动议 · 2026-08-05 · 届国会 15

惠及所有人的未来经济（辩论总结）

8 月 5 日晚，国会续辩并表决 Kenneth Tiong 与林志蔚提出的工人党动议"惠及所有人的未来经济"。交通部长萧振祥说，经济战略检讨（ESR）五个委员会九个月内接触逾 7700 人；他为以跨国企业为锚的模式辩护，称跨国企业带来"我们自行开发要花上多年"的 AI 能力。贸工部长陈诗龙搬出 RIE2030 五年 370 亿新元，说新加坡人将转向"结合 AI 与行业知识的复合岗位"，由新设的技能与劳动力发展局承接。Kenneth Tiong 结辩时说，ESR 是 2010 年以来第四份经济蓝图，唯一的新东西是 AI，但在旧剧本上加章节和脚注并不构成新剧本；他重提 Louis Chua 的"算力组屋模式"，指每年约 200 亿新元卖地收入只拨约 1.5 亿新元办一年期算力计划，并要求政府在 2030 年前设定可验证目标，而非只承诺密切监测 AI 冲击。工人党接受第 2、3、4 号修正案，反对把"尽管"改为"依循"的第 1 号；12 名工人党议员两度起立记录异议，修正后的动议获通过。

为什么重要

工人党批 ESR 只把 AI 当新增章节，要求政府定出 2030 年前可验证的经济目标

关键要点

• Kenneth Tiong 结辩：ESR 是 2010 年以来第四份经济蓝图，唯一的新内容是 AI
• 工人党重提"算力组屋模式"：每年约 200 亿新元卖地收入，只拨约 1.5 亿新元办一年期算力计划
• 萧振祥：跨国企业带来新加坡自行开发要花上多年的 AI 能力，本地与跨国不是零和
• 陈诗龙：RIE2030 五年 370 亿新元，工人靠"结合 AI 与行业知识的复合岗位"保住份额
• 工人党邀劳工运动支持立法规定裁员补偿，以免 PME 专业人士成为 AI 转型的附带损害
• 四项修正案全数通过，12 名工人党议员两度起立记录异议，修正后动议获通过

政府立场

政府认为 ESR 已覆盖工人党的多数诉求，拒绝把经济模式从跨国企业转向本地企业：萧振祥说跨国企业带来新加坡自行开发要花上多年的 AI 能力，陈诗龙以 RIE2030 五年 370 亿新元、Startup SG Equity 增资 10 亿新元与新设的技能与劳动力发展局回应，承诺不保证每份工作原封不动，但会帮每名工人提早准备、找到可信的下一步。

质询立场

工人党支持第 2、3、4 号修正案，但反对第 1 号把"尽管"改为"依循"，理由是那让国会效忠一份文件而非一组目标。Kenneth Tiong 指 ESR 里唯一的新东西是 AI，而政府对 AI 冲击工人只承诺密切监测、必要时调整；他要求 2030 年前设定可验证目标，包括本地居民占国民收入的份额上升、实际工资跟上生产力，并邀请劳工运动支持立法规定裁员补偿。

政策信号

政府把 AI 带来的经济冲击收进既有 ESR 剧本处理：靠跨国企业的能力外溢、RIE2030 的 370 亿新元与技能与劳动力发展局的职业桥梁，而非新的可量化目标或立法保障。强制裁员补偿仍在研究，是否立法未定；贸工部将于 2026 年 10 月 1 日改名为能源、贸易与工业部，能源与产业单列一位部长。

“这份报告唯一的新东西是 AI。但那是所有国家都必须应对的新外生因素。在既有剧本上加新章节和脚注，并不构成一本新剧本。”

参与人员 (11)

完整译文（中文）

Hansard 原始记录 · 2026-09-05

【程序文本】辩论继续。【程序文本】

副议长：梁国民博士。

下午6时43分

梁国民博士（提名议员）：副议长先生，谢谢您。

我想声明，我最近当选为新加坡工程师学会副会长，负责管理所有技术委员会，包括创新加速和技术创业。我做的第一件事是成立了一个空间工程、核工程和量子工程技术委员会。这是最新的领域。因此，我们试图将新加坡工程师学会从建筑环境转型为最新的前沿技术集群。

上周，新加坡著名儿子、抖音首席执行官周受资在南洋理工大学（NTU）博士毕业典礼上发表讲话。他指出，我们正处于一个关键的转折点，“变化不仅是持续的，而且是指数级和复合性的。”

我们都知道变化是不可避免的，但“指数级”和“复合性”实际上是“颠覆性”和“变革性”的另一种表达。因此，我给他发了信息，说：“我可以在演讲中引用您的话吗？”他回答：“请便。”

那是周日晚上，所以我重新起草了演讲稿。我将引用他多次的言论，因此不再重复引用。

为了在这个新环境中蓬勃发展，我想提出“3个I”：创新（Innovation）、投资（Investment）和国际化（Internationalisation）。

创新——从非常固定的蓝图转向拥抱混乱的未知。作为工程师和教育者，我一直倡导发展我们的深科技生态系统。然而，真正的创新需要文化转变，即如何管理风险。

在南洋理工大学，周先生挑战博士生利用他们的超级力量，即他们的知识和研究知识，当然，并非所有博士生都掌握知识，每个人都有自己掌握的知识。他说要将这股超级力量应用于现实世界中混乱、模糊的问题，并补充说我们必须拥抱不确定性，因为那是有意义创新发生的地方。

我想引用一个黑石集团的案例。五六年前，有人参加了我在国大关于技术创业的课程。黑石集团从事水下机器人业务，即在水中游动但我们看不见的设备。当时，他们只是尝试做视频分析——很像学生项目——我们触摸某物以确保准确性。视频效果很好。我们试图为此找到应用。五年内，我们考察了新加坡和海外的试验，我不会提及具体国家，但包括湖泊、池塘、海洋，甚至夏威夷。

如今，经过多次试验，他们被选中参加美国海军的“我的对抗措施现代化挑战”。他们是全球挑战赛中两家入选企业之一，也是唯一一家非美国企业。另一家是美国企业。

但我上周与他们交谈，发现这段旅程非常艰难，因为美国企业很容易筹集3000万美元资金；而他们最近才筹集了770万美元。这是公开信息。当然，得到了Cap Vista和Monk's Hill Ventures等投资者的支持。我想声明我的利益，我是天使投资人，因为当我看到他们是真正的初创企业时，我会为他们投入一些资金，帮助他们。

因此，我们真正需要的是更积极的类似监管沙盒的机制。这不仅仅是国内的，因为在这种深科技环境下，国内有时不适用，所以我们应该考虑国内、区域甚至全球的沙盒。在这个案例中，他们在夏威夷测试了设备。

因此，我呼吁贸易与工业部（MTI）扩大资金渠道，专门支持早期高失败率、高影响力的深科技企业，并允许他们失败。我们不能保证一定成功，但可以给他们机会度过这一阶段，孕育下一代突破性技术。这需要六年时间。

他们需要非常复杂的设备和实验室。在最初两三年，我们实际上是在国大实验室运营。因此，我建议借鉴教育部（MOE）与文化、社区及青年部（MCCY）之间的合作模式，将未使用的设施——例如羽毛球馆、足球场——开放给其他需要使用的人。我们可以在某些学校的足球场上周日踢球，对吧？

同样，无论是大学、理工学院还是科技研究局（A*STAR），这些研究实验室都拥有非常昂贵且复杂的设备，所有这些深科技初创企业都可以使用。问题是如何管理。这就像共享经济基础上的设施。如果我们相信新加坡工程师学会，也许学会可以帮助管理。这是一个建议。

谈到投资，第二个“I”，将资本转向培养革命性想法。先生，我们的投资理念必须演变，突出这一重大趋势。周受资指出，投资正大幅转向强调真正影响力的早期初创企业，“将一个想法放大到数百万甚至数十亿人受益”，他说，“如果幸运的话。”

现实情况是，对于新加坡来说，获得A轮融资非常困难，且必须证明盈利能力等。去年，科技研究局的衍生公司MetaOptics尚未盈利，收入不多，但潜力巨大——它在Catalist上市，市值约3000万新元，现在市值约2亿新元，且即将登陆纳斯达克。

这为所有深科技初创企业指明了道路。我们不应过度依赖风险投资，也许公共资金或公共资助是更好的选择或另一种选择。

我召集了一群科技创业者、投资者，包括Catalist赞助商，我们在新加坡交易所（SGX）会面。SGX非常支持，给了我空间。SGX参与了我们称之为Catalist科技企业特殊上市路径的项目。

我们注意到香港交易所第18(A)章针对生物制药公司，第18(C)章基本允许尚未盈利、尚无收入的公司上市，但规模巨大，约为15亿至18亿港元。我们有全球上市委员会，但门槛也很高。因此，甜蜜点可能不是追求10亿市值，而是5000万或1亿市值，作为适当融资的路径，因为这些是长期投资，但具有全球化潜力。MetaOptics就是第二个案例。

国际化。利用我们的知识或教育护照实现全球影响。周先生指出，新加坡历来向外看、向上看，创造了外向型全球足迹，建议毕业生利用卓越的教育护照将他们的工作推向世界。我再举一个空间工程的例子。Alenia，我不确定议员们是否熟悉他们或林马克博士。他开发了基于等离子体的航天器推进技术。我邀请他加入我的技术委员会；我正在追踪所有这些人才。他的业务显然不太在新加坡。在新加坡，他可能只有一两个客户——

副议长：抱歉，梁博士。我已经给了您10分钟的宽限时间。我开始怀疑您是否会将您的见解与动议主题联系起来。

我提醒您遵守议会常规第50(1)条款，这些规则适用于所有国会议员。您还有几分钟时间。请您将您的观察、见解和经验与当前动议或修正动议联系起来。谢谢。

梁国民博士：好的，我会完成。我们需要的不仅是鼓励初创企业工作，还要利用生态系统，而生态系统就像新加坡工程师学会，无论是全球还是区域性组织。

就动议而言，不仅是协助，不仅是为初创企业提供资源推动。我认为动议必须涵盖创新体系。创新体系不仅仅有几个参与方。竞争者，尤其是跨国公司、在本地的供应商，对创造更有活力的生态系统非常重要，而不仅仅是所谓的——好吧，我就说到这里。

