Introduction

Mr Chairman, that we are living in turbulent times, is plainly evident. Some of my colleagues who have filed their cuts have said so. Mr Vikram Nair said that collective security and the rules-based world order appeared to be fraying. Mr Desmond Choo said the world is now a far more dangerous and uncertain place. Mr Shawn Huang said the war in Ukraine highlights the vulnerability of smaller states to larger powers and how we need to be prepared. I agree with all these sentiments. So, how do we prepare Singapore and our people for a disruptive future? Even a disrupted one. For leaders everywhere, that surely must be the overriding concern as the global order changes before our very eyes. From a liberal world order, which was characterised by inclusion, which was characterised by rules for large and small states, which was characterised by protection of the global commons, we have now moved from that liberal world order to a world order based on size and influence, based on power.

It has happened before, not only for Singapore but the entire ASEAN region and beyond, where your basic assumptions changed precipitously, and your futures are altered irrevocably. How do we prepare Singaporeans for this kind of change? We want to learn from history, about how the world might change when big power diplomacy dominates. Let me tell you, before I quote the examples, that it is not a pretty picture. But nonetheless, we should learn from them and learn the right lessons. And ask, as we look at these examples, how are the fate of nations decided when big power politics and big power diplomacy dominates in this world order?

History teaches us that the fate of nations, particularly weak ones, and I use the word nations in the broadest sense, can change without their choice. It is decided in the corridors of power, and then declared publicly as a fait accompli. Take the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty when Singapore and Malaysia came under British rule. If the powers that be had decided differently, we could very well have been under Dutch rule, and a radically different future from today. Just as a lark, I typed in to ChatGPT and said, what would happen to Singapore if we were under Dutch rule? It gives you a very good answer. It will tell you that a lot of things will change.

Or fates of nations decided by others, unannounced, without the knowledge of the affected states or the nations most affected, as in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret agreement in 1916 between the French and British when they decided to divide up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. It was only because the Bolsheviks discovered it a year later, and then it was made public.

Or change can be inflicted through open aggression, brute force. I do not like this situation. I am going to deal with you, sheer force, whether you like it or not, whether you can withstand it or not, never mind the suffering. As it did for this region on December 7, 1941, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour under their strategy for a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Barely two months later, the hitherto impregnable “Gibraltar of the East”, as we were referred to, fell, and the Japanese Occupation ensued in Singapore.

Were these events foreseeable? Perhaps, in hindsight. I have been to Pearl Harbour Museum twice. It is fascinating. Every time I go there, I can spend hours there. They lay out the museum wonderfully, chronologically. There are actually two halls: one for before the attack, and one for after. In retrospect, it is logical that these countries did what they did. You see the Japanese Ambassador to the US writing his letter to then-US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and you understand why countries behaved the way they did.  But the Pearl Harbor attack, that day in infamy, caught the US and Allied powers, even with their vast intelligence network, by surprise. And if you look at the military strategy of the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese launched an audacious pincer attack. One on land, one by sea. And they were caught by surprise.

We sit here and we watch the events, and many Members of Parliament have expressed how every week there are different headlines, something that you have never seen. No one can predict the future precisely, but the feel of change is in the air. What further surprises lie in store? Seasoned columnists who have witnessed historically churning events liken our time now to that before the First World War, and ask if we are “sleepwalking” into our future. In the aftermath of World War One, four empires, some which had existed for hundreds of years, laid waste. It changed the map of the world – of borders, of alliances, of ethnic groups, of societies en masse.

For Europe, especially after recent NATO meetings and the Munich Security Conference –  I was there, so I could feel the mood directly – there is presently great consternation. The headlines reflected this. The Associated Press said that “NATO is in disarray after the US announces that its security priorities lie elsewhere.” From the Wall Street Journal: “Planned US-Russia talks over Ukraine throw Europe into crisis.” More dramatically, Politico asked, “Is this the end of NATO?” The trans-Atlantic partnership has remained strong for more than a century despite great stresses, not least two World Wars. Only time will tell, if these headlines and fears are accurate or over-reactions.

