On October 14, 2025, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced its decision to maintain the prevailing rate of appreciation of the Singapore dollar’s trade-weighted policy band at its existing level and width. This measured approach to monetary policy reflects the central bank’s cautious optimism about Singapore’s economic resilience while acknowledging the gathering storm clouds of global trade uncertainty driven by US tariff policies under President Donald Trump’s administration. This decision, while widely expected by market analysts, reveals the delicate balancing act that Singapore’s monetary authorities must perform in navigating between low inflationary pressures at home and escalating risks to growth from external protectionism.
Understanding MAS’s Unique Monetary Policy Framework
Unlike conventional central banks that primarily rely on interest rate adjustments to manage monetary conditions, the MAS employs a distinctive approach centered on the exchange rate as its primary policy instrument. The Singapore dollar’s nominal effective exchange rate (S$Neer) operates within an undisclosed trading band, within which the currency is allowed to appreciate or depreciate against a basket of currencies representing Singapore’s major trading partners.
This exchange rate-based framework is uniquely suited to Singapore’s economic structure. As a small, highly open economy with an outsized influence on global trade, Singapore lacks the depth of domestic financial markets that larger economies possess. By managing the currency’s trajectory rather than interest rates, MAS can more effectively influence the price competitiveness of Singapore’s exports while managing imported inflation—a critical consideration for an economy that depends heavily on imported goods and raw materials.
The MAS’s decision to keep the S$Neer policy band unchanged in October 2025 represents continuity after two easing moves earlier in the year. In January and April, MAS had reduced the pace of Singapore dollar appreciation as the Trump administration rolled out successive rounds of tariffs on trading partners. These earlier easing measures provided some buffer against the sharp slowdown in global trade that accompanied the tariff escalations.
The Inflation Conundrum: Lower Than Expected
One of the most striking aspects of MAS’s October 2025 statement is the significant downward revision of core inflation expectations for 2025. The central bank now projects core inflation—which strips out the volatility of private transport and accommodation costs to better reflect household expenses—will average just 0.5 percent for the full year. This represents a substantial reduction from the July projection of 0.5 to 1.5 percent.
This lower-than-expected inflation environment presents a fascinating paradox for Singapore’s monetary authorities. Typically, central banks face pressure to tighten policy when facing inflation risks. However, in Singapore’s case, the challenge is the opposite: the economy is experiencing deflationary pressures that constrain the policy space available to support growth.
The reasons for this unusually low inflation are multifaceted. First, the global decline in crude oil prices has significantly dampened imported inflation costs. Second, the manufacturing sector remains under pressure from weak global demand driven by trade tensions, which has limited domestic wage and cost pressures. Third, technological deflationary forces, particularly in the digital economy, continue to weigh on price levels across service sectors.
For 2026, MAS projects core inflation to remain modest, ranging between 0.5 and 1.5 percent. However, the central bank notes several factors that could push inflation higher than current levels. Notably, as global crude oil prices stabilize at higher levels than those seen in recent months, imported cost pressures should ease, but this will be offset by a projected pickup in regional inflation as other Asian economies unwind their own monetary easing measures implemented to counter tariff impacts. On the domestic front, services sector unit labor costs are expected to rise as productivity growth normalizes following what appears to be a period of significant productivity acceleration.
Economic Growth: Resilience Masking Underlying Vulnerabilities
Singapore’s economy grew 2.9 percent year-on-year in the third quarter of 2025, beating expectations but representing a significant slowdown from the 4.5 percent growth achieved in the previous quarter. This deceleration is not surprising given the timing of the Trump tariff implementation and its immediate impact on global trade flows.
The growth trajectory reflects a fascinating dynamics of front-loading that characterized the first half of 2025. Anticipating the full implementation of reciprocal tariffs on virtually all US imports starting in mid-2025, exporters worldwide and importers in the United States engaged in what economists call “front-loading”—accelerating shipments to get ahead of tariff deadlines. This phenomenon artificially boosted export volumes and GDP growth through August 2025, creating an unsustainable surge that was always destined to normalize once tariffs took effect.
The manufacturing sector tells a particularly revealing story. After expanding 5 percent in the second quarter, manufacturing growth turned flat in the third quarter of 2025. This sharp deceleration reflects the impact of weaker global demand and increased uncertainties surrounding investment decisions by multinational corporations operating in Singapore. For an economy where manufacturing typically accounts for approximately 25 percent of GDP and serves as a critical engine for employment and exports, this sector’s weakness carries significant implications for the broader economy.
The Tariff Landscape: Complexity and Uncertainty
The Trump administration’s tariff regime has evolved in a complex manner since taking office in January 2025. Singapore faces a 10 percent baseline tariff announced in April 2025, which applies broadly across many product categories. However, the tariff structure has become increasingly nuanced with sector-specific measures.
Most notably, in late September 2025, the administration revealed a 100 percent tariff on US imports of branded or patented pharmaceutical products, effective October 1. This represents a dramatic escalation in tariff intensity compared to the baseline rate and poses particular risks to Singapore’s pharmaceutical sector, which has developed into one of the city-state’s most valuable industries. Singapore serves as a major global hub for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research and development, hosting multiple multinational pharmaceutical companies that export significant volumes to the US market.
However, the tariff includes a critical exemption: companies that have already broken ground on building a manufacturing plant in the United States are exempt from the 100 percent rate. This exemption appears strategically designed to incentivize domestic manufacturing investment and job creation. Analysts suggest that this provision may limit the practical impact of the pharmaceutical tariff on Singapore’s major players, as most established pharmaceutical companies with significant operations in the city-state have already committed to building or expanding manufacturing facilities in the United States.
Yet the tariff situation remains fluid and unpredictable. The most significant risk on the horizon is the possibility of tariffs on US semiconductor imports. The semiconductor industry is another critical pillar of Singapore’s economy, with the city-state serving as a major hub for semiconductor manufacturing, testing, and assembly. Should the Trump administration impose substantial tariffs on semiconductor imports, the impact on Singapore’s economy could be severe, potentially dampening growth by several percentage points and triggering broader economic disruption.
Singapore’s Vulnerability: Exposure to US Final Demand
Singapore’s particular vulnerability to the tariff environment stems from its unique position in global trade networks. As a highly open economy with minimal natural resources, Singapore functions primarily as a trading hub and a location for high-value manufacturing and financial services. Critically, Singapore is among the most exposed Asian economies to direct US import demand, meaning that weakening US consumer spending and business investment would have outsized impacts on Singaporean exporters.
The trade and export-dependent nature of Singapore’s economy means that tariff-induced demand destruction in the United States translates quickly into reduced export orders for Singaporean firms and their supply chain partners throughout Southeast Asia. This creates a multiplier effect that can rapidly spread economic weakness throughout the region.
MAS has acknowledged these risks explicitly, stating that “Asian exporting nations including Singapore—being the most exposed to US final demand—are likely to suffer the most as continued expansion of protectionist measures dampens growth in trade and future investment inflows.”
Growth Moderation Ahead: The Official Outlook
The MAS’s formal growth outlook reflects acknowledgment of the headwinds building on the horizon. The central bank expects Singapore’s GDP growth to moderate from the current above-trend pace as activity normalizes in trade-related sectors. This carefully calibrated language suggests that MAS is preparing the public for a period of notably slower growth than what Singapore has experienced historically during normal cyclical expansions.
However, the central bank also identifies several mitigating factors that could provide support for growth in the quarters ahead. First, continuing global investments related to artificial intelligence (AI) represent a significant bright spot in the global economy. Singapore, with its advanced infrastructure, skilled workforce, and business-friendly environment, is well-positioned to capture a portion of these AI-related investments, particularly in data centers, research facilities, and high-tech manufacturing. The construction sector should benefit from infrastructure projects related to AI development and deployment, while the financial services sector could see expansion from the financing and advisory services demanded by AI-focused companies.
Second, the Singapore government is actively pursuing expansionary fiscal policy through infrastructure investment and measures to support consumer spending, such as the distribution of CDC vouchers that have already shown positive impacts on retail sales. This accommodative fiscal stance is providing demand support that partially offsets the weakness in the export sector and helps sustain employment and income growth.