我还想声明一个利益。我引用了很多周受资先生的话，我母亲的娘家姓是周。他是我的侄子。以上就是我的全部发言。

副议长：梁博士，您还有几分钟时间。如果您能使观点与动议相关，请继续发言。

梁国民博士：好的，就动议而言，谢秉辉先生也参加过我在国大的技术创业课程。他理解要建设技术生态系统，我们确实需要一个完整的系统和创新，因此我支持他的修正动议。

副议长：我们继续就动议及修正动议进行辩论。下一位发言者是黄士轩先生。

下午6时57分

黄士轩先生（实龙岗）：副议长先生，今天的辩论中，青年人和有志创业者可能会认为新加坡缺乏创意或创业精神，或者这里没有试验空间。我不同意。事实上，就在六月底，我在国大校友返校日遇见了八家初创企业，均来自国务部长Dinesh提到的国大海外学院项目。

我遇见了从事机器人、社会企业和教育科技的公司，这只是国大海外学院培养的数千名创业者中的一小部分。但每一代初创企业和公司都会面临挑战，我们在这里诊断并解决这些差距，帮助他们成功。

动议中表达的愿望是两党议员都能支持的。一个经济体中，新加坡人能够繁荣，创业者能够试验，企业能够成功，员工能够进步，好点子能够蓬勃发展。更重要的问题是，我们如何将这些愿望变为现实？

我今天的核心论点很简单：繁荣的新加坡人推动繁荣的新加坡企业，繁荣的新加坡企业建设繁荣的新加坡。

企业需要有技能、自信和适应力的新加坡人来发展。新加坡人反过来需要强大的企业创造好工作岗位，投资他们的能力，并给予他们领导机会。因此，我们应避免将员工和企业视为对立面。企业表现良好时，员工应分享收益。企业面临真正的转型压力时，我们的政策应帮助企业和员工共同过渡。

【议长主持】

我从多个角度观察我们的企业环境，曾在成功的初创企业工作，支持公共服务中的新加坡企业，现在经营一家中小企业。这些经历让我相信，好点子需要“5C”成长：客户（Customers）、资本（Capital）、联系（Connections）、能力（Capabilities）和信心（Confidence）。

我将追踪一家公司的旅程，穿越我们的企业生态系统，从将想法转化为可行产品，到赢得首批客户，通过资本和全球联系扩展规模，最终实现退出，将资本、经验和信心循环投入下一代企业。

我们的企业政策应帮助有前途的公司完成每个转型。在初创企业世界，竞争不再仅是点子之争，而是采纳之争。没人买单的好点子仍然只是个点子。

对新加坡初创企业来说，国内市场是证明自己的地方，但区域和全球市场是必须扩展的地方。这需要的不仅是补助、竞赛和技术开发，还需要有人愿意成为首批重要客户。

然而，每位创始人都会遇到同样令人畏惧的问题：“还有谁用过它？”这造成了一个熟悉的悖论。公司没有大客户就无法建立业绩记录，但没有业绩记录又无法获得大客户。

我最近遇到一家名为Mottainai Food Tech的公司，“Mottainai”在日语中意为“太好而不能浪费”。这是一家本地初创企业，将食品制造副产品，包括豆渣，转化为营养食品。其技术支持食品安全和循环利用，已开发出商业产品。但像许多年轻公司一样，它仍需大量订单证明其规模化生产和交付能力。

这一挑战不仅限于食品科技。新加坡在可持续发展、先进制造、医疗保健和企业技术领域的公司也面临类似障碍。因此，我欢迎企业可持续发展委员会（ESR）建议动员大型企业和公共部门的主导需求。这并不意味着仅仅因为是本地产品就购买劣质产品，也不意味着政府机构应成为每家初创企业的永久客户。它意味着给予有信誉的公司公平机会测试、展示和改进其解决方案。它意味着帮助他们跨越从技术可行产品到商业验证业务的艰难鸿沟。

新加坡的参考客户不仅提供收入。如果年轻公司能证明其产品符合成熟企业或政府机构的标准，便更容易接触海外客户。我们的国内市场虽小，但新加坡在质量、标准和可靠性方面的声誉重大。

新加坡的首个客户往往是通往区域市场的护照。我早年在Brandtology工作时就体会过这种机会的价值。Brandtology是一家新加坡科技初创企业，开发自然语言处理和社交媒体分析技术，早于这些技术成为主流。新加坡政府的一份重大合同为公司提供了可信的参考客户和团队规模交付能力的证据。

新加坡集中了众多跨国公司和区域总部，这进一步放大了首个参考客户的价值。一旦我们在这里展示了能力，许多区域决策者已驻扎于此，会问我们一个截然不同的问题：“你愿意跟随我们进入其他市场吗？”

因此，新加坡的成功项目不仅是国内参考，更成为区域增长的平台。

这一教训至今仍适用。如果每个大买家都坚持要求广泛的业绩记录，新公司将永远没有机会建立业绩。然而，买家也有合理的谨慎理由，尤其是在采购关键或未经测试的解决方案时。他们必须确信技术可靠，公司能交付。

挑战在于管理这些风险，而不让过往业绩成为唯一的信誉衡量标准。对于涉及新解决方案的适当采购，机构和主要买家可以更重视独立验证的技术性能、相关认证、试点结果和交付能力。

在风险可控的情况下，较小的初始合同或分阶段采购可以让有信誉的新进入者建立业绩记录，而无需买家从一开始承担全部风险。这不是降低标准，而是确保标准衡量真正重要的内容：解决方案是否有效，是否符合要求标准，公司是否能交付。

议长先生，新加坡企业不是孤立成长的。领先的全球企业不仅带来投资和直接就业。它们的区域管理、技术和采购职能能将本地企业连接到复杂的需求、新技术、国际标准和全球供应链。

然而，这些联系不会自动产生。较小企业可能缺乏识别合适合作伙伴、理解海外需求或预见行业发展方向所需的信息、网络或资源。

这正是行业协会和联盟可以发挥更大作用的地方。作为电池联盟新加坡的特别顾问，我看到一个有效的行业平台如何将初创企业、成熟本地企业、跨国公司和研究机构汇聚于价值链各环节。

他们各有优势和利益。初创企业可能拥有有前景的技术，但缺乏生产经验。成熟企业可能了解客户和运营，但需要新技术。跨国公司可能寻找符合其标准的合格合作伙伴。研究机构可能拥有尚未商业化的宝贵知识产权。

行业平台的角色是使这些联系变得有用。它应识别实际市场需求，促成合适合作伙伴合作，帮助有前景的解决方案从研究和试点项目转向付费客户。因此，其效力应以形成的合作伙伴关系、达成的标准、商业化项目和获得的合同衡量，而非会员数量或举办的活动次数。

外国投资和本地企业发展不是竞争策略。它们在最佳状态下相辅相成。

更深层次的问题不仅仅是我们吸引了多少全球公司或支持了多少本地中小企业，而是它们是否以能够为新加坡和新加坡人建立持久能力的方式互动。

目标不应是保护我们的公司免受竞争，而是确保它们有足够的联系、信息和能力去竞争。

获得一个重要客户是一个重要的突破，但它往往带来下一个挑战：现金流。公司可能需要先购买材料、扩大生产、雇佣员工并提供银行担保，才能收到付款。健康的订单簿并不一定意味着有足够的营运资金来履行这些订单。

企鹅国际的“电梦”项目说明了客户和资本必须结合在一起。在获得壳牌作为客户后，企鹅通过企业融资计划——绿色贷款支持设计、建造和运营新加坡首批全电动海上客渡轮及其快速岸充电器。客户提供需求和商业验证，而合适的融资使公司能够大规模交付创新项目。成功交付反过来又能成为赢得未来项目的业绩记录。

随着公司成长，融资需求也会变化。早期资金可能帮助开发和测试产品。履行首个大订单可能需要营运资金，而扩大生产或进入海外市场可能需要长期融资。

深科技公司可能需要愿意等待数年才能获得回报的资本。因此，我们需要在每个阶段提供合适的融资，从产品开发、履行首个大订单，到海外扩张或准备收购或上市。

不同企业也需要不同形式的融资，包括股权、风险债务、私募信贷和收购融资。并非每个有前景的公司都适合风险资本模式的快速指数增长。有些公司会更稳健地增长，同时创造良好就业、积累宝贵能力并成为强大的区域性企业。我们的融资环境应涵盖所有类型的公司。

政府干预不应取代商业纪律或保护不可行的公司。我们的角色是解决真正的融资缺口，吸引合适的私人资本。

我还想谈一点企业政策。新加坡如今已建立了庞大且活跃的初创社区。我们的下一个挑战是帮助更多有前景的公司生存、扩大规模并走向海外。

这也应影响我们如何评估企业政策。成功往往以参与度衡量：有多少公司获得资助、加入项目、参加贸易展或考察团，或完成试点？这些数字告诉我们支持是否已提供，但不说明企业是否取得进展。

我们还应跟踪有多少公司从试点走向首个合同，从首个合同走向出口，从出口走向规模化。这并不意味着每家公司必须走同一路径或以同样速度增长，而是每个项目应明确其旨在帮助公司达到的下一个商业里程碑。若公司在同一阶段反复停滞，无论是获得首个大客户、获取营运资金还是寻找海外客户，都说明我们的支持体系需改进。

因此，企业政策的评估应不仅仅看参与度，更要看进展。

但实际上，业务进展最终取决于其人员。虽然政策、融资和联系很重要，但企业不会自动转型。是人推动企业转型。

对于中小企业主来说，人工智能、更高的劳动力成本、海外扩张和新规并非由不同部门分别处理的独立项目，而是全部落在同一张办公桌上。业主必须管理现金流、催收款项、留住员工、服务客户并解决日常运营问题，同时还要抽时间投资技术和规划未来。业主必须在企业中工作，同时也要抽时间为企业工作。

因此，企业转型不能简化为给公司一笔资助购买设备或采用新系统。我们还必须投资于中小企业主、董事和企业领导者的能力。领导力发展应务实，帮助他们解读新技术、评估海外机会、了解融资选项、管理人员并决定何时调整、扩张、转型或多元化。这很重要，因为创业必须继续是有能力的新加坡人的可行路径。

我们加强了对工人的保护、支持和晋升，这理所当然。与此同时，我们应认识到企业主承担的风险往往不那么显眼且缺乏缓冲。

业主可能投入个人储蓄、担保贷款并在困难月份放弃薪水，同时仍需按时支付员工、供应商和债权人。我们不应浪漫化企业所有权，因为当老板往往意味着每个客户、债权人和员工都成了你的老板。负责任的企业家需要指导、合适的融资、强大的人脉和诚实商业失败后的合理第二次机会。

冒险不等于不负责任。希望企业家尝试的经济必须区分真正的商业失败和不当行为。并非每个初创企业都会成为跨国公司，许多企业将在中小企业领域找到可持续的位置，成为雇主和能力建设者。

但新加坡人必须继续视创业和发展业务为值得走的道路。这也关乎信心。企业家需要信心，相信一个可信的想法会得到公平对待，真正需求出现时融资会到位，一次诚实的失败不会终结他们的创业旅程。