That is in Europe. But what about us in Asia? More pointedly, what is in store for Asia? That, to me, is the quintessential question for our time. That, to me, is the most important thing. Your residents on the ground will ask you, as Members of Parliament, about what is in store? I know that this is our Budget Debate and our COS, we also know this is an election year. But the answer to that question is going to occupy us for at least a decade. It is going to decide the fate of Singapore and Singaporeans for this generation. All the headlines that you read, it is not business as usual. It is ground-shaking and earth-shattering. It is a political earthquake with a tsunami incoming. We do not know when the tsunami will occur. We know that it registers on a political Richter scale. In all these examples, there is one point. You know something is coming. But you do not know how to predict it accurately, when, and in what shape and form. But whatever comes, we must face our future resolutely. Singapore has thrived since our independence because we took the world as it is, and not what we wished it to be. We responded to daunting challenges as one nation, with grit, perseverance, sacrifice, and hard realism. We must now do the same as we enter into uncharted waters.

Before 1965, we were not in charge of our own fate. We could have blamed other countries, the British, or other large powers. But now, as an independent and sovereign nation, we Singaporeans have agency, and can decide and do all we can to secure our future together. And certainly, building our own defences to protect our own interests, must take priority. We count on no one else to protect Singapore, but ourselves.

Let me deal with the hows, squarely, because ultimately it has to be a strong SAF.

Building the SAF for SAF 2040

We are not a threat to anyone and wish all to be friends. But as the saying goes, strong fences, and I would add, defences, make good neighbours.

Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Shawn Huang pointed out the progress of the SAF. It is now a modern four-service military, able to operate effectively across all domains of air, land, sea, and digital, as Mr Neil Parekh also alluded to. But building capacity and capability for the SAF is a continual exercise, you either upgrade or regress.

In the interest of time, I will first name the big-ticket items starting with conventional capabilities, as some of you have asked for. You remember that in 2017, we started building four Invincible-class submarines. That programme is on track, with all four custom-made German submarines for the RSN, first time we have had custom-made submarines. They will all be operational by around 2028. These submarines were manufactured for the icy waters there. I remember when then-PM Lee launched the submarines – they had to bring out blankets and warmers for those of us on land during the launching. This was a launching, so just imagine how cold the waters are. Two submarines have returned and are already plying our tropical waters, and they are functioning well in our conditions. So I think they are proven.

But four submarines are not optimal for a fleet. Submarines are subjected to more rigorous and frequent maintenance cycles with stringent checks, as you can imagine, as they need to operate under intense pressure, literally. So sometimes, operational time is reduced, relatively, and this is why most Navies that operate submarines have more than four – Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam – to name a few of our close neighbours.

Having proven that the Invincible-class submarines can perform to expectations in tropical waters, the SAF plans to procure two more submarines, to make up a total of six, as the steady state for our submarine fleet.

The Navy will also launch its first Multi-Role Combat Vessel (MRCV) later this year. The MRCVs will replace our Victory-class corvettes that have been in service since 1989, so you can calculate for yourself that they are 35 years old. The MRCVs are larger and have greater range than the Victory-class corvettes, about three times further. The MRCV is actually not one ship but a mothership with unmanned platforms. Some of you have spoken about unmanned platforms. This modern design incorporates this feature. Together with its suite of advanced sensors and combat systems, the MRCVs will strengthen our Navy’s ability to safeguard our maritime interests. That is for the sea. Let us talk about the air.

In the air, our Fokker-50 Maritime Patrol Aircraft are also due for replacement. Our Fokkers have served with distinction for three decades since 1993. The RSAF is looking intently and evaluating appropriate replacements. Two possible ones are the Boeing P-8A and Airbus C295.

At last year’s COS, I announced our decision to acquire eight more F-35As, in addition to the 12 F-35Bs we had previously announced. We have recently confirmed the purchase of these F-35As from the US and look forward to the establishment of our F-35 and F-16 fighter detachments at Ebbing Air National Guard Base. It is not that we just buy the planes from the US, not that they acquiesce to us training in the US. These moves reflect the strength of our defence relationship with the US, and the continued commitment to a multi-decade partnership. We thank the US for their support.

For the Army, we will have a new Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV). Most of the MPs who are still serving the SAF from the Army here, you have a new Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It will be called the Titan. The Titan will be wheeled, and for the first time, will have its firepower upgraded with a 30mm cannon as a Remote Weapon System. It will also be equipped with counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) capabilities.

The Army’s HIMARS, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. Many of you would have read about them during the Russian-Ukraine War. These were quite useful and effective. They too will be upgraded with more capable rockets.

With these added large ticket items for air, land, and sea, the SAF as a relatively small military would have been transformed into a state-of-the-art military with platforms comparable to advanced militaries elsewhere and fit for our security purposes.

