Professor Euston Quah, Editor of the Singapore Economic Review,

Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Professor at Columbia University, and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development,

Distinguished Speakers,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Good morning and thank you very much for inviting me to the official opening of the 11th Singapore Economic Review Conference 2026.

In my speech at the 2024 Economic Society of Singapore Annual Dinner, I highlighted how good politics creates the conditions that enable good policies to work effectively, and good policies in turn then provide the broad-based support for good politics to continue. I also spoke about guarding against populism and short-termism, which unfortunately have been gaining traction in some overseas jurisdictions since I made my speech.

This morning, I would like to build on these ideas by sharing the Singapore Government’s approach to national development in a land-scarce country. I will touch on how we:

Shape incentives to drive behaviour and achieve better outcomes for society;

Review and adjust policies regularly to meet changing societal needs; and

Balance difficult trade-offs to achieve broader national objectives.

Shaping incentives to drive behaviour and achieve better outcomes for society

Let me start with shaping incentives. We know markets are efficient allocators. However, individual behaviours do not always produce the most socially desirable outcomes. Professor Thomas Sowell observed that economic policies should be assessed in terms of the incentives they create, rather than simply the goals they pursue. Good intentions are necessary but insufficient. It is also imperative to have good policy design, underpinned by the right economic principles for each context, to shape the individual behaviours that collectively produce better societal outcomes.

From our experience, the best way is for the Government to shape behaviours with the judicious use of market-based incentives, where possible. When done well, this brings out the best of both worlds – tapping into the dynamism and efficiency of the market, while guiding it towards socially desirable outcomes.

Sustainable Development

The Green Mark scheme is one such example which incentivises property developers to adopt green building design and technology.

Launched 20 years ago, the Green Mark scheme has served as a common benchmark for green buildings that is easily recognised by banks and consumers. Obtaining Green Mark certification for their buildings gives developers a competitive advantage, allowing them to unlock green financing more easily and attract more customers who are paying greater attention to sustainability outcomes.

This is supported by market data. A 2024 report by Cushman and Wakefield found that Green Mark-certified buildings in the Central Business District not only enjoy higher occupancy rates, they also command rents up to 12% higher for those with Platinum level certification.

For existing buildings, BCA also provides co-funding to subsidise the cost of retrofitting them with more energy efficient infrastructure.

Through these incentives, we have achieved tangible results. When the Green Mark scheme was first launched, only 17 buildings were Green Mark certified. We now have over 2,700 Green Mark-certified buildings, and I believe the list will grow over time if we continue to align the commercial incentives of the building owners with what is desirable for society as a whole.

Redevelopment and Rejuvenation of Old Estates

Sustainable development also means making the most of our limited land. We want to incentivise private developers to intensify land use by rejuvenating ageing residential sites, including larger sites where the redevelopment will require a longer duration.

Currently, most housing developers are required under the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty regime, or ABSD regime in short, to commence construction within two years. Thereafter, they need to complete construction of their housing developments and sell all of the units within five years to avoid incurring ABSD. These conditions ensure the timely injection of housing supply and encourage developers to bid prudently for the land.

We recognise that developers seeking to undertake redevelopment of large residential en bloc sites will require more time. They may not be able to meet the regular ABSD remission timelines. We could end up with a lose-lose outcome for the society as a whole if developers are discouraged from rejuvenating large residential en bloc sites.

In March 2025, MND implemented a six-month extension to the ABSD remission timelines for en bloc developers where the new development yields at least 700 residential units, with at least 50% more units than before. Having studied the situation and examined the incentives involved, I think we can go further.

Starting from tomorrow, we will increase the ABSD remission timeline extension from six months to one year for developers that acquire large en bloc sites for redevelopment, giving them a total of six years to complete construction and to sell all units in the development. These are sites where the new development yields at least 700 residential units, with at least 50% more units than before.

In addition, developers of mega en bloc sites that can yield at least 1,400 housing units, with at least 50% more units than before, will get a two-year extension to their ABSD remission timelines, which is a significant increase from the previous six-month extension. This means that developers of such mega en bloc sites will get a total of seven years to complete construction and sell all the units. The developers would have to sell a minimum of 50% of the residential units at the end of six years to qualify for the ABSD remission.