这让我回到工人与企业的关系。经济政策容易被看作是支持工人与支持企业的选择。但企业通过人成功，工人通过企业变得更有生产力和竞争力而进步。

每一次成功转型都取决于员工是否理解、参与并分享其成果。资助可能帮助公司购买新机器，但员工必须学会操作。人工智能可能提升生产力，但管理者必须重新设计岗位并装备员工有效使用。国际化可能开辟新市场，但新加坡人必须准备领导团队、服务客户并跨文化运作。

工资标准提供重要底线，但持续的实际工资增长还必须依赖更高的生产力、更强的能力和创造更大价值的企业。关键是，工人必须通过更好工资、更强职业发展和更多承担技术及领导角色的机会分享这些收益。

工人还需要信心，转型不仅带来扰动，更带来更好技能、工资和机会。因此，工人与企业不是对立利益，他们的成功相互关联，我们的经济政策必须帮助他们共同进步。先生，请用中文。

（中文）：[请参阅本地语言发言。]俗话说，唇亡齿寒。企业和员工必须相互依赖。只有企业发展良好，员工才能享受更好的薪水；只有员工不断提升，企业才能更具竞争力。两者必须共同成长，共享成果。

（英文）：总之，本动议的愿景与经济策略审查（ESR）有很大共识。方向正确，下一步是执行。

我们应聚焦四个实际优先事项。第一，帮助有信誉的年轻公司获得首个大客户，同时保持严格标准并管理买方风险。第二，通过行业平台连接全球公司、本地企业和研究机构，确保实际合作、项目和合同。第三，确保公司在从产品开发到订单履行、扩张和国际化过程中获得合适融资。第四，投资于负责转型的企业领导者和员工，确保双方共享成果。

在这些领域——

议长：黄士轩先生，你还有大约一分钟。

黄士轩：——我们应以进展而非仅参与来评估企业政策；关注公司是否从试点走向首个合同；从首个合同走向出口；从出口走向规模化。

最终，未来的经济必须以人为本。繁荣的新加坡人推动繁荣的新加坡企业，繁荣的新加坡企业建设繁荣的新加坡。我们的任务是给予新加坡人公平机会，从新加坡建立、发展和领导成功企业，ESR的建议阐明了如何实现企业和员工的共同目标。

我支持修订后的动议，特别是(b)部分，即本地和全球企业应相互互动，而非孤立发展。

议长：财政部第二部长兼交通部长萧振祥先生。

晚上7时17分

交通部长兼财政部第二部长（萧振祥）：议长，首先感谢各位议员对我们经济进行的深思熟虑、广泛且建设性的辩论。许多人指出，我们的世界已改变，约束更紧，经济未来更不确定。我很高兴各方议员都认识到新加坡必须更新经济战略。这正是我们一年前启动经济策略审查（ESR）的原因。

ESR是近年来最广泛的审查之一。五个ESR委员会在九个月内与超过7,700人交流，包括大型和小型企业的商业领袖、代表中小企业的行业协会和商会、支持和维护工人利益的工会人士，以及拥有数十年经验的专家，包括学者、风险投资家、高级公务员和全球首席执行官。许多人处于经济前线，今天做出的决策将塑造我们未来经济的方向。

ESR是所有这些新加坡人的集体努力，这使我们能够制定出基于经验和现实的全面经济蓝图。

今天，我们听到了工人党多场演讲。尽管涉及众多关注点，我发现我与工人党在不少经济理念上有共识。

例如，有关如何更好支持中小企业和初创企业、打造更强大的本地公司基础的建议。这些目标无可争议，ESR报告提出了具体建议，无论是更广泛支持海外扩张，还是培育下一代新加坡全球企业。

虽然我们可以辩论细节，但显然工人党的建议并非完全不同的经济剧本，而是与ESR方向高度一致。因此，我们有相当多的共同点。我们都希望拥有充满活力的本地企业和为新加坡人创造的良好就业机会。实现这些目标的手段存在一些分歧，但无需夸大这些差异。

然而，我们需要解决一个重大分歧，即我们如何理解新加坡的经济模式。从我听到的演讲来看，工人党似乎认为新加坡的经济模式失衡，需要根本性调整。他们将新加坡描绘为跨国公司创造财富的地方，存在某种浮士德式交易，中小企业被压制，新加坡人通过再分配获得利益。

我不同意这种描述。这不仅是学术上的分歧，而是对我们将追求的政策至关重要的分歧。如果最初的诊断或假设错误，提出的解决方案将把我们引向错误方向。错误的药方可能弊大于利。

举例来说，张文杰先生提到政府采用统一的土地定价模式，这完全不实。

我们的框架已经是差异化的。土地根据其预期用途（住宅、商业、工业、社区、教育或宗教）以公平市场价定价。我们可以讨论当前框架是否足够灵活，是否可以或应该进一步差异化，但这与说当前框架根本有缺陷完全不同。相反，我们清晰透明的框架确保了对有限土地资源的负责任管理。

我要强调，人民行动党政府的经济战略始终围绕新加坡人，无论是作为工人、专业人士、投资者、企业家还是企业主。我们的人民，而非公司，是我们一切工作的中心。经济增长从不是目的本身，而是创造更好工作、更高收入和更好生活的手段。以此衡量，新加坡的经济模式一代代为新加坡人带来了成果。

工人党的观点似乎认为跨国公司和本地企业在争夺固定蛋糕。林志蔚副教授建议政府对本地中小企业的支持不及跨国公司，必须从跨国公司转向中小企业。但正如我的同事谢秉辉先生已指出，这是错误的选择。为了经济繁荣，我们需要跨国公司和中小企业在新加坡都成功。

在更困难的全球环境中，我们必须更努力争取外资，也必须更努力支持本地企业。

我们不是零和博弈。事实上，本地企业和跨国公司的增长相辅相成。中小企业对我们的经济至关重要，雇佣了大多数劳动力。许多有抱负的新加坡人创办自己的企业，开辟自己的道路，追求梦想。

刘燕玲高级国务部长详细介绍了对中小企业的强大支持生态系统。财政部国务部长迪内希分享了我们多年来如何建设初创生态系统。我不再重复他们的内容。

但很少有国家像新加坡这样支持本地企业。政府每年为本地中小企业提供近20亿新元的直接资助和贷款，帮助它们增强能力、开展新项目并成功竞争全球市场。

目前并非所有计划都被充分利用。我们可以做更多，帮助企业更充分利用现有支持。如果这些计划的需求因更多企业参与而增长，我代表财政部声明，我们准备提供更多资源支持。

当然，如果只是多花钱，我们早就有更多世界级公司。但许多人明白，建立公司非常困难。李坚辉先生和阿扎尔·奥斯曼先生热情分享了他们作为企业领导者的经验，以及他们现在支持中小企业的角色。建立企业需要多种因素：更强的领导力、深厚的技术能力、资本和人才的获取，以及走向海外的信心。

这就是为什么我们在2018年重组了贸易与工业部的机构，成立了企业发展局——一个新的法定机构，使命明确，支持本地企业的全方位发展：能力建设、创新、融资、人才和国际化。

我有幸担任企业发展局首任总经理。我们深受使命激励，办公室里坚持使用新加坡制造的产品——本地咖啡和茶、椅子和垫子，甚至自动售货机里的零食——每天提醒我们支持和倡导本地企业的使命。

每一家新加坡公司的成功——新产品、新市场、新投资——都是我们共同庆祝的成功。我们的官员与中小企业携手同行。我们的企业知道我们与他们并肩作战。因为当新加坡企业繁荣时，就业和机会也随之增加。我们都与他们的成功息息相关。

在全球经济更加碎片化的今天，中小企业走向海外确实更难。关税上升，产业政策重新流行。从本地企业到全球企业的路径似乎比以前更陡峭。

但这并不意味着我们应当内向。工人党主张如果外部市场更不确定，我们应退缩，更依赖国内需求。这不现实。我们的国内市场太小。领导新加坡工商联合会的李坚辉先生指出，国内需求不能成为我们增长的主要引擎，我完全同意。

答案不是内向，而是相反：加强我们的企业，使其更有效地竞争更多海外市场，更具韧性。

这就是为什么在去年美国解放日关税之后，我们成立了由副总理颜金勇主持的新加坡经济韧性工作组，帮助我们的企业适应变化。许多公司从我们的努力中受益。例如，Castlery是一家在线家具公司，其70%的收入来自美国，在企业发展局的支持下多元化了其制造基地。事实上，Castlery转型非常成功，最近在纽约市开设了第一家实体店，我希望不久后能去参观。

即使我们加倍努力支持本地企业，也不能忘记跨国公司对我们经济的重要性。跨国公司吸引新加坡，不仅因为我们提供的激励措施，更因为我们完整的生态系统——我们的能力、我们的员工、我们的中小企业。

安迪详细讲述了跨国公司如何反过来为经济带来积极溢出效应。当全球公司在这里建立深厚能力——研究中心、区域总部、高级制造线时，他们并非仅仅占据本地公司可能填补的空间，而是带来了我们尚未拥有的资源、能力和技术，包括需要多年才能自主开发的人工智能能力。

许多本地公司因与跨国公司的关系而成长和成功，而非尽管有跨国公司。例如，Sunningdale Tech是一家新加坡精密工程公司，起初是小规模塑料制品制造商，现已成长为大型企业，与惠普（HP）、Illumina和戴森（Dyson）等蓝筹客户并肩。去年我参加一个大型工业贸易展时，看到许多比Sunningdale更小但准备成长的本地制造商向全球观众展示他们的创新和产品，我感到非常自豪。

同样重要的是，全球公司创造了优质就业岗位——高技能、高薪职位。如今，新加坡跨国公司中超过三分之二的高级管理职位由新加坡人担任。这些职位通常承担区域甚至全球职责，这意味着新加坡可以在经济决策中发挥更大影响，超越我们小国的规模和人口。

许多岗位也为年轻新加坡人创造。我去年访问了应用材料公司（Applied Materials）。应用材料是一家美国公司，为台积电（TSMC）、三星（Samsung）和美光（Micron）等半导体制造商生产高端设备。安迪提到应用材料最近投资在淡滨尼建造第二个园区；当我访问他们位于上樟宜的第一设施时，他们兴奋地告诉我这件事。

在上樟宜，我遇到了蔡凯旋女士。凯旋在国大机械工程学习期间曾在应用材料实习。她很高兴毕业后被录用，可以继续她开始的项目。她迄今最大的成就是能比同事更快穿戴个人防护装备（PPE）。我尝试与她比赛，结果自然输了。