However, MAS also identifies significant downside risks to this growth outlook. An abrupt correction in the AI investment boom—which some analysts argue exhibits characteristics of financial exuberance—could trigger sharp declines in demand for Singapore’s infrastructure and services. The valuations of many AI-related companies remain elevated relative to current earnings, and a reversion to more fundamentally justified price levels could dampen investment enthusiasm significantly.
The Inflation Dynamics: Temporary Relief or Structural Shift?
MAS’s discussion of inflation dynamics reveals important insights into the central bank’s understanding of Singapore’s current economic structure. The central bank expects core inflation to edge down further in the near term, suggesting that the current low inflation environment is not merely transitory but likely to persist for several quarters.
Several factors underpin this projection. Most importantly, imported costs should exert a smaller drag on inflation in 2026 given projections for a more gradual decline in global crude oil prices. Oil prices, which had spiked sharply in previous years, have moderated substantially, and MAS expects this moderation to continue. The firm oil price environment at lower levels than historical peaks should limit imported inflation pressures on consumer prices.
However, MAS also signals that some of the disinflationary forces currently at work are temporary and will dissipate. The central bank notes that a modest pickup in regional inflation from the easing implemented by other Asian central banks this year is expected. As neighboring economies see their own monetary policies tighten or stabilize, inflation in those economies will likely accelerate, which will eventually feed through to Singapore via regional supply chains and labor market dynamics.
On the domestic front, MAS projects that services sector unit labor costs growth will rise in 2026 as productivity growth normalizes. This is a sophisticated observation that reflects the reality that the manufacturing and services sectors have likely experienced exceptional productivity improvements in recent years, driven by digitalization, automation, and technological advancement. As these productivity gains moderate toward more sustainable trend rates, wage pressures should build, particularly in the services sector where Singapore’s economy is increasingly concentrated.
The Policy Rationale: Why Hold Steady?
The decision to maintain the S$Neer policy band unchanged appears justified based on the framework MAS is operating within. The central bank faces a genuine dilemma: inflation pressures are minimal, providing no imperative to tighten policy, yet growth risks are significant, suggesting that a relaxation of policy might be warranted. However, three factors support the decision to hold steady.
First, MAS’s two earlier easing moves in January and April had already reduced the degree of Singapore dollar appreciation in the face of external shocks. This means that accommodative stimulus from a weaker currency has already been provided to exporters. Additional easing might not provide meaningful incremental benefit and could risk excessive currency depreciation that might reignite imported inflation.
Second, the high degree of uncertainty surrounding the trajectory of US tariffs and their ultimate economic impact suggests a “wait and see” approach. MAS explicitly noted that it is “monitoring closely the actual implementation of the tariffs, and the risks of renewed trade conflict and disruption.” By holding policy steady, MAS preserves flexibility to respond quickly to new information. If tariff impacts prove more severe than currently anticipated, MAS can ease further. Conversely, if the economy proves more resilient than feared, MAS can maintain current policy or even tighten in the future.
Third, maintaining steady policy provides a sense of predictability to investors and businesses during an uncertain period. Frequent policy adjustments might amplify market volatility and business uncertainty, potentially dampening investment and spending. A steady policy stance signals confidence in the economy’s fundamental resilience even while acknowledging external risks.
Risks to the Outlook: The Downside Scenarios
While the official MAS outlook presents a measured, relatively optimistic scenario, several significant downside risks could trigger a sharper economic contraction and necessitate more aggressive policy easing in subsequent quarters.
The most significant risk is an escalation of the US tariff regime beyond current levels. If the Trump administration follows through with threats to impose substantial tariffs on semiconductor imports or significantly raises baseline tariff rates, the impact on Singapore could be severe. A 10 or 20 percent tariff on semiconductor imports could disrupt global chip supply chains and trigger immediate capital expenditure deferrals by multinational technology companies. Given Singapore’s role as a critical node in semiconductor manufacturing, testing, and logistics, such disruptions would have immediate and significant negative impacts on the economy.
Another substantial risk involves a disruptive correction in financial markets related to the AI investment boom. If AI-related asset valuations decline sharply, venture capital funding for AI startups could dry up, reducing demand for Singapore’s infrastructure and services. The construction sector, which has been buoyed by data center development and other AI-related projects, could experience significant weakness. Financial services firms would see reduced deal flow from AI-related transactions, dampening revenue growth and potentially leading to employment reductions.
A third risk involves geopolitical escalation beyond tariffs. If trade tensions with China intensify, or if there are disruptions to regional supply chains due to other geopolitical factors, Singapore as a trading hub could be disproportionately affected. The city-state’s economy is deeply integrated with regional supply chains and heavily dependent on the flow of goods through its ports and airports.
Implications for Different Stakeholders
The MAS decision to hold policy steady has distinct implications for various segments of Singapore’s economy and different stakeholder groups.
For exporters, particularly those in manufacturing, the decision provides limited new stimulus. Companies will need to rely on the accommodative currency effects from earlier easing measures and competitive positioning to maintain market share in a weaker global environment. Exporters should focus on maintaining operational efficiency and exploring opportunities in less tariff-affected markets.
For consumers, the decision suggests that interest rates in Singapore will remain stable, preserving affordable borrowing conditions for mortgages, car loans, and consumer credit. Combined with government fiscal support through voucher programs and other measures, household consumption should remain relatively resilient even as business investment may weaken.
For financial institutions, a steady monetary policy environment provides a predictable operating environment. Banks benefit from the interest rate margins maintained in current conditions. However, the weak growth outlook and continued economic uncertainty may prompt banks to be more selective in lending, potentially constraining credit growth and slowing investment by smaller and medium-sized enterprises.
For investors, the decision reinforces the message that MAS has moved to a more cautious policy stance but has not yet turned dovish. International investors seeking currency depreciation or interest rate cuts may be disappointed, while those seeking stability will appreciate the measured policy approach.
Forward-Looking Assessment: What Happens Next?
Looking ahead, the trajectory of Singapore’s economy and monetary policy will be shaped primarily by two factors: the evolution of the US tariff regime and the global economic growth outlook.
If tariffs stabilize at current levels and do not escalate further, Singapore’s economy should gradually stabilize in late 2025 and early 2026. Growth would likely settle into a 2-3 percent range, somewhat below historical trend rates but sufficient to maintain employment levels and gradual income growth. In this scenario, MAS would likely maintain current policy through early 2026 and potentially implement modest tightening in the second half of 2026 as inflation gradually rises from current depressed levels.
Conversely, if tariffs escalate significantly—particularly if semiconductor tariffs are implemented—Singapore would likely experience a sharper economic contraction. Growth could fall below 2 percent in 2026, unemployment would likely rise, and deflationary pressures could intensify. In this scenario, MAS would face pressure to ease policy further, potentially accelerating Singapore dollar depreciation and reducing the pace of currency appreciation in future quarters.
A third scenario involves a negotiated resolution of US-China trade tensions and a gradual rollback of tariffs. While this appears less likely based on current political dynamics, such an outcome would provide the strongest support for global trade and Singapore’s economy. This scenario would create space for more optimistic growth projections and potentially necessitate policy tightening by MAS to prevent inflationary overheating.
Conclusion
Singapore’s Monetary Authority faced a complex decision in October 2025 as it balanced competing pressures of low inflation at home against significant external risks to growth from US tariffs and global trade disruption. The decision to maintain the prevailing S$Neer policy band unchanged represents a judicious middle path that preserves policy flexibility while avoiding both premature tightening and excessive accommodation.
The MAS’s decision reflects sophisticated understanding of Singapore’s unique structural position as a highly open economy deeply integrated into global supply chains and heavily exposed to US import demand. By holding policy steady rather than easing further, MAS signals confidence in the economy’s near-term resilience while maintaining the flexibility to respond to new information about tariff impacts and global growth.
