1 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many police reports were received in 2025 concerning the circulation of AI-generated fake obscene images of real persons; (b) what proportion of these cases involved perpetrators and victims who were fellow students in educational institutions; and (c) what can victims or complainants expect in follow-up actions by the police.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, the Police do not track how many of the obscene materials cases it investigates involve AI-generated images of real persons.
Where there is a report relating to any obscene material, the Police will conduct investigations, including through interviewing the accused and other witnesses, and examining any digital forensic evidence that may be available. For cases involving young victims, the Police may notify the parents or guardians. The Police will also offer victim care services to victims who require psychological support.
If the AI-generated obscene images are circulating online, the Police may issue directions under the Online Criminal Harms Act to online service providers to disable Singapore users’ access to them.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is that in some cases that I have come across, I was told by the victims that they reported to Police that their images had been artificially created and put up on porn websites, and the Police had advised them to take action under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), as it is a non-arrestable offence. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify whether this is actually the default position of the Police in such reports.
Second, to be fair to the Police, in the cases that I know of, after we appealed for the victim, the Police actually assisted to have the images removed. So, that is very helpful and of most concern to the victims. I would like to ask whether that is something that the Police does ordinarily from most of these reports.
The third question is, I believe that under the Penal Code, there are actually some arrestable offences that would actually cover some of the conduct – for example, being in possession of intimate images and so on, under section 377BD and 377BE. So, I would like to ask when the Police would classify the case under these arrestable offences and investigate with the view to prosecution.
\tMs Sim Ann: Sir, I believe that the first and the third supplementary questions from the Member are related. I would say that if the facts of the case are such that it warrants taking action under the Penal Code for offences relating to the circulation of intimate images, the Police will do so. So, it is not that there is a default position to go a certain route – everything depends on the facts of the case as disclosed.
In terms of what happens to the images that are, say, circulating online, as I have also shared in the main reply, where there are obscene images circulating online, and which, in the course of investigation, or due to the report, it is known, the Police may issue directions to the online service providers to block access of Singapore users to them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring AI Use by Primary School Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has implemented safeguards, including longitudinal studies, to monitor the impact of early AI use at the primary level on students’ development of foundational skills and higher-order thinking and to prevent over-reliance on AI tools; and (b) if so, what these entail.
3 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education (a) what prerequisite skills must primary school students demonstrate before AI is first introduced for usage; (b) what is the rationale for the Primary 4 entry point; (c) what is the implementation roadmap for AI in primary curricula, including age cohorts and approved tools; and (d) what guidelines, training and workload support will teachers receive to distinguish productive AI use from shortcut substitution.
4 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education in respect of the use of artificial intelligence in education (a) whether the Ministry has established safeguards to ensure (i) transparency to parents on data collected through AI-enabled learning tools and (ii) procedural fairness when students are penalised for inappropriate AI use; and (b) if so, what do these safeguards entail.
5 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education (a) what does the introduction of AI from Primary 4 under \"low exposure\" and close teacher supervision entail, including whether it refers only to curated MOE- and GovTech-developed tools in the Student Learning Space; (b) why Primary 4 is chosen as the starting point; and (c) how the Ministry will assess readiness for any broader rollout of AI tools in schools.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to address oral Question Nos 2 to 5 on today’s Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Desmond Lee: Thank you, Sir. My response will also address related oral and written Parliamentary Questions scheduled for the Sitting on and after 7 May.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly accessible, not just on the Internet but also embedded in hardware and even toys. General purpose AI is also easily available online. It is therefore important for students, even younger ones, to develop overall awareness of AI in daily life, have guided discussions on its benefits and risks, and be ready to use AI. AI is going to cause disruption and create opportunity, and we want to prepare our children well and equip them with the knowledge and skills to meet this new world.
The Ministry of Education's (MOE’s) approach is simple, but deliberate – for every student to learn about AI, learn to use AI, learn with AI and most importantly, learn beyond AI. These are what we call the \"Four Learns\".
Theoretical knowledge alone is not sufficient. Our students also need well-designed and supervised hands-on experiences, through the use of educational AI tools guided by teachers. This spiral approach, as students progress through different levels in school, prepares them to harness AI to benefit their learning, critically evaluate AI output and guard against risks such as cognitive offloading.
We want to develop AI literacy in our students in a calibrated and purposeful way. Our approach is informed by research on how children learn and develop, and what is helpful at each stage of growth. Technology, including AI, is used only when it supports educational objectives and students’ development. This has guided us when introducing AI in our schools.
From Primary 1 to 3, physical, tactile, hands-on learning is prioritised as students build foundational knowledge and develop cognitive and social skills. But students learn about the basics of AI – so, AI literacy – so that they are aware of its presence in their daily lives, but schools will not assign any work that requires them to use AI directly.
From Primary 4, our students would have developed foundational literacy, numeracy and basic foundational knowledge of AI in their daily lives. Research also shows that at around this age, they would have developed some executive functioning skills – like planning, task initiation and ability to evaluate their own thinking – to begin to use simple digital tools to support their learning. We will therefore let them use educational AI tools under teacher supervision.
Students in Primary 4 to 6 will only use AI tools in school that are specifically designed for education. And they will only do so under teacher supervision. This includes the AI-enabled tools that we have introduced into the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS) which are specially designed to help our children and students learn. These tools have in-built safety guardrails.
For example, Primary 4 students in an English Language class can use the AI Learning Assistant (LEA) in SLS for composition writing in class. Using the prompts provided by their teacher, our students can get ideas on how to \"show not tell\", a technique where students enhance their writing through details on actions and emotions to help readers better experience the narrative, and refine their drafts based on personalised feedback from the LEA.
In this case, the LEA supports students to iteratively improve their writing with more engaging content and vivid language, to strengthen their writing skills.
The LEA gives every student an individual AI writing coach that responds to our students in real-time, based on their specific drafts. As a guardrail, the LEA will redirect students back on track if they veer off-topic and ask irrelevant questions, or if they want to be spoon-fed with direct answers. Last year, my colleagues and I tried it out. We were in a class, there was a particular topic, and we deliberately tried to go off course and say \"What is good in the canteen?\" or \"How can I use this topic for a party trick?\" And they will tell us to say \"No, this is not relevant. Please let's get back on topic. Let's learn about\" this and that.
At the same time, our teachers can reinforce our students’ AI literacy during lesson consolidation by guiding them to form good learning habits when using AI.
As students learn to use AI and learn with AI, they will also learn more about what AI is. They are taught how it works, how to be discerning about AI output and the importance of being responsible for the content that they create.
During Cyber Wellness lessons, students are taught to be discerning about AI output as it may contain errors or false information and the importance of being responsible for the content they create.
Prior to using AI tools in SLS, students go through the “Basic module on AI and AI-enabled Features in SLS”, to teach them about the tools in SLS and how to use them for learning.
From Primary 4, students undergo the mandatory 10 hours \"Code for Fun\" programme – it is coding for fun, but it is mandatory. It is a programme which includes coding, computational thinking and introduction to AI, so that students appreciate AI’s benefits, risks and limitations, and understand how AI uses data to learn.
Under Code for Fun, primary schools can also opt for two additional \"AI for Fun\" modules, each five hours, that delve further into generative AI and computer vision respectively.
Schools will also teach students when they should not use AI, so that they do not take short cuts to get answers without actual learning.
We want to provide our students with a school environment where they can develop good learning habits and understand the importance of upholding academic integrity. For example, some secondary schools may design tasks which allow students to use AI. In these situations, students must state where they have used AI and cite the sources of information. This helps to prepare them for post-secondary education where they will be expected to use AI far more heavily, in anticipation of what their future workplace might look like.
However, if students pass off AI-generated content as their own, they will have to bear the consequences of academic dishonesty.
National exams continue to be proctored, and use of AI is prohibited. If students use AI as a shortcut for their daily work instead of learning deeply, they will not be able to demonstrate the levels of mastery expected during the exams.
In cases where the use of AI is permitted in national exams, such as for coursework, Teacher Supervisors monitor students’ work such that AI use meets the objectives of the assessment.
Educational AI tools made available by MOE have in-built safety guardrails to protect learners’ interest, privacy and well-being. Besides the educational guardrails to ensure good learning,
Data from students’ use of MOE-built AI tools is anonymised and not used to train external AI models that power these tools.
When schools use commercial-off-the-shelf AI tools, they are required to check that the input data does not contain personal identifiable information and is in compliance with data management guidelines.
Our teachers play a central role in harnessing AI effectively for student learning, and we have been equipping them with the necessary knowledge and skills to do so. For instance, we provide opportunities for our teachers to learn about AI, including the ethical and pedagogical considerations of its use, and its associated risks and limitations. We also facilitate the sharing of good practices on AI use amongst our educators. These include workshops and networked learning communities led by our Master Teachers as well as online sharing platforms.
At MOE, we seek to keep up-to-date with international reports and how other systems are approaching the use of AI in education. We also fund projects that study how AI affects children’s development and learning. One example is the Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study (SG-LEADS) by the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), which will start to collect data in 2027. This research seeks to understand Singapore children’s AI usage patterns and how their AI usage affects their learning and well-being outcomes.
But given how quickly AI is developing, we are also working with our schools to conduct short-term research to inform classroom practices in a timely manner.
We know that some parents have misgivings about exposing their children at an early age to AI. Many are already struggling with their children’s excessive screentime on smart phones and devices at home. Through the Parents Gateway and MOE’s social media platforms, we have been sharing with parents how schools use AI and how parents can support their children’s use of AI in their education journey. Some schools even meet parents at the start of the year or at different points in time, to engage them.
The recent post titled “We answer: How your primary school child is learning with AI” on MOE social media is one example. Schools also share with parents how AI tools may be used in teaching and learning at the school level and provide avenues for parents to share their views on the use of AI tools.
AI has been developing rapidly and is increasingly embedded into everyday systems around us. If we are not mindful, we may lose the consciousness in detecting the presence of, and influence that AI has in our decision making and ways of thinking, simply because it works so seamlessly. So, development of AI literacy is critical and must be timely.
\t
Education systems across the world are responding to this differently. Some systems like China, UAE and the United Kingdom (UK) have introduced AI – AI literacy, AI use – from Primary 1. Others like India or states in Australia and the United States (US), start at similar ages to Singapore, or slightly later. MOE has chosen to take a calibrated approach informed by the learning sciences, emerging research and studies conducted by practitioners and academics and ongoing exchanges with various countries. Our approach is therefore a dynamic one. As AI develops and more research is done, we will continue to calibrate and adjust our approach to the use of AI in education.
Even as we prepare our students to be future ready, I want to assure parents and fellow Singaporeans that the use of AI in education seeks to be balanced and age-appropriate, and applied purposefully to support students' learning and development.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Chen.
\tDr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his replies. I have a few questions. Number one, how do we ensure that our students still learn to think independently, even with the use of AI? Number two, will the AI curriculum account for the needs of vulnerable students, such as those with special needs and mental health challenges? And number three, will the Ministry also consider studying the impact of AI on vulnerable children and those from at-risk families as well?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Indeed, the Member is right. We want to make sure that even as our children start to use AI tools for learning, or use AI tools for their schoolwork as they grow older, that it scaffolds and enhances cognitive development and metacognitive development, and not hobble it. So, independent learning, independent ability is an important part of AI in education.
And our approach is one that — I have brought this document for everybody to take a look. This is our approach to AI in education and we have, as a guiding principle, number one, students at the centre: \"keeping student learning as the goal and maintaining student agency\". And principle number two is pedagogy first, which means \"good teaching and learning must come first, enabled by skillful use of AI\". These are two broad concepts, the heuristics that guide us and beneath that there are guidelines, principles and quick guides that enable us to adjust and adapt the use of AI in the classroom, as well as on SLS.
With regard to students with special educational needs (SEN) and mental health, as I have said yesterday and previously, we have SEN officers in school. We have student school counsellors. We have teachers who are given basic foundational knowledge on how to support students with education needs. And in the classroom, as well as under teacher supervision, the use of AI enabled tools in SLS will continue to be under teachers' supervision, and for children with SEN, they will keep an eye out for them.
Likewise, for children coming from more vulnerable families – AI in education, AI in SLS, AI in MOE schools is not used for affective or social emotional issues or social emotional learning. We do not use our chatbots or AI tools to check on students' well-being, or to help them build up social emotional skills. That is the sole domain of our educators and our MOE staff. But we use it on the cognitive front to help our children. And when it comes to children from more vulnerable families, if there are specific issues that may impact their use of AI in learning, then our schools will specifically support them and scaffold for them,
\tMr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
\tMr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Three supplementary questions. First, many parents I have spoken to are worried about cognitive offloading – the phenomenon where children offload their thinking to AI. Metacognition, the ability to notice when you are wrong, is built through struggle and not through receiving correct answers. And the evidence is that students who encounter difficulty before resolving it, develop stronger self-correction capacity. So, how does MOE intend for our learners to encounter productive struggle to build these metacognitive skills?
Second, Sweden's Karolinska Institute advised the Swedish government, and I quote, \"There is clear scientific evidence that digital tools impair rather than enhance student learning\", end quote. That conclusion drew on multiple peer-reviewed studies covering reading comprehension, distraction, executive function development and equity outcomes. And the Swedish government acted on this, reversing its digitalisation strategy in 2023 and investing over €200 million to reintroduce physical textbooks and removing mandatory digital tools for young children. I am sure the Minister is aware of this, so what are his points of disagreement with the Swedish example?
And number three, some parents have also asked if they will have the option of opting out their children from specific aspects of AI tool usage in classrooms.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I think on the first point, we are ad idem. We want to make sure that in using AI tools, our children do not cognitively offload – and that is shorthand for saying that they rely on the AI as a crutch to deliver the answer, but not learn deeply, so they do not develop cognitively.
And that is why in my earlier reply, I mentioned that the MOE tools that are used in SLS are teacher supervised and the tools are structured in a way that they do not allow children to ask for spoon-fed answers. For example, the learning feedback assistant mathematics. You try the SLS Mathematics question, guided by Learning Feedback Assistant Mathematics, it will not spoon-feed you the answer. Whereas general purpose AI tools, will. But these are not used in the MOE space in SLS, and it will then remind you to say, \"No, this approach is wrong\". It will prompt you. Some say it is a Socratic style, but it prompts you so that it causes you to go back and revisit the principle you have learnt and it will not spoon-feed you. So, that is the key.
Of course, our concern for parents is that the children may use tools outside SLS at home, use general purpose tools to take shortcuts. And that is why the home-school partnership is so important. The partnership between parents and school, so that we both, parents and teachers, are educators of our children and can help guide our children in the use of AI for their homework.
In school, we will guide, we will have AI literacy, we will teach our students when to use AI and when not to use AI. In our teaching approaches through SLS, we have used the AI tools for an educative purpose, but we need to guard against children using general purpose AI tools outside this teaching environment, which may cause them to cognitively offload. So, that is a struggle that we all have to address as a whole of society approach; not just here in Singapore, but across the world.
The Member's second question is about the Swedish reversal to reverse their digital stance and to take away all these devices that they have given to the children – I believe at the age of five. A couple of years ago, they gave it out at the age of five. And they are reversing that, going back to analog. Some people say it is going back to analog. Our approach is blended. As I have said, we continue to have physical textbooks, we continue to have didactic teaching. We have a classroom phenomenon-based learning, experiential learning, learning journeys – very teacher-centric.
And AI, as I said just now and I showed you that document – AI is a tool to enable learning. And so for us, we are mindful that if we do not draw the distinction between general AI tools versus specifically designed learning tools, or educational AI, then it might cause us to take a wrong policy approach in Singapore and not use AI at all. I think that would be a mistake. Because of the changes that are happening in the world, we should make use of AI to help our students learn, because they are going to use it anyway. Whether you supervise them or not, they will use it. It is available on the Internet, in your search engines they are there. You cannot switch it off; in some instances, in your general search tools. And it is far better to start AI literacy young and start getting our kids to use AI for learning in a highly scaffolded teacher supervised and of course, parents supervised way, and then as they grow older, when they start using these tools independently, that they have the principles and foundation to be able to build on it. Because ultimately in higher learning and in the workplace, these tools will become ubiquitous. And so, we need to prepare our children well and not take an approach that lacks discrimination. So, that is key.
And third on opting out, it depends. If it is an SLS enabled tool and is used in classroom learning, it is part of teaching and learning. It is part of teachers' blended approach and I think that will enable our teachers to be able to help our children learn the cognitive aspects, the foundational knowledge more deeply. If there are specific tools that are externally brought in where there is a parental consent element that we will then bring to the parents, then we will not allow the children to use those AI tools.
But, so far, the use of AI in general teaching, blended approaches. It is like saying, I do not want my children to have a white board, I want a black board; I want print, but I do not want an overhead projector like in the past, or PowerPoint to be used. I think we must enable our teachers to be able to perform their role and this, of course, is subject to MOE guidance and good teaching or Singapore teaching practice.
\tMr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
\tMr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his response. I have three clusters of supplementary questions.
The first is, a recent The Straits Times article reported that a Primary 5 student was asked by the teacher to use ChatGPT for his homework. I would like to clarify whether teachers can ask primary school students to use publicly available AI tools to assist them in their homework, and if so also, could MOE also share what is an appropriate age where students are then able to use publicly available AI tools to assist them in their learning?
My second question is, since platforms, such as Open AI and ChatGPT requires users below 18 years old to obtain parental consent, does MOE then also expect teachers to reach out to parents to get their consent to use such tools in classroom for their learning? If so, what support will be given to teachers, because sometimes chasing parents to submit a form is significantly harder than getting the students to submit homework?
Lastly, during a recent People's Action Party Women's Union Listening Pod event, a parent asked whether parents could have the opportunity to try MOE's AI learning tools themselves, because this will help them to better experience the guardrails and also understand how to support their child in their learning. Hence, I would like to ask whether would MOE be open to having such engagement, to let parents try how these MOE AI learning tools? If so, would MOE also be willing to do one in Clementi and I will be more than happy to run the parent engagement for parents living in Clementi.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member. On his first point, he raised the example in The Straits Times article; and we will do better to make sure that in close partnership with our educators, we apply these AI usage principles and guidelines more effectively and consistently. Because some of these general purpose tools are not appropriate for children at particular age. There are terms of usage for the tool itself, not to mention our own requirements on the use of AI to scaffold learning, rather than impact it negatively. That is one.
Second, I think the Member mentioned that some AI tools have age restrictions and if a teacher wants to use the tool in classroom, but the child is below age, we need parental consent. If the tool has an age restriction, then we will not use it for children below that age. Simple as that.
\t
Third, to let parents try out MOE's AI tools, like the Learning Feedback Assistant and so on. Let us take it back to see how we can do it in a meaningful way and scalable manner.
Mr Speaker: Ms Eileen Chong.
\tMs Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister. I actually have a supplementary question that is related the equity paradox in AI use. I appreciate the Minister's point about the difference between AI literacy and AI usage, and the importance of adult supervision as our children engage with AI tools from a young age. So, I would like to know if the Minister could elaborate on MOE's perspective on how students from more disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those with lesser access to parental guidance or adult supervision, may end up leaning more on AI and not less, and how such dependency might actually erode the very cognitive development that it is meant to supplement, and that these children who are most at risk are precisely the ones that we need to uplift instead of having the AI use deepen the education inequality?
Mr Desmond Lee: No, that is an argument or that is a point that is evergreen. It is not just about AI. It is about the children in less privileged backgrounds not having the same amount of scaffolding and support at home and outside school on a whole range of issues. And we have different approaches to handling that – the MOE Opportunity Fund, we have ComLink, we have Gift-A-Family, we have many other schemes that involve deep partnership with the community.
And so, I mentioned in school how we have supervision or teacher-supervised usage of AI tools, and that applies to all the students, particularly younger ones. As they leave school and go home and start using some of these tools – because SLS can only be used in the classroom when it comes to AI tools – then, the risks of them using other tools that are free-for-use on the Internet and how do we ensure that outside the classroom, there is supervision and support?
So, the AI literacy that we build in all through a student's learning journey guides them and helps to build in them that consciousness about appropriate AI usage. We hope, of course, that that is the best defence – that the child imbibes it, understands it, regardless of their socioeconomic status, they learn about it and then outside the school environment, and all through life, they are mindful of its appropriate usage.
But then for the younger ones in the community and at home, of course, partnership with parents is important, regardless of background. But we endeavour to work closely with the community. And so, we have homework support in different community groups, we have self-help groups that come in to provide support for children over and beyond what is available in school, and many other groups that come in to support our children. So, that is a partnership we must tap on and continue to build, particularly when it comes to supporting them on appropriate AI use.
Mr Speaker: Ms Cassandra Lee.
\tMs Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last weekend, the People's Action Party's Women's Wing in the South West Community Development Council held a dialogue with more than 100 parents and residents on the use of AI in our children's education. And we were glad a few Members were able to join us. One sentiment that was surfaced echoes what the Minister has said – that before our children use AI, they need to understand what it is, its limitation as well as to have the maturity and judgement to handle it responsibly.