但凯旋作为年轻毕业生的故事并不独特。许多像她一样的人在新加坡的全球公司中建立他们的初期职业生涯。在我们走访民宅时，我相信许多人会遇到自豪地告诉我们他们的儿女在谷歌（Google）、微软（Microsoft）、贝莱德（BlackRock）、摩根大通（JP Morgan）、美光（Micron）、环球晶圆（GlobalFoundries）、波音（Boeing）或劳斯莱斯（Rolls Royce）工作的家长。如果这些公司不在新加坡设立基地，新加坡人要进入这些公司工作将更加困难。

我们为吸引外资和支持本地企业提供的支持是互补且相辅相成的。我们投入吸引投资的资源并非以牺牲支持本地企业为代价，反之亦然。如果减少支持生态系统的资源，不仅跨国公司可能离开新加坡，连本地企业也会考虑在其他司法管辖区运营。

因此，在各国花费前所未有的资金吸引和回流战略投资之际，我们的回应绝不能是减少投入。放弃这些投资意味着更少的高质量就业和更少的新加坡人机会——这绝不是我们的做法。

议长先生，请允许我总结。经济韧性工作组始于一个简单而紧迫的前提：世界在变化，新加坡必须自我革新。但在此过程中，我们应明确什么需要改变，什么应保持不变。

我们的任务不是抛弃使新加坡成功的因素，而是为变化的世界更新和强化我们的成功公式。我们不是在中小企业和跨国公司之间做选择，我们两者都需要。我们也不是在国内需求和外部市场之间做选择，我们两者都需要。这就是为什么我完全支持谢秉辉先生提出的动议修正案，它全面准确地反映了我们的经济战略。

议长先生，我们的企业抱负远超我们的国界，甚至可能超出工人党所认为的能力。我们的工作是帮助企业实现抱负，而非阻碍他们。

最终，经济韧性工作组的评判标准不是我们制定了多少计划，或花费了多少钱，而是其成果：更好的就业、更高的收入、更大的社会流动性和更强的韧性，以及新加坡人是否有信心为自己和子女创造更好的生活。

这就是为什么经济韧性工作组必须是全社会的努力，由新一代企业、工会、社会和政府领导人共同领导，共同承担这些成果。

议长先生，纵观历史，每当世界变化时，新加坡都能适应。我们保持开放，持续提升能力，并始终投资于人才。这就是我们赢得世界地位的方式，也是我们将继续为自己创造机会的方式。议长先生，我支持修正后的动议。[掌声]

议长先生：李坚辉先生，您有问题要向议员澄清吗？

晚上7时36分

李坚辉先生：议长先生，我想向国务部长迪内希提出一个澄清点。在讨论强制遣散福利时，劳工部是否也审视了对雇主的潜在影响，特别是强制遣散福利是否可能导致雇佣成本或行为上的意外变化，尤其是对中小企业和公司？

迪内希：议长先生，这不是我们第一次提出遣散福利立法问题。我们过去也考虑过，当时并不适宜。我们定期研究。正如议员所知，根据三方指导原则，至少九成以上的工人获得补偿，正如之前强调的。[请参阅《劳工国务部长澄清》，官方报告，2026年8月5日，第96卷，第34期，书面声明更正部分。]

但情况已发生变化。我们正在关注此事，因为我们在演讲中强调过，经济韧性工作组也建议加强对工人的支持。这是我们正在研究的内容。是否能超过90%补偿比例，我们也在考虑。

目前我们尚未决定是否立法。政府一贯做法是，会咨询新加坡全国雇主联合会、工会，并在咨询后作出审慎决定。

议长先生：林志蔚副教授，您有澄清要做吗？请讲。

林志蔚副教授：谢谢议长先生，也感谢萧振祥部长给我机会澄清工人党的一些立场。

我和同事呼吁重新平衡时，并非暗示中小企业和跨国公司在争夺同一块蛋糕，也不是说对本地中小企业的更多支持必须以牺牲现有跨国公司或惩罚这些“金鹅”为代价。事实上，我在演讲结尾非常小心地强调，我们不能边缘化跨国公司和政府关联公司，也不应关闭外资。

萧部长归咎于工人党的观点，是一种我们未曾提出的错误二分法。这是一个方便的稻草人论点，或许是为了赢得辩论——如果我们真的提出过的话。

同样，我们也不否认仅靠国内需求不足以驱动经济引擎。但说我们希望有健康的国内需求，并不等于说不需要外部需求。相反，我们想强调的是，消费者需求的增长历来比其他同等发展水平的先进经济体要弱。

所以，我的问题是，部长是否认为我们当前的中小企业生态系统足够强大，能够在区域经济国际化中竞争？他是否认为我们当前的国内需求足够健康，无需在重塑和改革21世纪全球经济时进一步推动？

萧振祥：感谢议员澄清。我们之所以有这种印象，主要是因为动议中未提及全球企业和全球经济，直到谢秉辉先生特别提出修正动议。

林志蔚副教授的演讲中明确表示应向中小企业转型。因此，当他说“转型”时，我假设他心中有一种零和博弈的印象。

但如果我误解了，我很高兴他澄清工人党确实与我们的经济战略一致，认为跨国公司和中小企业都重要，我们应努力加强双方的策略。

具体到他的问题，关于中小企业生态系统是否足够强大，或本地需求是否足够，我认为不会有一个临界点说今天已经准备好。这个过程是持续的。企业发展局和贸易及工业部的同事们正努力不断强化中小企业，使其具备全球竞争力，持续创造机会并支持其成长。我们就是以这样的精神看待这件事，并将继续努力帮助中小企业成功。

议长先生：陈诗龙部长。

晚上7时42分

贸易及工业（能源与工业）部长（陈诗龙博士）：议长先生，首先感谢张文杰先生和林志蔚副教授将此动议提交国会，也感谢所有发表建设性和深思熟虑意见的议员。

针对林志蔚副教授早前向萧振祥部长提出的观点，也许议员会考虑支持并投票赞成修正后的动议。

我们听到了不同的观点、诊断和建议，但也有实质的共识。我们都希望有充实的职业生涯，都希望新加坡同胞有良好成果，都希望企业家充满信心，愿意尝试、创新和成长，都希望有更多新加坡企业在全球取得成功，也希望新加坡人能够自信面对未来，即使技术和全球竞争正在重塑我们的经济。

张文杰先生说，如果用一个问题总结这项动议，那就是：“普通新加坡人如何获得国家成功的持久份额？”这是一个公平且重要的问题。让我尝试回答。

新加坡人通过有意义地参与经济，获得持久的成功份额，包括良好的就业、持续的实际工资增长和通过工作获得满足感；通过获得和构建随着技术演变而保持相关的技能和能力；在遭遇挫折后，抓住学习机会，获得支持以恢复和重新建设。

部分新加坡人能够做得更多，比如创业或发展成功的企业；将创意转化为产品或服务；或从新加坡领导区域或全球团队。我们的人民塑造经济，但他们也被经济塑造。

新加坡人从不是经济增长的被动受益者。若我们的人民只是无动于衷的数字，我们绝不会走到今天。我们的人民一直是积极的参与者、贡献者、建设者和这座岛国的所有者。这一直是新加坡经济战略的核心。

我们经济战略的最终目的从不是为了增长而增长，而是确保增长渗透并贯穿更广泛的经济，通过良好的就业、收入增长、社会流动性和抵御挫折的韧性改善人们的生活。

以这些标准衡量，新加坡模式历代都取得了成果。我们现在的责任是确保它在一个非常不同、变化的世界中继续发挥作用。

经济韧性工作组由三大任务指引：提升新加坡的价值主张；增强企业、员工和机构的敏捷性和适应性；构建韧性与效率并重。

这些不是抽象概念，而是拓宽通往成功的实际路径。无论是研究突破、新服务、餐饮概念还是特许经营机会，有创意的人能否找到导师、首批客户和资本，建立可行企业？中小企业能否采用技术并实现规模化？专业人士能否获得国际经验，领导全球业务？工人能否在被替代前获得相关技能，或失业后找到可信的重返有意义工作的路径？

经济韧性工作组致力于强化这些路径。不是每个人都会走同一条路。

吴多泉副教授提出了有益的区分：政策应以公平而非单纯平等为导向。这意味着防止劣势固化，同时根据不同需求和情况调整机会和支持。

议长先生，请允许我谈谈我个人的经历，在2020年当选国会议员之前。

我大约27岁时开始创业。与几位合伙人一起，我们创办了裕康医疗集团，起初只有一间位于义顺的诊所。我必须声明，我没有裕康的股份，所以这不是推销。

我们都很年轻，资本有限，毫无创业经验，也没有今天创业公司可利用的广泛支持计划。我们的创业成功没有保证。我们是医生，我可以告诉你，医学培训不包括如何建立企业组织的课程。我们边做边学——运营、财务、人员管理和质量控制。后来我们还学会了如何建立一个能超越我们自身的机构。

最早给我们机会的一些公司是索尼（Sony）、爱华（Aiwa）、禧玛诺（Shimano）、朝日电视玻璃（Asahi TV Glass）、惠普（Hewlett-Packard）和宝洁（Procter & Gamble）等跨国公司。事实上，其中几家已不再在新加坡存在。

当时它们规模庞大，是成熟的全球公司。我们是年轻的新加坡创业企业，在组屋和工业区找到相对空白的市场，当时企业集团医疗服务的概念尚处于萌芽阶段。这些跨国公司的信任给了我们立足点，使我们建立了业绩记录。

我们必须不断达标，满足他们严格的标准。但一旦证明我们能交付，赢得下一个客户的信心就变得更容易。

因此，我从未将全球企业和本地企业视为对立。在我个人经历中，成熟的全球公司帮助本土新加坡企业起步、建立信誉和成长。他们没有挤压我们，而是给了我们成长和竞争的机会。我知道这也是许多新加坡中小企业的经历。

机会本身不足。我们仍需交付成果。我们必须提升服务，关心员工，管理成本，一次又一次赢得客户信任。

随着时间推移，组织成长、转型、多元化，实现可持续规模，我们都成功退出。

后来，我在更大、更国际化的层面构建、转型和扩展组织。开诊所并未自动让我能管理网络，更不用说领导拥有全球业务、在欧洲和亚洲运营、员工超过55,000人的三级医院集团。我必须不断学习，超越医学，涉足管理、财务、技术和组织领导，与人合作，尤其是向在我专业之外领域知识远超我的导师学习。

我40岁后才毕业于商学院，因此我相信终身学习。即使现在，我仍在向在座各位学习。

我不是独自完成的。裕康由几位创始人共同建立，他们有同样的愿景——或许有些冒险地听从我，与我共同承担风险——还有致力于组织的员工、信任我们的客户和帮助我们发展的合作伙伴。