Looking ahead, Singapore faces a pivotal period that will likely define economic performance through 2026. The city-state’s economy has demonstrated impressive resilience to external shocks in the past, supported by sound policymaking, a flexible workforce, and a diversified economic base. However, the current combination of trade protectionism, tariff-driven uncertainties, and potential disruption from AI market volatility presents challenges of a different magnitude than Singapore has recently confronted. The effectiveness of MAS’s measured policy approach will be tested in the quarters ahead, with success likely depending as much on global developments beyond the central bank’s control as on the quality of Singapore’s own policy response.
Singapore’s MAS Policy Decision: Complex Pressures and Strategic Scenarios
Executive Summary
On October 14, 2025, the Monetary Authority of Singapore made a critical decision to maintain the prevailing Singapore Dollar Nominal Effective Exchange Rate (S$Neer) policy band unchanged, keeping the pace of the local currency’s appreciation steady. This decision, while appearing modest on the surface, represents a sophisticated policy choice made amid exceptional economic complexity. The central bank faces a genuine trilemma: low domestic inflation that would normally justify monetary tightening, significant external risks to growth that would argue for easing, and extreme uncertainty about the ultimate trajectory of US tariff policies that makes both tightening and easing decisions potentially harmful.
This analysis examines the competing pressures that shaped the MAS decision and models three distinct scenarios that could unfold in the subsequent quarters, each with profound implications for Singapore’s economy and policy directions.
Part One: Understanding the Complex Pressure Matrix
The Inflation Puzzle: Why Low Inflation Complicates Policy
Conventionally, monetary policy decisions follow a straightforward framework: high inflation prompts tightening, low inflation prompts easing. Singapore’s situation in October 2025 defies this conventional wisdom in a problematic way for policymakers.
The central bank’s projection of core inflation averaging just 0.5 percent for 2025 represents extraordinarily low inflation by global standards. For context, most developed economy central banks target inflation in the 2 percent range, viewing some inflation as necessary for healthy economic functioning. Singapore’s 0.5 percent projection sits at less than one-quarter of typical inflation targets.
This ultra-low inflation environment stems from multiple sources operating simultaneously. First, global crude oil prices have declined substantially from their recent peaks, directly reducing imported fuel costs that feed through to consumer prices across the economy. Second, the manufacturing sector has experienced weakness from reduced global demand, constraining pricing power and preventing wage-price spirals from developing. Third, technological deflation continues in service sectors, particularly in telecommunications, transportation, and digital services where productivity improvements exceed wage growth, pushing prices downward.
The challenge this creates for monetary policymakers is that conventional inflation-targeting frameworks assume some positive inflation is desirable. Very low inflation, while superficially attractive to consumers, creates significant economic risks. Most critically, deflation or near-deflation environments encourage economic actors to defer spending and investment, expecting prices to fall further. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where weak demand leads to further price declines, which further defers spending, perpetuating economic weakness.
Japan’s experience with deflation provides the most instructive historical precedent. Despite implementing ultra-loose monetary policy for decades, Japan struggled to escape deflation once it took hold, resulting in the “Lost Decades” of minimal growth and employment stagnation. While Singapore’s circumstances differ from Japan’s in important respects, the fundamental dynamic—that monetary policy becomes less effective in deflationary environments—poses a genuine constraint on MAS’s options.
Yet paradoxically, the standard monetary policy response to deflation risk would be to ease policy, depreciating the currency and reducing real interest rates. However, MAS’s previous two easing moves in January and April 2025 have already reduced the pace of Singapore dollar appreciation in response to tariff shocks. Additional easing now risks excessive currency depreciation that could reignite imported inflation—the very outcome policymakers are trying to avoid.
The Growth Threat: Tariffs, Trade Collapse, and Multiplier Effects
While inflation pressures are unusually benign, growth risks are exceptionally elevated. The global trade environment has deteriorated sharply since Donald Trump assumed the US presidency in January 2025 and began implementing sweeping tariff policies.
Singapore’s economy contracted slightly in this period, but the damage became apparent only gradually as front-loading effects masked underlying weakness through August 2025. The front-loading phenomenon—where exporters accelerated shipments ahead of tariff implementation and US importers rushed to stockpile goods before tariffs took effect—created an artificial spike in trade volumes and GDP growth. Third quarter results reveal what happens once this ephemeral boost evaporates: manufacturing growth collapsed from 5 percent to essentially flat, and overall GDP growth decelerated from 4.5 percent to 2.9 percent.
The arithmetic of Singapore’s economic interdependence reveals why tariffs pose such a potent threat. Singapore’s economy depends on trade for approximately 320 percent of GDP, the highest ratio among any developed economy globally. This means that the value of goods crossing Singapore’s ports and airports is more than three times the entire annual economic output of the country. A significant contraction in global trade flows directly translates into reduced port activity, lower shipping services revenue, weaker demand for logistics support, and reduced merchandise trade margins.
More insidiously, tariff-induced uncertainty dampens business investment in ways that extend far beyond the immediate tariff impact. When multinational corporations face uncertainty about future trade conditions, they defer capital expenditure decisions. A company planning a new manufacturing facility in Singapore might delay its commitment indefinitely, waiting for clarity about the tariff environment. Similarly, companies considering Singapore as a regional distribution hub might accelerate relocations to other jurisdictions perceived as offering more stable trade access.
This investment uncertainty multiplier effect can prove even more damaging than the tariffs themselves. If a 10 percent tariff reduces export volumes by 5-10 percent, but the associated policy uncertainty reduces business investment by 20-30 percent, the net economic impact is substantially worse. Given that fixed investment typically accounts for 25-30 percent of Singapore’s GDP growth, a significant investment pullback could reduce quarterly growth rates by a full percentage point or more.
The Tariff Uncertainty Constraint: Why Central Banks Hate Ambiguity
The final element completing the pressure matrix is the extraordinary degree of uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration’s tariff policies. This uncertainty operates across multiple dimensions simultaneously.
First, there is uncertainty about escalation. The US currently maintains a 10 percent baseline tariff on virtually all imports and a 100 percent tariff specifically on branded pharmaceutical products. But will these rates remain stable, or will they escalate further? Market participants and policymakers cannot determine the answer based on available information. The pharmaceutical sector tariff suggests that the administration is willing to implement discriminatory, high-rate tariffs on specific sectors. This raises the possibility that other Singapore-dependent sectors—particularly semiconductors—could face similar treatment.
Second, there is uncertainty about exemptions and carve-outs. The pharmaceutical tariff notably exempts companies that have already begun constructing US manufacturing plants. This suggests a willingness to use tariff policy as a tool for negotiation and incentive provision, but the rules remain opaque. What criteria determine eligibility for exemptions? How strictly will the administration apply exemption rules? Can exemptions be revoked? These ambiguities themselves impose costs on businesses that must structure operations and make investment decisions without clarity.
Third, there is temporal uncertainty. For how long will the current tariff regime persist? Is this a permanent structural shift in US trade policy, or could tariffs be negotiated down or reversed if political circumstances change? Will the tariff regime escalate over time, de-escalate, or fluctuate randomly based on political considerations? The longer this uncertainty persists, the more businesses will be constrained from making long-term commitments.
Central banks are particularly constrained by policy uncertainty because monetary policy operates through expectations. If businesses and consumers believe that today’s policy will persist indefinitely, they make one set of decisions. If they expect policy to change, they make different decisions. But when the environment is genuinely uncertain, decision-making becomes paralyzed, and the transmission mechanisms of monetary policy become erratic and unreliable.
The Trilemma: Why Every Policy Option Has Drawbacks
These three competing pressures create a genuine policy trilemma for MAS, a situation where satisfying all objectives simultaneously is impossible.
Option One: Tighten Policy – Responding to low inflation and perceived economic slack by tightening monetary policy (allowing more rapid currency appreciation) would be theoretically justified on inflation grounds. However, tightening when growth is slowing and uncertainty is high would worsen recessionary risks, exacerbate manufacturing sector weakness, and potentially trigger capital flight if foreign investors perceive policy as overly restrictive. Tightening also increases real interest rates, further discouraging investment and consumption.
Option Two: Ease Policy – Responding to growth risks by easing policy (accelerating currency depreciation) would reduce real interest rates, encourage borrowing and investment, and improve export competitiveness. However, aggressive easing risks overshooting, producing excessive currency depreciation that ignites imported inflation precisely when deflationary risks are already concerning. Moreover, MAS has already eased twice in 2025, so additional easing suggests policy desperation rather than measured response, potentially alarming markets.