But as some MPs have spoken and alluded to, there is a common dictum, a cautionary caveat, that militaries must be careful that they do not arm themselves “to fight the last war”. I take all your points, I accept them – that there have been new developments and that is going to impact the way militaries conduct their operations. I think there is wisdom. Over the past decade, that is what the SAF has indeed been doing. When you ask yourself, how do you respond to these new changes for the militaries, it boils down to two things: structure and platforms. If you have neither, then you are not really serious about reorganising and meeting these demands. If you have not changed your structure, or if you have not gotten new capabilities and platforms, then you have not been adequately responding. We need to re-organise the SAF to equip it, to incorporate emerging technologies and capabilities.

Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Neil Parekh referred to the DIS. I am glad that it reaffirms the confidence about the SAF when the DIS was formed in 2022. It is a culmination of efforts in the re-organisation that they could better meet future needs and threats in the digital sphere.

I am happy to report that almost three years after its inception, the DIS is now ready to stand up two new commands. Remember I said, unless you have structure and new platforms, you really are not adapting. The fact that we can stand up two new commands, reflects the progress. First, the SAF C4 and Digitalisation Command (SAFC4DC) will have two new centres – the Digital Ops-Tech Centre and the new SAF Artificial Intelligence (AI) Centre.

The mission for these new commands and centres is to bring to bear for the SAF the full effects of new digital hardware and software. In the prosecution of missions now or previously, you will use mainly conventional capabilities. Yes, you would enhance it with software in some aspects. But in modern military affairs, the comparative advantage is actually in how you meld the two and bring to effect the capabilities of both. That is the job of the new commands and centres.

The second new DIS command is the Defence Cyber Command (DCCOM), which will consolidate all cybersecurity operations and capabilities, and partner with the Whole-of-Government and industry to strengthen national cyber defence. The Defence Cyber Command will have to deal with hostile digital threats against Singapore from state and non-state actors because as you can imagine, if anyone attacks our digital backbone, our essential services will be crippled. It is obvious that as a small geographic entity, we are vulnerable. It will impact economic and social wellbeing, and will have a direct impact even on our security forces, the SAF and the Home Team, because we have to operate in this country. We will be severely hampered. We have redundancies, but we have to protect our digital backbone. That mission to deal with such external actors falls on this new command (DCCOM).

Mr Henry Quek and Mr Vikram Nair asked about unmanned platforms. I am glad they did, because this is something that we are doing serious and intense re-organisation work in all the services. Militaries must not only be able to integrate the new technology into their force structure and operations, but also counter and defend against these new threats.

As some of you rightly alluded to, it is proven, that drones will be part of modern warfare. The question is only how much and whether you are prepared. A study by the Kyiv School of Economics showed that Ukraine is now capable of producing four million drones annually, a hundred-fold increase from before their war with Russia. They are producing it because the are under intense pressure, and they know how useful drones are. Drones have been used for targeting support, intelligence gathering, strike operations, decoy, relaying of signals, and many other functions.

The SAF has already progressed in the use of unmanned platforms –  they are already deployed for operations. For example, in the Singapore Straits, the Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) conduct patrols now. They are equipped with electro-optic devices, radars, and a 12.7mm weapon system.These unmanned systems can issue audio and visual warnings using lights, sirens, and long-range acoustics devices, and when justified, they can fire shots with their remote gun system.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are now becoming part and parcel of the soldier’s arsenal in the Army, very much like how scouts use binoculars, and but with far greater range and precision. Commanders can tap into a common picture from these various drones, inputs from the unmanned platforms to fight more effectively and smarter.

But it is in the Air Force that the pace and scale of drones have grown exponentially. So much so, that the Air Force has found it necessary to re-organise to establish a new Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)Warfare and Tactics Centre. This new centre will drive the development of UAS warfare and its integration with other SAF forces, and work with industries and tech agencies. The Army will also establish the Drone Accelerator for Rapid Equipping, or DARE, a similar centre to scale up operations for UAVs and ground vehicles for its units across the Army.

On the flip side, if we can leverage on drones, the SAF will also need to build up its capabilities to defend against UASs. These small commercial Unmanned Aerial Systems are easily procured on the open market, I think Mr Vikram Nair alluded to it, and can be re-tooled as weapons to inflict harm and destruction. For example, terrorist groups could do that. They are commercially available. You can re-tool them.