这段经历也让我明白政府能做什么，不能做什么。李坚辉先生说得很贴切：政府必须铺好跑道，但创业者和工人仍需在跑道上奔跑并起飞。

政府应保持健全的制度、开放的市场和明确的规则。政府必须且应始终减少可避免的摩擦，减少政策的波动，连接企业与知识和市场，并在有更广泛经济利益的情况下分担部分风险。

在那段时间，我曾受教于一位非常著名的会计师。在新加坡，我们拥有知识，但更重要的是拥有“know-how”（实操能力）。所以，知识固然重要，实操能力更佳。但当你走向海外时，最重要的是“know-who”（人脉关系）。

因此，政府不能为我们寻找客户，不能组建商业团队，不能代表创业者做出商业决策或坚持到底。政府的支持应是企业的跳板，而非商业模式。

但这并不意味着让创业者和中小企业自生自灭。高级国务部长刘燕玲已全面阐述了我们如何帮助企业应对眼前压力、采用技术、强化运营和开拓海外市场。这些计划旨在帮助有潜力的企业提升生产力、增强竞争力和韧性。

需要明确的是，并非每个创意或初创企业都会结出果实。然而，这并不意味着这些援助计划无效或创业者失败。每一次关闭反而意味着避免了多年的机会成本。节省下的努力、资本和时间可以重新投入到其他更有前景的创意或机会中。

如果你与足够多成功的创业者交谈，他们最终抵达的目的地——最终的终点——往往与他们最初的目标不同。但这正是创业者的韧性、坚韧和毅力所在。

你们中有些人和我一样年纪，应该记得《洛奇》系列。毕丹星先生微笑着，我想他应该知道洛奇这个角色是谁。《洛奇》就像一个创业者。对创业者的劝诫是，他不是那个能打出重拳的人，而是那个能承受重拳、重新站起来并继续前进的人。这就是创业者获胜的方式。

议长先生，新加坡已为创业建立了可信的基础。新加坡在StartupBlink 2025全球初创生态系统指数中排名第四——这一排名从2020年的第16位跃升至今。如今，我们拥有超过4,500家科技初创企业，约220个孵化器、加速器和风险构建者，以及超过500家风险投资公司。

我们的雄心不能仅以成立多少家公司来衡量。必须以多少好创意成为可行业务，多少可行业务能够扩展，以及多少核心能力、知识产权和优质就业机会扎根新加坡来衡量。

创业者必须跨越几个艰难的鸿沟。我想说这并非详尽无遗，但总体而言，整个旅程涉及五个艰难的跨越：从志向到首次创业；从创意或研究突破到创新和企业；从产品或服务到首个客户；从早期吸引力到持续扩展；以及从在新加坡的坚实基础到全球市场。

政府政策无疑可以在每个阶段提供帮助，但它无法使这段旅程无风险。

让我解释一下。第一个鸿沟是志向与首次创业之间。为此，Startup SG Founder为首次创业者提供启动资金，同时提供导师指导和社区支持，帮助创始人学习、建立信心并驾驭不同的成长阶段。专门空间如LaunchPad@one-north为创始人提供合作、相互学习、会见投资者、发展人脉网络和完善创意的场所。

目标不是让每个人都成为创业者，而是给予严肃的创意一个公平的测试机会。

第二个鸿沟是从研究到市场价值创造的转变。许多未来的创始人可能不会从诊所、商店或办公室开始，而是在实验室。他们的初始资产可能是科学发现、医疗设备、新材料、软件或通过多年研究开发的知识产权。

作为医生，我知道好的科学成果还不是治疗方案。一个有前景的原型还不是产品。一个好产品还不是可持续的公司。研究创造知识，创新应用知识，创业将其推向市场，规模化则使其产生更广泛的经济和社会影响。

我们在研究、创新和企业（RIE）领域的长期投资正在产生成果。政府支出催化了私营部门研发的增长。产业研发就业人数已超过30,000人，本地员工占70%以上。过去五年，科技研究局（A*STAR）和我们的大学已孵化出300多家公司。

但创造知识只是旅程的一部分。更难的是如何将研究转化为产品、业务和经济价值。我们正通过多种方式加强这种转化。

通过企业能力升级技术计划（T-UP），科技研究局的研究科学家和工程师可被借调支持本地中小企业的研发项目，最长可达两年。我们还建立了连接研究与商业化的转化平台。通过MedTech Catapult和我们的半导体创新设施等平台，公司可以原型设计、测试和商业化新技术，而无需承担全部成本。

当我们的公共研究人员与全球领先企业和本地供应商合作时，转化也在发生。

由劳斯莱斯、新加坡航空发动机服务公司（SAESL）和科技研究局共同建立的智能制造联合实验室就是一个例子。该合作开发了改善风扇叶片制造和飞机发动机维护、修理及大修的新技术，也使本地中小企业有资格成为全球航空航天公司的供应商。

这就是我们如何将投资深度锚定在新加坡。我们不仅仅是生产的东道主，而是将全球公司与我们的研究人员和本地供应商连接起来。这就是知识转化为产业能力、本地公司进入全球供应链的路径。

在RIE2030计划下，我们提升了雄心，将进一步加强这些连接。未来五年，我们将投入370亿新元，支持基础研究和更强的转化，重点领域包括半导体、交通、健康长寿和脱碳。

我们的目标是确保更多研究转化为有用技术；更多有用技术转化为商业能力；更多能力转化为企业、就业和扎根新加坡的价值。

并非每个项目都会产生突破。早些时候，梁国民博士和吴多泉副教授都指出，创新和创业需要承担风险和负责任的失败。我是预算的管理者；我们都是预算的管理者。我不确定是否能像他们那样支持风险承担和失败。

但我们将以负责任的方式确保成功能够持续。因此，我们只资助结果较为确定的创意。但我们也不能只资助那些结果已确定的项目——因为如果只这样做，我们将错过许多可能定义未来的突破。

因此，这种风险承担必须且将与纪律相匹配。政府必须投资于新加坡能够建立有意义优势的领域。我们称之为我们的“参与权”。

研究人员必须保持严谨。我们的投资者必须行使商业判断。创业者必须解决客户愿意为之付费的问题，因为即使是最好的技术，如果没有人愿意使用和付费，也无法规模化。

这引出了第三个鸿沟——如何将产品带给首个客户。黄士轩先生强调了首个客户的重要性。它使公司能够测试和展示其解决方案，建立业绩记录，证明其能满足严格标准，从而更容易赢得下一个客户或投资者。这在我开始在Healthway工作时是真实的，对今天的初创企业依然如此。

这就是为什么经济发展局（EDB）和企业发展局通过PACT计划连接跨国公司与本地初创企业和中小企业。我不再赘述，因为高级国务部长刘燕玲已详细说明。

我们的公共部门也可以成为早期客户。在创新采购伙伴关系下，初创企业可以参与招标，提出创新解决方案进行试点测试。如果试验成功，机构可以选择继续与同一公司合作，扩大和部署解决方案。

这就是我们试图构建的更广泛生态系统：成熟公司、初创企业、研究机构和公共部门共同合作；企业获得证明自己的机会；优秀解决方案更快地从试点走向规模化。

第四个鸿沟是从早期吸引力到持续扩展。许多有前景的企业在这里遇到困难。

不同阶段需要不同形式的资本：首次创业的适度资金；深科技发展的耐心股权；增长阶段的风险债务或私募信贷；成熟公司的公开市场和可信退出。因此，正如我刚才分享的，我们已加强了所有这些支持。

我们已向Startup SG Equity追加10亿新元资金，以催化早期和成长阶段深科技公司的私人投资。ESR还建议发展风险债务和私募信贷，配合风险资本。对于成熟公司，股票市场审查和第二笔15亿新元的Anchor Fund将支持更强的公开市场和更高质量的上市。

所有这些成功退出都会将资本、专业知识、信心、信任和声誉循环投入新企业。但我们不能只关注融资。因为仅靠融资无法打造伟大公司。公共资本应吸引商业资本和专业知识，而非取代它们。风险仍需被正确理解和承担。政府不能也不会仅凭开出更大支票就创造冠军企业。

企业还需要经验丰富的领导力、专业人才、良好治理以及管理更大业务的能力。企业发展局的Scale-Up计划正是应对这一更广泛能力挑战。其首七批次的80家公司在三年内创造了合计25亿新元的额外收入，其中10亿来自海外扩张。

这是我们必须加强的旅程：从勇气创业，到创新能力；从首个客户，到扩展所需的融资和领导力；最终进入远大于我们自身的市场。

健康的国内需求很重要，因为它反映信心，支持面向国内的企业，并为企业提供测试产品和建立品牌的首个市场。

我在剥离Healthway后第二次涉足的是加入并建设Parkway旗下的医院业务。Parkway Holdings本身起源于新加坡，曾拥有格伦伊格尔斯医院、伊丽莎白山医院和东岸医院三家医院。

但新加坡的国内市场本身无法为雄心勃勃的企业或先进产业提供所需规模。它是建立信誉、信任、声誉、验证可行性、建立可信品牌和运营模式的良好平台；然后以此为跳板，扩展到区域乃至全球。

国际化很难。让我告诉你，这非常难，我相信难度还在增加。进入另一个市场的公司必须了解不同的客户、法规、文化和合作伙伴。我们今天所处的更加分裂的世界使得多元化和良好的市场支持更加重要。正如阿扎尔·奥斯曼先生所说，新加坡必须保持贸易桥梁，而非成为贸易壁垒。

答案不是撤回到国内市场，而是做更多工作帮助新加坡企业进入更多市场，寻找可信合作伙伴，更有效竞争。因此，我们正在加强这些实际路径。

自成立以来，我们推出了全球创新联盟（GIA）。它支持近1,200家公司进入新市场并与海外合作伙伴共同创新。超过240家初创企业在海外实现了商业或融资突破。

在GIA2030计划下，我们将推出项目，帮助企业测试产品市场契合度，寻找更早期的客户。

并非每家新加坡企业都能或必须成为全球企业。为本地社区服务的邻里服务提供者或传统餐厅在社会中同样重要。他们创造就业，直接满足新加坡和新加坡人的需求。但对于那些立志成为区域或全球冠军的公司，不能被本土市场规模所限制。我们希望帮助他们走向海外成长，但希望总部、战略决策、研发、公司大脑、知识产权、财务、产品管理、区域领导力和优质就业机会都扎根于此。这一直是我们的努力方向。

简而言之，我们帮助企业走向海外成长。但随着他们成长，更强的能力和机会将继续牢牢扎根于新加坡。

议长先生，大多数新加坡人最直接感受到经济的是通过工作。并非每个人都会创业，但这并不减少他们对新加坡成功的直接和持久利益。好工作今天提供收入，也应使人随着时间积累技能、经验和信心。