Option Three: Maintain Steady Policy – Holding policy unchanged preserves flexibility, signals confidence in underlying economic resilience, and avoids the risks inherent in either tightening or easing. However, this path condemns the economy to potential growth underperformance if tariffs escalate or if business uncertainty proves more debilitating than baseline projections assume. It also leaves deflationary risks unaddressed, accepting that ultra-low inflation will persist.
The MAS chose Option Three, the middle path. Understanding why this choice made sense requires analyzing the specific scenarios that might unfold.
Part Two: Three Scenarios for Singapore’s Economic Future
Scenario One: Tariff Stabilization and Gradual Recovery (Base Case – Probability: 45%)
Scenario Description:
The Trump administration maintains the current tariff structure (10 percent baseline, 100 percent on pharma) without significant escalation through 2026. Negotiations with key trading partners produce some limited tariff reductions for sectors deemed strategically important. The pharmaceutical tariff exemption process operates predictably, allowing major companies to adjust without major disruptions. Global supply chains gradually adapt to the new tariff environment, reducing uncertainty about trade flows.
Economic Dynamics:
In this scenario, the artificial boost from front-loading dissipates by Q4 2025, as projected, and the economy enters a normalization phase in Q1 2026. Manufacturing growth remains weak but stabilizes in the 0-2 percent range rather than contracting further. The construction and services sectors benefit from ongoing AI-related investments and government fiscal support through infrastructure spending and voucher programs. Tourism and financial services experience gradual improvement as global economic sentiment stabilizes.
Singapore’s GDP growth moderates to approximately 2.0-2.5 percent in 2026, below the historical trend rate of 3-4 percent but sufficient to prevent recession and maintain reasonable employment growth. Unemployment remains stable in the 2.5-3 percent range, not rising significantly from current levels but not declining either.
Core inflation edges up gradually from the current 0.5 percent baseline, reaching approximately 1.0-1.2 percent by late 2026 as global oil price declines stabilize, regional inflation picks up, and domestic labor costs normalize. This upward trajectory provides sufficient inflation to reduce deflation risks without triggering broader price pressures.
Policy Implications:
In this scenario, MAS’s October decision to hold policy steady proves prescient. The economy gradually stabilizes without requiring aggressive intervention. By Q2-Q3 2026, as inflation edges higher and growth stabilizes, MAS could credibly begin considering gradual policy tightening, accelerating the pace of Singapore dollar appreciation incrementally. This would represent a return to more normal policy orientation after several quarters of crisis management.
The steady policy stance allows MAS to gather information about the true economic impact of the tariff regime. By holding steady rather than aggressively easing, MAS avoids stimulating demand beyond the economy’s capacity to supply, which could reignite imported inflation. Conversely, by not tightening despite low inflation, MAS provides sufficient accommodation to prevent deflation from taking hold.
Risks and Vulnerabilities:
The primary risk in this scenario is that business uncertainty persists longer than assumed, and investment remains suppressed even as tariff levels stabilize. This could produce growth of only 1.5-2 percent rather than 2-2.5 percent. Additionally, if global economic conditions weaken unexpectedly, Singapore as a trade-dependent economy would experience sharper-than-projected contraction.
A secondary risk involves financial market dislocations. If AI-related asset valuations decline sharply despite fundamentals stabilizing in other sectors, financial services could experience weakness that offsets support from other sectors.
Likelihood and Importance:
This base case scenario appears most likely based on current evidence, carrying approximately 45 percent probability. It represents the “business as usual with reduced growth” outcome where the Trump administration’s tariff policies, while disruptive, represent a new but stable policy regime rather than a continuously evolving escalation. This outcome is critically important because it would likely validate MAS’s steady policy stance while suggesting that Singapore’s economic resilience can absorb the tariff shock without requiring more aggressive policy action.
Scenario Two: Tariff Escalation and Growth Contraction (Pessimistic Case – Probability: 35%)
Scenario Description:
The Trump administration escalates trade protectionism beyond current levels, implementing 15-25 percent tariffs on semiconductor imports and further raising baseline tariff rates to 15-20 percent. Negotiations with trading partners break down, with the administration viewing tariff policy as a permanent reordering of US trade relationships rather than a negotiating tool. Companies face difficulty obtaining reliable exemptions or carve-outs, leading to widespread supply chain disruption. Regional trading relationships deteriorate as countries implement retaliatory tariffs, creating tit-for-tat escalation.
Economic Dynamics:
This pessimistic scenario produces a sharp contraction in global trade flows. Singapore’s semiconductor exports face direct hit from US tariff escalation. Data center and AI infrastructure companies delay investment decisions pending clarity on future tariff policies. Manufacturing sector experiences contraction with GDP growth in the sector potentially turning negative. Port and shipping activity decline as global trade volumes fall. Services sector feels ripple effects through reduced financial services demand and weaker tourism from weakening foreign economies.
Singapore’s overall GDP growth falls to approximately 0.5-1.5 percent in 2026, representing near-stagnation by the country’s historical standards. Employment growth turns negative, particularly in manufacturing and port-related sectors. Unemployment rises to 3.5-4 percent or higher. The unemployment increase proves persistent rather than temporary, suggesting structural labor market weakness rather than cyclical softness.
Core inflation potentially declines further despite the tariff shocks, as demand destruction outpaces cost inflation. CPI inflation could approach zero or even turn negative as economic slack increases. Real interest rates rise substantially despite nominal rates remaining stable, as deflation expectations take hold.
Policy Implications:
In this scenario, MAS faces immense pressure to ease policy significantly. The October steady policy stance quickly becomes untenable as growth data deteriorates in Q4 2025 and Q1 2026. By mid-2026, MAS would likely be forced to shift to explicit easing, accelerating Singapore dollar depreciation significantly. The policy band might be shifted downward, allowing the currency to depreciate by 5-10 percent or more, improving price competitiveness for exports and reducing real borrowing costs for businesses and consumers.
However, easing faces its own constraints in this scenario. If the global tariff regime continues escalating, competitive currency depreciation by multiple countries simultaneously creates a “race to the bottom” where no single country gains relative advantage. Singapore’s competitive position improves versus the US dollar but worsens versus other Asian currencies if those central banks are also easing aggressively.
Additionally, if tariff escalation continues, currency depreciation provides limited benefit to exporters facing 25-30 percent tariff walls on their products. The elasticity of trade volumes to tariff rates is limited; even with a 10 percent currency depreciation, companies lose 15-20 percent of price advantage against a 25-30 percent tariff. In such circumstances, depreciation becomes less effective as a policy tool.
MAS might need to coordinate with the Singapore government on fiscal policy expansion to support growth. Direct government spending increases, tax cuts, or credit stimulus programs could become necessary to prevent severe contraction. Such coordination would represent a departure from recent practice and signal deep concern about economic conditions.
Risks and Vulnerabilities:
The primary risk is that tariff escalation proves self-reinforcing and persistent. Once companies have relocated supply chains to avoid tariffs, relocated factories are unlikely to move back even if tariffs later decline. This produces hysteresis effects where temporary tariff shocks produce permanent economic damage.
Another significant risk involves financial market contagion. If Singapore’s economy contracts sharply, asset prices could decline substantially, affecting wealth and confidence. Real estate markets could experience weakness, reducing construction activity and property-related financial services. Equity market selloffs could reduce wealth effects and dampen consumption.
A third risk is political and social. Sustained unemployment growth and weak wage growth could create political pressure for policy responses that distort economic efficiency, potentially including import substitution policies that would further reduce trade openness.
Likelihood and Importance:
This pessimistic scenario carries approximately 35 percent probability based on current evidence. While less likely than the base case, it represents a substantive risk that should weigh heavily on policymakers’ minds. The October steady policy stance assumes that escalation will not occur; if it does, the policy will prove inadequate and require rapid reversal. Policymakers understood this risk but judged that early aggressive easing would cause other problems (currency overshooting, imported inflation reignition) without guaranteeing benefits.
