Singapore - cost and budget

An analysis estimating the annual cost of implementing free PGS-based mental illness prevention in Singapore, and how that compares with the nation’s annual budget:

---

🇸🇬 1. Singapore’s 2025 Annual Budget Overview

Total government expenditure (FY2025): S$123.8 billion (~US$92 billion)  

Operating expenditure: S$97.0 billion; development expenditure: S$26.8 billion  

Health ministry spending: ~S$20.9 billion (~17% of ministry expenditure)  

Mental health expenditure: about 3% of healthcare budget, around S$434.6 million in 2022  

---

2. Estimated Annual Cost for Free PGS in Singapore

🧪 Scenario A: IVF‑based PGS Access

Estimated IVF cycles/year in Singapore: 5,000 (a mix of local and foreign usage)

Cost per PGS + counseling: ~S$14,000 (USD USD equivalent ~10 000)

Total cost: 5,000 × S$14,000 = ~S$70 million per year

🌐 Scenario B: Expanded Screening (IVF + Early Risk Screening)

Includes early-life embryo or child risk screening

Estimated cost range: S$120 million – S$200 million annually

---

3. Comparison to Government Budgets

Category Annual Spend (S$) % of Total Budget

PGS for IVF families ~70 million ~0.06%

Expanded access to PGS + early screening 120–200 million ~0.1–0.16%

Mental health expenditure ~435 million ~0.35%

Ministry of Health total ~20.9 billion ~17%

Total Government Expenditure 123.8 billion —

---

✅ 4. Key Insights

Even a full-scale PGS prevention program (~S$200M/year) represents only ~0.16% of Singapore’s total government budget.

That’s less than half of Singapore’s current mental health spending (~S$435M/year).

Singapore runs consistent fiscal surpluses, with strong social infrastructure and public health readiness—suggesting that such investment is within practical scope .

---

🧠 5. Strategic Use in the Petition

Framed simply:

> “A universal PGS prevention program for mental illness in Singapore would cost less than S$200M annually—less than half of what the government currently spends on mental health—and could dramatically reduce suffering and suicide rates in future generations.”

This powerful comparison shows both affordability and progressive vision, ideal for petitions and policy briefs.

---