One of the most popular questions during that dialogue was what would be the best age for parents to talk about AI to their child. Given MOE's position that AI exposure in schools currently begins from Primary 4 under low exposure and close teacher supervision, my question to the Minister is whether MOE has been consulted or will consider providing recommendations to the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), as it studies the AI nutrition label and online safeguards, particularly whether AI tools, especially standalone AI tools, should have age-based guidelines, safeguards or default protect protections that apply differently for younger children?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I think MDDI, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and MOE had given some recommendations and guidelines in 2025 on digital usage and use of technology at home and with children, and some of that will be a useful reference for all of us as parents and as a community.
But indeed, having that conversation early with your child about what AI is – because it can be embedded in your toys, online, it is available if the children have access to it at home and in the community. So, that conversation has to start early. In fact, while we start using AI for learning and allow our children to use AI tools in SLS under supervision from Primary 4, but for AI literacy from MOE's perspective, we start from Primary 1.
I just came back from China last week, and previously, I went to Estonia to see their AI leap in action. And in China, for instance, they start at age six, AI literacy as well as basic awareness of its growing pervasiveness throughout, like in toys and other things, so that there is literacy and understanding, and it is done in an age-appropriate way. And I think, as parents, I know it is a lot on our plate, but we want to be able to do our best for our children and guide them as they interact with all these things at home and in their toys and so on. So, I think that is a conversation that is best started as young as possible.
Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.
\tMs Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank Minister also for sharing the very interesting example of how AI is used to teach creative writing in schools. I wanted to follow up by asking whether the Ministry has established clear guidelines on the responsible use of AI tools by students to avoid infringement of third-party intellectual property (IP) rights. What measures are in place to discourage the use of AI tools to generate content that imitates or reproduces the work of artists and creators without consent and attribution, and whether the Ministry will consider strengthening AI literacy programmes to place greater emphasis on ethical use, including respect for creators' rights and originality?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Certainly, at the primary school level and lower secondary, the use of AI tools are MOE-developed and used in the context of SLS. Of course, we have, through iCON for upper secondary school students, NotebookLM, which is available to upper secondary school students and for which we are monitoring its usage. But through the MOE-developed tools, we are mindful of its safety, its quality of output, its fitness for pedagogical use and of course, in making sure that we avoid infringements of IP and other IP rights.
But ultimately, because some of the more general purpose tools, or for that matter, educational AI tools that are outside the SLS, are trained on a wider universe of knowledge and information; that the AI literacy that is taught to our children all the way till when they are young adults and all the way through the institutes of higher learning, this element of prompting, prompt engineering or usage of the tool in a way that respects IP rights that does not cause offence and that does not infringe the law. All these are things that we need to build in as part of AI literacy all through life.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations to Curb Use of Telegram for Illicit and Criminal Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry plans to introduce any further laws, regulations or actions to curb the use of Telegram to facilitate a range of illicit and criminal activities, including (i) the sale of drugs, vapes and etomidate (ii) scam operations and (iii) sexual crimes.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Any communication platform can be misused to facilitate criminal activities. To address this, the Government primarily relies on the legal powers under the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA).
When online criminal content is detected, the Government can issue OCHA Directions to prevent the offending accounts or content from interacting with users in Singapore. Since the operationalisation of OCHA, the Police have been able to disrupt online criminal activities, including on communication platforms, such as Telegram, more effectively.
The Government also actively engages online communication platforms to implement ex ante measures to prevent scams and malicious cyber activities. Through the OCHA Codes of Practice, designated online services, such as Telegram, must implement appropriate systems, processes and measures to quickly disrupt malicious accounts and activities and prevent their propagation. As part of the continuing efforts against the serious crime situation, the Police are working with designated online service providers, including Telegram, to implement further anti-scam measures under the OCHA Codes of Practice by this year.
The Government will continue to review our laws and regulations to ensure that they remain effective in protecting users in Singapore from online criminal harms.
Mr Speaker: Mr Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I thank the Minister of State for the response and to explain that the OCHA Directions are being issued to Telegram as well. The only reason I mentioned Telegram specifically is it seems to emerge in a whole range of crimes, including selling of drugs, etomidate, sexual crimes, scams.
I think the Minister of State mentioned scams but it sounds to me like this is an issue with the platform itself. And I will be grateful if the Minister of State believes that the numbers of crimes facilitated on Telegram will be effectively reduced with these additional measures that the Minister of State is saying the Ministry will take.
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I note the particular concern about Telegram. During the Ministry of Home Affairs Committee of Supply debates, we also spoke about Telegram as a platform.
One of the key traits of Telegram is that users can remain anonymous. This is compared to, say, WhatsApp, for example. And for Telegram, I think when we last spoke about this during the Committee of Supply, I also mentioned that we have followed up, for example, I personally have followed up on some of these text messages that I have received on Telegram purportedly selling drugs, for example. And when we followed it up through the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), we realised that actually many of these offers to sell drugs, even sexual offers, are actually scams masquerading as those offers. What we want to do is, indeed, using scam as the basis to work more closely with platforms, such as Telegram, to really tackle the issue. Many of the powers enabled through OCHA does allow us to follow up on that, and we will do so.
I just want to take the opportunity to reiterate that the anti-scams work is not just a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) effort. It has involved multiple agencies across the whole of Government, together with industry partners, working very closely. And I think, when I last spoke during the Committee of Supply, we announced a series of measures that we have taken and that we will be taking this year, and we are constantly reviewing what we are doing on this front because we recognise the situation is one that is very concerning.
We want to continue to sustain the downward trend that we have gotten last year, in terms of overall number of victims and total amounts lost. In the first quarter of this year, the numbers have continued that trend. We are slightly heartened. But it is too early for us to celebrate, way too early. There is a lot more work that we need to continue to do on this front.
Like I mentioned earlier, further anti-scam measures are coming out later this year. Within MHA, we are also looking at how we are organised internally to fight scams. More details will be released when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Insurers who Raise Base Integrated Shield Plan Premiums that Negate New Rider Savings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how does the Ministry address insurers which raise base Integrated Shield Plan premiums, effectively negating new rider savings; (b) what specific mechanisms ensure claims are not unreasonably rejected to mitigate rising costs; and (c) whether the Ministry will mandate greater transparency in premium calculation methods and publicly penalise insurers that engage in unjustifiable price hikes.
8 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry was aware of the intention by insurers to raise base Integrated Shield Plan (IP) premiums at the same time as the required changes to IP rider specifications from 1 April 2026; and (b) if so, whether any and what analysis was done on how base premium increases would interact with rider changes in affecting overall premiums for consumers.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 7 and 8 in today's Order Paper?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurers review the premiums of IPs and riders every year. Across a three-year period from December 2021 to December 2024, private hospital IP premiums have been rising every year at an average of 8.6% while private hospital rider premiums have been rising every year at an average of 17.2%.
\t
In line with these trends, some private hospital IP and rider plans were recently repriced. However, with the launch of the new riders, policyholders can save on average 35% to 40% premiums by switching to the new riders. We have responded to previous similar Parliamentary Question Nos 1 to 4 asked by the Members at the 24 September 2025 Sitting, on increases in IP and rider premiums.
To recap, Government's role is to ensure affordable, accessible and quality subsidised healthcare for Singaporeans, with MediShield Life coming in to cover higher bills. IPs and riders are private, commercial products that supplement MediShield Life coverage for unsubsidised healthcare. While the Ministry of Health (MOH) regulates the key parameters of IPs, such as the co-payment and deductible, to ensure that the schemes are sustainable, MOH's general practice is not to intervene in insurers' commercial decisions, such as the setting of premiums.
To Mr Yip's question on claims management, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and MOH require insurance companies to uphold their contractual obligations and process claims in a fair manner. Under MAS' insurance regulations, insurers must notify their policyholders of any change in policy terms and conditions at least 30 days before it takes effect. Should there be disputes over specific claims, policyholders can take it to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), an independent and impartial institution that assists with insurance-related disputes. MAS will also take action against insurers if they do not pay claims in accordance with policy terms and conditions or have unfair claims handling practices.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply.
So, many Singaporeans are already facing rising premiums year after year. As we have seen recently, even with cheaper riders, base premiums continue increasing. So, households may still have to pay more overall. So, will MOH consider imposing clearer limits or review triggers on premium increases?
My second supplementary question is for older Singaporeans. They face the steepest premium increases and have the least flexibility to change or switch plans. So, will MOH consider introducing additional safeguards, specifically for seniors, and how does the Ministry prevent them from being priced out of coverage that they have relied on for years?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the question and I acknowledge that there are concerns among Singaporeans about this rising premium costs. But I would like to highlight that the premium increase actually reflects the underlying healthcare cost increases, the healthcare cost pressures and this increase include the increase in the cost because there is an ageing population, because of more expensive technological medical treatments, pharmaceuticals, manpower. So, there is a whole cluster of cost increases because of that.
There is also over-consumption and over-servicing, and that is just a result of over-generous products that we see in the market today. So, this causes increase in the cost of healthcare, which then results in increased claims, which results in increased premiums. Because for this to be sustainable, the providers will have to re-price. Because otherwise, if we artificially limit it, it will not be sustainable. They will not be able to, then, pay out in accordance to what they need to if they do not adjust and make sure that they can sustain in the long run.
In the end, this will actually harm the policyholders because they may see reduction in the benefits or even market exits, which is going to be worse. So, what we do at MOH, is that we do not just look at why these increases are happening. But we are looking at the root causes and trying to address the root causes.
As I mentioned earlier, there are the causes in relation to ageing population, technological advancements and we have measures and levers where we look at getting the most cost-effective products in the market. We are also looking at how we can address the issue of over-servicing, over-consumption by putting in the levers that we have in place, which we have discussed previously in questions the Member has raised before, which includes fee benchmarks, clinical guidance to ensure that appropriate care is given and we enforce against errant providers. We have rider reforms, which the Member has seen; and also, in the works, the development of not-for-profit private hospitals.
So, all these measures, in totality, will help to moderate the increases. But it is a reality that this will happen. We note, though, that there are concerns and we will continue to monitor this and respond accordingly to make sure that healthcare cost remains affordable.
This ties into the second point the Member is making, with regard to seniors. We note they are especially vulnerable, but I just want to assert the point that there are also practical pathways that can be taken because there are options now. Seniors can, at the appropriate juncture, review or right-size their coverage in accordance to their needs as well as to their affordability at that moment in time. There are other options, cheaper riders, for example, that they can look at and perhaps, they can convert to those options.
But in totality, I also want to give the assurance to members of the public and to the Member that no one will be left out or not have access to healthcare, because what is anchoring our healthcare system in Singapore is the fact that there will always be access to subsidised services in the public healthcare sector. And so, that is an assurance that we give to all Singaporeans, and we will continue to monitor to ensure that there will be affordable healthcare services and it is accessible to all Singaporeans. So, that is not something they can worry about. There is already the S+3M framework that is already in place, so we know that MediShield Life is one, they have their MediSave and, if all else fails, there is MediFund.
So, I hope that gives that assurance that we continue to monitor this, but at the same time, we need to appreciate that there are practical realities with regard to premium increases, but we also ensure that nobody will be left out or not to be able to have access to healthcare because of cost pressures.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
\tDr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for the reply.
I generally accept that the Ministry does not want to intervene in the arrangements within private insurance companies and in the private healthcare, but I am coming from an angle of not overburdening the public healthcare. Because we do not want a sudden surge of patients from private healthcare going to the public hospital.
So, in that regard, I would like to ask if the Ministry has studied the components of bill sizes that have contributed to the recent increase in medical costs in the private healthcare, because we have had measures to cool down, for example, the cost attributed to doctor's fee sizes with fee benchmarks as well as panel arrangements. So, has the Ministry studied whether other components – for example, facility costs, consumable costs – whether these have been riding steadily and whether there are plans to have similar benchmarks for these bill size components?
Following on to that, can I also ask the Ministry whether it has studied the effects of the panel arrangements on whether they have equitably kept doctors' fee sizes manageable compared to the fee benchmark that the Ministry already has? Because my worry is that with entrenching panel behaviours by insurers, that we are also limiting access to equitable healthcare in the private sector.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the question. On his first point about the components of healthcare costs in the private sector, we are indeed looking at the different dimensions. We already have some robust fee benchmarks on the professional fees front. We are reviewing to see if there is a need and if there are some ways for us to also put in benchmarks in the other components of the other costs.
On the panel arrangement, I believe we had a discussion also in a previous Sitting about why this came about. Really, it is going back to the whole big picture about insurers moderating the cost right and how they can remain sustainable, because claims are high and because there is over-consumption, over-servicing. They then need to make sure that they are moderating their cost, and this becomes an administrative effort in their effort to try and moderate the payouts by actually empanelling members so that they can actually limit their cost to those who fit their structures.
This remains something that will be an enduring feature, because this is a market reaction, to something that is causing a pressure on the insurer's part. So, while we will take a position where we must protect the consumers and there must be fairness in all interactions with the panel doctors. We do this in many different ways. As the Member know, we are quite robust in actually putting errant doctors to task, if, let us say, they have not done it properly, we are sending out clinical guidelines to make sure that people are following proper care protocols, and not just treating based on what they have as insurance policies.
So, these are all multi-pronged approaches and efforts that we are putting in place to ensure that we are responding to some of the concerns in this space. It is just a symptom, so the underlying cost pressures still need to be addressed. The description that we had put earlier in the past is, it is a knot that we need to untangle and that is something we are doing with a multi-pronged, with engagements with different parties and stakeholders.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak, you have a short supplementary question to ask?
\tDr Hamid Razak: I just want to mention for the record that I declare that I am an orthopaedic surgeon in private practice, and also a visiting consultant at public healthcare institutions.
\tMr Speaker: Noted. Last supplementary question, Mr Andre Low.
\t
\tMr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. My supplementary question to the Minister of State is, I accept that a primary driver of premium increases is rising healthcare costs. But there is also other levers, such as reducing administrative costs at insurers themselves. So, the insurance industry as a whole has a big effort towards driving down administrative costs, third-party processor costs, claims processing costs, things like that.
Has the Ministry considered policy levers to incentivise insurers to have these cost savings pass on to consumers in the form of moderating premium increases, or even reducing premiums, as opposed to these cost savings directly going to insurers' profit margins?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: We engage the insurance providers quite regularly, but we are very mindful about where we intervene, especially because they need to be competitive and there is a commercial dimension to it, which we feel that we should respect. So, how we intervene is via the conditions that are put in place vis-a-vis the consumers. We note how there should be adherence to deductibles as well as the co-payment.
So, these are things that we take a measured approach on. What the Member suggests is a dimension of the cost components. I will not preclude us from having just general conversations with insurers, but I just wanted to express the point that, while we do engage insurers quite robustly, we are very conscious about the fact that we also have to draw a line somewhere because it is a commercial product and we have to have them remain competitive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating Young People's Access to Social Media Given Negligent Finding on Meta and Alphabet In US","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the US Court's finding that Meta and Alphabet were negligent in designing platforms that harmed young people, whether the Government will consider action to regulate young people's access to social media platforms, including a potential ban on such use.
\tThe Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, the question by Mr Vikram Nair on the Government's measures to enhance safeguards for children and adolescence when they go on social media platforms have been addressed in the written reply to Question No 40 for Oral Answer as well as Question Nos 36 and 37 for Written Answer at yesterday's Sitting. The answer given also addresses related questions for Written Answer by Mr Louis Chua and Miss Elysa Chen in today's Order Paper. The Member may wish to refer to the answer given.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Thank you, and I thank the Minister of State for flagging the answer to me as well. So, I have a supplementary question. The answer was that the Ministry is engaging the digital service providers as well as preparing advisories for parents.
These are commendable efforts, but the judgement in the United States was actually quite damning, in that it said social media platforms, in particular, Google and Meta, were responsible for creating addictive platforms that caused mental health issues for the young plaintiff concerned. All our youths are equally exposed to these platforms and while it is helpful to, I guess, engage the alleged perpetrators as well as engage parents, it may be necessary for the Ministry to take a harder stance and draw a firm boundary, like some other countries have done, to say that social media should be restricted for young people and then you talk after that.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the question. I just want to highlight that, indeed, we are taking reference from the judgement, from the decision, and the information that we are seeing, the findings, actually add to the growing body of evidence. We know that the harms are real and we are taking it seriously. So, it is not that we are not doing anything.
We have been acting on protecting and safeguarding our young children from the harms online, but we take a different approach in that we also want something that is more effective. A more durable approach that will withstand the test of time and the test of evolution of the technologies. Because, as what the Member pointed out, what we have found from the decisions was that there were some specific features and dimensions of the social media platforms that actually impact the youths.
So, it is not just about saying, \"Okay, none at all\". There are certain dimensions of it that causes the harm. And so, our approach targets the specific harms and the specific design features that produce them, and so this is also calibrated by the age of the user. And this is actually more demanding, more rigorous than a blanket ban. Because if you just say, \"Okay, do not use it at all\", you may not even solve the problem. What we are trying to do is to look at what is it that is causing the harm. Our approach has always been one that is outcomes-driven and we have been building progressively on this.
As I have said, we are not starting from a blank slate. We already have the Code of Practice for Online Safety, for the social media services. We introduced age assurance for apps and we also have the annual reporting that the designated social media services have to provide to us. In recent times, based on their reporting, we have actually acted against X and TikTok, and so that shows that there is a mechanism for us to actually take action.
Moving forward, we are going to be extending the age assurance measures to the designated social media services and looking beyond the content, to the design features. We are going to understand it a bit better. These are the things that are actually causing the harms the direct messaging from strangers, auto-play, other features that drive excessive use, emerging risks from AI companions and all that. So, we are actually going to break it down and see how we can improve it.
Having said that, we are not foreclosing the decision on a ban, because we will do whatever it takes to protect our young ones. And if there is a need for stronger action, we will take it. But we are learning robustly from many different countries. Minister Desmond Lee made reference to Estonia, his visit to Estonia. Estonia is a country that we look up to, because it is quite advanced.
And so, this idea of a blanket or social media ban is not a globally accepted position. Estonia has not applied it; in fact, I think Belgium as well as the state of New York. There are different approaches internationally. In fact, Australia has also amended its legislation to be a bit more targeted, looking at the design features.
So, firstly, we are not starting on a blank slate. We do have safeguards in place and we do not think just rushing into having a ban may necessarily be the best thing. We are not foreclosing it as a decision, but we are studying what is more effective to achieve the desired outcome that you will want to see.
Mr Speaker: Moving on. Mr Melvin Yong.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risk of Heat Wave Events in Singapore and Development of Advance Warning Systems for Weather-dependent Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of heat wave conditions in neighbouring countries such as Malaysia and Thailand (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the risk of similar heat wave events affecting Singapore; and (b) whether there are plans to enhance advance warning systems for weather-dependent sectors.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, a heat wave is declared when the daily maximum temperature averaged across all weather stations is at least 35oC for three consecutive days, and the average daily mean temperature throughout the period is at least 29oC. Based on the weather outlook, the chance of a heat wave occurring in Singapore during the remainder of the 2026 hot season, which ends in May, is low.
The Meteorological Service Singapore (MSS) issues fortnightly outlooks and four-day forecasts of weather conditions, including high temperatures. MSS also closely monitors climate phenomena, such as El Niño, and works with the Mercury Taskforce to issue advisories, including to weather dependent sectors, if it expects extended periods of high temperatures.
The Government has heat stress management initiatives on an ongoing basis regardless of whether a heat wave is forecasted. This includes the Heat Stress Advisory which provides simple tips for the general public to plan prolonged outdoor activities based on prevailing heat stress levels, complemented by sector-specific measures, such as the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) heat stress framework for outdoor work.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Sir, recent reports indicate that parts of Southeast Asia, including Thailand, have experienced extreme heat conditions, with the heat index level exceeding 50oC, and therefore being classified as posing serious danger to human health.
So, in view of this developments, may I ask the Senior Minister of State: one, given that Singapore's current approach is based on a heat stress advisory, whether the Ministry considers this sufficiently robust and actionable, or if there are plans to introduce a more formalised alert system, with clear thresholds and corresponding response measures? Are there also plans to increase the number of sensors that we put around various parts of Singapore?
My second question relates to Singapore being a highly urbanised city-state. I would like to ask whether the Ministry has assessed how the urban heat island (UHI) effect may amplify heat stress in Singapore, and how this risk is currently being factored into our national heat resilience planning?
And lastly, on worker protection, can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether existing heat stress guidelines for employers remain adequate in the event of a more prolonged or intense heat conditions? Because I note that current heat stress measures are focused more on outdoor workers. Will the Government consider extending more formal protections or guidance to other at-risk sectors, such as indoor, non-air-conditioned workplaces, because most of our factories are non-air-conditioned, as well as for delivery riders who spend a lot of time outdoors?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his questions. He first asked about the advisory and whether it needed to be more formal, and whether it was robust and actionable. I would characterise our position thus: and I would say it is robust, it is formalised, it is actionable. Of course, we will continue to improve it. We have had the Mercury Task Force. It was reported in the news, discussed in this Chamber since 2023, and this brings together public sector agencies, more than 30, looking at what are the various response plans that are sector-specific, domain-specific and under the regulatory aegis of the various agencies.