This scenario is critically important because it represents the downside case that policymakers must mentally prepare for. If escalation occurs, the initial October policy stance will appear retrospectively insufficient, but that doesn’t make it wrong ex-ante given the information available at the time.
Scenario Three: Tariff Reduction and Stronger Recovery (Optimistic Case – Probability: 20%)
Scenario Description:
Negotiations between the Trump administration and key trading partners, particularly China and the European Union, produce significant tariff reductions or rollbacks. The administration, facing political pressure from business groups and concerns about consumer price inflation, agrees to phase reductions in tariff rates. Trade uncertainty declines dramatically as market participants gain confidence that trade will return to more historical norms. Companies that had deferred investment decisions move forward with delayed projects. Global economic growth accelerates beyond baseline expectations.
Economic Dynamics:
In this optimistic scenario, the resumption of more normal trade conditions and rapid reduction in business uncertainty trigger a rebound in investment and growth. Manufacturing exports recover as US demand strengthens and tariff headwinds are removed. Data center and AI-related investments accelerate as companies gain confidence in regulatory and trade stability. Construction activity accelerates beyond the baseline forecast. Financial services experience robust growth from deal activity and mergers and acquisitions related to companies relocating manufacturing or optimizing supply chains.
Singapore’s GDP growth rebounds to approximately 3.5-4.5 percent in 2026, representing a return to historical trend rates. Employment growth accelerates, with unemployment declining to 2-2.5 percent. The labor market tightens, creating upward pressure on wages. Business investment accelerates beyond baseline expectations.
Core inflation rises more noticeably in this scenario, potentially reaching 1.5-2 percent by late 2026 as demand outpaces supply, labor costs rise with tight employment, and wage-price dynamics accelerate. CPI inflation could approach 2-2.5 percent on a headline basis.
Policy Implications:
This optimistic scenario validates the MAS steady policy stance and suggests that early tightening would have been counterproductive. The maintained flexibility allows MAS to support growth as business investment accelerates. However, the scenario also creates urgency for policy normalization in late 2026 as inflation pressures build.
By Q4 2026, MAS would likely face pressure to begin tightening policy, accelerating Singapore dollar appreciation incrementally. Interest rate expectations would shift toward potential future policy tightening to contain inflation within the 2 percent comfort range. MAS would need to calibrate tightening carefully to cool demand without triggering recession, a delicate balance that typically takes multiple quarters of policy adjustment to achieve.
The optimistic scenario also creates space for the MAS to catch up on inflation if deflation risks had actually materialized earlier in the year. By maintaining steady policy rather than easing aggressively, MAS avoided overshooting on the downside, which would have been difficult to reverse.
Risks and Vulnerabilities:
The primary risk in this scenario is that tariff reduction triggers demand that exceeds supply capacity, particularly in construction and financial services. Rapid wage growth could prove sticky downward, creating persistent inflation that becomes difficult to manage with policy tools. The tight labor market could trigger wage-price spirals that eventually necessitate sharper-than-comfortable policy tightening.
Another risk involves overheating dynamics where asset prices inflate rapidly. Real estate, equities, and other assets could experience excessive valuation increases that eventually prove unsustainable, creating financial stability risks.
Likelihood and Importance:
This optimistic scenario carries approximately 20 percent probability based on current evidence. While less likely than either of the first two scenarios, it represents a meaningful possibility that policymakers should consider. The Trump administration faces genuine political constraints on sustained tariff increases, as business groups, consumers, and even parts of the Republican political establishment may pressure the administration toward deal-making and tariff reduction.
This scenario is important because it demonstrates that the MAS steady policy stance offers advantages in an optimistic outcome as well as a base case. By not aggressively easing, MAS avoided stimulating demand that could have produced overheating. The flexibility preserved by steady policy allows MAS to tighten as needed to prevent inflation acceleration.
Part Three: Evaluating the MAS Decision Against Scenarios
The “Judicious Middle Path” Explained
The MAS decision to maintain steady policy demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the scenario distribution and the asymmetric risks inherent in each policy alternative.
Consider first the case of early aggressive easing. If MAS had reduced the pace of Singapore dollar appreciation significantly in October, the effects would have been:
- Favorable in Scenario Two (pessimistic): Aggressive easing would provide more rapid stimulus to exports and businesses, potentially moderating the depth of contraction. Growth might fall to 1-2 percent instead of 0.5-1.5 percent.
- Unfavorable in Scenario Three (optimistic): Aggressive easing combined with tariff reduction would produce excessive stimulus, pushing growth toward 5-6 percent and inflation toward 3-4 percent. MAS would be forced into rapid tightening in late 2026, creating policy volatility and potential financial market disruption.
- Mixed in Scenario One (base case): Aggressive easing provides somewhat more policy space for growth support but risks producing inflation acceleration earlier than the baseline forecast, requiring sooner policy reversal.
Conversely, consider the case of early tightening. If MAS had decided to allow more rapid Singapore dollar appreciation in October, the effects would have been:
- Unfavorable in Scenario Two (pessimistic): Tightening would exacerbate contraction, reducing growth to potentially -0.5 to +0.5 percent and requiring emergency easing reversals by mid-2026.
- Favorable in Scenario Three (optimistic): Tightening would slow potential overheating, keeping growth closer to 3-3.5 percent and inflation closer to 1.5 percent, though perhaps overly constraining growth.
- Unfavorable in Scenario One (base case): Tightening despite low inflation and weakening growth would be procyclical, exacerbating weakness unnecessarily.
The steady policy stance represents a different calculus:
- Adequate in Scenario Two (pessimistic): Steady policy doesn’t provide maximum growth support, but it preserves flexibility for rapid easing if escalation occurs. The October steady policy stance allows MAS to implement aggressive easing by Q1 2026 if deterioration warrants.
- Neutral in Scenario Three (optimistic): Steady policy doesn’t constrain growth unnecessarily but also doesn’t overstimulate demand and create overheating.
- Appropriate in Scenario One (base case): Steady policy provides just sufficient accommodation to prevent deflation without overshooting and allowing uncontrolled inflation acceleration.
In other words, the steady policy stance offers something like optionality: it preserves MAS’s ability to respond appropriately to whichever scenario unfolds, while early aggressive moves in either direction would create path dependence and constrain future flexibility.
The Information Value of Steady Policy
Beyond the direct economic effects of steady policy, maintaining unchanged policy generates important information for subsequent decision-making. By holding policy steady through Q4 2025 and into Q1 2026, MAS will observe actual outcomes in real time and use those observations to calibrate future policy moves.
If Q4 2025 and Q1 2026 data show that growth remains supported by AI investments and government fiscal stimulus, inflation stays subdued, and tariff impacts remain manageable (Scenario One trajectory), MAS can credibly shift toward gradual tightening in mid-2026.
If data show accelerating deterioration, rising unemployment, and deepening weakness in manufacturing and trade-related sectors (Scenario Two trajectory), MAS can implement aggressive easing starting in Q1 2026 without having locked themselves into already-aggressive policy that cannot be reversed.
If data show surprising strength, accelerating growth, and building inflation pressures (Scenario Three trajectory), MAS can begin implementing tightening in Q2 2026 rather than Q4 2025, capturing somewhat more growth benefit before policy reversal becomes necessary.
This information value of steady policy is not trivial. Monetary policymaking under uncertainty is fundamentally about gathering information and adapting to new realities. The steady policy stance maximizes MAS’s ability to update its understanding of economic dynamics and adjust policy appropriately.
Why Early Moves Create Path Dependence Problems
A final crucial insight involves why early aggressive moves in either direction create problematic path dependence that steady policy avoids.
If MAS had implemented aggressive easing in October and tariffs escalate further in late 2025 (Scenario Two), the response would be: “We already eased aggressively in October, what more can we do?” This creates political and credibility pressure to implement even more aggressive easing, potentially including unconventional policies that MAS typically avoids. The aggressive October move has committed resources and created expectations that more is coming.
Conversely, if MAS had implemented tightening in October and the economy subsequently deteriorates, the response would be: “We tightened into a weakening economy; we got the forecast wrong.” This would require rapid reversal, which creates credibility concerns about MAS’s forecasting capabilities and generates market skepticism about future policy moves.