作为医生、创业者、雇主以及曾任人力部长，我一直在思考这个问题，当然，今天我更加关注。

作为雇主，我了解到，组织只有当员工与之共同成长时，才能可持续发展。引入技术而不重新设计工作、培养员工，将制造焦虑，最终限制自身能力。我很早就意识到，归根结底，我们都是在发展、培养和最大化人力资本的事业中。

作为人力部长，我遇到过因变革而感到不安的工人。失业带来收入担忧；多年经验是否仍有价值；是否年纪太大无法重新开始；下一份工作是否能用上自己的经验和能力。

这些担忧是真实的。我们不应仅用总体统计数据或可用课程数量来回应。完成课程并不等于成功转型。文礼佳博士说得好：无方向的努力带来挫败，有方向的努力建立信心。何伟伦副教授补充说，培训和再技能提升的收益，只有在工人有机会在工作中应用所学时才能充分体现。

因此，支持必须更早开始，并与真实机会相连接。

ESR提出“职业桥梁”，通过培训、指导和岗位匹配，将处于风险岗位的工人连接到更有韧性的职业。新的新加坡劳动力发展局（SWDA）将整合这些服务。

雇主必须将劳动力转型——重新设计岗位、培训员工并将生产力提升转化为更好的工作和晋升——视为重要任务。

另一方面，工人也必须承担责任。政府可以提供便捷的培训，雇主可以创造机会，工会和劳工运动的兄弟姐妹们可以支持工人，但没有任何机构能代替个人学习。

随着我领导的组织日益复杂，我必须不断学习。新加坡人也将越来越需要这样做——深化专业知识，转向结合人工智能与行业知识的混合岗位，中年转型或晚年创业。

创业不限于年轻人。张忠谋先生在55岁时创立了全球最成功的半导体公司之一台积电，此前他在德州仪器工作了25年。这显示了积累的知识和判断力如何支撑晚年再造。

我们的职业生涯将变得不那么线性，但不必变得不那么有意义。

失业或再培训期间的经济支持为个人和家庭提供喘息空间，但必须与前进路径相连。我们的目标是帮助每个人自信地重返可持续工作，而不仅仅是让失业更易忍受。

我们无法承诺每个岗位都保持不变——我认为我们也不应尝试这样做——不能仅为冻结岗位而阻止技术发展。但我们承诺、努力并尽最大努力帮助每一位工人更早准备，获得相关能力，找到可信的下一步，并在变革中不被孤立。因为每一位工人都重要。[掌声]

这就是工人获得持久经济成功份额的方式。不仅通过变革后的补偿，更通过持续贡献、收入、适应和晋升的能力。

议长先生，请允许我回到张文杰先生的问题——普通新加坡人如何获得国家成功的持久份额？

当一位年轻的新加坡人将科学创意转化为公司；当一家本地企业赢得首个重要客户并进入全球价值链；当一名技术员晋升为更高技能的岗位；当一位被裁的专业人士能够基于多年经验而非从零开始；当一家新加坡企业在海外发展壮大，同时加强本地的研发和领导职能；当一位在跨国公司工作的新加坡人培养出领导区域的能力和人脉，甚至日后创办自己的企业；当遭遇商业或职业挫折的人能够恢复、学习、尝试并再次成功。这就是持久的共享。这不仅仅是价值创造后获得的转移，而是参与打造、创造、塑造和维持该价值的机会。这就是新加坡人能够赢得胜利的方式。这就是成功的实现方式。

议长先生，修订后的动议涵盖了新加坡所需的完整组合：一个平等包容的经济体，为企业家、家庭、企业和工人提供机会，促进思想和创新的繁荣；一个由充满活力的本地公司和全球企业驱动的经济，拥有健康的内需和外需，以及新加坡人和新加坡资本在海外拓展。

所有这些都是相辅相成的统一经济战略的组成部分。

有句著名的中国谚语说：“天时地利人和”——正确的时机和机会，正确的地点，正确的人。这些元素常被认为是成功的必要条件。

政府将发挥其作用：维护一个值得信赖、开放的经济体；进行长期投资；解决真正的能力、融资和市场准入缺口；帮助工人准备应对变化。这就是“地利”。（英文：Right place）

其他各方也必须发挥作用。企业必须转型，投资于人才；工人必须持续学习；投资者要进行明智的风险投资；企业家要建设、竞争、坚持并承担责任。这就是“人和”。（英文：Right people）

我们不能保证每个创业项目都会成功，每个工作岗位都会保持不变，或者每次转型都会毫无痛苦。这本身就是“天时”。（英文：Right timing and opportunity）

因为我们无法提供时机和机会，这是企业家和企业创始人必须决定的最关键部分。但我们始终可以确保新加坡是一个让每个人都有公平尝试机会、拥有进步路径并获得挫折恢复支持的地方。

我们深爱的新加坡的成功从未被保证。每一代人都必须通过保持开放、加快学习、进行审慎风险投资以及在困难时刻团结一致来建设它。下一章节将要求同样的精神。未来的经济不会由某一类公司、某一来源的需求或某一政府计划驱动，而是由所有能够建设、领导、拥有、创新、适应和成长的新加坡人共同驱动。

这就是我们为新加坡确保最佳未来的方式。这就是我们确保新加坡未来经济真正惠及所有新加坡人的方式。

议长先生，基于此，我支持修订案及修订后的动议。[掌声]

议长先生：陈诗龙部长，您走了一条少有人走的路，确实取得了长足进步。轻松一点说，我们都来自同一时代，像您一样，我也喜欢看西尔维斯特·史泰龙的电影，不得不承认我看过《洛奇》好几次。

我现在想邀请张文杰先生发言——哦，抱歉，有澄清发言？阿扎尔·奥斯曼先生。

晚上8点19分

阿扎尔·奥斯曼先生：谢谢议长。我感谢部长分享经验。就我个人做生意的经验而言，我们知道这非常困难，但回报非常甜美。

我想澄清的是：我们现在在全球范围内竞争。过去我们纯粹是公司对公司竞争；现在我们要与中国、美国及所有国家竞争。我的观点是，在新加坡独特战略的背景下，竞争可以借助我们公司成长的支持而变得更容易。

我们得到了企业发展局、新加坡工商联合总会、贸工部等的支持。

我只是想澄清，希望这种支持能够持续，并且进一步加强，因为这就是新加坡的独特故事。我们的公司成长，不是通过其他国家政府视为限制的竞争，而是视我们的政府为帮助企业家和企业全球发展的桥梁，无论我们去哪个国家。

议长先生：陈诗龙部长，您愿意回应吗？

陈诗龙博士：我们一定会尽力支持所有新加坡本土企业。事实上，如果您关注最近的内阁改组，贸工部将于2026年10月1日起更名为能源、贸易与工业部。

我们的总理具有远见，他看到了所有潜在的变革和广阔的机遇。因此，鉴于我们必须完成的任务的规模和范围，副总理颜金勇凭借其监督贸易和宏观经济战略的经验，我将负责能源和工业，并积极与贸易协会和商会接触。我们并不垄断知识或信息，我们将寻求尽可能多的专家指导，并邀请可能的合作机会，看看如何更好地支持新加坡企业和新加坡人。但当然，主要目标是他们必须扎根于我们深爱的家园。

议长先生：张文杰先生。

晚上8点22分

张文杰（阿裕尼）先生：议长先生，我感谢本院双方所有发言的议员。

我们提出这项动议，是为了回应每位新加坡人最关心的经济问题：是否有工作，工作是否持久；年轻人是否能找到有前途的工作；是否能买得起组屋；小店是否能负担得起租金；工人参加的课程是否能带来工作；我们宣布的增长是否反映在工资上；想创业的新加坡人是否能负担得起高成本结构。我们从生产要素——土地、劳动力、资本、生产率的角度系统地看待这些问题。

在这项动议中，我们系统地回答了九个问题。我将再次回顾。

第一，如何培育一个充满活力的创新生态系统，克服高商业成本和物理限制，最大化价值？

我建议在南洋理工大学周边设立一个特别区域，国家土地按开发成本而非市场稀缺价值计价。采取与国大和One-North地区缺乏灵活性不同的做法。设立一个区域管理机构，能在数周内快速决定签证、空间和采购，并设有自己的投资机构，为新兴企业提供成长资本并持股。这是对年轻人和新加坡未来的投资。

感谢阿扎尔·奥斯曼先生提出扩大研发税收优惠和产学合作基金池的建议。

感谢梁国民博士指出科技研究局和大学与中小企业整合不足，并建议鼓励实验室在非工作时间共享。我们赞同他提出的高失败率、高影响力的国家资金支持，但认为此类公共研发支出必须配套主权回报机制。

感谢黄士轩先生传达的创业生命周期“5C”方法。

感谢萧振祥部长支持我关于土地定价的观点。公平市场价值已是授予权益的函数，而非附着于地块的数字。因此，我们的国家土地和租赁政策应对年轻人和年轻企业最大限度地灵活。无论土地如何定价，市场稀缺价值仍是默认基准。我们建议设立一个以开发成本而非稀缺性为基准的区域，并欢迎部长表现出的更灵活的态度。

第二，充满活力的本地企业。如何营造商业环境，使充满活力的本地企业成为创新驱动力和未来经济基石？

林志蔚副教授建议将支持机制由推式改为拉式。自动向企业提供支持——先发放补助，而非报销，因为小企业的主要限制是现金和时间，而非方案的存在。他建议扩大合格研发支出范围，派遣专家进入中小企业，因为本地企业仅占本经济商业研发支出的五分之一，这一差距不会因企业努力而缩小。他还建议将Catalist上市与国家共同投资挂钩，因为缺失的资本是首次公开募股前的资本。

感谢李坚辉先生提到他认为增长数据与企业实际之间的桥梁是三方过程。我们感谢他对更包容经济核心愿景的支持。

感谢谢秉辉先生表达他认为现有工具包是答案，包括渐进工资、工作补贴、技能未来、前进新加坡。我们至少在建设充满活力的本地生态系统这一重要目标上达成共识。

感谢阿扎尔·奥斯曼先生的发言。我们同样关注微型企业面临的地面压力，特别是中年工人面临的租金和劳动力成本上升。

感谢安迪先生要求我们超越识别挑战，提出具体政策选择。我们温和指出，我们已在本次辩论的发言中阐述了这些具体选择，包括对劳动力、租金和结构性支持的立场。事实上，安迪先生问我们的传导机制是否足够强大以覆盖小企业，但并未回答自己的问题。如果可以，我想请他说明应采取哪些政策选择的传导机制以实现小企业的向上融合？