The heat advisory that goes out is clearly defined. In my original answer, I explained what a heat wave was. There are clear definitions that we have been using in Singapore since 2016, if I recall. It was then last revised in 2023. And so, it is objective, it is measurable, it is specific. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Correction By Written Statement section.]
And then, agencies – he cited the example of MOM looking at outdoor workers – have developed action plans. These then are triggered by the information that is provided by the MSS. So, MSS, the National Environmental Agency, has a certain set of definitions. When the thresholds are reached, advisories are issued that fall into certain pre-specified categories. And then, various agencies and regulatory bodies will activate their action plan.
So, the formalised, robust, actionable processes are already there. Of course, as related to his later questions, these can and will be improved. And I will speak about that in a minute.
He asked about the number of sensors. We have relatively good coverage. The Member can file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ), a written PQ perhaps, about the specific number. From memory, I think we have 19 weather stations. Historically, not all of them were used for heat reporting, but today, all of them are, for air temperature. And then, we have, if I recall, another 27 Wet-Bulb Globe Temperature stations across Singapore. So, our overall coverage for sensors is pretty good.
Again, this issue of the data that we get, as well as the answers to his other two questions, whether we need to study the UHI effect on our action plans and whether we have adequate worker protections against heat stress, these issues are the sorts of things that the Heat Resilience Policy Office that we announced in the Committee of Supply this year, will indeed coordinate across the whole-of-Government, to look and to see how we make sure our action plans for heat resilience adapt to the changing environment and to the changing risk environment that the Member described in his supplementary question.
So, the short answer to the second half of his first supplementary question is about the sense-making, as well as his other two questions – this is work that the Heat Resilience Policy Office will indeed be taking up.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Curriculum Time for Education and Career Guidance in Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education given the need to inculcate a habit amongst Singaporeans to plan ahead for their own skills, whether the four hours per year of curriculum time for Education and Career Guidance in secondary schools can be increased with support from external vendors, to expose students to more career opportunities, so that young Singaporeans can start dreaming of possibilities earlier in life.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Jasmin Lau) (for the Minister for Education): The Ministry of Education (MOE) recognises the importance of guiding students to develop a greater awareness of their strengths and their interests, and explore various education and career pathways at each stage of their educational journey. Curriculum time that is spent on education and career guidance (ECG) is complemented by student development experiences beyond the classroom. These can include visits to institutes of higher learning, career fairs and talks, learning journeys to organisations and job-shadowing opportunities. Through these programmes, industry practitioners are able to share their experiences and highlight skills required in their respective fields, giving our students early exposure to career possibilities.
To support students in self-directed exploration, the MySkillsFuture Student Portal is available to students from Primary 5. Tertiary students have access to the MySkillsFuture Workforce Portal. Through its suite of tools, students can deep dive into self-discovery, understand their own interests, values and abilities, and explore the range of education and career pathways available to them.
Access to ECG counsellors is also available to students from secondary schools and pre-university institutions who require more guidance in exploring suitable education pathways and career possibilities.
MOE reviews our curriculum regularly and we will continue to review curriculum time allocation to ensure that students are well-supported in their holistic development, including in education and career guidance.
Mr Speaker: Mr Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her response as well. I asked this question because when I first looked into the issue, four hours seemed short, but the Minister of State has clarified that there is more ECG than just the four hours of curriculum time, so I am grateful.
We discussed extensively about skills and careers yesterday, and I am sure we will do so more today. The Minister for Manpower said, no less than five times in his speech, that we need mindset shifts. And shifting mindsets start from school. So, my question to MOE is whether ECG is considered core to the curriculum, and not extra. And if so, can we increase the standards and the resources for ECG? Because we teach chemistry very well, and maybe we can do the same with career guidance. We teach geography very well, and maybe we can do the same for job awareness.
\tMs Jasmin Lau: Sir, I thank the Member for his question. I think there are many skills that are key to our students' future development and career success, so this is not a competition between subjects. We must ensure that all students have good access to both knowledge acquisition as well as career preps for the future.
As I mentioned in my reply, we will be continuing to review curriculum time allocation, and all the more we need to do so in the age of artificial intelligence, where a lot more focus will be on human skills that are increasingly important for our students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Standards in Case of EV or EV Charger Fires at HDB Car Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for National Development with the roll-out of more electric vehicle (EV) charging points in HDB car parks and the proliferation of EVs, what measures are put in place to ensure that HDB car parks adhere to safety standards in the case of electric fires from EVs and EV chargers.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, all Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks are designed and constructed in compliance with the prevailing Fire Code stipulated by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).
This includes provisions such as hose reels, fire engine access and natural or mechanical ventilation to disperse smoke and heat. These fire safety provisions safeguard against fire risks, including those that may arise from electric vehicles (EVs).
All EV chargers installed in HDB car parks must comply with the technical specifications and safety requirements under the Technical Reference 25, which is the nationwide standard governing EV charging systems in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Thank you, Speaker. Could the Minister of State elaborate on the specific fire safety protocols in place for HDB car parks with EV charging points, including detection, suppression and evacuation measures?
And additionally, as EV adoption grows, how will standards be regularly reviewed and enforced, and whether there are plans to equip our neighbourhood, SCDF's and emergency response teams, which may include grassroots organisations like the People's Association's Community Emergency and Engagement (C2E), or even SCDF's First Responders with enhanced capabilities or training to respond appropriately to EV-related fire incidents? I do note that the risk may be quite different from normal cooking or lighted cigarette fires, which our grassroots organisations are more used to.
\t
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I have answered the Member's questions specific to HDB car parks, specifically, I think, with the provision of hose reels, fire engine access, natural and mechanical ventilations that will help in the event of a fire, and that the HDB carparks must comply with these technical specifications and safety requirements under Technical Reference 25.
I would also like to point her, if she has further questions with regard to overall EV fire safety and fire safety as a whole, to MHA's replies in Parliament on the matter. But I would say, and as the Member knows, that SCDF works with the community to raise general awareness on fire safety. That includes working with first responders, People's Association's C2E and other community groups.
The Land Transport Authority and SCDF also regularly review these fire safety requirements to support the overall adoption of EV in Singapore through their multi-agency EV battery safety task force.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inter-agency Coordination to Support Timely Deployment of EV Charging Infrastructure in New Housing Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether inter-agency coordination is in place to support the timely deployment of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in new housing estates as towns are progressively occupied; and (b) whether the Government will consider provisioning key supporting infrastructure earlier upfront to enable faster deployment in newer towns such as Tengah as resident demand builds up.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Transport): The Government targets to deploy 60,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points by 2030, which comprise 40,000 in public car parks, and 20,000 in private premises. As of March 2026, there are 30,500 EV charging points deployed in Singapore. We are on track to achieving our 2030 target in tandem with the growing demand for EVs.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) monitors EV adoption rates closely and coordinates with agencies such as the Energy Market Authority, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and JTC to deploy EV charges and key supporting infrastructure. For car parks with high demand, LTA will work with EV charger operators to deploy more chargers, electrical capacity permitting. By end 2027, there will also be at least one fast charging hub in every HDB town.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Choo.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to Senior Minister of State for the response. In Tengah, many residents have approached me on EV charging infrastructure. Tengah residents who already own EVs have shared that having charging points closer to home would make daily life much more convenient, and others are keen to make the switch, but are waiting for charging infrastructure to become more accessible. As Tengah grows, this will only become increasingly more important because residents want to embrace greener living.
I have two supplementary questions. First, could the Senior Minister of State share how feedback from estates such as Tengah is operationally translated into changes in the planning and sequencing of EV charging deployment? And second, what adjustments have been made in inter-agency coordination to improve implementation in newer estates such as Tengah?
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank Member Dr Choo Pei Ling for raising feedback from her Tengah residents. Currently, two multi-storey car parks in Tengah have EV chargers, and LTA subsidiary, EV-Electric (EVe) Charging Pte Ltd, is in the process of deploying EV chargers in another eight multi-storey car parks in Tengah.
We have taken into account the feedback from Tengah residents and are improving the process for new Build-To-Order (BTO) estates. So, for instance, starting from BTOs that obtained Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) since last month, there is now a new arrangement, where LTA subsidiary EVe works closely with HDB to start deploying EV chargers from the point that residents start collecting their keys – so, at the point of TOP. This will allow residents moving into new BTO estates to actually gain access to EV chargers earlier.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Review Public Sector’s Procurement Frameworks for Service Contracts to Support Sustainable Wage and Productivity Investments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the public sector’s procurement frameworks for service contracts such as catering will be reviewed to ensure other factors beyond price, which may include Progressive Wage Model compliance and service quality, are given meaningful weightage; and (b) whether public sector buyers will adopt outcome-based contracts with provisions for periodic price reviews and longer terms to support sustainable wage and productivity investments.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): The Government uses a comprehensive set of criteria, combining price and quality considerations in procurement evaluations. For some sectors, eligible Government suppliers must have the Progressive Wage Mark (PWM) certification. Central guidance has been provided to all Government procuring entities to adopt outcome-based contracts where appropriate and feasible, and to consider the adoption of more productive technology. Examples of this are in the procurement of cleaning services and facilities management services.
For multi-year contracts, tenderers are typically able to submit prices for each contract year, rather than a single fixed price over the entire duration. This allows tenderers to account for wage adjustments and productivity investments over time in their pricing.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Could the Ministry give further clarifications on how it accesses PWM compliance and procurement processes, including whether firms have met, for example, training requirements for their workers under the PWM requirements?
And the other one too, is well, I know he has talked about how Government contracts allow for re-negotiations, but are there other ways to make the procurement framework more agile to accommodate such changes, especially when we are looking at different wage rungs and different types of negotiations that is done by PWM over the years?
\t
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: I thank the Member for the question. Contractors who are PW Mark eligible are required to obtain and maintain the PW Mark throughout the contract period. They are also required to notify the contracting authorities if there are any changes to their PW Mark status.
For Government agencies, we reserve the right to take necessary action if contractors fail to comply with the requirements, including the right to terminate the contract.
For multi-year contracts, I would like to emphasise again, contractors should account for the price increases when they tender. Where there are further updates to the PW Mark requirements, the Ministry of Finance will review our guidance to agencies accordingly, where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studying Negative Health Impact of Sustained Exposure to Second-hand Smoke from Neighbouring HDB Units on Children and Elderly","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will conduct a study on the negative health impact of sustained exposure to second-hand smoke from neighbouring HDB units particularly on children and the elderly; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider issuing official guidelines on such negative health impact to inform future policies on regulating smoking out of windows in HDB flats.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the health harms of second-hand smoke are well established in the scientific literature, where sustained exposure has been associated with health conditions such as respiratory illness, cardiovascular diseases and cancers, such as breast and lung cancer.
The health effects of prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke was previously addressed in the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) answer to oral Question No 12 during Parliamentary Sitting on 2 October 2018. There are currently no plans to issue official guidelines on the negative health impact of second-hand smoke. Nonetheless, MOH has been working closely with the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) to address smoking related public health concerns.
MSE and NEA have progressively prohibited smoking at more than 49,000 public places, including most common areas of residential buildings, such as common corridors and void decks, to reduce the public's exposure to second-hand smoke.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Loh.
\tMr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. In my view, second-hand smoke is a scourge in our heartlands. I note that the last time the Ministry replied on this matter was in 2018 and there was a review done then. I do not believe the issue has improved and I was wondering why there are no plans to do so again. Both sides of the House actually have raised this issue in the House very recently. When I looked into the issue a bit more, we were asking about whether we could do more in our HDB flats, but we had not yet confirmed what threshold would lead to a public health concern, including what a threshold of duration qualifies as prolonged.
So, could MOH reconsider whether it is then timely to make a clear statement on the threshold of how much second-hand smoke is bad enough, and how long the exposure should be before it is bad enough so that we can then make good policies in our heartlands?
\t
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank Member for the question and I appreciate his concerns because I also face similar complaints at the Meet-the-People Session and when I meet my residents. I do agree that it is an issue that we do want to address meaningfully, because we do still see some smokers in the residential estates and people who are living in the flats still trapped.
I do want to state, though, that in as far as the scientific or the medical opinion on the matter is concerned, we are very clear. The negative health impact of second-hand smoke is very well established. It is something we do not want, and exposure is bad. So, it is really a function of how we then translate it and operationalise it into protecting our people. Because the Member's question is not about whether we are not doing anything about it; the question is about issuing guidelines. And in respect of guidelines, while there are no official guidelines and there are no plans to issue official guidelines, we already take into consideration this health impact as we are rolling out policies. And our policies come in multiple forms, including how we issue advisories or how we support with the I Quit Programmes, how we also address these matters in our health promotion activities. But when we are developing these policies, we also have to work together with other partners, including MSE and NEA. And so, I think this is something that we probably have to look at collectively. Translating and enforcing it in the spaces may not directly lie within the purview of MOH's remit. I note that the next Parliamentary Question is to MSE. Perhaps you can also explore further what can be done.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dispute Resolution for Complaints on Second-hand Smoke from Neighbours' Own Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) for the number of cases that NEA received regarding complaints about second-hand smoke from neighbours smoking in their own homes in 2025; (b) how many of these cases were amicably resolved; and (c) what possible new measures is NEA considering to resolve such disputes.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, in 2025, the National Environment Agency (NEA) received about 600 cases of feedback related to second-hand tobacco smoke from neighbouring homes. About 30% of feedback cases received in 2025 were from repeat feedback providers. When NEA receives such feedback, it works with other Government agencies or the relevant Town Council to issue advisories to surrounding residential units to encourage smokers to be considerate towards their neighbours.
NEA does not track whether cases are amicably resolved. However, most feedback cases did not recur after advisories were issued. If the issue remains unresolved, the relevant agency or Town Council may engage residents in person. Affected residents are also encouraged to resolve the matter through mediation, such as by approaching the Community Mediation Centre.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, this has been a long-standing concern raised by Members in many Sittings, even in previous terms. And the Government's holding position has always been that the Government has no business intruding or regulating the behaviour within the private homes. I hope after all these years of raising these concerns, the Government is now ready to move on that position, be it just incremental steps.
So, my first question to the Senior Minister of State is whether we would be prepared to classify second-hand smoking coming from windows and balconies of homes affecting neighbours as public nuisance and therefore, it will come under the powers, the purview of the Environmental Public Health Act. As in the previous Parliamentary Question, seniors, children or family members who are allergic to second-hand smoke, to them, it poses serious health hazard and significantly impact their well-being. So, that is my first question.
My second question is, in terms of public messaging, can the Government step up and to more clearly say that smoking at windows and balconies are undesirable neighbourliness behaviours? Because when I look at the Housing and Development Board (HDB) handbook about being good neighbours, this is not an item that is mentioned there. Other things are there, littering and all these things, but second-hand smoke from balconies and windows are not there. Would the Ministry want to push on that? Because we do not get a lot of publicity on that, except for when Parliamentary Questions are asked.
\t
\t
\t
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Liang for his questions. He first asked about the classification of second-hand smoke as a public nuisance and so, an environmental issue. I think the specific mechanism of how we might further reduce the instance of smoking and second-hand smoking, we can debate and we can discuss and certainly, we can continue to explore.
There are challenges about enforcing any of these mechanisms within one's home. I think that is the key issue that we are wrestling with in the previous Parliamentary Question as well as this one. How far do we want to intrude into the privacy of one's own home and the behaviours that one can engage with there? That, I think, is the key issue that we are facing. Because smoking has increasingly been prohibited. I think we now have something like 49,000 spaces across the island where smoking is prohibited. Members will be familiar with the smoking prohibitions in covered areas within the HDB estates.
It is precisely because we have prohibited it in so many of these areas that now, we are having to deal with the issues of what someone does in their own home when that smoke then pervades the neighbours' home.
That is the second point. Can we step up messaging? Yes, certainly, we can. We can certainly explore this.
I would personally take the view that smoking is not just an undesirable behaviour at your balcony because it is going into your neighbours' home. Smoking should stop. It is bad for you, full stop. It is bad for one's health. Certainly, we can work with the Health Promotion Board on the public health messages as well as HDB on responsible behaviours as neighbours. I thank Mr Liang for his suggestions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee, do you have a clarification to make?
The Minister for Education (Mr Desmond Lee): Thank you, Speaker.
In my earlier answer to Ms Eileen Chong when she raised a supplementary question on AI in schools, I mentioned in my response that AI tools on SLS are used only in the classroom and not at home. That is the case for the younger ones in primary school. But for secondary schools, some SLS assignments can involve the direct use of AI by students.
The rest of my answer still holds. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"An Artificial Intelligence (AI) Transition with No Jobless Growth","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [5 May 2026], (proc text)]
[(proc text) That this House – (proc text)]
[(proc text) 1. Recognises the transformative power of new technologies, especially Artificial Intelligence (AI), to drive Singapore’s next phase of economic development; (proc text)]
[(proc text) 2. Emphasises that Singapore’s approach to AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience, and opportunity for all; (proc text)]
[(proc text) 3. Resolves to equip and support workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities and advance together; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) 4. Affirms that economic progress must remain inclusive, and that Singapore must not have jobless growth, because every worker matters. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, building on the earlier speech by my colleague National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Secretary-General Ng made last night, I would like to focus on how this Motion is made real at the enterprise level.
Sir, no jobless growth cannot be achieved through worker support alone. It must also be designed into the way enterprises transform, the way jobs are redesigned and the way our system supports firms to move with confidence.
History shows that in periods of technological change, the winners are not those who try to protect existing business models but those who understand their underlying strengths well enough to redeploy them into new arenas. Fujifilm is one example. It did not survive the collapse of film by trying to sell more film. It built on capabilities in materials, optics and imaging to move into skincare, diagnostics and healthcare technology.
In sectors where Singapore is already strong – advanced manufacturing, logistics and connectivity, finance and healthcare – AI is not replacing the industry itself but changing how value is created within the industry. That is the mindset Singapore needs now. Our task is not to preserve every job exactly as it is. Our task is to help our enterprises and our workforce recognise their strengths, adapt them and move into the next phase of growth together.
I will divide my remarks into three parts: first, what AI is actually doing for businesses; second, its impact on jobs and workers; and third, how we can build a clearer enterprise front door and a wider bridge forward so that businesses and workers can cross the transition together.
Mr Speaker, businesses adopt AI where it delivers measurable outcomes. The evidence is already emerging. In customer service, generative AI improves productivity by around 15%, with larger gains among less experienced workers. Firms are also seeing double-digit gains in software engineering while in operations and supply chains, AI is improving forecasting, reducing waste and optimising inventory and logistics.
Second, AI does not simply improve jobs. It reconfigures work. Global evidence shows how AI adoption is increasingly concentrated among higher-skilled workers, with firms reorganising work around smaller, more experienced teams supported by AI. This creates a double risk: first, productivity gains may accrue more to those already ahead, widening inequality; second, it risks eroding the bottom of the career ladder.
If entry-level roles are reduced too quickly, the traditional pathway where workers build judgement through experience is disrupted. Firms may still require mid-level capability but fewer workers will have had the opportunity to develop it. That is a structural issue.
At the same time, new roles are emerging, integrating AI into workflows, validating outputs, redesigning jobs and translating domain knowledge into solutions. Companies like DBS and Mastercard are using AI to handle routine queries and personalise responses at scale, freeing up human agents for higher-value work. We are seeing the same among small and medium enterprises (SMEs). MTM Labo, a skincare company, for example, uses an AI tool called Hana that supports customer enquiries in multiple languages, allowing its team to focus on more complex, high-touch interactions.
This is an important point. AI, when deployed thoughtfully, does not just replace jobs. It changes the nature of jobs and can raise the value of human work.
But adoption is not plug-and-play. It requires integration into workflows, redesign of processes and alignment with business strategy. This is where many firms, especially SMEs, face challenges in translating AI into implementation. If we do not address this, capability will concentrate among larger firms and among more skilled workers. The gap will widen. That outcome would run directly against the spirit of this Motion.
However, we must also be careful about how we respond to these changes. I understand Mr Ng's good intent behind the call for earlier notification of retrenchment to better support workers. But if firms are not yet ready to redesign jobs or absorb workers differently, earlier notification alone will not solve the problem.
If AI is reorganising work, perhaps a better solution that matters more is not whether we intervene earlier after displacement occurs but intervening early enough before displacement becomes necessary. We should shift the focus from managing retrenchment to enabling all firms to redesign jobs and retrain workers so that they transform and the workforce adjustment happens alongside transformation, not after it.
This brings me to my third point – how do we we build a bridge forward? A bridge that is wide enough for many to cross, not just a select few.