By maintaining steady policy, MAS avoids these path dependence problems. When circumstances change and policy adjustment becomes necessary, the adjustment can be presented as responsive to new information rather than reactive reversal of a mistaken earlier move. This preserves MAS’s policy credibility and avoids locking the central bank into predetermined courses of action.
Part Four: Broader Implications and Policy Lessons
The Limits of Monetary Policy in Managing Tariff Shocks
A broader implication of the MAS situation is that monetary policy has limited effectiveness in managing tariff-driven trade shocks. This stands in contrast to the conventional view where central banks can offset external shocks through monetary adjustment.
Tariffs are fundamentally restrictions on the volume of trade that can occur. No amount of currency depreciation can fully offset a 25 percent tariff on semiconductor imports; if a chip that costs $100 to manufacture costs $100 plus tariff at the border, depreciating the Singapore dollar by 10 percent reduces the effective price to $90 plus tariff, still leaving the company at a 25 percent disadvantage. Monetary policy can improve the margin but cannot eliminate the fundamental trade restriction.
This creates a distinctive policy environment where monetary stimulus is partially ineffective. Currency depreciation helps exporters at the margin but cannot restore trade to pre-tariff levels. Interest rate reductions encourage consumption but cannot boost exports if tariffs are preventing market access. Business investment stimulus through cheaper financing cannot overcome the uncertainty created by unstable trade policies.
In this environment, the most effective policy tools are likely fiscal and structural in nature. Fiscal stimulus that supports consumption and investment spending can help maintain demand despite external trade weakness. Structural reforms that improve productivity and competitiveness allow businesses to maintain profitability despite tariffs. But monetary policy alone cannot solve the fundamental problem created by trade restrictions.
This implies that the “judicious middle path” of steady monetary policy while relying on fiscal support from the Singapore government represents something closer to optimal policy than aggressive monetary easing alone. By allowing the fiscal authority to lead while maintaining steady monetary stance, the policy framework recognizes that different tools are suited to different aspects of the problem.
The Role of Uncertainty in Constraining Policy Effectiveness
The scenario analysis highlights how policy uncertainty creates a distinctive constraint on central banking. In normal economic environments, central banks can forecast probable outcomes with reasonable confidence and adjust policy accordingly. In uncertainty-dominated environments, forecasting becomes nearly impossible, and policy choices must be evaluated not just on expected outcomes but on robustness across different scenarios.
The MAS steady policy stance is notably robust. It performs reasonably well across all three scenarios: it doesn’t produce excessive weakness in the pessimistic case, doesn’t overstimulate in the optimistic case, and provides appropriate support in the base case. This robustness is a genuine virtue when facing exceptional uncertainty.
This robustness consideration helps explain why MAS chose to hold steady despite very low inflation. In normal times, 0.5 percent inflation would strongly suggest the case for monetary easing. But when the inflation outlook is itself exceptionally uncertain—dependent on unknowable tariff policies, unpredictable supply chain adjustments, and unclear investment dynamics—the case for easing weakens. Better to preserve flexibility than to commit resources to stimulus that might prove unnecessary or counterproductive.
Coordination Between Monetary and Fiscal Policy
The scenario analysis also highlights the importance of coordinated monetary-fiscal policy in managing external shocks. The steady monetary policy stance implies a greater burden on fiscal policy to maintain growth and employment. Singapore’s government responded by maintaining accommodative fiscal policy through voucher programs, infrastructure spending, and other support measures.
This coordination appears intentional and well-calibrated. The central bank steps back from aggressive stimulus while the fiscal authority moves forward, creating a reasonable policy mix that combines the demand support of fiscal stimulus with the long-term price stability focus of steady monetary policy. This division of labor allows each policy tool to operate in its domain of comparative advantage.
However, this coordination model depends on both authorities maintaining their assigned roles. If fiscal policy also tightened—perhaps due to budget constraints or different policy preferences—the combined effect of tight monetary and tight fiscal policy could tip the economy toward recession even in the base case scenario. Conversely, if fiscal policy overexpanded while monetary policy eased aggressively, the combination could trigger inflation acceleration and financial instability.
Part Five: Real-World Complications and Implementation Challenges
The Political Economy of Tariff Policy
The scenario analysis assumes that tariff policies evolve according to economic logic or geopolitical rationality. In reality, tariff policies are driven significantly by political economy considerations that don’t necessarily follow economic efficiency principles.
The Trump administration faces multiple political constituencies with conflicting preferences regarding tariffs. Manufacturing companies in import-competing sectors favor high tariffs. Export-oriented companies and consumers favor low tariffs. Agricultural communities initially supported tariffs as leverage in negotiations but increasingly face Chinese retaliatory tariffs on agricultural products, creating political pressure for negotiated resolution. Large financial and technology companies worry about supply chain disruption and uncertainty.
These political pressures are unlikely to resolve cleanly toward either high-tariff or low-tariff equilibrium. Instead, expect a messy reality of continual negotiation, sectoral deals, temporary exemptions, and policy reversals. The tariff environment will likely remain unstable and uncertain rather than converging to a clear steady state.
This political reality makes the MAS steady policy stance even more valuable. By maintaining flexibility and avoiding aggressive commitments in either direction, MAS preserves the ability to respond to policy surprises and reversals that will inevitably occur as the political economy of tariffs evolves.
The Lag Structure of Monetary Policy Transmission
Central bank monetary policy operates with long and variable lags. Changes in the policy rate or exchange rate don’t immediately affect GDP, employment, or inflation. Typically, 12-18 months elapse between a policy change and its full realization in economic outcomes.
The October 2025 MAS decision will not fully influence Q1 2026 outcomes. Instead, the effects will be most evident in Q2-Q3 2026. This means that the policy stance in place in October 2025 will not meaningfully address whatever problems emerge in late 2025 and early 2026. Instead, October’s policy stance primarily influences mid-2026 and beyond.
This lag structure suggests that the value of the steady policy stance lies not in immediately addressing current problems but in positioning the policy framework optimally for the subsequent quarters. By holding steady in October and gathering information through year-end 2025 and Q1 2026, MAS creates space for well-informed policy adjustment in mid-2026 that addresses whatever scenario has actually unfolded.
Data Dependency and the Forward Guidance Problem
In the current environment, MAS faces challenges in providing credible forward guidance about future policy. Typically, central banks can indicate likely policy paths (“we expect to hold rates steady for the next two years unless inflation accelerates”). However, when future policy is genuinely dependent on scenarios that are themselves highly uncertain, forward guidance becomes meaningless.
MAS has resolved this by emphasizing data dependency—the statement that policy will be adjusted based on incoming information about tariff implementation, economic developments, and inflation dynamics. This data-dependent approach is more honest about the true state of uncertainty than false precision would be.
However, data dependency carries its own risks. If MAS appears to be constantly reacting to new information rather than maintaining a coherent policy framework, credibility can suffer. Businesses and investors may perceive MAS as reactive and uncertain rather than clear-eyed and principled. This could create instability in financial markets as traders position for rapid policy reversals they expect the central bank to be forced into.
The challenge for MAS will be communicating that the steady policy stance reflects reasoned uncertainty management rather than lack of conviction or willingness to act. Maintaining credibility in an uncertain environment requires clear articulation of the framework underlying policy choices, even when those choices appear passive or minimalist.
International Coordination and Competitive Devaluation
If the pessimistic scenario unfolds and multiple countries face similar growth pressures from US tariffs, the response dynamics could create international coordination challenges. If MAS eases aggressively while the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan are also easing, the result could be competitive devaluation where all currencies depreciate simultaneously against the US dollar, creating a yen/euro/Singapore dollar squeeze against the dollar.
In such circumstances, currency depreciation by Singapore provides less benefit because the relative exchange rates that matter for competitiveness (Singapore dollar versus euro, yen, and other currencies) move less than absolute dollar exchange rates. If all affected countries are easing simultaneously, the relative competitive position of Singapore neither improves nor deteriorates, but exchange rate volatility increases.