第三，家庭的屋顶。如何摆脱地主心态，确保每个新加坡家庭都能获得有吸引力且负担得起的住房？

蔡庆威先生建议土地政策不应以最大化土地收入为首要目标。因为租金不仅是一项成本，它已渗透到所有其他成本中。他建议战略地块默认采用概念和价格招标，因为最高出价者获胜、保留价未公开且未授予地块可等待的制度，只会推高价格。他还建议建立“组屋模式的计算”，因为我们每年通过土地销售收入约200亿新元，却仅为一年的计算项目预留约1.5亿新元。

第四，工作生活的起点。如何确保高等教育学生和年轻工人在充满挑战的经济中找到有意义的机会和好工作？

刘宇扬先生提出“公平起步承诺”，即国家承诺确保30岁以下、刚从教育或国服转入职场的年轻新加坡人通过稳定就业或适当的带薪职业发展路径获得公平起步。他建议基于技能的入职，使用验证的技能证据和实际评估，将有能力的初学者与现有劳动力市场需求匹配。

他还倡导扩大带薪学徒制供应，创建全国市场，协调雇主和共享培训能力，特别是为中小企业提供带薪就业、公积金、结构化学习和可转移能力。他建议通过有针对性的临时风险共担安排创造真正新增的就业机会，并在适当的政府招标中给予额外员工岗位和学徒制的适当加分。

国务部长迪内什大致同意刘宇扬先生的建议，并承认他与我们有共同愿望，即给予每位年轻新加坡人公平起步。特别是，他同意扩大和加强基于工作路径的重要性，包括学徒制。

吴多泉副教授建议一次性课程调整津贴，使大学一年级转学不受家庭经济状况影响。他建议可忽略一两个补贴学期。感谢他倡导我们动议旨在为所有新加坡人巩固的包容性。

第五，中产生活路径。如何为技工创造可及的中产生活路径？

严燕松先生建议建立由从业者主导的行会，由现有行业协会发展而来，因为雇主联合会无法公正认证工人的能力，因其成员利益在于保留工人。他建议在数字技能账本上进行任务特定的认证，通过实际评估验证，并建议将许可纳入工艺教育课程，由独立小组审查，学徒可提出申诉。

感谢何伟伦副教授对职业与技能护照的宝贵见解，强调重视职场学习的重要性，承认存在需改进的差距，以真正促进以技能为先的招聘，正如我的同事刘宇扬先生指出的。

第六，失业与再就业。我们的继续教育体系是否真正有效？旅程、目标与证明。

莫哈默法理先生建议建立全民裁员保险计划，雇主和雇员共同缴纳月薪的千分之一，支付最后工资的40%，上限为中位数的40%，最长六个月，无需申请，因为必须申请且可能被拒的工人无法规划未来。

感谢国务部长迪内什提到我们的立场相近。我们希望这意味着不久将为所有工人提供全民裁员支持，而不仅是为60%人群提供的求职者支持计划。

莫哈默法理还建议强制裁员福利，因为目前是酌情的，且合法可为零，服务多年的工人不应依赖善意。他建议免息研究生贷款、公积金支持硕士课程，并按课程和提供者公布成果，因为深度再培训资金紧缺，我们需要知道哪些课程有效。

阿扎尔·奥斯曼先生要求在再培训期间提供更强的月收入支持。我们原则上同意。我们也非常赞同文礼佳博士所说的“无方向的努力只会带来挫败感”。我们需要为人民提供更多方向。

第七，被裁工人。新加坡工人在被裁员时实际获得什么？

毕丹星先生询问并回答了新加坡被裁工人的权益。根据法律，目前没有任何保障。他建议立法设定裁员福利的法定底线，按照三方标准，每服务一年支付两周工资。他还建议制定附属法规，对大企业支付更高赔偿，最高达工会标准的每年一个月工资，并建议立即实施，因为法院已确认存在法律空白。

今年，雇佣申诉法庭裁定《雇佣法》第45条不创造任何权利，三方指导方针无法律依据。我们周边所有发达经济体——中国、韩国、台湾、马来西亚、泰国、印度尼西亚、菲律宾——均有相关立法，而我们没有。

感谢郑德源先生对辩论的宝贵贡献。我们在工人绝不应成为经济转型中的附带损害、必须积极保护专业人士免受人工智能替代风险的信念上找到共识。然而，我们恭敬地将本动议视为为工联长期争取的保护提供部分法律支持。因此，我们邀请劳工运动支持裁员福利的立法要求。

第八，我们的统计未涵盖的经济部分。国家统计未能捕捉经济的哪些部分？

何廷儒女士建议为护理工作建立正式的工资阶梯，因为注册护士、社会工作者和学前教师的收入均低于国家中位数，而这些行业被经济韧性报告视为韧性行业。当前未建立工资底线覆盖他们。她建议对家庭照顾者给予补偿，扩大临时照护，并定期进行官方时间使用研究，因为非正式老年照护价值12.8亿新元，却未计入国家账户。我们尚未衡量提供照护者的成本。她建议建立环境仪表板，跟踪政策的环境成果。

第九，海外拓展。如何赋能新加坡人抓住区域及海外机遇？

蒋佩姗女士建议按照法国模式，将海外就业计划资金直接拨付个人而非通过雇主，由国家机构持有合同，因为将岗位绑定于赞助雇主的增长计划限制了其野心。她建议扩大岗位数量，而不仅仅是放宽门槛，因为新加坡青年计划取消了两年资格限制，但未承诺增加派遣人数。

她建议在两年和五年时公布成果，因为2018年的方案设定了目标但未公布结果，我们仍然不知道出国是否能在回国时带来收益。她建议打破回国时围绕BTO排队、公积金和子女返校的壁垒。

我们感谢阿扎尔·奥斯曼先生，他提出了关于海外仓储、促成交易的官员以及将海外利润再投资于研发和能力建设的税收激励的政策建议。

我想回应一些关于工人党政策提出的观点。

佳馥梅女士说，要先创造再占有。这个观点真实，但诊断错误。能力是实现所有权的前提，而不是反过来。如果我们以再平衡作为战略的组织原则，可能不会拥有更多这样的公司，反而可能更少。若以所有权为目标而忽视能力和竞争力，我们不会拥有更大份额，只会拥有更小份额中的更多。

当然，我们必须具备能力。对此我们无异议。但让我们用她演讲中的PSA例子。PSA并非因为拥有数据优势而收购码头，而是因为拥有码头才获得数据优势。所有权先行，能力由此积累。没有能力的所有权是死胡同，但没有所有权的能力无法在分裂的世界中建立韧性。我们的立场是两者兼备。

虽然我们同意打造具有全球竞争力的新加坡企业的目标，但我们认为所有权不是过早的目标，而是必不可少的下一篇章。经过60年通过跨国公司成功创造价值，我们的动议旨在确保新加坡人今天能从价值创造走向价值捕获和所有权。

我相信国务部长迪内希提出了一些建议，有人说新加坡的经济模式正在失败。请允许我温和地建议，他可能听错了，因为我没听到有人这么说。

我相信萧振祥部长误解了我们的政策，认为我们想依赖国内市场作为主要来源。对任何稍加思考的人来说，这显然行不通。我们说的是国内需求是必要的，但不是充分的。

我感谢陈诗龙部长支持我们的观点，即国内市场是百汇医疗进入海外市场的平台。

关于修正案，谢秉辉议员提出了四项修正案。

关于第一号修正案，删除“尽管如此”并插入“符合”，工人党不能接受该修正案。该修正案不仅仅是删词，而是颠倒了句意。我们的动议说本院相信这些原则。修正案则说这些原则将随审查采纳而来。我们的动议承诺目标，修正案承诺文件。独立标准可检验任何计划，无论是政府的还是我们的。

让我明确说明“尽管如此”一词所针对的内容——不是审查报告的建议。我们分享的许多诊断都是针对一个政府文件被视为全院经济思考的全部风险。“尽管如此”仅表示我们的承诺既不局限于该文件，也不源自该文件。

这正是宪法中“尽管如此”一词的用法。宪法第148A条允许总统批准拨款法案，尽管他认为可能动用过往储备。如果批准，该意见必须书面告知议长并刊登宪报。

因此，“尽管如此”一词并不推翻总统，也不说他的意见错误，只要求该意见是真实持有、记录在案且不决定结果。这三者兼具。这正是我们用法。经济审查报告继续推进，我们的信念记录在案，二者互不决定。

我们接受第二号和第四号修正案，对第三号修正案有些保留。原因是这不仅仅是将“全球企业”纳入动议文本。如果修正案是“由全球企业支持的充满活力的本地企业驱动的经济”，我们会较少异议。

我们不在全球与本地之间选择。这是错误的二分法。工人党坚决支持开放经济。正如林志蔚议员所说，我们“并非呼吁全面推翻以政府关联公司为主导、跨国公司引领和依赖外资的模式”。

我们必须承认，国内企业长期以来未感受到国家足够支持，难以发展壮大并在本土及海外竞争。事实胜于雄辩。如果该模式历史上确实成功支持了许多本地企业，为什么会有这些担忧？我请所有议员，尤其是反对党议员，诚实反思这些问题。

此时值得强调，正如林志蔚议员在演讲末尾指出，我们并非意图削弱跨国公司对经济的贡献，也非阻断外资进入。相反，我们呼吁调整跨国公司和政府关联公司在经济中的主导地位，转向更年轻的本地企业和中小企业，因为它们更具根基且能带来颠覆性创新。明确说，我们不对立外资与本地，两者皆需。否则是错误的二元对立，是方便的稻草人，但不是我们的论点。

不过，我们不会纠结第三号修正案的语义，因此接受该修正案。

回到第一号修正案。经济审查报告能否承担其所赋予的地位？报告有许多优点，编写认真，广泛咨询，指出真实挑战。但它是渐进的，属于自2010年以来一系列报告的传统。

经济审查报告是自2010年以来第四个国家经济蓝图。2010年经济策略委员会、2017年未来经济委员会、2021年“更强任务组”，以及现在的2026年审查，四者目标几乎相同：提升价值链；培育本土冠军；国际化；再培训。