These changes are intended to set the right incentives for developers to rejuvenate larger estates, so that we can encourage more land intensification and achieve an outcome which is good for society as a whole.

Reviewing and adjusting policies regularly to meet changing societal needs

Next, Government policies must continue to evolve and adapt to the changing needs of society. This is a hallmark of the PAP government, to take a pragmatic approach and do what works best for Singapore based on evidence rather than ideology, and to be willing to change course when we are facing a new situation or operating in a new environment.

Together with our ability to plan ahead and take a longer-term perspective, these elements are critical to enable Singapore to build stronger resilience and prepare our country and our people for a fast-changing world.

Another hallmark of this Government is to work closely with employers and unions through our tripartite partnership to help companies and workers adapt to changes and grow the economic pie, so that there is more for everyone to share and we can achieve mutually beneficial outcomes for all stakeholders. We believe we can achieve more by working together through collaboration, rather than fighting with one another through confrontation. The end in mind is to have a win-win outcome which is good for business, and also good for workers.

This is why sustainable economic growth is important, because without growth, we cannot have win-win outcomes. In a zero-sum situation, we can only have win-lose. Such an outcome will create tensions and conflict between different groups in society, and win-lose will soon become lose-lose. We see this happening in many other countries, which then gives rise to politics becoming more inward-looking, more populist and more short-term. We want to avoid these trends in Singapore.

Let me share one example of how we are keeping our policies and rules up to date. The Government has set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Pro-Enterprise Rules Review. This is chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong. We set this up in April 2024. The purpose is to enhance regulatory agility and to reduce compliance burden for businesses. The committee has engaged with over 200 business leaders across 18 sectors and reviewed more than 300 pieces of feedback. It has successfully addressed a majority of the issues raised. We have also announced three commitments last year and are working with agencies to implement these commitments:

First, all agencies are to publish their service standards for regulatory applications, with a target of within 30 working days where possible. Agencies have since published service standards for 93% of business regulatory applications, with 80% of applications processed within 30 working days. This helps to make our processes more transparent and predictable for businesses. But as you can see from the data, we are not there yet. We are still work in progress, so we will press on and achieve that level.

Second, to extend the validity of business licences to at least three years, and up to five years where we can. Today, 45% of all business licences have a validity period of at least three years. By 2029, this will increase to 80%, with agencies actively reviewing their policies. The purpose of this is to give businesses a greater certainty and they don’t have to go through the process of an annual review.

Third, to streamline processes to reduce sequential approvals and repeated requests for information coming from different agencies asking the businesses for the same information. So, we have simplified multi-agency processes to shorten administrative timelines and reduce back-and-forth engagements with approving authorities.

As Minister for National Development, I have also made pro-enterprise rules review a key priority for my Ministry. Thanks to the strong support from our industry partners and my colleagues from MND family, we have made some progress on this front over the past year and we will press on with our ongoing reviews to help our stakeholders save time, save costs and save manpower.

Deputy Prime Minister Gan has asked me to take over from Senior Minister Shanmugam as Deputy Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee. I am honoured to take up this responsibility as it is an area of work which I am passionate about, and I will do my best to support DPM and to work with our agencies and industry partners.

Looking ahead and building on what the Committee has achieved thus far, one priority is to go beyond addressing industry feedback on regulatory pain points, to proactively examining how our policies and rules can facilitate and enable new growth opportunities.

For example, how can we design our rules and regulations to support more extensive usage of new technologies like AI, robotics and automation in different sectors of our economy, with the goal of boosting economic competitiveness, enhancing productivity and creating more good jobs for our people?

How can our rules and regulations encourage more companies to invest in building stronger capabilities in domains like sustainability, cyber-security, supply chain management and internationalisation, which are going to be important for their future growth and resilience?

And how can we better support entrepreneurs from Singapore and the region, to test out their new ideas and business models by using this place as a regulatory sandbox and a launchpad for their innovations?

These approaches will require the Government to leave our comfort zones and adjust the way we operate:

To be comfortable in taking more calculated risks and accept that some of these ventures will fail.