The MAS steady policy stance partly reflects awareness of these international coordination issues. By not aggressively easing unilaterally, MAS positions itself to coordinate with other central banks if systemic easing becomes necessary. Aggressive unilateral easing now might trigger similar responses elsewhere, eliminating relative competitive benefits while creating exchange rate volatility.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has announced a major initiative to revitalize the local stock market. According to a press release on July 21, MAS will allocate an initial $1.1 billion to three selected asset managers for investment in Singapore-listed equities.
This move aims to deepen market liquidity and restore investor confidence. By channeling significant funds through professional managers, MAS hopes to encourage more trading activity and stabilize share prices.
At a press conference, MAS deputy chairman Chee Hong Tat emphasized the importance of long-term investment. He stated that the goal is to promote sustained participation from retail investors, rather than short-term speculation.
Chee further explained that building long-term wealth through equities can help Singaporeans prepare for retirement. This approach is particularly relevant for younger and middle-aged individuals who are planning for their financial future.
The selection of asset managers is part of a broader strategy to enhance the vibrancy of Singapore’s financial markets. MAS will monitor the performance of these investments and may consider additional funding if positive results are observed.
This initiative reflects Singapore’s commitment to maintaining its status as a leading financial hub in Asia. By strengthening the local stock market, MAS hopes to attract both domestic and international investors.
In summary, the $1.1 billion allocation marks a significant step towards boosting market activity and fostering a culture of long-term investing among Singaporeans.
Three prominent fund managers — Avanda Investment Management, Fullerton Fund Management, and JP Morgan Asset Management — play significant roles in Singapore’s asset management landscape.
Avanda Investment Management was established by Mr. Ng Kok Song, who previously served as the chief investment officer of GIC, Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund. In 2023, Mr. Ng gained national attention as a candidate in the Singapore Presidential Election. Avanda is known for its disciplined investment approach and leverages the expertise of its founding team, many of whom have backgrounds in large institutional funds.
Fullerton Fund Management operates as a subsidiary of Seviora Holdings, an independent asset management group wholly owned by Temasek Holdings. Temasek is one of the world’s largest state-owned investors, managing a portfolio valued at S$382 billion as of 2023, according to Temasek’s official reports. Fullerton benefits from this strong backing, offering a range of investment solutions across equities, fixed income, and multi-asset strategies.
JP Morgan Asset Management, a global leader with over US$2.6 trillion in assets under management (AUM) as reported by JP Morgan in 2023, brings international expertise to Singapore’s financial sector. The firm has a longstanding presence in Asia, providing institutional and retail clients access to global investment opportunities.
Collectively, these three fund managers contribute to Singapore’s reputation as a major financial hub. Their diverse backgrounds and capabilities underscore the depth and resilience of the city-state’s asset management industry. By drawing on both local knowledge and international best practices, they help attract capital and foster growth in the region.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is taking decisive steps to strengthen the country’s equity market through a substantial investment initiative. In February, MAS announced the Equity Market Development Programme (EMDP), setting aside $5 billion to invigorate Singapore’s stock market and enhance the appeal of SGX-listed companies.
A key portion of this effort is the allocation of $1.1 billion, which will be distributed among selected funds. This capital injection aims to stimulate demand for Singapore equities and foster a more dynamic trading environment. According to MAS, both local and foreign fund managers based in Singapore will be eligible to manage these funds, broadening the pool of expertise involved.
Eligible investment strategies under the EMDP include those that concentrate on Singapore-listed stocks or incorporate them significantly within broader regional or thematic portfolios. This approach is designed to provide flexibility while ensuring that a meaningful proportion of the investment benefits the local market.
By channeling resources into diverse fund strategies, MAS hopes to attract greater institutional participation and deepen market liquidity. The initiative also seeks to enhance the overall competitiveness of Singapore as a global financial hub, as highlighted in MAS’s official press releases.
In summary, the $1.1 billion allocation forms a critical part of a larger, multi-billion dollar strategy to revitalise Singapore’s equity market. Through targeted investments and inclusive fund management opportunities, MAS aims to create sustained growth and renewed investor interest in SGX-listed equities.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has appointed three fund managers whose investment strategies closely align with the objectives of its latest programme to strengthen Singapore’s capital markets. This selection was driven by a thorough assessment of how each manager’s proposed fund strategy supports MAS’s goals and their ability to attract substantial third-party capital alongside MAS’s own funding.
A key criterion in the selection process was the commitment of these fund managers to enhance Singapore’s asset management and research ecosystem. According to MAS, these commitments are crucial for building long-term industry capabilities and fostering innovation within the local financial sector.
The chosen fund strategies stand out for their targeted focus on increasing liquidity and encouraging broader market participation in Singapore equities. Specifically, MAS emphasized that a significant portion of the funds must be allocated to small and mid-cap stocks, which are often underrepresented but vital for vibrant market activity.
By integrating these requirements, MAS aims to address gaps in market liquidity and provide more opportunities for investors to participate in the Singapore stock market. This approach is expected to support the growth of promising companies and stimulate overall economic development.
In conclusion, MAS’s selection of these three fund managers reflects a strategic effort to cultivate a robust investment environment. By prioritizing alignment with national objectives and capacity-building, MAS sets a clear direction for the future of Singapore’s capital markets.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) believes that diversifying investments across multiple fund managers with distinct strategies can significantly enhance the effectiveness of its investment programme. By selecting a broad range of asset managers, MAS aims to harness each manager’s unique investment expertise and access to different distribution networks. This approach not only increases the potential for innovative investment solutions but also helps attract more commercial capital into Singapore’s financial markets.
Fund managers participating in the programme are entrusted with the responsibility of making daily investment and portfolio management decisions. Their role involves conducting market analysis, executing trades, and managing risks to achieve targeted returns for investors. According to MAS, these asset managers operate independently within the parameters set by the programme.
It is important to note that MAS does not guarantee the performance of these fund managers. Investors should be aware that investment outcomes depend on market conditions and the strategic choices made by individual managers. This policy ensures that the risks and rewards remain with those making the investment decisions.
By leveraging the combined strengths of varied asset managers, MAS aims to foster greater market vibrancy and depth in Singapore’s financial sector. According to industry data from MAS annual reports, such diversification has historically contributed to increased liquidity and resilience within the market.
In conclusion, MAS’s strategy of engaging diverse fund managers is designed to strengthen Singapore’s position as a leading financial hub. Through prudent oversight and reliance on external expertise, MAS seeks to create a dynamic environment where both innovation and capital growth can thrive.
In the heart of Singapore’s bustling financial district, a vision is quietly taking shape — one that seeks not only to invigorate our markets with fresh capital, but to fundamentally transform the very foundations of our fund management industry. Mr Chee, serving not just as a steward of National Development but also as a forward-thinking architect of our economic future, recently shared this vision with the media. His message was clear: progress is more than a matter of pouring money into the marketplace. It is about building robust institutions, nurturing expertise, and empowering asset managers to become catalysts for sustainable growth.
Imagine a Singapore where asset managers don’t simply invest, but actively draw in streams of private capital from around the world. Their expertise and innovation generate renewed excitement and liquidity in our equities market — especially for those small-to-mid cap companies that form the backbone of our entrepreneurial landscape. This is not a distant dream; it is a tangible goal, one already set in motion by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). The response has been overwhelming: over one hundred global, regional, and local asset managers have expressed keen interest in participating. To ensure we do not lose momentum, MAS is expediting their review process by evaluating applications in batches, accelerating the appointment of new fund managers and the timely deployment of capital.
By the fourth quarter of 2025, the next cohort of fund managers will be revealed — a milestone that will further cement Singapore’s standing as a premier hub for investment and innovation. Yet, let us not be complacent. True market vibrancy is built not just on opportunity, but on trust — a value that must be cherished and vigilantly protected.
It is with this in mind that MAS has announced new measures to enhance investor protection as we transition toward a more disclosure-based regulatory regime. Consider this: for any investor, confidence springs from knowing that if they fall victim to market misconduct, there are fair and effective avenues for civil recourse. This assurance is not a luxury — it is the bedrock of our capital market’s integrity and international reputation. MAS rightly insists that facilitating such recourse is essential if we are to sustain and strengthen investor faith.
