Speech by Dennis Tan Lip Fong on the debate on the Motion on the President’s address at the opening of the 15th Parliament, 25 September 2025
Mr Speaker, I would first like to start off by thanking my dear Hougang voters and residents for allowing me once again to represent them in this Parliament.
议长先生，首先我要感谢我们亲爱的后港选民和居民，再次允许我进入国会代表他们发言。
Mr. Speaker, in his address at the Opening of the 15th Parliament on 5 September 2025, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam spoke on several themes, including enhancing assurance for all Singaporeans, fostering a more compassionate "We First" society and deepening solidarity, and strengthening our resilience and enhancing sustainable efforts in face of climate challenges. In my speech, I will be touching on issues relating to these themes.
Age Well and AACs
President Tharman spoke of a Singapore where our seniors can “age with dignity, purpose, and joy”. He specifically mentioned that “Healthier SG and Age Well SG will help seniors stay healthy in body and mind and provide more choices for independent living.”
In his National Day Rally in August, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong spoke of the Age Well Neighbourhoods initiative, which would allow for seniors to age in the communities that they are familiar with and which also aim to deliver assisted living support and services to seniors where they live. Such services include community health posts, access to wellness and social activities including newer activities for both women and men, and for those requiring more assistance, there is also help with daily living activities such as washing, eating and housekeeping. Such services are currently available in HDB’s Community Care Apartments in limited estates.
I welcome the provision of such services to our seniors who choose to remain in their own flats in the same neighbourhoods they may have lived in for a long time. Many seniors prefer to continue living in the same neighbourhoods they are familiar with for many years; the familiarity and the neighbourly friendships are important for many seniors.
I do hope that the goals of the Age Well initiative are translated into tangible, on-the-ground support, including especially through our Active Ageing Centres. I see that the role of our AACs will become even more important. Let me touch on a few areas of concern I have.
The Prime Minister had highlighted Toa Payoh's impressive growth in AACs, from six to 13, to ensure seniors don't have to walk far to find a community. In Hougang, we have four AACs within a SMC.
While our centres in Hougang and I am sure, elsewhere in Singapore, are very much in demand and well appreciated by many residents who use their services, I do note that the size of the centres is often a limitation to the amount of activities they can organise. Many centres need to make use of the common spaces in the vicinity of the centres, requiring access via town councils or the local Residents’ Networks.
In light of the new Age Well initiative, I urge the Ministry of Health (MOH) to consider increasing resources for all AACs, whether resources for manpower, space or for more activities, so that every senior who wants to participate actively has all the opportunity to do so, with less need to wait their turns.
I hope the government will make greater efforts to allocate a bigger space to our AACs at the onset or where ground conditions may allow. In this connection, I would like to ask: how does MOH determine the number of residents assigned to each centre. Given the physical limitations of centre spaces or even manpower shortages, perhaps it is time to rethink the resident allocation; we may wish to consider reducing the number of residents allocated per centre. This may allow staff to improve outreach, create more meaningful connections with our seniors, and enhance the quality of our seniors’ time at the centres.
As indicated earlier, AACs may often need to rely on common spaces in our community for their activities due to space constraints. I urge the government to assist centres to make it easier to book these spaces with other agencies as well as helping to lower, if not absorb the costs, if any, of using these premises. Perhaps MOH can help to coordinate with other agencies and stakeholders in this regard.
I would also like to ask again what is the government's strategy for reaching residents who aren't currently participating in any community activities? I have previously called on MOH to study this issue. With the new Age Well initiative, it is even more crucial for MOH to dedicate resources to this critical outreach challenge; there is now a greater imperative to keep more seniors in touch and engaged.
I am keen to understand what percentage of residents the AACs have been unable to engage and how many refused participation after engagement. Does MOH track the reasons for non-engagement and non-participation, or even those who dropped off after initial contact? I hope that MOH will study these issues. While some seniors may have their own active social networks, better outreach will only help to serve more seniors and better enable the new Age Well initiative and the Healthier SG to achieve their stated goals.