To be even more open in working closely with the industry to jointly innovate and co-develop new solutions, instead of taking a more arms-length regulatory approach.

And importantly to create a pro-enterprise ecosystem where the different enablers can come together and reinforce one another, and where government agencies and public officers see it as part of our mission to help businesses do well, so that our people can benefit when the economy grows.

Housing Demand and Supply

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the construction timelines of new BTO flats were delayed. This affected the supply of public housing. At the same time, housing demand increased, as societal trends shifted towards smaller household sizes and the low-interest rate environment made it cheaper to service a housing loan. These factors led to an imbalance in supply and demand that added upward pressure on the prices of resale flats. Unlike the new BTO flats that are bought from the Government directly, resale flats are sold to the market between a seller and a buyer. These are market prices, and due to the imbalance that I described during COVID, the prices of resale flats increased.

The Government responded swiftly by increasing supply of new HDB flats, but we also understood that supply ramp-up would take time, especially when the construction industry was still recovering from the pandemic. Property cooling measures were introduced from 2021. One of these was a 15-month wait-out period, which was introduced in September 2022, to moderate demand for HDB resale flats from individuals who previously owned private properties.

With the exception of senior Singaporeans who are selling their private properties to buy a 4-room or smaller flat to prepare for their retirement, private property owners must wait 15 months after disposing their private properties, before they can purchase a non-subsidised HDB resale flat.

MND indicated from the onset that this was intended to be a temporary measure to help moderate demand and stabilise resale prices. We recognise that with the 15-month wait-out period, households with genuine housing needs faced inconveniences and disruption to their plans to switch from private property to resale flats. There can be many different reasons why people need to do that – genuine reasons why people need to.

In my first media interview after becoming Minister for National Development, I said we will remove the 15-month wait-out period when market conditions allow us to do so.

Looking at the data, HDB resale price growth has moderated significantly, from a high of 10.4% in 2022 to 2.9% in 2025. Following a 0.1% reduction in resale prices in 1Q 2026, prices further decreased by 0.3% in 2Q 2026.

As market conditions have improved, we have assessed that the 15-month wait-out period has met its purpose and will be removed with immediate effect. With this change, private property owners of all ages will no longer face a wait-out period to buy a non-subsidised HDB resale flat of any size.

Policy for Singles

Another example of how we have made changes over the years to our policies is our housing policy for singles.

In the past, the policies prioritised public housing for families, and housing options for singles were limited to private housing. But we know social norms and demographics have changed, and across the world and also in Singapore, more people are choosing to remain single, or to marry later in life.

We respect these personal choices. Hence, while the Government will continue to encourage marriage and parenthood, and support families to achieve homeownership, we have progressively opened up public housing options to singles.

In the 1990s, we opened the HDB resale market to singles when they reach age 35;

in the 2010s, singles were able to buy 2-room BTO flats directly from the Government, but only in non-mature estates;

and in 2024, with the introduction of the New Flat Classification framework, we expanded this to 2-room BTO flats islandwide - it is not confined to only non-mature estates.

Last year, we extended priority access under the Family Care Scheme to singles, when they apply for a new flat to live with or near their parents for mutual care and support.

To further support younger singles, the Government is looking at lowering the eligibility age of 35 for singles to buy HDB flats. This policy is currently under careful review.

These examples reflect the Government’s pragmatic approach to policymaking – moving in tandem with changing times and keeping our policies relevant are essential in ensuring that the policies can deliver good outcomes for our people. This in turn supports good politics, creating a conducive political environment and enabling conditions for good policies to be designed and implemented over time.

Balancing difficult trade-offs to achieve broader national objectives

Finally, I would like to talk about balancing difficult trade-offs. The concept of trade-offs is central to economics. Economists are trained to look beyond the immediate benefits of a given proposal and consider the opportunity cost of the alternative.

For Governments, adopting this lens is very useful, as it forces us to be honest about the limits of what public policy can achieve, both internally and also to the public. In this sense, “trade-offs” is not just economic term or jargon, it is a discipline that grounds policymaking in reality.