The recently introduced Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package is a step in the right direction. With the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) as programme partners, companies can access advisory support to redesign processes and job roles and tap on the SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant for consultancy, workforce technology adoption and capability building. This is a meaningful shift.
However, today, firms are still navigating multiple schemes, multiple agencies and multiple claims processes, slowing adoption at the point where speed matters most. But I am heartened to hear from Minister Tan last night that the merger of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore into Skills and Workforce Development Agency aims to solve this issue.
But can we do more to help businesses?
This brings to my first dimension of practicality. One way forward is also for AI grants and schemes to have a more integrated approach where businesses can access this support through a single interface rather than navigating multiple agencies and deploy it flexibly, whether for basic implementation, subscriptions or experimentation, without repeated layers of claims, just like the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit (SFEC) wallet.
For larger or more complex customised projects, there may also be a case for more upfront support so that firms are not constrained by cashflow when making longer-term investments.
At the same time, we must recognise that AI adoption involves experimentation. Not every project will succeed. If firms are penalised despite genuine effort, we risk discouraging innovation. A reasonable tolerance for failure will be necessary if we want companies to move decisively.
The second dimension is capability at scale. The pool of experienced AI professionals remains small and highly competitive. If we are too restrictive on bringing in foreign AI talents, we will slow down capability building across our economy. Our efforts to build a wide bridge must also mean keeping our talent pipelines open. Not just to bring in talent, but to allow that talent to cross-pollinate skills across firms and sectors.
For SMEs, one area we can consider is to give targeted flexibility to bring in specialised AI expertise beyond existing manpower constraints. This can be time limited and on an application basis, with some checks in place to prevent abuse.
The third dimension is through our institutes of higher learning (IHLs). IHLs can be positioned more deliberately as execution platforms for applied AI, especially through Centres of Excellence anchored around postgraduate programmes. Many postgraduate students, including foreign talent, bring prior industry experience and technical depth. When paired with local undergraduates, this creates a practical model for capability transfer. If anchored around real SME and sectoral problem statements, these teams can go beyond proof-of-concept work to develop deployable solutions.
This achieves several outcomes. It lowers the cost of experimentation for SMEs while enabling cross-pollination between international and local talent and it creates a pipeline for startups to emerge, anchored in Singapore and focused on solving real industry demands. This model also helps address to the broken career ladder. As entry-level pathways narrow, embedding students in real problem-solving builds capability earlier. At the same time, it strengthens our students' critical thinking, preparing them to question and validate AI and not just rely on it.
The fourth dimension is industry enablement. Today, many firms are attempting to solve similar AI problems in isolation. This leads to duplication of effort, higher experimentation costs and slower adoption.
Trade associations and chambers are structurally positioned to address this gap. They operate at the interface between government policy and firm-level behaviour and can translate national AI strategies into sector-specific implementation. They can function as coordinating platforms, identifying common industry problem statements, aggregating demand and working with solution providers and IHLs to develop integrated, deployable solutions aligned to actual workflows and job roles.
Let me illustrate. SBF is developing an AI tool to help businesses understand the rules of origin of free trade agreements and how to apply preferential tariff treatment when goods are exported overseas. This is one example of how an industry‑led approach can reduce duplication and improve efficiency.
For many SMEs, the challenge is also on applied capability. Firms want to know which problems to prioritise, who can help and how to proceed without excessive cost or risk.
The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) AI Experience Programme, launched together with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) in support of the Digital Enterprise Blueprint shows this clearly. It has been heavily oversubscribed because SMEs are looking for guided entry points.
Similarly, SCCCI's AI Enablement Programme allows SMEs to define real problems and work with students from Nanyang Polytechnic, Singapore Polytechnic, Temasek Polytechnic and the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) to develop solutions. SMEs gain workable solutions. Students gain relevant experience. And knowledge spreads across the system. With the right support and funding, trade association and chambers (TACs) can become platforms that accelerate AI adoption across sectors.
Finally, Mr Speaker, the fifth and most important dimension is human capital.
The success of AI-enabled growth will not be determined by how many tools we deploy, but also by how many workers we carry through that change. I agree with Mr Ng that workers who are displaced, whether due to AI or industry consolidation, need stronger support during transition.
But we should also consider how that support is structured. Today, much of it follows a \"train and place\" approach, where workers are first retrained and then supported to find a job. In practice, this can be uncertain. No worker wants to be retrenched, spend months in training and still face uncertainty about the next job. We should, therefore, move more deliberately towards a \"place and train\" model.
If another company is prepared to take in a displaced worker, even if the fit is not immediate, we should support that transition directly. This can be done by targeting temporary wage support to the receiving employer, similar to the spirit to Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) but anchored under an industry transition fund so that companies are incentivised to hire first and retrain on the job.
This shortens the period of uncertainty for workers, while giving the firms the confidence to take in and develop new talent. This is also where TACs and unions can also play a coordinating role – identifying firms with demand and matching them with workers at risk.
Finally, Mr Speaker, the open bridge must be a moral and social contract, and at the heart of that contract is trust. Workers must see AI as enabling, not threatening.
If AI is seen as a tool to remove jobs or close off pathways, adoption will slow not because the firms lack technology but because trust is lacking. And if that trust is broken, we may inadvertently create a lose-lose outcome where governments step in with more restricted workforce regulations around AI adoption, raising longer-term costs and reducing flexibility for businesses. Trust must, therefore, be built deliberately through how AI is deployed, how jobs are redesigned and how workers are supported through change.
Sir, I am a businessman and I join the call to support my union brother Mr Ng in this Motion because I believe this embodies the true spirit of tripartism that serve Singapore well.
We cannot say every worker matters and then leave workers to navigate this transition alone. Businesses must lead in redesigning jobs and investing in their people. Workers must step forward and adapt, and Government must ensure the system enables both. Only then can workers and businesses advance together.
Mr Speaker, this motion reflects Singapore's determination to get this right. Let us take the proactive path to work together, to build trust early and ensure that AI expands opportunity rather than narrows it. Sir, I strongly support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare that I am working in a bank, a financial institution in Singapore. I am also an advisor to the Union of Power and Gas Employees (UPAGE) and the Logistics and Supply Chain Union (SCEU).
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank, foremost, Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and Member, Mr Ng Chee Meng, for moving this important Motion and for setting out the need for a new compact for artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled growth, one that keeps workers at the centre of our transformation, anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all.
I will focus on how we can build a more inclusive AI economy, where growth is not only strong, but broadly shared.
AI is no longer emerging; it is already reshaping how we work and live. Beyond well-known AI tools, I saw this first-hand during engagements with the UPAGE, SCEU and, recently, Manpower Government Parliamentary Committee's learning journeys to SMRT, NTUC Finest at Punggol and Chye Thiam Maintenance Pte Ltd.
In different sectors, power and gas, supply chain, transport, retail, food and beverage (F&B), cleaning and facilities management, all of them embedding AI, autonomous vehicles (AVs) and robotics into workflows, raising productivity, creating new jobs and redesigning roles for existing workers.
There is now a global race in AI innovation and adoption. And there is a growing belief that those economies and companies that move early and decisively will capture the greatest value.
But Mr Speaker, Sir, as this House has consistently emphasised, economic success must be inclusive. Economic success is not just growth, but how widely its benefits are shared. Uneven growth is not a model Singapore should follow. Besides the redistribution measures that we have implemented through tax measures and targeted assistance, we must cultivate a sustained mindset to ensure AI-enabled growth is inclusive.
Usage of AI has raised concerns for many workers. For example, will AI take away my job? Will it lead to jobless growth?
Based on the NTUC's survey on economic sentiments in Singapore, which it conducts yearly, the fear that AI would replace their job or current role is more pronounced for professionals, managers and technicians (PMETs) and entry-level jobseekers. For non-PMEs and lower-wage workers, the lower level of concern could be because they do not use AI tools as extensively and are unaware of how AI would impact their job opportunities and not because there is no AI-disruption risk.
These concerns are reinforced by news of job restructuring globally, as well as uneven adoption of AI across sectors and occupations.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me illustrate this unevenness with a concrete example from our own financial sector, of which I am working in. In banking here, AI is no longer emerging, it is already deeply embedded and a core driver of productivity. Across the sector, our local banks are deploying automation in operations and customer servicing, particularly in labour-intensive and repeatable processes. These are not experimental use cases; they are transforming how work is done across the value chain.
AI is now used in operations, such as processing, settlements and compliance, and in credit evaluation through machine learning models that support faster and more consistent underwriting. It is even beginning — well, I would not say beginning. It is already playing a bigger role in hiring, particularly in initial screening.
But the impact is not uniform. Routine clerical and processing roles are most exposed, while hiring is shifting towards higher-skilled roles in data, AI, cybersecurity and governance. At the same time, regulation is sustaining demand for oversight roles in risk, compliance and audit.
But crucially, more complex work still requires human judgement. Handling nuanced customer issues, managing relationships and making judgement calls cannot be easily automated. As a result, many roles are not disappearing but evolving. For example, credit officers are moving towards interpreting and oversight while contact centre roles are shifting towards experiential, escalation and trust-building.
So, what we are seeing is not wholesale job replacement, but a reconfiguration of tasks within jobs.
Mr Speaker, Sir, while much of the AI discussion focuses on PMETs, we must not overlook skilled tradespersons and our blue-collared workers. Our electricians, technicians and maintenance workers are essential. AI cannot repair lifts or maintain MRT systems on its own. As our economy becomes more digital, these roles will become more sophisticated, not less. They are, in fact, high-mastery professions.
If AI raises the premium on skills, we must also raise how we recognise mastery. But beyond recognition, we must also rethink how mastery is built. As AI reshapes how work is performed, we must also rethink how skills are transmitted.
Today, many of our industry transformation maps (ITMs) guide sectoral growth and workforce development. But they were largely designed for a pre-AI world. There may be merit in updating these frameworks to explicitly account for how AI is changing apprenticeship and on-the-job training pathways. This issue has been raised in this House before and it deserves renewed attention.
In particular, we should consider whether we need Industry Training Continuity Maps alongside our ITMs, to ensure that even as AI takes over more routine tasks, we continue to sustain a strong pipeline of deeply skilled human workers especially in roles where mastery, judgement and hands-on expertise cannot be replaced.
Today, this is less visible in skilled trades. This is why I have also proposed a National Master Trades Accreditation framework during the last Committee of Supply, to recognise progression, reward deep skills and integrate AI competencies.
If we get this right, AI will not hollow out middle-skilled jobs, it will elevate them. This will also help elevate further the skilled graduates from our Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) and polytechnics.
Mr Speaker, Sir, given the immense opportunities and risks, AI as a growth engine requires sound policies that benefit workers and citizens. Countries, such as the United Arab Emirates and Finland, have adopted coordinated national AI strategies combining government leadership, enterprise adoption and workforce development.
Here in Singapore, we have taken important steps. Budget 2026 announced the establishment of a National AI Council led by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, alongside incentives for businesses through the Enterprise Innovation Scheme and support for workers via SkillsFuture and the TechSkills Accelerator.
I would like to offer some suggestions to equip workers and enterprises more effectively, so that no worker is left behind.
First, we must normalise AI as a way of life. We must go beyond training pathways and time-limited access to AI tools. While I welcome the provision of temporary access through Government and NTUC initiatives, we must think ahead about what happens after this initial phase of subscriptions.
Many of the more capable AI tools require ongoing subscriptions. Over time, this may create a divide between those who can afford to use these tools regularly and those who cannot. If left unaddressed, we risk creating a new form of inequality between AI \"haves\" and \"have-nots\".
Because access to AI tools directly affects productivity, learning and income potential, unequal access will translate into unequal outcomes. We should therefore consider how to ensure sustained and affordable access, especially for lower-income workers, freelancers, tradespersons and small businesses.
Possible approaches include a baseline level of subsidised access, similar to digital connectivity, tiered or group-based pricing with industry partners, shared access through community centres, libraries and training hubs, and ensuring employers receiving AI support also extend access to workers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, if AI is to be a force for inclusive growth, access cannot be a privilege, it must be broadly shared. And in the digital age, access to AI may become as fundamental as access to the Internet, we must ensure no Singaporean is priced out of that future.
One way to drive adoption is for the Government to be the \"first customer\" of useful AI tools and to mitigate AI transition-related concerns. AI-enabled systems can provide faster and more practical responses to citizens navigating Government services. As AI systems consistently deliver useful outcomes and quick advice to Singaporeans, confidence in AI and AI adoption will grow.
Against this backdrop, I would also like to acknowledge the Government's efforts to support workers through an AI-shaped economy, with employment remaining the central outcome and address job anxieties.
As such, it is important to recognise, for example, that employment outcomes for the Malay/Muslim community under M³ and Focus Area 4 (FA4) have been delivered at both scale and through targeted support. Between 2022 and 2025, Workforce Singapore and NTUC's e2i assisted over 29,000 Malay/Muslim jobseekers, with more than 19,000 placed into jobs.
At the same time, through community-based pathways under M³ and FA4, over 6,000 jobseekers were engaged, with more than 500 securing employment, including those requiring more sustained support. This reflects both the breadth of our national employment system and the depth of our community-anchored interventions. Building on this, FA4 workstreams will sharpen their focus on supporting workers through an AI-shaped economy, with employment remaining the central outcome.
I am glad that NTUC will work closely with MENDAKI through NTUC's e2i to strengthen job transitions, particularly for young adults transiting from campus to career, who may be entering the workforce amid heightened uncertainty about job relevance and AI-driven displacement. This includes strengthening early career pathways by partnering IHLs and integrating engagements with e2i's career services, job matching and employer networks, so that fresh graduates are better prepared for a changing labour market.
For underserved Malay/Muslim workers, as an early step, MENDAKI and NTUC's e2i jointly piloted Langkah Digital AI workshops in community settings, with plans to scale further this year, and I plan to attend some of these workshops. Taken together, these deliberate employment-linked interventions will help to ensure that productivity gains from AI do not result in jobless growth, but instead, equip Singaporeans, across life stages, to adapt, remain employable and progress with confidence, supported by NTUC, its partners and the wider Labour Movement. So, I encourage our community to take advantage of these initiatives to upskill.
Second, we must focus on the infrastructure that enables AI. Singapore has invested in strong digital rails. Systems, such as Singpass, already allow secure transactions, including legally binding processes, such as the Lasting Power of Attorney. The next step is to enhance interoperability through application programming interfaces (APIs), so more services can be integrated seamlessly.
When services are integrated, AI can significantly enhance efficiency and user experience. At the same time, we must calibrate data-sharing frameworks and safe harbours, so that data can be used responsibly without stifling innovation.
Third, we must ensure employers redesign workflows to embed AI meaningfully. Member Mark Lee has mentioned that. Training alone is not sufficient. While the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package provides useful support, it tends to reach large firms that are already inclined to transform. We need to go further.
One possibility is to launch an \"AI Bilingual\" accreditation, for employers and not just for workers and jobseekers. While it can be on a voluntary \"opt in\" basis, like BCA's Green Mark Certification Scheme or TAFEP's Fair Employment Badge, the accreditation can be tied to certain other benefits or quotas to incentivise companies to come forward. Like existing voluntary schemes, this could be linked to incentives to encourage broader participation.
Fourth, we must support those with traditional employers, tradesmen, lower-wage workers and platform workers. AI can act as a personal assistant, enhancing productivity and income. For example, tradesmen can use AI tools to generate quotations, invoices and customer responses; lower-wage workers can use AI for scheduling and financial planning; and platform workers can optimise routes and jobs across platforms, increasing autonomy. Is there scope for the Government to invest in such tools and provide time-limited access, so these workers can experience their practical benefits?
Finally, we must recognise that not all workers have equal capacity to adapt to AI. Time constraints, caregiving responsibilities and life-stage challenges affect participation in training. We should move forward towards flexible learning; integrate training into work; and strengthen cross-sector mobility. This ensures our workforce remains agile, mobile and inclusive. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to now to speak in Malay, please.
(In Malay): We want every worker to receive the support they need to upskill and not be left behind as AI continues to progress. Through my interactions with Malay/Muslim workers, many see AI as an opportunity, but also worry that they cannot keep pace with this rapid technological advancement.
This concern is valid. AI is transforming the way we work. PMETs in particular are beginning to ask: Are my skills still relevant? Can I adapt to these changes? The fundamental question is: Does this AI economy have a place for me, or will I be left behind?
As co-chair of the Economic Resilience Committee alongside Dr Wan Rizal, our focus is clear – to build and strengthen the economic resilience of our community by embracing the AI transition with openness and readiness. We want growth that creates opportunities and empowers workers, not replaces them.
We will assess the implications of the economic shifts that the Economic Strategy Review Committee will outline, identify new sectors and growth opportunities and understand how we can encourage broader participation from the Malay/Muslim community in these areas. At the same time, we are developing targeted strategies to strengthen community involvement in economic transformation initiatives, so that participation can be deepened across all segments – from youth to professionals and entrepreneurs.
Within the Malay/Muslim community, this work has already begun and must be strengthened through the M³, now known as M³+. Allow me to share some examples of efforts being undertaken by Malay/Muslim institutions to raise AI literacy among our community.
We are seeing encouraging initiatives. At Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) (Islamic Religious Council of Singapore) and the mosques, AI literacy programmes help the community understand the responsible use of technology. The IftaSG initiative uses AI for Fatwa research. Programmes encouraging thoughtful AI integration have also been made available to asatizah, to enable richer and more meaningful Islamic learning experiences.
At Persatuan Ulama dan Guru-Guru Agama Islam Singapura (PERGAS), AI training equips asatizah with digital skills through programmes such as Diversity-driven Upskilling for Asatizah, the AI Accelerator Challenge, and AI for Asatizah Entrepreneurs.
At the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP), for working professionals, the \"Learning Circles: All About GenAI\" programme will be held this month. It will explore how generative AI is reshaping the way we work and how professionals can begin applying it meaningfully in their daily roles.
At MENDAKI, the MENDAKI Achievement Programme, or MAP, now uses AI tools such as Khanmigo and KiteSense Luminee to enhance the learning outcomes of students from less privileged backgrounds. This reflects a commitment to ensuring that technological progress serves as a catalyst for social mobility and inclusive growth within our community.
Mr Abdul Kadir bin Abdul Rahman, a veteran educator in science and mathematics, is a fine example of how three decades of deep experience can be combined with present-day innovation. Now a trainer in the MAP programme, he is a strong advocate for using AI technology to improve learning quality. He has noted that one significant change is students' increased willingness to ask questions – fostering a more interactive and supportive learning environment.
In addition, MENDAKI's Langkah Digital initiative provides AI-Ready workshops, hands-on training and upskilling programmes to help individuals understand and apply AI in their lives and work. MENDAKI has partnered with institutions, such as SUTD, opening up opportunities in AI, design and application-based learning – so that our community is not merely a consumer of technology, but capable of mastering it.
This shows that AI can be a catalyst for social mobility – if we ensure that access and opportunity are widely shared. But not everyone starts from the same point. Some have access, a supportive environment and the time to learn. Others face constraints – whether in terms of time, family responsibilities, or self-confidence. That is why our approach must be inclusive. Training must be accessible, relevant and practical, so that every individual has the opportunity to adapt and progress alongside these changes. Ultimately, success in the AI economy is not measured by technology alone, but by how well we ensure that every citizen can move forward with confidence and hope.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, AI will bring both disruption and opportunity. If managed well, it can raise productivity and expand opportunities for all. But if left unmanaged, it can widen inequality. We must ensure that AI drives not just growth, but inclusive growth. If we get this right, AI will not divide our workforce, it will strengthen it.
And in doing so, we will renew this compact for AI-enabled growth. One where every Singaporean,whether working with code or with their hands, has a place and a role and a future in our economy. I wholeheartedly support this Motion, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Speaker, not long ago, I was at a stop light in Punggol when an autonomous shuttle glided past. I was not the only one watching. Around me, drivers and pedestrians looked up – a mix of curiosity and something quieter. A low, humming anxiety, fringed with a dash of awe. And behind their eyes, a very human question: what does this mean for me?
That image has stayed with me. AI and autonomous technology are transforming the way we work, live and play, faster than any technology humankind has seen. So, the question this House must answer today is not how these technologies work, but what we are doing – concretely, deliberately – to make sure our workers' lives and livelihoods are not left behind.
Mr Speaker, that is what this Motion is really about. And I want to speak to it not with mere assurances, but with a plan. A plan for our workers, a plan for our union members, a plan for our brothers and sisters sitting up in the gallery supporting us in this Motion.
The transformation is already happening, quietly, all around us. At Changi Airport, autonomous baggage tractors ferry luggage between terminals. At Marina Barrage Service Road, autonomous sweepers clear leaves and litter. At Pasir Panjang Terminal, driverless automated guided vehicles move containers between yards. And our first revenue-generating autonomous bus services are set to run on two routes in the second half of this year.