本报告的新内容是人工智能，但这是所有国家必须应对的新外生因素。给现有剧本加章节和脚注不等于新剧本。

我们是否达到了过去报告的中长期目标？随着追踪减少，难以判断。

2010年经济策略委员会设定两项目标。

一是生产力——“未来十年实现每年2%至3%的生产力增长”，该目标达成。

一是企业数量——“未来十年将此类企业数量显著提升至1000家”，指年收入超过1亿新元的本地企业。2017年后未再追踪，当时约有800家，因此不知是否达标。

2017年未来经济委员会设定两项目标。

一是增长——每年2%至3%，达成。该指标为顶层数字，必要但不足。

一是制造业——“建议中期内打造占GDP约20%的全球竞争力制造业”，未达成。2016年制造业占GDP 17.4%，2025年仍为17.4%。

2021年“更强任务组”未设宏观经济目标，转向不设目标。

2026年经济审查报告唯一类似目标的句子出现两次：“我们应设定雄心勃勃的目标，大幅增加总部设在新加坡、年收入超过10亿新元的企业数量”。

2010年目标是2020年达到1000家本地企业，2026年则建议设定目标，且统计对象从本地企业变为总部设在新加坡的企业。

这让我觉得政府可能有些回避被量化评估。

2017年5月，贸易及工业部称每个产业转型图都有“具体指标和目标以衡量策略效果”。2024年7月，其回顾报告告知读者，行业成果不应与初期预测比较。

目标被淡化为预测，指标变成愿景。我们对此已有所熟悉。去年11月，食品政策“30%自给”目标被缩减为更窄的目标，五年后。明确目标变成更具挑战性的愿景。

我未从政府听到除顶层增长目标外的下一层经济目标细节，比如增长类型或分配，政府只说一旦监测警报触发会迅速反应。报告本身也建议对人工智能和工人影响密切监测，必要时调整政策。

议长先生，迅速反应是政府的基本职责。更重要的是政府将在2030年前设定哪些结构性且可证伪的目标。毕竟，愿景是什么，如何判断达成？

我们将自我问责的目标是：本地收入份额上升，实际工资与生产力增长同步，普通工资购买力范围扩大。

我读过报告，认为缺乏成绩单和目标，也未发布四个蓝图的综合成绩单。

我们的党领毕丹星先生今年2月要求提供一份，将承诺与可衡量成果区分开。无追踪，连贯性与重复无异。尽管存在不确定性，我们应承诺除顶层增长外的宏观经济目标。

所以，我直截了当地提问。支持审查报告、希望经济更平等包容、由充满活力的本地企业驱动的议员，已经相信（a）和（b）。这些是审查报告要服务的目标。投票支持动议仅此而已，不批评审查报告，也不约束任何人接受我们的提案。

我们的动议请求本院承诺原则，修正案请求承诺一套操作计划。我请各位议员，尤其是反对党议员，保留“尽管如此”一词，接受原文动议。

议长先生，最后，我们想向新加坡人展示一个未来，在日益严峻的全球环境中，他们看到自己蓬勃发展。新加坡人应拥有一个愿意尝试必要措施，给予他们最大成功机会的国家。

我们的动议写道：为创业者提供试验机会，因为试验的土地和资本对既得利益者定价；家庭和企业成功，因为高地价在经济中造成结构性挑战；工人繁荣，因为工资阶梯必须有效；更广泛社会中，工人需有试验空间、成功路径和失业时的经济缓冲；思想和创新蓬勃，因为研发支出需转化为有意义的商业成果；经济引擎由充满活力的本地企业、健康的内需和新加坡人及资本走向海外驱动，因为新加坡人需理解有一套鼓励他们经济繁荣和未来梦想的体系。

新加坡人不缺动力、抱负或想象力。我们需要的是进一步赋能和支持，在不同的全球环境中取得下一阶段成功。我们将竭尽全力保障新加坡人在不确定时代的安全。

议长先生，感谢本院就经济未来结构方向辩论，我推荐原文动议。谢谢。[掌声]

议长：有任何澄清吗？萧部长。

晚上8点48分

萧振祥：谢谢议长。我感谢张文杰议员澄清工人党支持谢秉辉议员提出的四项修正案中的三项。我很感激他和林志蔚副教授支持我们不是零和博弈的观点，我们不是主张零和转向；中小企业和全球企业都重要，全面经济策略必须兼顾两者。

这解释了三项修正案。遗憾的是，今天未能就修正动议达成共识，分歧在于“尽管如此”一词，而非我们提议的“符合经济审查报告”。

相较于工人党提案，我认为经济审查报告有许多共通点，尽管张议员称其为渐进。实际上，今天的发言中我也未听到能取代经济审查报告的“伟大构想”。我认为工人党是在基于经济审查报告的建议补充不足。张议员本人在新闻发布会上也说他们是在填补经济审查报告的空白。

没有替代方案或大构想可供比较，我敢说我们今天讨论的许多内容目标一致，朝着相同方向努力，细节和参数或有差异，但目标相同。

最重要的是，我们处于竞争日益激烈的艰难世界。我们应寻找共识，展现本院对新加坡人的共同立场。共同推动比寻找不存在的分歧更好。

因此，我遗憾今天无法达成共识。希望工人党未来能重新考虑，支持我认为全面、完整、前瞻的经济策略，为新加坡和新加坡人服务。

议长：张议员，您要回应吗？可以吗？还有其他澄清吗？国务部长迪内希。

迪内希：议长，我想澄清张议员关于求职者支持计划和失业保险的说法。我说的是我们的目标可能相同，工人应受保护和支持，尤其在裁员时。但我没说保险是唯一出路。关键是设计和资金方式，可能不同。我还说过，我们的做法一直是支持再就业，而非仅仅失业。

我只是想澄清我之前的简化说法。

议长：张议员，您要回应吗？可以吗？还有其他澄清吗？佳馥梅女士。

佳馥梅：议长，我想澄清张议员关于我提到的PSA例子的评论，他说所有权先于能力。

让我们看顺序。PSA多年来是本地运营商，先建立了世界级港口运营能力，然后利用该能力收购其他港口。它并未一开始就设定“我要拥有45个国家的港口”的目标。它先建立能力，然后扩展。

他提到的数据优势不仅来自所有权，还来自数字技术、人工智能和自动化能力，否则无法具备竞争优势。

所以我坚持我的观点，在此案例中，能力先行，所有权随后。但我不想纠结顺序，正如我演讲所说，能力和所有权是相辅相成的。我们一直说两者都要，但如果必须选择，能力才是企业全球成功的关键。谢谢。

议长：张议员，您要回应吗？没有？好的。还有其他澄清吗？李坚辉先生。

李坚辉：谢谢议长。我感谢张文杰议员同意我关于三方合作和公私伙伴关系仍然重要的观点。关于裁员福利和强制性问题，应考虑企业意见。我相信需要澄清工人党提出的一些观点和建议。

首先，公司在裁员时所处的情况各不相同。目前的惯例实际上是每服务一年支付两周到一个月的薪水，但议员提议大型公司至少支付一个月的薪水。这是一个显著的增加。对于那些面临严重现金流问题的公司来说，如果此类支付成为强制性的，议员是否同意这可能会使企业陷入更深的困境，甚至可能危及剩余岗位？

其次，更高的裁员成本是否会使雇主在聘用正式员工时更加谨慎？公司是否会更多依赖短期合同或外包，或者在最坏的情况下，减少招聘人数，尤其是那些需要更长培训时间的无经验工人和转行者？

第三，如果我们立法规定最低标准，有什么保证结果会有所改善？法定最低标准是否会变成常态，那些目前支付更多的公司可能只支付规定的金额，甚至在有工会的公司中也减少谈判空间？

那么，针对上述澄清，立法是否一定是最佳解决方案？我希望工人党能听取基层企业的意见。因为归根结底，裁员工人最好的保障不仅是赔偿金，更是找到下一份好工作的能力。

议长：张文杰议员？毕丹星议员。

毕丹星：谢谢议长。我相信李坚辉议员的评论是针对我的发言。他提出的三个关于企业可能面临的困难的问题，我在发言中已经表示过宽容，我接受企业会有挑战。

我认为这不是不考虑企业的问题。这里关注的是工人，以及经济策略审查（ESR）描绘的他们将面临的新加坡环境。我们会有不同的观点。

他提出的三个问题，正是我记得当时高级国务部长许宝琨在我们讨论时提出的。我在发言中已对这三点作出回应，因此我邀请该议员考虑我对这三点的回应，正如他和当时高级国务部长许宝琨之前提出的。谢谢。

晚上8时58分

议长：张文杰议员？没有？好。还有其他对张文杰议员的澄清吗？

现在辩论已接近尾声，我将向议院提出表决。我们有谢秉辉议员提出的四项修正案，先处理修正案。

修正案一是，“第1行，删除‘not withstanding’，插入‘in line with’。”问题是，“是否通过修正案一？”同意者请说“赞成”。

议员们：赞成。

议长：反对者请说“反对”。

部分议员：反对。

议长：我认为赞成者占多数，赞成者占多数。毕丹星议员，您是否希望记录您的反对意见？

毕丹星：是的，议长，工人党希望记录对第一项修正案的反对意见——

议长：如果可以，请希望记录反对意见的议员请起立。

[（程序记录）议员穆海民、蒋佩姗、蔡庆威、莫哈默法理、严燕松、何廷儒、林志蔚副教授、林瑞莲、刘宇扬、毕丹星、陈立峰和张文杰起立要求记录反对意见。（程序记录）]

议长：好了，请坐，谢谢。

[（程序记录）问题“是否通过修正案一”，通过。（程序记录）]

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

[（程序记录）问题“是否通过修正案二”，提出并通过。（程序记录）]

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

[（程序记录）问题“是否通过修正案三”，提出并通过。（程序记录）]

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

[（程序记录）问题“是否通过修正案四”，提出并通过。（程序记录）]

议长：修正案已获通过。现将修正后的原议案提交议院。

问题是，“本议院依据经济策略审查对未来新加坡经济的建议，认为：（a）应建设一个更平等包容的经济，给予创业者试验机会，家庭和企业成功，工人繁荣，思想和创新蓬勃发展；（b）应建设一个由充满活力的本地公司、全球企业、健康的内外需以及新加坡人和新加坡资本走向海外驱动的经济。”

同意者请说“赞成”。

议员们：赞成。

议长：反对者请说“反对”。

部分议员：反对。

议长：我认为赞成者占多数。毕丹星议员。

毕丹星：议长，工人党议员希望记录我们的反对意见。请您记录。

议长：请希望记录反对意见的议员再次起立。

议长：请坐，谢谢。赞成者占多数。

[（程序记录）修正后的原议案通过。（程序记录）]

[（程序记录）决议，“本议院依据经济策略审查对未来新加坡经济的建议，认为：（程序记录）]

[（程序记录）（a）应建设一个更平等包容的经济，给予创业者试验机会，家庭和企业成功，工人繁荣，思想和创新蓬勃发展；（程序记录）]

[（程序记录）（b）应建设一个由充满活力的本地公司、全球企业、健康的内外需以及新加坡人和新加坡资本走向海外驱动的经济。”（程序记录）]

晚上9时02分

议长：副领袖。

英文原文

SPRS Hansard 原始记录 · 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.

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 原始记录

惠及所有人的未来经济（辩论总结）

为什么重要

关键要点

参与人员 (11)

完整译文（中文）

英文原文

引用此条

同主题更多