的，議員是否同意這可能會使企業陷入更深的困境，甚至可能危及剩餘崗位？

其次，更高的裁員成本是否會使僱主在聘用正式員工時更加謹慎？公司是否會更多依賴短期合同或外包，或者在最壞的情況下，減少招聘人數，尤其是那些需要更長培訓時間的無經驗工人和轉行者？

第三，如果我們立法規定最低標準，有什麼保證結果會有所改善？法定最低標準是否會變成常態，那些目前支付更多的公司可能只支付規定的金額，甚至在有工會的公司中也減少談判空間？

那麼，針對上述澄清，立法是否一定是最佳解決方案？我希望工人黨能聽取基層企業的意見。因為歸根結底，裁員工人最好的保障不僅是賠償金，更是找到下一份好工作的能力。

議長：張文傑議員？畢丹星議員。

畢丹星：謝謝議長。我相信李堅輝議員的評論是針對我的發言。他提出的三個關於企業可能面臨的困難的問題，我在發言中已經表示過寬容，我接受企業會有挑戰。

我認為這不是不考慮企業的問題。這裡關注的是工人，以及經濟策略審查（ESR）描繪的他們將面臨的新加坡環境。我們會有不同的觀點。

他提出的三個問題，正是我記得當時高階國務部長許寶琨在我們討論時提出的。我在發言中已對這三點作出回應，因此我邀請該議員考慮我對這三點的回應，正如他和當時高階國務部長許寶琨之前提出的。謝謝。

晚上8時58分

議長：張文傑議員？沒有？好。還有其他對張文傑議員的澄清嗎？

現在辯論已接近尾聲，我將向議院提出表決。我們有謝秉輝議員提出的四項修正案，先處理修正案。

修正案一是，“第1行，刪除‘not withstanding’，插入‘in line with’。”問題是，“是否通過修正案一？”同意者請說“贊成”。

議員們：贊成。

議長：反對者請說“反對”。

部分議員：反對。

議長：我認為贊成者佔多數，贊成者佔多數。畢丹星議員，您是否希望記錄您的反對意見？

畢丹星：是的，議長，工人黨希望記錄對第一項修正案的反對意見——

議長：如果可以，請希望記錄反對意見的議員請起立。

[（程式記錄）議員穆海民、蔣佩姍、蔡慶威、莫哈默法理、嚴燕松、何廷儒、林志蔚副教授、林瑞蓮、劉宇揚、畢丹星、陳立峰和張文傑起立要求記錄反對意見。（程式記錄）]

議長：好了，請坐，謝謝。

[（程式記錄）問題“是否通過修正案一”，通過。（程式記錄）]

議長：修正案二是，“第5行，刪除‘economic engine driven’，插入‘economy powered’。”

[（程式記錄）問題“是否通過修正案二”，提出並通過。（程式記錄）]

議長：修正案三是，“第5行，在‘local companies’後插入‘global enterprises,’。”

[（程式記錄）問題“是否通過修正案三”，提出並通過。（程式記錄）]

議長：修正案四是，“第5行，在‘healthy domestic’後插入‘and external’。”

[（程式記錄）問題“是否通過修正案四”，提出並通過。（程式記錄）]

議長：修正案已獲通過。現將修正後的原議案提交議院。

問題是，“本議院依據經濟策略審查對未來新加坡經濟的建議，認為：（a）應建設一個更平等包容的經濟，給予創業者試驗機會，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公司、全球企業、健康的內外需以及新加坡人和新加坡資本走向海外驅動的經濟。”

同意者請說“贊成”。

議員們：贊成。

議長：反對者請說“反對”。

部分議員：反對。

議長：我認為贊成者佔多數。畢丹星議員。

畢丹星：議長，工人黨議員希望記錄我們的反對意見。請您記錄。

議長：請希望記錄反對意見的議員再次起立。

[（程式記錄）議員穆海民、蔣佩姍、蔡慶威、莫哈默法理、嚴燕松、何廷儒、林志蔚副教授、林瑞蓮、劉宇揚、畢丹星、陳立峰和張文傑起立要求記錄反對意見。（程式記錄）]

議長：請坐，謝謝。贊成者佔多數。

[（程式記錄）修正後的原議案通過。（程式記錄）]

[（程式記錄）決議，“本議院依據經濟策略審查對未來新加坡經濟的建議，認為：（程式記錄）]

[（程式記錄）（a）應建設一個更平等包容的經濟，給予創業者試驗機會，家庭和企業成功，工人繁榮，思想和創新蓬勃發展；（程式記錄）]

[（程式記錄）（b）應建設一個由充滿活力的本地公司、全球企業、健康的內外需以及新加坡人和新加坡資本走向海外驅動的經濟。”（程式記錄）]

晚上9時02分

議長：副領袖。

英文原文

SPRS Hansard 原始記錄 · 抓取日期：2026-09-05

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

Mr Deputy Speaker : Dr Neo Kok Beng.

6.43 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.57 pm

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Across these areas —

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker : Minister Jeffrey Siow.

7.17 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.36 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker : Minister Dr Tan See Leng.

7.42 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.19 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker : Mr Tiong.

8.22 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2010 Economic Strategies Committee set two targets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker : Any clarifications? Minister Siow.

8.48 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker : Mr Tiong? Mr Singh.

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

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

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

8.58 pm

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

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

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

Hon Members : Aye.

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

Some hon Members : No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those who agree say "Aye".

Hon Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: Those who disagree say "No".

Some hon Members: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.02 pm

Mr Speaker : Deputy Leader.

Hansard 原始記錄

引用此條

Markdown 版 報告錯誤

新加坡 AI 觀察. 惠及所有人的未來經濟（辯論總結）. 檢索日期 2026-09-07, https://sgai.md/zh-tw/debates/motion-3010/

同主題更多

經濟與產業採用 AI 國家戰略 就業與勞動力