Land Use Planning

Let me illustrate this through our long-term land use planning approach to meet different development needs. As a small city-state, Singapore’s land supply is highly constrained. We are often confronted with trade-offs when it comes to land use planning. We try to overcome this constraint by reclaiming new land where possible, building taller or going deeper underground when we can, and integrating different uses in mixed-use developments through clever design and engineering.

But despite doing all these, we cannot avoid the hard truth that land is a scarce resource in Singapore. Each land use decision involves the need to reconcile competing demands, whether for housing or other important needs such as industry, defence, heritage and green spaces.

Making such decisions rarely comes with easy, or straightforward answers. This is why we will continue to engage openly and candidly with the public about the trade-offs, and discuss with stakeholders where the right balance lies.

For example, housing demand has increased in recent years due to demographic changes that I mentioned earlier, the reduction in household sizes or what they called “household fragmentation”. To meet this higher demand, tensions between development and conservation have unavoidably surfaced.

We have put in place a robust framework to conduct environmental impact and heritage assessments, and study the trade-offs carefully before making decisions on development.

For example, we are formulating our development plans for places like Bukit Timah Turf City and Mount Pleasant. We engaged stakeholders when we are doing this and this includes residents around the area, heritage groups and nature groups. We also conducted detailed studies to guide our efforts to develop carefully and sensitively.

This enabled us to safeguard the most significant greenery and heritage elements, while still fulfilling our people’s housing aspirations, and this refers to both the current and future generations of Singaporeans. And we are able to do this in mature towns, where we have not been building HDB flats in recent years.

MND will continue to adopt this balanced and evidence-based approach when we develop new projects in different parts of Singapore.

Housing as a Social Compact

Let me close with a final point on Singapore’s approach to public housing. As we navigate trade-offs in land use to maintain a robust supply of housing, there are also significant fiscal trade-offs involved, because as we know, every dollar spent on public housing is a dollar not spent elsewhere for education, defence, healthcare, economic development or social welfare.

Our pioneer leaders understood early that homeownership must be a cornerstone of our social compact, to give every Singaporean a stake in this country’s future and to share in the fruits of its progress.

Since independence, the Government has intervened decisively and at national scale, from planning and building public housing estates, to providing subsidies to eligible households to keep public housing accessible and affordable for Singaporeans.

Today, 8 in 10 Singaporeans live in public housing, and around 9 in 10 own their homes. We have one of the highest home ownership rates in the world.

This was achieved through continued hard work and investments of significant resources over the past few decades. Each year, HDB incurs a deficit of several billions of dollars, the bulk of which is to support home ownership through the development and sale of HDB flats to Singaporeans, and the provision of additional housing grants to eligible households.

This was an investment which the Government was willing to make, despite the trade-offs, because we believe in the importance of ensuring that every generation of Singaporeans will continue to have access to affordable public housing. This continues to be the PAP Government’s commitment to our citizens.

Going back to the linkages between good policies and good politics, we see that the failure to adequately address issues like housing affordability and widening wealth inequality has fuelled deep social frustration in many other societies, feeding the rise of ultra-right winged politics and even xenophobia.

Singapore must not go down this path. We have to stay open, and stay connected with the world, so that we can continue to grow our economy, and improve the lives of our people by creating good jobs that can increase their real wages.

And we must also have an economy that can generate the fiscal resources to invest in important areas such as housing, education, healthcare and also the ability to defend ourselves and develop our resilience against future shocks in this fast-changing world.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude. Our pioneers laid the foundations for a strong social compact that has sustained a virtuous cycle of good politics and good policies. This is worth preserving and protecting.

Underpinning this is a sound understanding of economic principles, so that our decisions are grounded in pragmatism rather than ideology, going beyond intent to focus on the underlying incentives, and oriented towards achieving sustainable outcomes rather than pursuing short-term gains.

The Singapore Economic Review and the Economic Society of Singapore have played an important role in this journey, fostering rigorous intellectual debate and bringing together diverse perspectives on the complex challenges that confront us.

Good governance does not happen in isolation; it is strengthened by an engaged and thoughtful community of practitioners, researchers, and policymakers. That combination of strong institutions and an active intellectual community is something we must continue to nurture and invest in.

Thank you.