To meet this threat, the SAF will build new counter-UAS capabilities – a suite of sensors, jammers, and weapon solutions to detect and neutralise smaller UASs, to add to our existing Island Air Defence capabilities. A newly established SAF Counter-UAS Development and Operations group will be responsible to guard against this threat in collaboration with other government agencies.

I do not want to give the impression that it is easy and there are comprehensive solutions to deal with all Unmanned Aerial Systems. That would be a wrong impression and we would not be telling you the honest truth. Small drones are, in fact, hard to detect. There is also the asymmetry of costs as Mr Vikram Nair and some of you alluded to. Let me give an example. You remember the situation that is going on in the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. This is what connects the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, where the Houthis fired drones. If the aggressor fires a hundred drones, it will cost about $15 million. But to defend against them would cost nearly $250 million – clearly unsustainable. This challenge is currently a focus of intense efforts everywhere. Everyone is trying to find a cost-effective solution to the problem of mass small drones used for attack.

Mr Zhulkarnian Rahim spoke about how technology can disrupt militaries and he is right. Therefore the SAF must maintain its technological superiority, which includes the potential use of AI. MINDEF/SAF needs to partner with, and I agree with MPs who have spoken about this, civilian entities and to use appropriate crowdsourcing. For example, MINDEF’s Future Systems and Technology Directorate and the DSO National Laboratories have launched the AI Grand Challenge in partnership with AI Singapore. The AI Grand Challenge has awarded funding to five teams to carry out research. The theme was “Robust AI” and “AI for Materials Discovery”. The idea is that over time, the SAF can harvest good ideas for its needs.

In fact, quite a number of emerging technologies are dual-use, both civilian and military, with very quick adaptation cycles. For example, in the Russia-Ukraine war, an AI company was able to modify its commercial voice transcription to intercept Russian communications and automatically highlight key information to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

To capitalise on these opportunities, the SAF has set up technology adaptation teams, which put combatants and engineers together. Their task is to adapt new technologies to the problems on the ground, quick and in real time. We tested these teams during the recent Exercise Wallaby, where they had a practical problem, to expand the range of communications which they did by using a UAV fitted with a 5G base station to extend communications.

All these new capabilities and structures will better prepare the SAF to defend Singapore, but it will come to naught if our soldiers are not committed or trained for their tasks. This was a recurrent theme by Mr Alex Yam, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Ms Poh Li San, and I agree with them. The SAF has put significant amounts of money to invest in training infrastructure. Some of you wanted an update, and let me do that now. The SAFTI City Phase 1 has been available for training since October last year. Battalions are trained in urban ops and homeland security. The initial feedback has been very positive. Our SAF soldiers can feel the difference immediately. Let me quote from one. 3SG Robin Teoh from 5SIR. He said: “Training in SAFTI City as a motorised infantry unit has been a game changer. The urban environment feels real – like stepping into an actual city. Moving and driving through tight alleyways, clearing high-rise buildings, and adapting to different scenarios pushes us to think fast and stay sharp.” It is gratifying because his reaction is exactly what we built SAFTI City for.

We will build more of such facilities – I think some of you wanted to know what more we can do, so that we can enhance realism for effective training. Pulau Tekong will be expanded to stretch 10km in distance.  I know 10km is not a huge stretch, but for Pulau Tekong, for Singapore, it is. We will find some way so that we can make longer circuits. It will serve as the Army’s second manoeuvre training area for soldiers, as well as combat vehicles, which is important as the Army becomes increasingly platform-based.

But as Mr Chong Kee Hiong alluded to, it is overseas where we need to leverage large training spaces. The Shoalwater Bay Training Area has been expanded with many new and better facilities. As a result of that expansion over the years, we were able to conduct the largest edition of Exercise Wallaby ever. Last year, there were over 6,200 personnel and 490 platforms. In Singapore, I can have 6,000 soldiers and 500 platforms, but they will not have much room to move if you gather them together. But at the Shoalwater Bay, you can. They were tested to the limits because they were free to manoeuvre – Armour, Armour Infantry. The soldiers can feel it. In the steady state, we are going to be able to do more. After the development of the adjacent Greenvale Training Area, the SAF will have a combined training area 10 times the size of Singapore. This combined training area will allow us to deploy up to 14,000 personnel and 2,400 vehicles annually, so that the SAF can exercise its full range of capabilities – land, sea, air, and digital.