The Case for Removing Annual Value in Means-Testing
President Tharman spoke of cushioning burdens and pressures of costs and daily living and ensuring that every citizen has access to life’s essentials.
I have previously called for removing Annual Value (AV) as a means-testing criterion for individuals with zero household income. This is also in our Workers’ Party manifesto and indeed MPs across the aisle have raised this issue. While healthcare subsidies were recently expanded, an AV over $21,000 still denies crucial medical subsidies to those without income. I am reiterating this call today.
AV is an unjust metric often outside a homeowner's control. A person's eligibility should be based on transparent, person-centric criteria, not property valuation. We should delink healthcare affordability from property values. Let us use more accurate, person-centric measures to ensure our social safety net is truly strong and fair, especially for seniors.
A Society of Aspirations and Solidarity
Mr Speaker, President Tharman had also spoken of building a society of where no one is left behind. He stressed that by strengthening assurance and keeping opportunities open, we can build a more resilient and confident society even in an uncertain world. He also spoke of nurturing a "We First" society, one that is more open and engaged, where citizens are empowered to take initiative and lead ground-up programmes. This is about building a society with deepened solidarity.
These aspirations must go far beyond economic metrics. They should allow Singaporeans to pursue their passions and to build a society that is not only prosperous but also rich in culture and spirit. Former US President John F Kennedy once said: "The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction, in the life of a nation, is very close to the center of a nation's purpose...and is a test of the quality of a nation's civilization." This aptly reminds us that while policies have a role to play, it is through art, culture, and shared experiences that a people's values are truly shaped. It is paramount that there are spaces for artists to thrive and for our collective spirit to flourish.
The recent closure of The Projector in August this year due to immense pressures of rising costs and changing consumer habits is a stark and painful reminder of the challenges facing our creative communities. It was more than just a cinema; it was a sanctuary for independent artistic expression and a beacon for communities that struggled to find their place.
This is not an isolated tragedy. It follows the permanent closure of The Substation, our first independent arts centre. Among the reasons for its closure was the changes in the way they were allowed to use the premise which meant they could no longer operate in the same manner as before. We also witnessed the displacement of The Necessary Stage, a pillar of our theatre scene, from its 17-year home due to redevelopment.
These events are not just individual losses; they point to a deeper structural issue where our independent arts spaces—the very heart of a ground-up culture—lack the long-term stability to survive the combined forces of economic pressure, urban redevelopment, and less supportive policies. The impact on our artists and our national soul is indelible, and with every closure of such a space, our country becomes culturally poorer.
To truly become a world-class arts hub, we must ensure that our own independent and creative voices are not left behind. A vibrant culture must be nurtured from the ground up, grounded in the authenticity, diversity, and originality of our local artists and the spaces that cultivate them.
On the occasion of our nation's 60th birthday, we must reflect on the society we are and the society we hope to become. Are we content to be a society where home-grown initiatives are almost inevitably replaced by those bigger and better resourced? In his National Day Rally speech, the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of the “Singapore spirit”. This spirit is of course more than just economic progress; it must be tempered with a Singaporean soul and I submit that independent public spaces where artists can develop their craft, communities can be nurtured, and hearts and minds can be expanded, can go some way to contribute to the Singaporean soul.
It is my hope that we can reimagine the role of the arts in Singapore, not as an indulgence but as a pillar of who we are. This means a two-pronged approach: first, creating policies that offer long-term stability for independent arts spaces and increasing governmental support where it is most needed. Second, and crucially, we must foster a collective mindset that sees the arts as essential to our national fabric. Together, through more supportive policies and everyday choices, we can ensure that local artists and independent spaces thrive. By doing so, we lend our hand to the ground-up initiatives of our arts community, and in turn, we can strengthen our society and deepen the solidarity that defines us.
Climate Action and Accountability
I next speak on climate action and accountability. President Tharman rightly spoke of climate change as an existential threat.