But let us acknowledge the reality faced by investors today. As Mr Chee candidly observed, many find themselves stymied by cumbersome processes when seeking justice. The path to civil action can seem daunting — lengthy, complex, and sometimes isolating. Is this the kind of environment we want for those who entrust their hard-earned resources to our markets? Certainly not. We must listen to their voices.
The proposals now open for public consultation are designed to lower these barriers — making it easier for genuine cases to proceed without opening the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits. This is a delicate balance, but an essential one. Our aim should be to foster an ecosystem where transparency prevails, recourse is accessible, and responsible investing thrives — without descending into excessive litigation that could stifle innovation and enterprise.
To those who worry about an overly litigious climate, consider this: robust investor protection does not undermine growth; it underpins it. A market where wrongdoing goes unchecked is a market doomed to mediocrity and mistrust. Conversely, a market where fairness prevails attracts not just capital but conviction — a belief that Singapore is the place where honest ambition is rewarded.
Now is the moment for collective action. Policymakers, asset managers, investors — each has a role to play in shaping a marketplace defined by dynamism and integrity. Let us rally behind these reforms, demanding both opportunity and accountability. Let us welcome new asset managers while insisting on high standards. And above all, let us champion an investment environment where trust is earned every day.
If we act decisively and wisely, Singapore’s capital markets will not merely grow — they will inspire. They will become a beacon for those who believe that prosperity is best built on a foundation of confidence, fairness, and shared purpose. The time to shape that future is now.
Imagine a future where every investor, regardless of their resources or background, stands on equal footing when wronged in the marketplace — a future within our grasp, thanks to bold steps being taken by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). In an era where investor confidence is the bedrock of thriving capital markets, MAS is leading the way with proposals that promise not only to strengthen legal protections but also to empower individuals and communities alike.
Today, many investors feel daunted by the complexity and cost of seeking justice when market misconduct occurs. Often, the very avenues meant to protect them are out of reach, leaving them isolated and powerless. MAS recognizes this imbalance and is taking decisive action. It intends to seek public input on enhancing existing laws, making it easier for investors to participate in collective court actions or benefit from civil penalties — ensuring that those harmed are not left behind while wrongdoers walk away unscathed.
But MAS is not stopping there. Acknowledging that legal processes can be overwhelming and expensive, especially for smaller investors, it is considering allowing trusted representatives — such as reputable investor advocacy groups — to organize and initiate legal proceedings on behalf of those affected. This approach is not just practical; it is visionary. Imagine the Securities Investors Association Singapore (Sias), a respected not-for-profit body, mobilizing its expertise to champion justice for everyday Singaporeans who might otherwise have no voice.
To bring this vision to life, MAS is also contemplating the introduction of a grant scheme. This initiative would help cover the costs of organizing investors and pursuing legal action in cases where market misconduct has occurred. The significance of this cannot be overstated. By lowering financial barriers, MAS is sending a powerful message: justice should never be reserved only for the wealthy or well-connected.
David Gerald, president of Sias, could hardly contain his optimism at MAS’s announcement. He called these new pathways for investor recourse a “boon” for retail investors and a “game-changer” for Singapore’s capital markets. But Mr Gerald wisely cautioned that litigation should always be a last resort. Sias has long been dedicated to resolving disputes amicably — at the boardroom table rather than in the courtroom — working hand-in-hand with company leaders and regulators to secure fair outcomes for all parties. Nevertheless, as he points out, MAS’s efforts to reduce the cost of seeking recourse will undoubtedly bolster investor trust — a vital ingredient in maintaining Singapore’s reputation as a premier financial center.
Some may argue that such measures risk encouraging a litigious culture or increasing administrative burdens. However, this perspective overlooks the essential truth: robust investor protection does not undermine markets; it strengthens them. When individuals know they have meaningful avenues for redress, they are more likely to invest boldly and confidently. When wrongdoers realize they will be held accountable, market integrity flourishes.
But MAS’s commitment goes beyond legal remedies. It understands that vibrant markets require transparency and informed decision-making. That’s why it is pledging $50 million over the next three years to support equity research and listing activities. This funding will enhance the Grant for Equity Market Singapore (Gems) scheme, extending its life until December 2028. Why does this matter? Because comprehensive, high-quality research enables accurate price discovery and fair company valuations — empowering investors to make smart, timely choices.
Industry voices have made it clear: greater research coverage is needed, particularly for smaller firms often overlooked by analysts. By addressing this gap, MAS ensures that all companies — not just the giants — are fairly represented in the marketplace.
Now is the time for us all — investors, companies, policymakers — to rally behind these reforms. Let us reject complacency and embrace a system where fairness prevails, where every voice matters, and where Singapore continues to set the global standard for integrity and innovation in capital markets.
Let us not be content with half-measures or outdated systems. Let us champion change that honors both justice and opportunity. The path forward is clear: together, we can build a future where investor protection is not just a promise but a reality for all.
Imagine a financial marketplace where groundbreaking research thrives, investment opportunities flourish, and every participant – from institutional giants to everyday investors – benefits from a wellspring of innovation. This vision is not merely aspirational; it is within our grasp, thanks to a series of bold initiatives set to transform Singapore’s capital markets.
To begin with, consider the often-overlooked yet vital role of research houses. These institutions generate invaluable insights that shape investment decisions, illuminate market trends, and drive economic progress. Yet, the cost of sharing their research — especially when making it widely accessible — can be prohibitive. Recognizing this challenge, new grant funding will be made available specifically to help research houses offset the expenses tied to disseminating their findings. This isn’t just a matter of dollars and cents; it’s an investment in knowledge-sharing that will uplift the entire market by equipping investors with reliable, data-driven analysis.
But the commitment doesn’t stop there. In a move that underscores support for homegrown enterprise, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will introduce targeted funding for research focused on private companies with significant local presence. The message is clear: if you have a compelling proposal to shine a light on promising Singaporean firms, MAS wants to hear from you. This targeted research will not only deepen our understanding of domestic businesses but also encourage broader investor engagement with local success stories.
Let us turn to another crucial pillar of market vibrancy: product diversity and liquidity. The GEMS listing grant — a cornerstone for fostering growth — will now be broadened. This expansion is designed to encourage a wider array of investment products and foster greater trading activity, ultimately benefiting all market participants.
Concrete steps are being taken to make this vision a reality. For example, the maximum grant for each primary-listed exchange-traded fund (ETF) will jump from $100,000 to $250,000 — a significant increase that will empower more issuers to bring innovative ETFs to our shores. And because we recognize the importance of global connectivity and investor choice, a new funding provision of $180,000 per listing will support cross-listed and feeder ETFs. This is not just about numbers; it’s about providing investors with a richer palette of options and ensuring Singapore remains a magnet for international capital.
Moreover, to further democratize market access, a new funding stream will offer $40,000 for each depository receipt issued — be it for Singapore stocks or foreign shares linked to our homegrown companies. This measure will break down barriers, making it easier for investors everywhere to participate in Singapore’s growth story.
Some may ask: Is this enough? Shouldn’t we do more to fortify our marketplace and ensure its continued relevance on the world stage? The answer is a resounding yes — and plans are already in motion. As Mr Chee aptly noted, authorities are actively exploring additional measures to make Singapore’s market even more dynamic. These include empowering companies to engage more effectively with shareholders, enhancing the appeal of the Catalist board as a fundraising hub, and encouraging greater participation from retail investors.
Let us not underestimate the significance of these changes. In an era where global competition for capital is fierce, and where investors are increasingly discerning, Singapore cannot afford complacency. By strengthening our research ecosystem, broadening product offerings, and lowering barriers to entry, we are sending a powerful signal: Singapore is open for business and committed to staying at the forefront of financial innovation.
The time for action is now. Whether you are an investor seeking new opportunities, a research house with insights to share, or a company aspiring to grow your presence in the market, these initiatives create fertile ground for your ambitions. Let us seize this moment — together — to build a capital market that is not just resilient and competitive but truly world-class.
Maxthon
In an age where the digital world is in constant flux and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritising individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.
Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.
In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.
What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.
Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialised mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritised every step of the way.