Other countries are invested in our defence. We thank the Government and people of Australia for these opportunities. We look forward to commemorating the 10th anniversary of Singapore’s Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) with Australia this year, and to explore further ambitious and strategic areas of cooperation.

Apart from infrastructure, we are also doing more to recognise the contributions of our servicemen, and SMS Heng and Zaqy will talk about this.

Investing in Defence

These investments to build our defence capabilities must be treated as precious resources. Through them, we turn our people’s hard-earned monies into tangible benefits, and tangible bulwarks to protect Singapore.

Mr Don Wee asked for financial projections. Let me give a straight answer. This financial expenditure is projected to be around S$23.4 billion. It is a 12.4% increase from last year. It is sizeable, but it reflects a catch up of projects deferred or disrupted due to COVID-19. We are still catching up, including those impacted by supply chain disruptions in recent years. The last three years, we have been playing catch-up. But going forward, we expect smaller increases year-on-year.

Even so, over the past decade, defence spending has stayed within the range of 3% of our GDP. Let me thank all members of this House for their unwavering and steady support for the defence budget that has allowed us to build the SAF to what it is today.

I expect the growth in defence spending to taper down from FY26 and keep within this 3% of GDP range over the next decade, barring any major conflicts or severe economic uncertainty.

But given the rapid changes in our external environment, I think we will have to continue to monitor the situation closely, and if the need arises, we must be prepared to invest more to further strengthen our capabilities.

Strengthening Partnerships to Address Common Security Challenges

Ms Rachel Ong, Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Henry Kwek talked about us needing to be self-reliant, and at the same time, expanding our network of friends and partners where interests align. As geopolitics becomes more unpredictable, it will affect our state-to-state relations with other countries, and that will also impact defence capabilities. MINDEF takes reference from our overall foreign policy.

Some partnerships are historical, like the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA). It is now in its 54th year. There is strong on-going commitment from all partners. The UK’s Prime Minister has announced that the UK Carrier Strike Group will be deployed to this region this year.  We look forward to it possibly taking part in FPDA exercises.

With Indonesia, the Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) has been in force since March 2024. Some members wanted updates, let me give them now. The DCA provides a strong basis for us to promote closer interactions between our defence establishments, especially in new areas of defence cooperation. Our two leaders, PM Wong and President Prabowo, met in November 2024. Both expressed support for more military engagement between the TNI and the SAF. President Prabowo invited the SAF to train in Indonesia, particularly in Kalimantan, as well as joint air training. We will take up the offer. Both Air Forces, for example, will conduct the inaugural bilateral air patrol under the Singapore-Indonesia Coordinated Patrol, or PATKOR INDOPURA, later this year.

For Malaysia, we have good relations. It is our closest neighbour. Malaysia is at the helm of ASEAN this year, and we will support their chairmanship as they uphold ASEAN centrality and unity. For example, at the recent ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) Retreat, Singapore and Thailand introduced the protection of Critical Underwater Infrastructure. Some MPs talked about this, whether for power, energy, or communications, they could get disrupted. grid, energy grids or communications, and that if they are disrupted. It affects nations. Singapore and Thailand introduced a Paper. Malaysia, as Chairman, strongly endorsed it and for the full concept paper to be formally tabled.

Let me talk about US and China and our defence relationships with them. They continue to grow and we enjoy regular high-level exchanges with both countries.

On China, I co-chaired the Singapore-China Defence Ministers’ Dialogue. This was in May last year and I did it on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue with then-recently appointed China Minister of National Defense ADM Dong Jun. In September of last year, I was invited to speak at their 11th Beijing Xiangshan Forum (XSF) and also had a dialogue session. This was not part of the XSF, but we organised a dialogue session with their senior PLA commanders in their National Defence University (NDU), the pinnacle group. There, I met ADM Dong again. I also had a bilateral call with Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission GEN Zhang Youxia. For those of you who know the PLA structure, it is a privilege. My delegation and I acknowledge and appreciate the privileged access to both Vice Chairman Zhang and the pinnacle commander class at their NDU. During these meetings, we affirmed the good military-to-military interactions that we have through various exercises and these high-level meetings and we plan to step up further interactions.

The US is a Major Security Cooperation Partner, and our collaborations with their Department of Defense and military are extensive. We are not a treaty ally, but it is plain that our military engagements and mutual benefits have grown over the years. Singapore is thankful that our pilots have trained in the US for many years since the early 1970s. All our high-end fighting platforms – air platforms – the F-16s, F-15s, and soon, F-35s, are manufactured by and purchased from US companies, alongside other high-end weapon platforms. Singapore invests heavily into our own defence and the US appreciates this fact.