Upskilling has rightly been at the forefront. But job redesign is equally critical to re-engineer existing jobs for new realities, to create new job types and to support workers through transitions as AI reshapes job longevity. And for job redesign to truly move the needle, it must be a genuine, ground-up effort with workers and their real workflows at the centre. Let me elaborate.
First, consult workers deliberately, to really understand their work. As Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU), I have seen first-hand what it looks like when tripartism works. Our management partners, SBS Transit, SMRT and others, have been preparing our bus captains and technicians for the advent of AI, electric vehicles (EVs) and AVs. Employers provide upskilling and training. Government supports companies and workers through that process. And unions, we do what we do best at: listening carefully on the ground to what workers truly need.
It is exactly that ground listening that surfaced something we would have otherwise missed. Even as we move towards 50% of our bus fleet becoming electric by 2030, our bus captains flagged that EV training had important gaps. Unlike conventional buses that use mirrors, EVs use digital monitors and our captains told us about the time delay, the glare, the eye strain and in more severe cases, nausea. They asked for longer training and preparatory times. The union pushed for it with our tripartite partners and it was addressed.
Mr Speaker, that is feedback no consultant's report would have surfaced. But it directly shapes bus design, driver safety and passenger experience. Workers know their jobs better than anyone. That is a resource we must keep on tapping.
In anticipation of our first AV bus services, NTWU, last year, surveyed around 500 bus captains and technicians. One in three expressed concern that AVs would affect their jobs – job security was the top worry, followed by fears of pay cuts. Unsurprising. These are sentiments shared by transport workers worldwide. Yet one in three of our Singaporeans, also remained confident that drivers would continue to play an important role.
So, we dug deeper. We sat with bus captains and asked them to walk us through a day's work, not what their job description said, but what they actually did.
What they told us turned our assumptions upside down. On paper, we assumed driving was the core of a bus captain's job, perhaps, 80% of their tasks. Our captains told us it is closer to 20%. The other 80%, helping elderly passengers board safely, managing crowding, de-escalating difficult situations, giving directions, being a calm and reassuring presence on board and even telling passengers they can only have a singing performance when seated – these are deeply human responsibilities that no AV can replace.
This has profound implications. If we had acted on our paper assumptions about the bus captain role, we would have misjudged job sizes, skill requirements and salary structures – creating inequitable outcomes for workers and human resource (HR) planning disasters for organisations alike. Getting the job description right is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is the foundation on which all of job redesign rests.
Mr Speaker, the unions and the Tripartite Jobs Council will continue to walk the ground. But we cannot do this alone, not if we are serious about job redesign at scale. I call on the Government to resource this properly: to fund systematic study and mapping of actual job roles and workflows, so that job redesign is built on ground truths and not just assumptions.
Mr Speaker, my second point is this: for AI transformation to succeed, workers and customers must be at the centre of the reimagination process of what AI can bring to workers and businesses. Not consulted after the fact. Not informed of decisions already made. At the centre, right from the start.
AI will transform work as we know it. But where exactly it will land – which tasks, which roles, which industries – nobody can fully predict that. That is precisely why the reimagination process matters so much. We cannot wait until the dust settles. We have to build, prepare and yes, dare to dream of what an AI-powered workplace can look like together with our workers. The most important lesson I have taken from visiting companies in transformation is this: when you involve workers early and genuinely, they do not resist change. They drive it.
Mr Speaker, let me tell you about Trusted Hub. A Singapore SME, 25 years in business, in the business of data processing, which, at its heart, actually is what AI is. Rewind to 2001, Trusted Hub was handling Government submissions from members of the public; stacks and stacks of paper; photocopiers, faxes, prints. Fast forward to 2026, same business, more or less the same clients, but a completely different way of working. AI now processes much of the data, taking the load off their staff.
What impressed me when I visited was not the technology. It was the people. Because Trusted Hub brought their workers into the reimagination process as stakeholders – not passengers – the majority of their staff have upskilled themselves to programme AI Agents, creating both enterprise and innovation value for the company. And the oldest AI Agent programmer in the company? A gentleman in his 60s. Self-taught. And this is what happens when you do not underestimate your workers.
I have spoken in this House before about FairPrice's Store of Tomorrow at Punggol Coast Mall, featured at international trade shows as a model for the supermarket of the future and a living showcase of how technology can make work better, easier and safer for our workers. It displaces fear not with words but with evidence people can walk into and see for themselves.
But what made it work was not the AI. It was the process. Workers and unions shaped and designed the system, not inherited it. And because of that, staff did not just accept the change, they owned it.
And what I want is more of this. Stores of tomorrow, bus interchanges of tomorrow, restaurants of tomorrow, clinics of tomorrow. Living testbeds that allow reimagination to happen, not just within companies but across clusters and our communities, so that conversations about AI in the workplace can take place openly, candidly and with imagination, rather than dread.
Very much like my Punggol residents watching our autonomous shuttles glide by, a low hum of anxiety, yes, but definitely fringed with a dash of awe.
While the shape of tomorrow's workplace is still forming, one thing is clear. Putting workers and work processes at the centre of transformation is not optional, it is the method. What does it look like in practice?
It is Chye Thiam Maintenance offering $200 training allowance to workers who volunteer to be trained on their robo-sweepers, making transformation something workers choose and not something done to them.
It is Grab working with unions to assess whether an AV Shuttle safety driver can sustain a full eight-hour shift on continuous alert because worker welfare is part of the design and not an afterthought.
And it is a British entrepreneur who has started calling his AI bots, AI employees, to remind himself and his team that AI is not about replacing people but about changing roles.
These are not grand gestures. They are small, deliberate, but very significant acts that normalise AI in the workplace and make it something workers can see themselves thriving in rather than being displaced by. This involves responsible employers, progressive employees and indeed, a supportive and nurturing Government. It is the tripartite way and it is why the Tripartite Jobs Council matters so much to organise, to set the tone right from the start, on how AI is embedded and rewarded in everyday company life.
Mr Speaker, this is the real answer to unfounded fears about AI displacement – not reassurances, but evidence. Evidence that when workers are treated as co-creators, transformation is faster, adoption is stronger, and outcomes are better for everyone.
The Tripartite Jobs Council is well-placed to drive this reimagination work at every level, through Company Training Committees (CTCs), CTC Queen Bees at cluster level, sectoral AI uplift plans across industries. Our Queen Bees can bring their contractor ecosystems along, as what FairPrice did with their store of tomorrow. Unions will do what we do best: walk with workers and management through what the road ahead looks like, and what new roles are emerging along the way.
But Mr Speaker, this really requires investment and intentionality. I call on the Government to resource sectoral AI uplift plans for industries – retail, logistics, healthcare – with the same deliberateness that has started to guide our AV roadmap for public transport. Workers deserve to know not just that AI is coming, but where the next testbeds will be, what the new jobs will look like and how to get there. Clarity is not a luxury. For workers standing at that crossroads, it is everything.
Mr Speaker, my third point is this: even the best-run AI transition will see jobs disappearing and some occupations finding the tasks they do taken over by AI. That is the honest truth. And we should not paper over it with optimism. Hence, transition support must be real, it must be timely and it must reach those who need it most.
We owe our workers a system that catches them before they fall too far and gets them back to a good job as quickly as possible. That system must start with job redesign. Not as an afterthought but as the first line of defence. If we redesign jobs well and early, we reduce the number of workers who need to be caught in the first place. The best transition support is one that makes the cliff shorter to begin with.
That is why the signal we send to enterprises matters so much. AI grants must be tied to mandatory job redesign requirements and productivity gains linked to worker outcomes. If these enterprises are unable to retain our workers, these companies should be required to notify the Government early on personnel whom they are unable to retain, so that these displaced workers can be assisted by e2i and our newly-formed Tripartite Jobs Council. This will be the assurance to workers that Singapore’s AI transition will not result in jobless growth and that we keep the transition time to a new good job as short as possible.
Mr Speaker, I am heartened by our Prime Minister's assurance during Budget 2026 that the AV transition will be managed carefully, with close engagement with Platform Worker Associations and our drivers. As Advisor to the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, I want to speak directly to that. In Mandarin, please, Speaker.
(In Mandarin): Our taxi and private-hire drivers are already navigating a fiercely competitive environment with high fuel costs. Seeing autonomous vehicles operating in Punggol and hearing news of autonomous bus pilots, they cannot help but harbour a quiet, unspoken worry. They are not asking us to halt technological progress – but what they need is not just reassurance. They need a clear sense of direction.
How will the geofencing of autonomous vehicles be progressively expanded? What is the timeline? New roles such as remote operators and safety supervisors are beginning to emerge. I hope that drivers who are willing will be supported and given access to training, so that they can transition into these new positions. For those who are not yet able to make that transition, I also hope that the newly established Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) will take the time to understand their needs more carefully – because they are not a homogeneous group and cannot be treated as one.
This is not just a matter that concerns platform drivers. Our technicians and tradesmen keep Singapore running with their hands, yet in conversations about AI, they are often invisible. Their contributions have long gone without sufficient recognition.
I am glad that the Ministry of Manpower has begun driving efforts in this area, starting with the electrical trade. We must press on to build career pathways for tradesmen that are more promising and more respected, while harnessing AI to enhance their capabilities – not to replace their judgement.
(In English): Mr Speaker, the workers who are most exposed to AI disruption are often the ones with the least buffer – least savings, least flexibility, least time to wait for a system to catch up with them. That is why our response must be tripartite in the fullest sense. Employers and platform partners must lean in as their business models evolve and not step back. This means staying involved in transition support, co-sharing training cost, covering opportunity cost and supporting workers through employment and post-employment pathways.
Unions will do what we have always done, walk the ground, listen and shape livelihood opportunities alongside our workers and we will continue to \"jaga rumah\" – by keeping watch on what other jurisdictions are doing, from China's Internet court ruling that AI replacement alone is not grounds for dismissals to California's requirement for human safety operators on AVs. These are signals of a world working out where the boundaries are. Singapore must learn from them, and when necessary, get ahead of them. Government must design transition support around the people who need it and not around what is administratively convenient. This is a standard we must hold ourselves to.
Mr Speaker, I will conclude with three calls to the Government.
Give time. Job redesign cannot be rushed. It requires sitting with workers, understanding what their work really is, not just what the job description says, and going back to the ground when the first answer turns out to be incomplete, as ours was with bus captains. Companies need to be supported through this and not just pushed into it.
Give help on the reimagination piece. Most companies, especially our SMEs, cannot do this alone. I look to the Government to provide practical facilitation, frameworks, and funding that makes job redesign achievable. And I look to our leading companies, our Queen Bees, to step forward, share what has been worked on, and bring their sectors along with them. Transformation that stays within one company is transformation that is only half done.
Make NTUC the linkway. Our unions, our e2i, our Tripartite Jobs Council – we are already on the ground, in the companies, with our CTCs, sitting across the table from workers and employers every day. We have trust that took many, many years to build. Our Labour Movement is ready to be the connective tissue of this transition, matching displaced workers to redesigned roles, advocating for fair treatment and holding everyone, including ourselves, to account. The SWDA and our agencies must build on this.
Mr Speaker, I think back to that autonomous shuttle gliding through Punggol. Our workers watching it are not asking us to stop it. They are asking us to make sure that as it moves forward, they move forward too. That is the answer we owe them. Not just a promise; a plan.
I believe that an AI transition with no jobless growth is possible. Not because the technology will take care of it, but because we will. If we consult workers properly, involve them in the reimagination of their work, and back that up with transition support that actually reaches the people who need it most.\tI support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I declare my interest as the owner and director of a company that provides software to training providers.
Mr Speaker, we face a structural threat to our workforce. For decades, Singapore's economic model has been built on the premise that a highly educated and skilled workforce would hold the keys to a prosperous future and be a buffer against economic storms. However, we are now in the midst of a paradigm shift where artificial intelligence is not only augmenting human capability, but in many ways replacing it. Unlike past economic cycles, where such turbulence could be written off as an episode of creative destruction, AI promises to be a harbinger of a fundamental shift in our economic and social relationships. Taking this concept further, it would even impact the roles that the Government plays in mediating between the individual and society.
Today, we must recognise that the very nature of labour's economic power is changing. Failure to address this issue, even as productivity soars, will lead to an entrenched lower and middle class with the loss of economic agency. This concern is articulated by Jasmine Sun in an opinion piece for the New York Times, where she identifies the San Francisco consensus, a growing recognition that the hiring of young workers in highly AI exposed occupations is already in decline. She reminds us of the risk of a resulting permanent underclass, where the gains of technology are concentrated in the hands of a very few.
Not all the evidence points towards catastrophe. A 2025 US National Bureau of Economic Research working paper found that tasks with higher AI exposure do experience reduced labour demand. However, overall employment effects have so far been modest as productivity gains offsets some displacement. Similarly, a study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Danielle Li and Stanford's Erik Brynjolfsson found that generated AI tools boosted worker productivity by nearly 15%, with the greatest gains among the less experienced workers, thus suggesting AI can be a ladder, not just a trapdoor.
It should be noted that these studies examined early and controlled deployments. As agentic AI scales across entire industries simultaneously, the distributional consequences may be more severe and swifter than early productivity research would suggest.
We cannot be certain which trajectory Singapore is on. The asymmetry of risk demands that we prepare for the harder scenario, not the easier one.
This concern is shared by the very architects of the AI revolution. In 2021, OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman predicted in his blog post \"Moore's Law for Everything\" that AI would shift power from labour to capital, positing that if public policy does not adapt accordingly, most people will end up worse off than they are today. Crucially, Altman was not fatalistic. He argued that the proactive redistribution of AI-driven wealth, including giving citizens equity stakes in the economy, could make this a broadly prosperous transition.
Similarly, Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has observed that the health of a democracy is premised on the average person having leveraged through creating economic value, a view he expressed in his 2024 essay, \"Machines of Loving Grace\".
The erosion of that leverage is a deeply concerning prospect that requires a bold and structural policy response. Singapore is uniquely positioned to lead this response and to capture the genuine economic opportunities AI presents for our people. As a small, open economy with a highly educated workforce, strong institutions and well-capitalised sovereign wealth funds, we have the tools to act swiftly and structurally, compared to many large nations.
But that window of opportunity will not remain open indefinitely. While cost arbitrage makes offshoring attractive, AI could erode that advantage – not by bringing those jobs back but by enabling small teams of skilled Singaporeans to do the work that once required hundreds of offshore workers. The opportunity is not in reshoring in a traditional sense but the concentration of higher-value orchestration and oversight roles here at home, where trust, institutional quality and proximity to decision-makers matter.
AI's equalising potential extends beyond white-collar work. A blue-collar worker who struggles with English could dictate in their mother tongue and have AI render as professional documentation in real time, freeing them to focus on their craft rather than their grammar. AI should be an equaliser that elevates the technical master, not a wedge that stratifies our workforce. AI tools can also power a new breed of local startups by enabling small hyper-efficient teams to create immense value and scale, achieving global reach with minimal manpower.
Singapore must therefore be at the forefront of this shift while ensuring that benefits accrue to all citizens. This will require workers and entrepreneurs who are trained, skilled and adept at harnessing AI tools and innovations and empowering their employees to do the same.
Our current efforts to reskill Singaporeans are often hampered by the trap of low-utility external training programmes which produce certifications that lack real-world currency in an AI-driven economy. These programmes enrich training providers while leaving workers with skills that have little economic value. This misalignment risks creating a two-speed economy where capital owners and tech-integrated firms leave behind those stuck in the slow lane of traditional employment, leading to a fundamental erosion of social cohesion and increasing the risk of long-term structural unemployment.
To address this, I propose the establishment of a National AI Equity Fund. This fund is a necessary safeguard to maintain the integrity of our social contract. It is a strategic surplus transfer from enterprises which benefit immensely from AI back to Singaporeans to facilitate our collective stability.
I will elaborate on the precise funding mechanisms shortly after I explain the uses of the fund. I propose the fund be organised in two distinct pillars.
The first is a social dividend where revenue is distributed as a direct payout to every adult Singapore citizen. I propose an initial citizen dividend of $500 per adult citizen, scaling upward as fund contributions grow. This is modest by design. It is not meant to replace income, but to provide a tangible signal that every Singaporean has ownership in our shared future.
Based on our current citizen population, this would cost approximately $1.5 billion annually – or less than 10% of last year's Budget surplus – and provide a meaningful return to every Singaporean household. This would serve as a social floor, ensuring that the gains from national digital prosperity provide tangible peace of mind and dignity for all.
This dividend will provide an additional cushion for families as the nature of work evolves. It also allows Singapore to reap the full productivity benefits of AI without overly exacerbating social inequality.
An argument could be made that the Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers already do this, but those are entirely discretionary. The social dividend I propose is a structural entitlement – a function of receipts rather than what the fiscal mood of the moment happens to be. That distinction matters enormously for a family planning its future.
The other portion of the fund will be dedicated to a mastery fund, which will be an employer-led, on-the-job training (OJT) model that moves training out of the classroom and into every enterprise.
I propose that the mastery fund provides a mastery apprentice wage covering 50% of the gross salary, capped at a median wage for six months, for any Singapore citizen entering or transitioning into an AI-augmented role. This rewards the worker's effort in adapting while lowering the barrier for firms to hire, train and retain talent in this volatile market.
Recognising that many SMEs lack the capacity to design structured OJT programmes, I propose that the fund also finance a pool of expert OJT consultants. These consultants experienced in OJT design will rotate between firms to structure OJT blueprints tailored to each firm's specific needs. This will help SMEs fill their talent gap while also addressing the need to create new steps in the ladder of training and apprenticeships for new entrants into the marketplace.
Furthermore, I suggest a mentorship credit be provided to employers to compensate senior staff for the time they spend on structured mentorship, turning our workplaces into true academies of mastery and ensuring that skills remain relevant to the actual needs of the economy.
The mastery fund should be made available to all business entities and societies that are founded and based in Singapore, including micro enterprises. The use of funds should be closely monitored to ensure that it genuinely contributes to AI mastery within each firm. I estimate the annual cost of the mastery fund to be approximately $1.42 billion.
Let me set out the financing details.
The first source is a marginal increase of two percentage points of the corporate income tax rate for firms with annual profits exceeding $100 million. By focusing on these companies, we capture the automation surplus from those best positioned to drive growth through AI rather than headcount. Whether global tech firms or traditional giants, these enterprises are at the forefront of decoupling revenue from labour. This tax increase will generate an estimated $1.5 billion annually, ensuring that gains from record-breaking efficiency are recycled back into the national AI equity fund for the benefit of all Singaporeans.
The second source is a targeted increase in the utilisation of our investment returns.
I propose raising the maximum net investment returns taken into the Budget from 50% to 52.5%, with this additional 2.5% flowing directly into the fund. Based on current estimates, this would raise approximately $1.45 billion annually.
Our sovereign wealth entities, GIC and Temasek, have been early movers into the AI space, investing in foundational firms like Anthropic and committing billions to the AI infrastructure partnership alongside Microsoft, BlackRock and Nvidia. As these global Investments profit from the automation of labour worldwide, it is only right that we recycle a modest portion of those gains back into our own workforce.
Relocating 2.5% is not a radical request. It ensures our reserves provide more than just financial stability, but also the long-term economic agency of every Singaporean.
As we look towards the future, we cannot simply assume that displaced workers will transition smoothly into new roles as they have in previous technological revolutions. The steam engine did not replace human judgement, but AI may do just that. That is precisely why passive reskilling is insufficient and why the financial security of a social dividend is needed. Workers shifting towards less automatable roles in entrepreneurship, care work, the skilled trades, sports and the arts do not just need training, but time and security to make that leap.
Certainly, new jobs will emerge that we cannot yet imagine, but we must build a system robust enough to support our people even if that emergence is slower or more unevenly distributed than we would otherwise hope. The National AI Equity Fund provides a financial buffer for Singaporeans to make these transitions with confidence.
During this year's Committee of Supply Debate, I proposed a Youth Wage Credit Scheme – a targeted wage subsidy for employers who hire younger Singaporean workers. The National AI Equity Fund extends that logic into a broader longer-term framework for all Singaporeans navigating the AI transition and other technological disruptions.
Mr Speaker, the National AI Equity Fund is a renewal of our social contract for the digital age. We cannot allow AI to become a wedge that fractures our society. Instead, we must use it to become the greatest equaliser our nation has ever known. By establishing the social dividend and the mastery fund, we give every Singaporean a direct stake in our digital prosperity and the resources to stay ahead of the curve.
Let us make it our goal to ensure that as machines grow more capable, our people grow more secure. By acting now, we can ensure that technological progress serves the dignity and economic agency of every Singaporean. Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Mr Speaker, in this Sitting and indeed, in the past few Sittings, few speeches have been made without mentioning the age of AI. Much has also been said by the Government about how the global disruption will impact our play, our work and our lives.
In policy-making, there is always the binary choice: ride this AI wave or be submerged and be left behind. This is Hobson’s choice and the answer is obvious. But we cannot ask a question of a strawman. Singapore is a small, open and digitally connected economy. AI will be a fact of economic life.