Mr Speaker, on 10 February 2025, Singapore submitted its 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) which was to reduce emissions to 45-50 MtCO2e (million tons carbon dioxide equivalent) by 2035. This represents, finally, a downward emissions trajectory, towards the path to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 as previously announced in 2022. These climate change targets are important to signal Singapore’s commitment to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Paris Agreement. To put into effect these climate targets, Singapore has passed several laws to address climate change, including the Carbon Pricing Act which puts in place a carbon tax. There are several pathways for Singapore to achieve net zero, but not all of these are clear at the moment, given global uncertainties and rollbacks in climate efforts.
In addition to decarbonization, Singapore is already importing electricity from neighbouring countries, and is exploring purchasing carbon credits, carbon capture, utilisation and storage solutions, and even thinking of building small, medium-sized nuclear plants to meet our needs. Knowing more details on these pathways will help inspire trust among more Singaporeans in these options. The Workers’ Party has consistently asked for clarity on the carbon tax allowances provided to Emissions-Intensive-Trade-Exposed sectors in this House and how these transitory allowances may impact Singapore's ability to achieve its 2030, and 2025 Nationally Determined Contributions.
The question that remains is whether these laws and measures will be sufficient in its contribution in an era of “global boiling”, a term coined by former UN Secretary General in July 2023. Following a recent 10-day visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, Ms. Astrid Puentes Riano, in May 2025, it was reported that there was (I quote) “significant space for improvement” (unquote) for Singapore to reduce emissions and protect nature. Notably, Ms Puentes Riano pointed out the lack of clarity on when EIAs are done, when they are published and what is published and urged the Singapore Government to be more inclusive in engaging the public on environmental matters.
The Transitory Allowance Framework provides allowances to ease the financial burden of the carbon tax. However, there is a lack of publicly available information on its implementation and success. With greater details, it will be less difficult for Singaporeans to assess whether these allowances are effective in incentivizing companies to decarbonize and to understand how does the government ensure that businesses do not use carbon offsets to avoid the more challenging and expensive work of transitioning their operations to be more efficient and less carbon-intensive.
In this regard, I thank DPM Gan Kim Yong for his reply to my Parliamentary Question yesterday where he said the Government will review the provision of transitory allowances for companies in Emissions-Intensive and Trade-Exposed sectors and adjust them based on how companies have delivered on their decarbonisation plans, taking into consideration international developments and advancements in decarbonisation technologies.
I still hope that the ministry can in due course provide more details on the Transitory Allowance Framework, including its performance metrics and a clear evaluation of its success in driving decarbonization.
I would also like to know whether the government have an existing verification and accreditation framework in place to assess if all companies eligible for carbon tax allowances have met their criteria? If so, can the government share more info on this with this House?
Finally, if our climate strategy relies on technologies which are still developing, such as carbon capture, utilisation, and storage, we must expect these technologies must scale up as quickly or affordably as hoped so that Singapore may not fall short of her goals. Ultimately the urgency of the global climate crisis may demand that we prioritize proven, impactful measures. Can the government share more on its efforts to overcome challenges arising from the quality and integrity of carbon credits, including the limited supply of eligible, high-quality carbon credits that meet Singapore's stringent criteria and also the effectiveness of our current carbon offsetting programme? Are these offsets genuinely leading to a reduction in global emissions? We must continue to ensure that our commitment to tackling climate change is reflected in a decisive and transparent plan of action that meets the urgency of this crisis.
Concluding paragraph
Mr. Speaker, the points I have made today on Active Ageing Centres, means-testing for healthcare, the arts and our efforts to fight climate change, all point to the goal of building a more resilient and compassionate society. We must embrace policies that are transparent, fair, and grounded in community. This means providing practical, on-the-ground support for our seniors; ensuring our social safety nets are both just and effective; and fostering a vibrant arts community that strengthens our national soul. It is only by addressing these diverse challenges with unity and a renewed sense of purpose that we can build the caring and confident Singapore we all aspire to be.
Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