The US also has the lead in dual-use technology that Singapore can benefit from. Under former US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, our two Ministries signed new agreements to strengthen cooperation in defence innovation, in data, analytics, and AI.

I look forward to further strengthening our defence relations under the Trump Administration. Members in this House may remember that the Protocol of Amendment for the 1990 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the US was signed by President Trump and then-PM Lee Hsien Loong in 2019, during President Trump’s first term. This bears some detailing because it is important. In 2019, it was a Protocol of Amendment. The primary MOU was first signed in 1990 by our founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and then-US Vice President Dan Quayle. It is important to know about this because it remains a cornerstone document for our military ties and engagements, wherein we facilitate rotations of US ships and planes through our military bases in Singapore. The 2019 Protocol of Amendment extended the 1990 MOU for another 15 years.

This 1990 MOU continues to underpin Singapore-US defence relations. During my call with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and it occurred very soon after his confirmation, we both reiterated and affirmed our commitment to this long-standing defence relationship which has benefited both Singapore and the US. Secretary Hegseth was very familiar with the details of our past and present military engagements. We also discussed further projects briefly and I invited him to the Shangri-La Dialogue. I look forward to deepening our defence relations together.

As our defence capabilities grow, the SAF can do its part to help internationally. The SAF’s Changi Regional Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Coordination Centre (RHCC) works closely with both governmental and non-governmental organisations for humanitarian assistance. In March last year, the RHCC conducted the delivery of aid supplies to Gaza via Jordan using our A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft, a C-130 transport aircraft, and a commercial plane. In September, it coordinated the delivery of aid supplies to communities affected by Typhoon Yagi in Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Earlier this month, the RHCC worked on similar efforts to deliver another tranche of relief supplies to Gaza through Jordan using our MRTT to alleviate the humanitarian situation during the lead-up to Ramadan.

The SAF is making concrete plans to provide further medical assistance to the people in Gaza. We have spoken to our counterparts in the Middle East. It is not safe now to deploy SAF medical facilities in Gaza. The risks are high and unlikely to subside for some time to come. We do not want to put SAF soldiers and civilian volunteers in harm’s way. But there are other options in the region, whether it is in Egypt, Jordan, or the UAE, where more civilians from Gaza have gone to receive treatment over the past months. The SAF medical teams, together with MOH medical teams, may be able to deploy to such a place in the coming months.

Apart from natural causes, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Explosive (CBRE) threats can precipitate national and humanitarian crises. We all saw this during SARS and COVID-19. By extension, we should also realise that bio-terrorism is a real threat. MINDEF and the SAF established the Network of ASEAN CBR Defence Experts when we were ADMM and ADMM-Plus Chair in 2018 to deal with this threat. The Network was useful. We conducted table-top exercises, training workshops, and lab visits, and created a harmonised set of guidelines to sample, analyse and report.

We think that it is time now to build a physical centre and this will greatly facilitate cooperation. MINDEF and the SAF will therefore establish a Regional CBR Centre in Singapore to strengthen and complement this Network. It will work alongside RHCC, and partner civilian and military agencies across ASEAN and international organisations.

I also announced in 2021 that MINDEF and the SAF will build a Biosafety Level-4 (BSL-4) lab. Because it was after COVID, we all saw the need for it. This facility will complete construction in 2026; in line with WHO and MOH guidelines, it will be certified as a Maximum Containment Facility (MCF), the highest grade, to be able to handle bio-agents that are deemed highly contagious and lethal such as the Ebola virus. The MCF will provide us with the capacity and capability to assess the nature of an outbreak, isolate and identify the bio-agent, and develop early disease control measures. That is a significant capability. Just imagine if the equivalent of a Grade-4 agent was used. If you are testing in a Biosafety Level-3 lab, it risks everyone being contaminated, so you will not be able to test it. The Biosafety Level-4 facility will strengthen our capabilities against bioterrorism.

Conclusion

Mr Chairman, as the world around us becomes more unpredictable and changes, the more we need to keep the strongest commitment to strengthen our own defences. If needed, we must be willing to do more. Singapore celebrates 60 years of independence this year. With the support of Members of this House, we will continue to build a strong SAF, to protect and keep Singapore as a sovereign and independent nation, and to ensure our peace and prosperity for another generation. Thank you.