The Government has said that it will grow our economy, support our businesses and take care of our workers. But there is a difference between policy-making in the Ministries and implementation on the ground.
At street level, the AI transition looks intimidating, expensive, and for many middle-aged workers, a place of anxiety and confusion. This is the first wave of change and may be the hardest. The Government, businesses, unions and workers must struggle together to ride out this wave.
During the transition, some jobs will disappear, but new jobs will also emerge. Left to the market, there will only be growth where the strongest, fittest and most able benefit. In a city where the law of the economic jungle operates unfettered, let us be honest, the AI transition will benefit some, but not all. This growth will not lead to better and more prosperous lives for all.
But that is not the job for the market. That is our job; all of us here in this House must bend the market to our will: to create more high-value jobs for Singaporeans and retrain displaced workers but to do so in a way that also meets the business imperative for profits, so that our economy can continue to grow in the long run. We have built Singapore on solutions that met both interests in the past, and we must do so again in the future.
Let me talk concretely about two ways that AI can benefit our workers.
We used to say that people are Singapore’s only resource. We are now a superaged society with a total fertility rate of 0.87. Our resource pool is shrinking. Human resource is now the key bottleneck and cost driver for most businesses, especially SMEs which are hiring 70% of local workforce. If businesses close down, more workers will lose their jobs, even those not threatened by AI.
Our businesses have faced worsening labour shortages over the past decade. The 2025 ManpowerGroup's latest Talent Shortage Survey reveals that nearly four in five employers in the Asia Pacific region are struggling to find skilled talent, with 77% reporting difficulties. In particular, many jobs that Singaporeans cannot or will not do are done by non-Singaporeans.
But there is a limit to our dependence on foreign workers, including political and social constraints. We need AI-powered robots to replace foreign workers in roles that no Singaporeans would want to do or can do. For instance, heavy duty roles in construction, maritime and aviation sectors, that are exposed to the harsh elements of a warming climate. This will be a game changer for us.
The next frontier is in physical generative AI or embodied AI. In more recent times, generative AI technologies have been integrated with physical systems, enabling machines to interact with and adapt to the real world. It enables robots to learn complex tasks, such as manipulation and navigation, via simulation and transferring intelligence from digital models to real world hardware. Put simply, robots and humanoids capable of thinking and even perceiving, can be deployed in unstructured and dynamic environments, to assist or even replace human workers.
In recent months, companies such as Dexterity AI, Figure AI and Unitree Robotics have demonstrated their capabilities in AI-powered robots and humanoids in specialised roles.
Unlike generative AI tools like ChatGPT that trawl the Internet to train its models, physical generative AI tools need to be trained in contextualised environments for the roles and tasks they are set out to do. Over time, these physical AI capabilities will mature and become accessible to businesses facing manpower shortage. These AI-powered robots can help our businesses overcome manpower constraints, lower costs and increase profitability.
Physical AI robots are good at repetitive tasks but cannot replace every single role. Jobs and process redesigned into man-machine hybrid teams will be the new norm. Seniors and women can join the transformed workforce – with repetitive, heavy-duty roles done by robots and complex supervisory roles performed by humans. It will be a new model of freedom and empowerment, unimaginable today but a reality in the very near future.
Singaporeans can be upskilled as supervisors of robots. New high-value job roles such as design, build and maintenance of these AI robots will be created for young engineers and technicians.
More Singaporeans can retire at a later age if they wish to, since their roles will become less physically demanding. Seniors and women can join industries previously dominated by those with stronger physical abilities. And robots also do not carry any social baggage.
Mr Speaker, the transition to AI-powered robots is my area of work, and this is the vision we are working towards – to solve real problems for businesses and elevate the quality of life for workers. I feel strongly that our AI transition should be focused on customising physical generative AI solutions for our industries, so as to help every Singaporean on this journey of empowerment.
Prime Minister Lawrence Wong outlined four key pillars for our National AI Strategy. In particular, in the Advanced Manufacturing and Transport Connectivity sectors, AI-powered robots will indeed be the force-multiplier.
Are we ready for this transition? Not yet. We are well-positioned for it, but we must move fast. And I would suggest the following six steps.
One, unions should forecast which are the types of jobs and sectors at risk, as well as numbers of workers that may be displaced.
Two, MOM should fund retraining for affected workers, to prepare them for other roles or other industries.
Three, workers should also step up, learn new skills and be open to new job opportunities.
Four, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and IHLs should redesign academic programmes to shift students away from fields already taken over by AI. All IHL students should learn AI tools relevant for their disciplines.
Five, the Ministry of Trade and Industry should attract more world-class physical generative AI companies to set up headquarters in Singapore and attract talents for research and development (R&D).
Six, businesses should be open to work with AI companies to automate and redesign work processes, revamp job roles and create man and machine hybrid teams. Mr Speaker, I would like to share a few points in Malay.
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Singapore's AI transition must be managed jointly by Government, businesses, unions and workers to avoid uneven gains. Physical AI can ease labour shortages and reshape work into human machine teams. With job redesign, upskilling and education reform, workers can move into higher value roles, while businesses can grow with higher productivity.
To support this transition, Government support and regulation are crucial to fund retraining of workers, create higher value jobs, attract leading AI firms and ensure that AI is used ethically for broad societal benefit.
(In English): In the near future, a new AI ecosystem will emerge. Technology companies create AI solutions, businesses own them and workers leverage them.
But the Government must set the rules. AI must be used as a force for good and not for criminal and harmful exploits. Establishing the ethics around AI use will make the difference between our society benefiting from the use of AI or becoming enslaved by it.
But there is also a deeper moral question relating to AI. AI is artificial; it has no intrinsic good, no value in and of itself. We, in this House, have a duty to bend the market in the use of AI, not just to forbid what is criminal but to enable what is fair, good and just. We must ensure that the AI transition does not merely create growth but creates jobs, benefits workers, strengthens businesses and elevates communities. Mr Speaker, I would also like to conclude my points in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Singapore's AI shift needs a coordinated effort by Government, businesses, unions and workers to ensure that both businesses and employees stand to benefit, and to support and assist those who are affected. This includes providing retraining and expanding the scope of education, creating higher-value jobs so that more Singaporeans can adapt to these changes as quickly as possible.
Physical AI – robots combined with generative AI – can ease labour shortages by taking on tough and risky work in sectors, such as construction, aviation and maritime, while reshaping roles into human–machine teams.
I would like to propose several key steps to support the AI transformation:
First, companies should automate and redesign jobs; second, unions should flag at-risk roles; third, workers should keep learning; and fourth, Government should set clear AI rules. A national transformation should not merely be pursued for the sake of higher economic growth, but should ensure that all segments of society can benefit.
(In English): Mr Speaker, the Motion on which I rise to speak today asks for us to affirm that AI transition \"must not lead to jobless growth\". And this \"must\" is not an empirical prediction, nor is it empty rhetoric. It is political resolve.
AI in this free market may or may not be the new model of freedom and empowerment for our people. It is our resolve that makes it so. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, the Motion before this House calls for an AI transition that does not leave Singapore's workers behind. The Prime Minister, the Labour Chief, the Government as a whole, have all said the same in the past months; that this is what they intend. What I want to examine this afternoon is whether the policy architecture we have is equal to the commitment we are being asked to affirm.
Mr Speaker, every AI deployment a firm makes is at its heart a choice. The firm can use AI to make its existing workers more capable, more productive, more valuable than they were before or it can use AI to do without those workers entirely. The economist's shorthand for this is augmentation as opposed to automation: augmentation, where AI works alongside the worker, and automation where AI replaces them.
Stanford economist, Eric Brynjolfsson, one of the leading academic voices on AI and labour markets, has made a convincing case that in an unaided market without deliberate policies steering in the other direction, incentives systematically favour automation. Firms find it easier and cheaper to deploy AI to replace workers than to retrain them. The tax code, the labour market institutions, the cost structures of capital all tilt the playing field. Even though augmentation creates more total value over time, more good jobs, broader prosperity and a fairer distribution of the gains, the default trajectory of an unguided system is automation.
The Government's chosen and declared direction is augmentation. The Motion before us today assumes augmentation. The Labour Chief in this Chamber yesterday put the same commitment in his own words – not AI instead of workers but AI working for workers.
The philosophical direction is settled across the aisle. The substantive question is whether our policy architecture matches it.
There are three places where architecture is currently miscalibrated. Three places where, today, the system is permitting automation despite promises to the contrary.
The Labour Chief yesterday said that AI is also reshaping professional, manager and executive (PME) jobs in higher-end professions, like doctors, lawyers and accountants. The Prime Minister has said much the same – AI will affect Singapore's professionals, managers and technicians (PMETs) who have spent years building specialist careers and who are now being told that the ground below them is moving.
At his May Day rally last week, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said, \"We may not be able to protect every job, but we will protect every worker.\" The question is whether the instrument the Government has chosen, the SkillsFuture Job Seeker Support scheme, delivers on that promise. The Prime Minister has termed the Job Seeker Support scheme the \"Singapore way\". A more pragmatic, more Singaporean alternative to the redundancy insurance that is the Workers' Party's (WP's) preferred solution. That reads the Singapore tradition backwards.
Mr Speaker, the Labour Chief said in the Chamber yesterday that financial support during the transition is not welfare, it is an investment in worker outcomes. By that test, the tradition has long been built on investments of exactly that kind. The Central Provident Fund (CPF), MediShield Life, MediSave, these are all universal contributary schemes paid out when life's major contingencies hit. Each catches every worker because the contingency it insures against can hit every worker. That is the Singapore way.
The Job Seeker Support scheme is not built in that tradition. It is a tax-funded grant gated on pre-redundancy income, closer in design to a means-tested assistance than to insurance against contingency. As currently configured, it pays up to $6,000 over six months in tapering monthly instalments, starting at $1,500 and ending at $750 over the last three months and it is only available to workers who earn $5,000 a month or less before they were made redundant.
The Labour Chief acknowledged in this Chamber yesterday that the ceiling excludes PMEs who face the same displacement risk in the AI era and has proposed raising the qualifying ceiling to closer to the PME median gross income level.
If this proposal is adopted, it is movement in the direction that the WP has long argued for. But Mr Ng's proposal moves the line, ours would remove it. Raising the ceiling lets more workers into the scheme but it does not change what the scheme does for them. For those who do qualify under the ceiling, the taper carries its own message: a payment that starts high and slowly reduces is not a flaw. It is a countdown. And a countdown pushes a worker to take the first offer, not the right one.
MOM's own data tells us why this matters. Of retrenched residents in the final quarter of last year, 43.6% of PMETs had not found new employment within six months. That is the cohort that the Job Seeker Support scheme runs out on. And of those who do find work within six months, roughly four in 10 return at lower wages than before. So, they took what was available and not what their experience was worth. Most of us have experienced how the higher up the career ladder you climb, the longer it takes for you to find your next role.
Mr Speaker, a PMET who is pushed by a six-month countdown into a lower paid job that they did not want has experienced exactly the automation outcome that the Government's framework was supposed to prevent, with a small cushion attached for the fall. Raising the ceiling only widens the cohort, but it does not shorten the countdown.
Mr Speaker, the WP's proposal for redundancy insurance scheme is built in the actual Singapore tradition. We pay out 40% of last drawn salary with no income ceiling and no tapering mechanism. It is funded by employer-employee contributions in the same model as the CPF and it covers every worker who pays in, including the professionals the Labour Chief has identified as the most exposed because the contingency it insures against does not stop at $5,000, $7,600 or any other ceiling Parliament may set.
The Prime Minister said we must protect every worker. The instrument the Government has selected does not. The WP's does.
Mr Speaker, when a firm is contemplating a major AI deployment, it stands at a fork in the road. Down one path it retains the existing workers and retrains them to operate alongside the AI. Down the other, it retrenches, runs leaner, brings in a smaller AI-fluent workforce. The first is augmentation. The second is automation. But what does our tax code say to the firm at that decision point?
The current architecture rewards activity. It rewards capital expenditure on AI. It rewards expenditure on training. These are good things to reward, but what the architecture does not currently do is reward the choice itself.
A firm that retrenches its existing workers and trains a smaller set of new hires receive the same fiscal treatment as a firm that retain and retrains its existing workforce. A firm that buys AI to replace workers receives the same fiscal treatment as a firm that buys AI to augment them.
The tax code is silent at the fork and as Bronson previously observed, silence at the fork is not neutrality in consequence. When the tax code does not actively reward retention, the underlying economics tilts firms toward retrenchment. Labour is, after all, the most expensive line on the balance sheet and labour costs are permanent in a way that one-off training costs are not. And an unaided market would choose retrenchment.
Yesterday, Mr Ng defended the CTC framework in this Chamber as the mechanism that ties enterprise transformation to worker progression and proposed expanding it through the new Tripartite Jobs Council.
CTC operates at the project level for firms that engage with it, with grant funding attached, expanding its reach scales the grant model, but does not change the broader fiscal architecture that every firm operates within, whether or not it is within the CTC scheme. And it is this broader fiscal architecture that shapes CFOs’ financial decision-making at the decision point.
In February, in this House, I propose a retraining tax credit, a deduction available only to firms that can demonstrate that they have retained an existing worker into an AI-augmented role, rather than retrenching them. It is this missing conditional piece that will give firms a fiscal signal precisely at the point where they have to make a decision. This retraining tax credit would reward a proactive choice instead of simply investing in AI.
The fourth limb of this Motion affirms that economic progress must remain inclusive. That is a commitment about distribution, not just growth. My colleague Gerald Giam has proposed a national AI equity fund to deliver on that commitment structurally. The instrument I am proposing today is the diagnostic tool that any redistributive mechanism, including Mr Giam's, needs to operate on. Because the third condition for an augmentation strategy, to be real, is verification.
Mr Speaker, augmentation is, in the end, a testable claim. It makes a prediction that wages in the sectors where AI is being deployed alongside workers, will track the productivity gains that these workers helped to create. If that prediction holds, the framework that the Government has adopted is being delivered as advertised.
If productivity rises in these sectors, but wages do not move alongside it, then what is being delivered is something other than augmentation, whatever language we use to describe it. Right now, we have very few mechanisms and very few systematic ways of telling which is occurring.
The Government is investing serious public money at scale in four national AI mission sectors, advanced manufacturing connectivity, finance and healthcare. Public funds are flowing into these sectors and more through the CTC grants, the newly formed Tripartite Jobs Council, the Skills and Workforce Development Agency and various enterprise transformation programs. These are appropriate investments, but public investment creates a corresponding public accountability obligation. Where public money goes in, the public has a right to know what is coming out and to whom.
So, what I am asking for is a targeted transparency mechanism, an annual AI gains audit scoped specifically to the four national AI missions to start, reporting to Parliament on how productivity gains from state-backed AI investments are being distributed between wages and returns to capital. Over time, its scope and coverage can be expanded.
In February, in my Budget speech, I framed this as a distribution question. Today, with this Motion before the House asking us to affirm that economic progress must remain inclusive, I propose it again as something more fundamental.
The AI gains audit is the most direct instrument available to Parliament to test whether the Government's chosen direction of augmentation is actually being delivered. If the gains are being shared with workers, the audit will say so and the framework will have evidence to back its claim. If they are not, we will know before the gap becomes a chasm and before this Motion becomes a statement of hope rather than of policy.
Mr Speaker, the choice between augmentation and automation is not made in one day. It is made every day by the architecture of the schemes we run, the tax code we maintain and the data we choose to collect. Whatever the House says today, that architecture will keep making the choice on our behalf.
Right now, my position is that the architecture pushes workers towards the first available job rather than the right one. Our tax code says nothing to affirm at the fork between retraining workers and retaining them and we have built no mechanism to tell whether the gains from public AI investment are reaching the people whose name that investment has been made. And that is why I support this Motion.
I urge the Government to give it the architecture it requires so that we can make sure that no worker is left behind. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am a business owner for a private orthopaedic practice, which is unionised, and also an advisor to the Health Services Employers Union (HSEU).
I rise in support of the Motion, an AI Transition with No Jobless Growth. AI is already here. It is not a pilot; it is already becoming a platform.
Sir, our question is not whether we adopt AI. We will. The broader question is whether we grow without leaving our workers behind. In the next decade, Singapore should be judged not by how fast we deploy AI, by how well we translate adoption into better jobs, better wages and stronger trust at the workplace.
I speak in three roles today as a professional, as a parent and as a Member of Parliament listening to my residents.
First, the professional anxiety. Many PMETs, they are not afraid of technology, they are uneasy about the uncertainty because AI rarely replaces the whole job. It unbundles tasks, it compresses teams, it changes what employers hire for. And when you cannot see how your role evolves, anxiety rises.
Second, the parental anxiety. Parents today ask very simple questions. Will my child have a fair start? What will entry-level work look like? And if entry-level work shrinks, who will then train the next generation?
Third, the resident anxiety and this is the most practical one. Mid-career workers worry about displacement. Caregivers worry about time. Many people cannot just stop their work to train or retrain. They are not asking for guarantees. They are asking simply for a fair chance and a system that they can navigate.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we should be candid about AI. AI is smart, but it is not wise. It can hallucinate, it can sound confident and yet still be wrong. So, the future should not be about humans competing with AI. It should be about humans working with AI, with judgement, with verification and with accountability.
This Motion is just not about technology. It is about trust, job redesign and the worker journey in whole. Trust will determine if this adoption would succeed. If AI is experienced by workers as surveillance, the trust will thin and eventually break. And when trust breaks, adoption will slow and gains will not be sustainable.
Prime Minister Wong spoke about protecting every worker and scaling practical tripartite tools, like the Company Training Committees for the AI transition. This is the direction we should double down on and I offer four practical moves on this front.
First, skills must be a pathway and not a menu. SkillsFuture is a major national asset. But on the ground, many workers tell me this. It is useful, but it is also overwhelming. Too many courses, too many badges, too little signal. So, the problem now is not just access. It is navigation.
A worker should not need to scroll for hours to guess what really matters to him or his next job. So, I suggest that we curate clearer AI-relevant pathways by sector, by job role, with a clear front door and clear employer recognition. And we can consider additional incentives for those who choose priority courses that support AI-enabled growth, especially when there is clear employer demand. This could mean higher subsidy tiers or outcome-linked support, such as completion plus interview, attachment or redeployment pathways subject to design and feasibility.
Second, tie AI adoption to job redesign. Many Members have spoken about this. If we fund adoption, we should ask, how will tasks change, how will workers be redeployed and how the performance measurements continue to remain fair?
Productivity must show up as better work and, ultimately, better wages for our workers and not only a shrinking headcount. This is not meant to be punitive. It is meant to be practical. This is where our tripartite partners can help with playbooks, with templates and advisory support so that SMEs are not left alone to figure it out.
Third, bring AI readiness to the professional sectors, like clinics, law firms, accounting firms. Many are small, PMET-heavy and time poor. They want to adopt AI but they worry about safety, confidentiality, liability and trust.
One practical model already shared in this House is already emerging in healthcare. In April this year, HSEU and GP+ Co-operative signed an agreement to train primary care clinic staff in AI awareness, and to help primary care clinics adopt technology and redesign their workflows, supported by the Company Training Committee approach and the CTC Grants. I observed this partnership up close. The value is in making adoption practical, responsible and anchored on job redesign, and not just a tool rollout.
I hope that we can extend this cluster-based, CTC-style approach to other professional sectors too, including law and accountancy, so smaller practices can move from uncertainty to readiness, with clear governance standards and worker protections.
For our workers, support should begin when need is recognised. That means faster job matching, modular training that fits real-life schedules and practical guidance for responsible transitions. In practice, structured coaching and a clear next step reduces anxiety, because it shifts a worker from waiting to acting. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now speak in Tamil.
(In Tamil): Hon Speaker, many feel concerned when talking about AI. They worry that jobs may disappear, that the value of skills may diminish and what may happen to the future of children. These concerns are real. The questions are also difficult, but our response is not to fear.
AI is advancing quickly, but human mercy, trust, sense of justice, creativity, language, culture – all these cannot be fully replaced by any machine. AI can compute; but the human connection, human judgement and the human responsibility will always remain with us. So, we must move ourselves from the path of fear to the path of opportunity.
The rise of AI does not mean that humans are no longer needed. Rather, it makes it clearer on what truly are the important tasks that humans must do. In this regard, the humanities are important; language skills are important; cultural nuances are important; social understanding is important. Healthcare, caregiving, education, social services, counselling and work that involves direct contact with people – these are fields that AI cannot replace.
The Tamil language and Tamil culture are a support in this endeavour; our literature nurtures the human feeling. Our culture strengthens social responsibility. That is our strength. So this is what we must tell our young people. Embrace AI but also grow the human capability.
Learning is not merely a certification. It is a path, a belief, a plan for the future. When growth comes, employment opportunities must come with it. Support for change must also come with it. So, do not fear. Let us have faith.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, no jobless growth must mean one thing. Growth that workers can feel, in wages, in dignity, in a clear next step.
So, I offer one governing standard. The test is not how many schemes we have. The test is whether a worker can quickly see the right course, for the right job, at the right time. Whether a parent can feel confident about their child's runway and future, and whether the citizen's journey feels seamless.
If we keep this direction and refine delivery with tripartite resolve, Singapore can deploy AI effectively, responsibly and at speed, while strengthening trust and protecting dignity. With these observations, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, Singapore's approach to AI is often cited by international institutions and consultancies like BCG, and prominent figures, such as International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva.
Our technological infrastructure and initiatives to upskill our workers are key parts of how we plan to confront the disruptions and opportunities presented to us by this new and rapidly developing technology.
However, we must also recognise and act on an additional uncomfortable reality. Singapore is one of the most vulnerable economies to AI disruption. International estimates suggest that around 60% of workers in advanced economies are in jobs that are highly exposed to AI. For Singapore, that share seems significantly higher. Because we are a high-skill services-oriented hub, estimates from the IMF indicate that approximately 77% of our local workforce is highly exposed to AI disruption, and our transition is likely to be sharper and more acute than in many other economies.
How is AI fundamentally reconfiguring our labour market? This can be understood through three distinct shifts.
First, many existing jobs will be transformed from within. AI is taking, or has already taken, over routine information processing tasks – drafting, summarising, extracting data and standardised analysis. Managers, health professionals and legal professionals are already using AI tools to handle these types of tasks, freeing up time for judgement, complex problem-solving and human interaction.
Second, some jobs will be displaced. In what economists call high exposure, low complementarity roles, AI can perform most of the core tasks on its own, and there are fewer reasons to keep humans in the loop. Clerical support workers and many business and administrative associate professionals, whose work is built around routine documentation, basic processing and standardised customer queries, face the highest risk that their roles will shrink or even disappear. Advances in agentic AI technology and models have only sharpened this impact. In the UK, some financial institutions, like investment banks, have relooked their hiring of fresh graduates for certain roles because of AI's automation capabilities.
Third, AI will also create new jobs and new demands. We are already seeing rising demand for AI engineers, data scientists and AI-product specialists, but also for data-savvy professionals across finance, healthcare, logistics and education. These new roles tend to offer higher wages, but only for workers who can supply the right mix of technical and complementary human skills.
Yes, indeed, the AI job transformation is already here and we are in the midst of a major disruption. Yet, the impact will not be uniform across all professions, nor is it, and will it, affect our society and economy evenly. For now, AI disruption is strongest amongst white-collared workers, especially entry-level roles. Unlike previous technological disruptions that have historically affected blue-collared jobs, AI today will most affect cognitive, white-collared roles – a call centre agent, an admin officer or a junior business support executive, whose workday is built around standard processes, routine reports and scripted responses, is in a role where AI can perform almost all core tasks.
In such high exposure, low complementarity white-collar roles, employers can consolidate positions, slow hiring or redesign jobs to ensure that fewer people are expected to do more with AI as a simple justification. If we do not address this, the benefits of AI will end up with only a small group of workers.
Research suggests that productivity and wealth gains could disproportionately accrue to those best positioned to leverage AI capabilities. One documented economic effect of high-skill job creation is increased local service demand. Studies from major tech hubs, including San Francisco, indicate that each high-end job is associated with the creation of approximately four jobs in local service sectors, such as retail and food services.
Even if such spillover effects generate more jobs, the quality and availability of these jobs for vulnerable workers is less certain to me. In Singapore, lower wage and routine-intensive roles are more likely to be held by vulnerable worker groups who may also face greater displacement risk from automation.
International institutions, including the IMF and World Bank, have noted that AI could exacerbate income inequality in the absence of policy intervention. The extent to which spillover effects from AI-driven growth would benefit lower-income workers remains uncertain.
We need Singapore-specific research, modelling these distributional impacts and to make this data publicly available, to inform more targeted policy responses. We must also remember that Singaporeans are already feeling the strain of rising property prices and higher cost for essential services. These pressures are real. They have been building for some time as we are a small, open economy, significantly dependent on capital inflows.
Would AI's effects drive further unequal wealth accumulation? It is, therefore, a fair and pressing question to ask. Could AI-driven economic activity inadvertently add to daily cost pressures?
Beyond broad economic pressures, we must turn toward the human face of this transition. As jobs continue to be reshaped and workers continue to be upscaled, we cannot leave behind those who face systemic barriers as our nation progresses towards an AI-ready future. Amongst them are persons with disabilities, women, lower-income Singaporeans and as well as young graduates.
AI can introduce new forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities. As AI algorithms are often trained via pattern recognition, they arrive at determinations based on common patterns within datasets. Thus, if skilled historical data is being used to train AI for, for example, recruitment processes, AI might reinforce this bias for job applications from persons with disabilities and any other group which historically, is not well represented in this space.
Female workers, too, face a heightened risk of marginalisation from AI. A 2024 IMF report on Singapore's labour market found that women are under-represented in AI-intensive science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) roles, and among workers with AI engineering skills. Women in STEM held 29% of entry-level positions, 24.4% of managerial positions but only 12.12% of C-suite roles.
Altogether, this means that they are less represented in what is regarded as the safe side of AI. They would thus be less well positioned to benefit where AI compliments high-skill work. Additionally, International Labour Organization data, released in March 2026, found that occupations dominated by women are nearly twice as likely to be exposed to GenAI risks compared with male-dominated ones, with even stronger differences presenting when looking at high automation risk.
Taken together, this creates a double disadvantage. Female workers are less likely to gain from AI's benefits, while remaining more vulnerable to displacement. In short, women face higher risk and have fewer opportunities.
For our young graduates, new uncertainty has been introduced by the way AI has been reshaping jobs. The erosion of entry-level jobs has presented a catch-22 dilemma for Generation Zs. While companies are still looking to hire professionals for experienced roles, young graduates have fewer opportunities to gain such experiences as jobs are absorbed by AI.
With more than 20% of graduates unable to secure full-time permanent roles in 2025, a nearly 5% increase from 2023, and over 60% of graduates claiming that the job search has become difficult, it is only natural that young graduates have become more anxious about landing full-time employment.
Adding to this is recent research, which has shown that simply being aware of AI's potential to augment or threaten one's job can increase burnout, mainly by heightening job insecurity and emotional exhaustion amongst workers. While AI is often associated with disruption to white-collar work, vulnerable workers and families face significant risks too.
Unequal access to AI tools and training could entrench existing disadvantages. Those without the resources of home or home environments conducive to learning new skills may find themselves falling further behind. If left unaddressed, then this risks hardening inequality across generations.
Measuring impact on Singapore beyond economic output, what does this all mean for Singapore? Just this past week, we have seen the launch of the Marriage and Parenthood Reset Work Group. What is the effect of AI advances on our birth rate? Economic insecurity has already been cited by young Singaporeans as a reason for delaying or foregoing parenthood, but the barriers go beyond finances. Job uncertainty erodes a sense of stability and confidence in the future, the feeling that one has a firm enough footing to build a family and put down roots. If AI-driven disruption deepens this broader sense of insecurity, we can reasonably expect further downward pressure on our already tragically low total fertility rate.
The Government has to be even more targeted in ensuring that all workers, regardless of their gender, age, occupation, income and accessibility needs, are fully prepared for the disruption caused by AI, to ease financial pressures on vulnerable workers who are made redundant. This will minimise the uncertainty and toll of unemployment on both workers and their families as AI displacement becomes more commonplace.
To ensure our policies are working, we need more public data for us to measure AI-driven disruptions on our labour market. For example, how we measure the success of our AI programmes.
Following up in response to my Parliamentary Question on 24 February this year, I noted that the AI apprenticeship programme is currently assessed through three primary indicators: one, the total number of practitioners trained; two, the percentage of AI Apprenticeship Programme graduates who took up AI engineering related roles, and; three, the completion and supervision of project quality. It is a good start, but they do not tell us the effects of AI programmes and disruptions on different groups of society. These measures focus on throughput rather than equity. We need data on wage trajectories, job quality and retention in AI roles two to three years after the programme is completed. We need more data.
First, the participant data profile should have more details made public. This can include previous occupations, income band before training, age, gender, education and disability status. This allows us to see where participants come from. High exposure, low complementarity roles, or already high complementarity roles. This will inform if vulnerable groups are even putting their feet through the door.
Next, more accurately measuring AI disruption in the wider labour market can come in the form of exposure complementarity mapping, thus understanding whether jobs are high exposure and low complementarity, and to establish a tune framework to track displacement, wage changes and job quality across demographic groups. Such data gives the Government a clearer picture of how AI is affecting different communities, so that support can be directed where it is most needed.
I will now turn to some thoughts on how our youths can address the challenges of AI.
If AI displaces a significant share of entry level roles, young workers may find fewer opportunities to build the foundational experience traditionally needed to progress into senior positions. One of our nation's solutions could be to better encourage and support entrepreneurship amongst youths. This will allow them to also gain valuable skills independently, rather than wait to be picked up to be employed by an established firm.
This approach builds on an already open door. AI has greatly reduced barriers to starting a business by being deployed to build websites, analyse data, run marketing and even automate back-office tasks. We have many schemes for startups, such as grants and boot camps, but do these initiatives adequately provide sustained long-term support across the full lifecycle of a burgeoning firm?
Moreover, our grant architecture remains milestone heavy and programme bound, encouraging compliance over competition. We need a culture and framework that recognise the value of a failed startup, or that support founder-led networks over time.
Drawing on lessons from other entrepreneurial hubs, what are the areas that have inhibited Singapore's ability to establish a more sustainable ecosystem conducive for entrepreneurs?
First, we must continue to build sustained informal networks that made an entrepreneurship culture self-sustaining. Our current networks are often programme based and time limited, skewed towards short-term coaching. Yet research shows that informal mentorships arising from mutual choice and affinity are far more effective than administrative matching. If mentorship is only linked to short-term grants, our youth may miss out on the benefits that accrue from the trust-based guidance that can be seen in, for example, Silicon Valley. In leading entrepreneurial hubs like Silicon Valley and Shenzhen, informal founder networks have been a critical but often overlooked driver of success. They enable knowledge sharing, supply chain connections and a spin-out of new ventures from anchor firms.
Singapore can gain much from this. While we have anchors like Grab and Block 71, the Asian Development Bank has noted that our ecosystem trails others because our collaboration remains policy-driven rather than organically clustered. How can we reduce administrative burden on founders to ensure that they do not become overly occupied with meeting grant milestones instead of establishing the market competitiveness they need to survive AI driven disruption.
One possibility is to limit formal reporting to end of grant rather than more regularly to strike a balance. Singapore must also better leverage our anchor firms. Companies like Grab, Sea and Singtel hold deep reservoirs of technical expertise and industry networks that largely remain locked within the firm.
Could we use targeted tax credits or co-investment matching for peer development programmes to encourage anchor firms to run structured mentorship and spin-out programmes for early-stage founders? This will allow organic networks to form around existing reservoirs of excellence, rather than hope that Government grant cycles will do so.
The private sector must lead, and the Government's role should shift from convener and gatekeeper to catalyst. This is how we can start to grow our entrepreneurial system from within industry.
We must also learn to value failure. Singapore's culture of economic emphasis and social conformity makes us sometimes afraid to fail. A 2018 piece of study by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that Singapore students expressed a greater fear of failure than their peers compared with any other participating country. Yet entrepreneurship means being tolerant of failure. Founders have to make decisions with incomplete information, and meaningful innovation has to be backed up by some freedom to fail. We have to treat failure as a stepping stone rather than a stigma, or we end up stifling the very ecosystem we are trying to build and leave our youths ill-equipped to flourish in an age of disruption.
We can do so by beginning our own transition towards a better space for entrepreneurship, encourage experimentation and normalise entrepreneurial failure as growth and experience.
Failure should be a stepping stone, not a dead end. And we began this transition within schools where we have to move away from perfect scores, where we have entrepreneurial projects in schools which expose students to the inner workings of a startup. We should also showcase failed projects for their bonus.
Singapore's current bankruptcy framework can also be re-examined to better support entrepreneurs. Currently, founders who fail face the same restrictions as any other bankrupt, with travel bans, director disqualification, and no automatic discharge, regardless of whether their failure was the result of genuine risk-taking or financial misconduct. Could we explore a dedicated pathway for bona fide startup failure, one that allows founders to be discharged sooner, resume directorship more quickly, and have their experience recognised as something valuable rather than a liability. It is not to make failure consequence free, but to ensure that the cost of an honest bet gone wrong does not permanently deter our most enterprising young Singaporeans from trying again.
Finally, it is also my hope that we use our experiences navigating the AI transition to play a regional and global role as other economies too attempt to navigate the disruption.
Singapore comes from a place of strength, and we are already intentionally deciding to lead the way when it comes to setting the agenda in global AI governance. Our stewardship role must extend beyond frameworks, and we have to play our part in addressing global imbalances in AI development and use reflected in recent data. World Bank 2025 data show that high income countries account for 87% of notable AI models, 86% of AI startups, and 91% of venture fund capital funding, despite representing just 17% of the global population. There is justifiable concern about how vulnerable groups and the global South are woefully underrepresented in the AI space.
As responsible world citizens, we can do our part to address this. Recently, we have already begun developing AI tools tailored to Southeast Asian languages through Project Sea Lion, recognising that much of the developing world risks being left behind by AI systems built on Western data. We should build on this by championing equitable AI access across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), exporting our governance expertise to nations that lack the capacity to develop their own frameworks and ensuring that the rules governing AI reflect not just the interests of the powerful, but the needs of the many.
This is not merely an abstract foreign policy and ambition. It has direct consequences for jobs here at home. Singapore's standing in the global AI ecosystem, gives us leverage to shape how AI tools are built, deployed and adopted across the region. We should use that leverage intentionally. When our researchers —
Mr Speaker: Ms He, you have a minute left.
Ms He Ting Ru: When our researchers develop AI system that work across Southeast Asian languages, we create tools that can be deployed in our own service sectors, our hospitals, our schools. When our companies lead in AI adoption, we generate demand for new skills, new roles and new industries that our workers can be trained into.
We must ensure Singaporeans are in the room where these technologies are being built and not merely be on the receiving end of decisions made elsewhere. Our global AI leadership is ultimately an investment in ensuring that the answer is the former. This approach also ultimately has the added benefit of creating more jobs and opportunities for Singapore in what would be a true trickle-down effect. I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare I work in a global investment firm working on ecosystem workforce strategies.
In recent weeks, a plane has been circling San Francisco with a banner that reads, \"Stop Hiring Humans.\" The same message appears on billboards and bus shelters across the city, alongside slogans such as \"The Era of AI Employees Is Here.\" The campaign is the work of Artisan, an AI startup. This is not just a marketing stunt. It reflects a fear that the future of work may exclude people rather than empower them.
I rise in support of this Motion because that must not be Singapore’s approach. AI must not be a signal to workers that they are dispensable. In my work in Temasek, I have seen how technology disrupts industries, and I want to lay out my key thesis upfront. To achieve growth without casualties, enterprise AI adoption cannot just be about buying technology. It must follow a deliberate thread: we must first build AI fluency; use that fluency to drive workflow and job redesign; and ensure that this redesign leads to tangible, shared outcomes for our workers.
Let me begin with an important observation. In the Temasek ecosystem, many companies are already investing in AI. Tools are being deployed and pilots are multiplying. But the real constraint we are seeing is not technology, compute, or capital. It is workforce readiness. We are not short of technology. We are short of transformation.
In our AI Fluency workshops with over 20 Temasek portfolio companies, we see clearly that fragmented AI literacy remains a primary bottleneck. We are working closely with Chief Human Resource Officers and Chief Technology Officers to bridge the gap between adoption and actual value creation. Fundamentally, this is a skills-matching problem. Where skill supply lags, opportunity does not disappear. It simply moves elsewhere.
The AI transition we are debating is structural, global and accelerating. Tasks that took weeks now take hours, and soon minutes or seconds. Change no longer moves in a linear way, it moves exponentially. In this context, adoption is no longer optional. In Singapore, while large firms wrestle with legacy systems and heavy compliance, and SMEs face severe constraints in capital and bandwidth, the implication is the same for both: enterprises that do not adopt AI will struggle to remain competitive.
But if AI adoption is necessary, disruption is inevitable. We must be clear about the risks to workers if this transition is not managed carefully. On one hand, as AI lowers the cost of many tasks, demand for those tasks can expand rather than contract. Economists refer to this as the \"Jevons employment effect\", where efficiency leads not to less work, but to more work in new forms. We have seen this before. ATMs reduced routine tasks but expanded banking. Word processors increased output and shifted work to higher-value roles. AI will likely follow the same pattern.
But the practical reality often produces a K-shaped outcome. Experienced, AI-enabled workers capture disproportionate gains, while those without such capabilities, especially entry-level workers, risk falling behind. So, the question is not whether AI creates growth. It is who that growth accrues to. The real risk is not that AI replaces jobs. It is that it replaces opportunity at scale. A worker may remain employed but face slower progression and a quiet erosion of experience. Our task is not to deny disruption. Our task is to govern it.
Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are to govern this disruption effectively, the debate must shift. It is not enough to observe whether firms adopt AI. We must demand accountability for what happens after adoption. The question is simple. Are workers better off after transformation than before it? We must ask: are jobs and workflows being redesigned? Are gains being shared? If AI raises output but weakens livelihoods, that is not transformation. It is exclusion. We must ensure public funds do not subsidise this.
Hence, I ask the Government: can we establish clear conditionalities for our support schemes? If public grants are funding a company’s pivot, should it not be explicitly tied to a national, human-centric scorecard? A scorecard that tracks the number of net new roles created, the scale of workflow redesign, wage improvements, staff retention, and upskilling. If we are serious about no jobless growth, our adoption metrics must move beyond counting jobs to measuring careers.
From our work in AI fluency in Temasek, we know companies are urgently asking for guidance in leadership capability, job redesign, measurement of outcomes, trust and governance. Companies cannot navigate this alone.
This is where our Labour Movement, NTUC, e2i and the unions come into play. We must empower them to provide this guidance, ensuring that union leaders and management sit at the same table, mapping out the enterprises' technology roadmap and the workers' retraining schedules simultaneously. If companies need guidance on job redesign and shared outcomes, our tripartite partners must be right there on the ground with them.
The recently announced Tripartite Jobs Council is a timely step, but it must actively bridge the gap between firm-level transformation and worker-level outcomes. Because the real challenge is not introducing AI into firms, it is integrating workers into that transformation.
This brings us to the central challenge of this transition: AI is not just a technology multiplier; it is a leadership multiplier.
Leaders must have real conviction in the transformational potential of AI and lead by example in using it, guiding its application and bringing their workforce along. AI can write, design and optimise. But it cannot exercise judgment, build trust or carry people through uncertainty. That responsibility remains human.
Mr Speaker, Sir, employers have a critical responsibility, but without the right leadership, the easiest way to adopt AI is to simply cut headcount. We are already seeing this tension play out globally. We have seen Amazon announcing 16,000 job cuts in early 2026 while leaning further into AI for corporate efficiency.
When AI is introduced mainly as a headcount strategy, it breeds fear. When introduced as a capability strategy, it builds trust. Stories of this fear have long played out in our workplace, even among AI-enabled workers.
When generative AI first started trending, some workers proactively explored AI on their own to improve their efficiency at work, but kept it a secret. They worry that if they reveal the source of their newfound productivity, they will eventually be made redundant or be loaded with more work without extra compensation. When trust is absent and gains are not shared, workers hide their capabilities rather than sharing them.
True transformation requires leaders to adopt a long-term perspective. Firms must expect short-term productivity lags as workers transition to new ways of working and they must create space for experimentation. However, we must acknowledge that many businesses struggling with high operating costs in this challenging economy do not have the luxury of time.
I ask the Ministry: how can we better support companies to absorb these short-term lags, ensuring that the cost of time required to retrain workers does not become an excuse for lay-offs?
Mr Speaker, Sir, as employers lead this transition, there is one structural shift we must recognise clearly – before job redesign can happen, we must have workflow redesign.
We ask workers to change, but we leave the system unchanged. AI cuts across functions and domains, reimagining how processes connect and how value is created. That reshaping of the entire process must come before individual roles themselves are redesigned.
However, here lies a significant gap in our current policy approach. Today, much of our national support is heavily focused on individual job redesign. We ask workers to adapt to new job scopes, but legacy company processes are left unchanged.
As a result, AI is often layered onto outdated workflows with silos and fragmented data. Productivity stalls and frustration rises. Workers resist change not because they are stubborn but because it is deeply frustrating to use advanced AI tools within broken workflows.
So, I ask the Government and our tripartite partners: can we expand our support schemes to explicitly look into workflow redesign? How can we provide enterprises with the expertise and funding to reimagine their cross-functional processes first? If we fix the workflow, workers will naturally see the value of the technology, turning inertia into eagerness to adapt.
Mr Speaker, Sir, even with the best workflows, disruption will occur. Some workers will be displaced and some roles will change faster than expected. We often point to existing measures like SkillsFuture and career conversion programmes. But here is a hard truth – if these measures are sufficient, why are our workers still so deeply anxious?
The answer is that AI disruption moves at an unprecedented speed and workers worry our safety nets cannot catch them fast enough.
I ask the Government: how are we rigorously tracking the speed and effectiveness of our existing measures, particularly the financial runway for displaced workers, to guarantee that they remain truly responsive?
For the workers who remain, basic AI capability will no longer be a distinct advantage. It will be the price of staying in the game. The task is to help workers transition from being mere AI users to becoming AI conductors, workers who know how to curate, steer and verify AI outputs.
This brings me to a critical concern regarding our workforce pipeline. If AI automates drafting, summarising and first-pass analysis, what happens to our entry-level jobs? If young graduates cannot get a real first job and the mentorship they need, they will never gain the foundational experience earlier cohorts relied on to grow and we risk losing our future workforce.
I ask the Government: how are we working with employers and industry leaders to protect and redesign entry-level pathways so that our youth can develop the professional judgment required to become the AI conductors of tomorrow?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me return to where I began. In the Temasek ecosystem, we see companies investing in AI, piloting new tools and pushing forward with transformation. But the decisive constraint is not the technology. It is whether the workforce is ready.
I shared this story with chief technology officers across our Temasek companies. A factory invested heavily in new machines. They were faster, smarter and more efficient. But productivity fell, not because the technology failed, but because the people were left behind.
On another line, the company did something different. Instead of replacing workers, they retrained them. Machine operators became data readers. Technicians became problem solvers. What changed was not the equipment. It was the capability and confidence of the people using it. Soon, breakdowns fell. Ideas came from the shop floor. Workers who once feared change began to lead it. The same machines. The same factory. But a very different future.
That is the lesson. Technology may set the pace. But people determine the direction. And in an AI transition, fluency, not just adoption, determines whether that direction is inclusive.
That brings us to the Motion before us. An AI transition with no jobless growth is not just about creating jobs. It is about ensuring that workers advance with technology, not fall behind it. It is about translating productivity into progression. It is about turning innovation into shared outcomes.
If adoption builds capability, then fluency must build advantage. If work is redesigned, then skills must be deepened. If growth is created, then it must be broadly shared.
But this will not happen on its own. It requires coordination. It requires leadership. It requires trust. And this is where Singapore has a unique advantage. Our model of tripartism, where Government, employers and workers move together, gives us the ability not just to react to change, but to shape it. This is our secret weapon.
When firms invest, workers must be equipped. When jobs are redesigned, workers must be involved. When disruption occurs, support must be credible. Because this is not just a technology transition, it is a workforce transition. The establishment of the Tripartite Jobs Council is an important step in ensuring that this alignment happens in practice.
Technology will move. Markets will adapt. But we must be clear about the future we are building. It cannot be one that says, stop having humans. It must be one that says, invest in people. Whether our workers advance is a choice we must make together, deliberately and decisively. Thank you, and I support the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, my contribution in today's debate is straightforward. I argue that if our objective is to protect our workforce from job losses that could result from an economy-wide embrace of AI, then our efforts today should mainly be directed towards policies that promote new hiring rather than those that focus either on reducing displacement or pushing for retraining.
The explanation is simple. The evidence shows that to date, job displacement of current workers due to AI has been modest and localised whereas the hiring slowdown of new workers is already evident and even likely to accelerate.
In principle, the consequences of AI could bite on two ends of the labour market. It could reduce the incentives for firms to hire, thereby lowering the number of total new job openings, or it could raise the frequency of hiring by companies or induce workers to quit.
Hiring slowdown results when AI tools allow a company to cheaply and effectively replace job functions that they previously needed to hire a human worker for. This is especially the case for entry level since the lack of experience among new graduates and the relatively straightforward grunt work new hires are generally tasked to do make this group somewhat less valuable and more replaceable by a machine.
But there are many observers, including Members of this House who have already pointed out, that this is a chicken and egg problem. If we do not absorb new workers into our corporations, we surely cannot expect them to gain the necessary experience and job-specific skills that make them valuable as midcareer professionals.
Job displacement occurs, in contrast, when AI tools reveal that certain roles are no longer needed as they can be well replicated by AI. Tasks that used to be done by a human are replaced and if there is nowhere else in the firm for this person to be reassigned to or if the individual turns out to be too costly, then they are let go.
On the positive side, AI could open up new opportunities for displaced workers to pursue a career elsewhere, either because they gain AI-related skills that make them more valuable in the marketplace or because perhaps they could go into business for themselves.
For now, however, the message from studies worldwide is clear. While there has been little evidence of displacement thus far, there are more ample signs that there has been a decline in hiring. This has been the case for AI-exposed sectors following the advent of generative AI such as ChatGPT and is likely to accelerate as agentic AI matures. Prospects are especially perilous for early-career, entry-level workers. And even when hired, such workers tend to receive lower salaries.
The reasons for this are intuitive. AI mainly substitutes for mechanical, repeatable and well-defined tasks, which are mostly performed by junior employees. Firms still value the maturity and experience of senior employees and by and large would rather skimp on hiring and re-allocate their otherwise loyal staff rather than giving them the boot.
Sir, these trends are also visible in our local labour markets. Thus far, AI is yet to contribute much to job displacement here. MOM's latest labour market report reveals that since 2023, overall retrenchments have remained stable and the unemployment rate of about 2% has not budged much since 2022.
In response to questions about the PMET sector, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Manpower Shawn Huang also pointed out that retrenchments among PMETs in AI-exposed sectors such as finance and infocomm remain low, numbering only 960 in the final quarter of last year. Moreover, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Huang also pointed to the large number of vacancies – around 10 times higher – in these sectors over the same period.
This could be interpreted as a healthy robust labour market for new hires, but I will caution against it. This is because as any jobseeker will tell you – an opening does not a job make. These jobs have to be filled, ideally by Singaporeans who are themselves looking for jobs.
Here is where the picture is less encouraging. The latest graduate employment survey shows a drop in the share of graduates that managed to land a job in almost every single field of study, with around one in every four graduates unable to secure full-time employment.
In response to a Parliamentary Question filed, Minister Desmond Lee pointed to how the decline was due to a post-pandemic hiring surge and that what we are seeing is simply a mean reversion to the early trend.
I am less sanguine. Based on my calculations, what is true that pre-pandemic and permanent employment among graduates averaged around 70% in 2020, it was closer to 85% as recently as a decade ago, which is significantly better.
The youth unemployment rate which is lower in the 2020s then it was in the prior two decades has admittedly, elsewhere in the world, also steadily inched up since 2022, by around a percentage point. And unlike earlier instances when uptakes followed an economic cycle, Singapore's economy is actually currently in expansion.
On the demand side there has also been reports that some employers have been tentative and reluctant to onboard workers, albeit these thankfully appear to be a minority for now. Moreover, this pessimistic picture also mass more troubling pathologies. Many Singaporean workers may have had to contend themselves with opportunities that do not fully employ their skills and talent. Such mismatches are not well captured by the aggregate data.
Think of the graduate with an advanced degree from a local university but nevertheless still felt compelled to work in food delivery, or the student who spent years at a top university abroad but has been repeatedly rejected by employers since coming home. Or the experienced mid-career professional with bills and a young family to support, who floundered unsuccessfully in the job market month after month despite upskilling as advised. I believe others in this House will have seen cases similar to these in our weekly Meet-the-People Sessions. And indeed, two recent studies published by NTUC and MOM, corroborate these examples.
Overqualification is the greatest for those who are early in their careers and the gap between the involuntary and voluntarily underemployed is greatest for those under 30. Coupled with the global climate of economic policy uncertainty, we may be heading toward an era of the so-called \"great hesitation\" in hiring in our local labour markets, similar to what has been observed elsewhere in the world.
If our goal is, as the title of the Motion suggests, to avoid jobless growth, then it follows that we should prioritise policies that target the hiring and of the labour market. Let me offer a few.
First, we can improve the incentives for companies to hire fresh graduates. As I have shared in the long cut for this year's Committee of Supply, this would call for expanding the existing GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) programme to a national level, cross-sectoral national internship initiative. Young workers will be free to apply their SkillsFuture credits toward paid apprenticeship and internship programmes with companies willing to take them on.
Corporations, especially SMEs, should also be able to submit credible proposals for in-house, on-the-job training to MOM, which will then offset the cost of taking on these trainees, drawing on the SkillsFuture enterprise credit and other subsidy schemes already earmarked for businesses. My honourable friend, Gerald Giam, has also proposed an AI mastery fund for this purpose, which is complementary to what I am suggesting here.
Second, such short term, by which I mean six months to a year, apprenticeships and internships should also embed a clear employment pathway, conditional on reasonable performance on the part of the employee, unless a waiver is granted to employers due to changed economic circumstances.
These trainees should be treated as employees under the Employment Act and receive the same legal protections and entitlements, including a minimum period of annual leave, which GRIT trainees currently do not receive.
Third, we can ramp up the delivery of social skills training in communication, empathy, judgement, networking and vision in the final year of their tertiary education prior to workforce entry. Research has shown that AI is the most complementary to workers when the job demands require the fulfilment of not only cognitive tasks, but also in iterative collaboration between humans and AI. But our graduates often load their school time with the pursuit of academic competencies, leaving them woefully under prepared for such interfacing functions.
Fourth, if indeed we stand by our belief that we want our graduates to focus on acquiring competencies rather than certifications, as MOE has made clear in its support for stackable, micro-credentials pathways in our autonomous universities and as corroborated by recent research, then we should put our money where our mouth is and end hiring requirements that insist on a diploma or degree in the public sector if the competency can be demonstrated, otherwise. This can occur with proof of skills via a series of micro credentials, or when candidates pass a live demonstration during the interview stage.
Sir, AI is a general-purpose technology. Like all general-purpose technologies before it, AI will destroy perhaps as many jobs as it creates, but as we confront the bleeding edge of this transition, we must set the stage for those who are most affected by the rollout, which, for now, at least are clearly our young entry level workers.
We need targeted policies that will help sidestep the great hesitation in hiring them. This is how we best ensure that the growth promises of AI are not overshadowed by fears of millions of missing jobs.
Mr Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I used to be a visiting professor of innovation policy at Harvard Kennedy School for 10 years and currently I am still a visiting professor of innovation management at Fudan University.
AI is what we really call disruptive technologies, of which I spend my doctorate on. It is paradigm shift and when you say paradigm shift means it is shifting from one, or completely one industry to other areas that actually will destroy the old ways of working.
Let me just give you an example. Last week, I visited at AI startup in Science Park, so we were talking about collaborations on a couple of projects in media, and I only saw two persons in the room with a capacity of 20 persons. So, I asked the chief executive officer, \"Where are all the staff?\" They say, well, they never come to the office, but they are working. And I say, so when do you see them? They say, well, I saw them last week when the network went down and there is no communications and the broadband is down and they came back to check on their agents.
Are they really working? So, I asked, \"How would you know they are really working?\" The answer: \"Well, actually, they produce the code at any time, all the way, 24/7.\" So, you have got agents, they are working 24/7. So, I said, how do you measure the productivity? And I asked one question, \"How many tasks or jobs have you replaced since, or how many jobs that you have done, the capabilities of people doing the engineers or the coding jobs since last year, one year ago?\" And the answer that came back is five. So, compared with last year and this year, this guy has agents working for him and he performed the task of five persons.
We can look at it from two angles: one is this company is supremely productive; the other thing to look at is, we have five jobs less.
Which one would you choose? Well, if you are the CEO, you know what to choose. If you are the NTUC Secretary-General, I am not so sure.
So, I asked the next questions. He happened to be interviewing potential staff for his expansion, and so I ask him, \"How do you find this guy who is doing his Masters in computing? Is he up to par?\" And the answer that came back is, \"Well, based on what I discussed with him and his answer shows he is two years behind the current technology\".
Two years behind and I was like, wow, so when this guy graduates, maybe next year, what is going to happen to him? Technology is always two years in front of him.
And therefore, that means, do we put these guys into the real environment, which is basically internship, on-the-job attachments, or this person when he graduates, he really needs to speed up on the current competencies where the AI technologies are moving so fast. So, really, this is a tsunami.
Personally, I get myself involved in the small little non-governmental organisations. We are working on one pet project, which is to monitor the senior citizens who are staying alone, so that if anything happens to them, we know. And we actually are using AI, because most of these senior citizens speak dialect dialects, so we are using robot companions, small ones, with the ability to understand dialects and to monitor them. It is very good, because it is very difficult to get caregivers to go around monitoring and visiting these people.
So that is one thing that the AI is really, really useful for. The robotics AIs are really useful so that we can cover things that Singaporeans do not want or are probably not so suitable to do the job.
The other projects that I am working on is imaging, using AI for magnetic resonance imaging. We will talk about it in some other time.
The issue is that the workplace experience is now changing quite a bit. So, do we, or our staff, or our existing people, or PMEs, or workers have the skills for them to carry on in the job. I am glad actually that the Labour Movement has introduced the CTCs. It is a very good mechanism to bring AI into the workplace or working with the enterprise. And I am glad that there are such grants for it.
But the question then is how do we define competencies? Some Members talked about the workflow redesign, process redesign – but how do we know that at the end they are competent? Where are the competencies level?
At the workplace, so I think the new agency, SWDA, should be able to work together with the Labour Movement to define the competencies.
But what else can we do with these competencies? Is it fixed to workplaces: one workplace, one company? Or is it portable?
So, maybe we can consider involving the professional institutions, so that for each level or each competency level, whether it is stackable, micro-credentials, they are all certified and recognised by the industry. And therefore, it is portable for this person throughout his careers.
AI is here to stay. Like most workers, initially, I was, I would not say sceptical, but unwilling to change my style. But now, I think I have got no choice. So, for the past one year, I have been working on it. Even my wife has to use AI to generate videos and pictures, although she is an artist, she likes to draw – but it has become part of her life.
It is a tsunami of change and I support the Motion. As I have previously done in my previous voluntary life as a council member of Institutions of Engineer, Singapore, I am the one who actually proposed working with the Labour Movement to set up the Young Engineers Leadership Programme, including the advanced and the global. And I believe that the engineering institutions and the professional institutions could work with the labour unions to certify all such programmes for career pathways for the workers.
Mr Speaker: Ms Eileen Chong.
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I agree with many of the points raised in the Motion, including the commitment to ensure that no worker is left behind during the AI transition.
However, to realise this vision, we also need to share the gains from adopting AI and ensure that future workers can continue to remain competitive and stay ahead of the curve. At present, when technology is adopted to improve productivity, it is often the employer who benefits. I propose upgrading the Flexible Work Arrangement Guidelines so they are given legislative force, which ensures that employees too, can enjoy AI productivity gains.
When AI improves productivity and work efficiency, we should encourage workers to use the time freed up to be with their families, to rest, to participate in activities and to build relationships with others.
Additionally, the workers of tomorrow – who are the children in our schools today – are also already beginning to encounter AI in the classrooms. Some parents have raised concerns about whether introducing AI to children at Primary 4 might be too early. Neuroscientists have also pointed out that premature or excessive use of AI and technology may make learning too easy, thereby depriving children of the opportunity to develop deep learning capabilities.
Children in their formative years should be learning how to think, ask questions and making judgements. I therefore call on the Government to track and regularly report on the impact that AI adoption in our schools has on the cognitive development of students across different age groups.
In the AI era, independent thinking and judgement are the very skills that AI cannot replace. These are what we should be imparting to the next generation so that they remain competitive and resilient, no matter how the world changes.
(In English): Mr Speaker, I share the values outlined in the Motion that growth must be inclusive, that every worker matters and that no one should be left behind in the AI transition. Ensuring that no one is left behind involves more than just ensuring job full growth. It requires a commitment to sharing the rewards of AI driven productivity. It also requires that we ensure that future generations of workers can thrive in an era defined by AI and possibly other technologies have that have not yet been invented.
Mr Speaker, much of the discourse about AI driven economic transition has been focused on the need for workers to upskill and remain relevant. While these efforts are essential, they do not answer another equally important question. How do we ensure that the equitable distribution of the AI productivity dividend?
Presently, employers are the default beneficiaries. They benefit from either more output from the same headcount or the same output from a lower headcount. Such productivity gains do not automatically become employee gains. Without deliberate policy design, they tend to remain exclusively employer gains.
One way to share the AI productivity dividend with workers could be through time. During the MOM Committee of Supply debate in March, I made a case for flexible work arrangements to be given legislative force. The right to request flexible work is not the same as the right to have it. We should not rely on guidelines that place the burden of action on the employee who can least afford to do so.
I would like to reiterate the call for flexible work legislation today. It has become more salient as we discuss how the AI transition can benefit Singaporeans.
As AI generates real productivity gains, the question of whether Singaporean workers will share in these gains as time regained, not just as higher output, is one which the market will not answer on its own. It must be designed for.
What does more time mean in practice? It means the parents who can be present and do more than just paying for tuition classes. It means fewer caregivers having to choose between a job and a family member who needs them. It also means rest, real rest in a country where 61% of employees feel exhausted and 39% of workers dread going to work. These are not soft outcomes. There are conditions under which human capabilities are replenished and sustained.
Will the Government and tripartite movement commit to prioritising worker well-being alongside employer gains and economic growth as it shapes AI era policy? If so, I urge the Government to begin by giving legislative teeth to flexible work arrangements.
As AI makes company more productive, workers should have a meaningful and enforceable claim on the time that AI frees up. Time to rest and to pursue the kind of human connection that AI cannot replicate, and that our fertility rate is telling us we are running short of.
Mr Speaker, I now want to turn to a group of Singaporeans who matter most to our long term success. If we say that every worker matters, then we must look at the workers who are not yet in the workforce. And I am talking about our children who are in today's classrooms and some of them in the aisle above.
Right now, our 10-year-olds in Primary 4 are being introduced to AI tools. While there is, of course, teacher supervision and guardrails in place, we should also be asking a more fundamental question. Is this early exposure building their capability and ability to thrive in an AI world, or is it building an early dependence on AI-powered tools? Some parents are already asking. Is Primary 4 too early? What are the real gains? And more importantly, what are the trade-offs?
These are not just parental anxieties. There are also serious questions being asked by neuroscientists. In his book, \"The Digital Delusion\", neuroscientist Dr Jared Horvath makes a point that should give us pause. When technology makes thinking too easy, the depth of learning disappears. AI is the ultimate offloading tool. It reads, writes and calculates with minimal user input. But our children are not yet experts looking to offload and increase productivity. They are learners and learning requires struggle. It requires the cognitive friction that AI is designed to remove.
If our children start to offload their thinking at age 10, they do not develop the mental muscles needed to spot errors, ask meaningful questions, or form independent views. What we call AI-enabled personalised learning, then risks becoming customised comfort. It feels like progress because it is frictionless, but it may be short circuiting the cognitive development we are trying to support.
This brings me to a concern that I raised earlier today, the equity paradox in AI use.
I appreciate Minister Desmond Lee's point about how MOE actively engages parents through Parents Gateway and share guidance on how they can better support their children at home. But not every child in Singapore has a parent at home who is digitally engaged, has the time to act on that guidance and is equipped to scaffold their children's learning beyond what happens in a classroom. Children from less privileged backgrounds with less access to parental guidance and fewer non screen enrichment activities may end up leaning on AI more heavily, and not less.
For a child who comes home to an overstretched household where there is no one to redirect, question or supervise, AI will always produce an answer, always reduce the friction, and always make the thinking easier. That is not empowerment. If AI dependency erodes cognitive development that it is meant to supplement, then the children most at risk are the ones that we are trying our hardest to support.
Mr Speaker, my colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, noted during the recent Budget debate that the gap between stronger and weaker university students is no longer about what they submit in written assignment, but about their willingness to question and think beyond the script. These abilities are built or not built over years. If we displace that effort at age 10, our children cannot simply download it at university. And if the children who are doing the most unsupervised AI offloading are those who already have less of these abilities, then we are not closing the gap. We are widening it earlier.
A global study published this January by the Brookings Institution found that the biggest risk of AI in education is the displacement of effortful thinking during crucial development years. Interestingly, 65% of the students surveyed in this study cited the undermining of cognitive development as the top risk of the use of AI. The children themselves can feel the difference.
Mr Speaker, I am not suggesting that we do not use AI tools in school. I am suggesting that we follow the evidence, not the hype. Generative AI has been public for barely four years. We do not yet have long-term data on how it affects a child's brain. We should not let the speed of a technology cycle outpace the care that our children deserve.
I also appreciate the Minister's update this morning that the Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study (SG LEADS) by A*STAR will expand to collect data that will help us understand Singapore children's AI usage patterns and how AI usage affects their learning and well-being outcomes. I hope this will also include the impact of using AI tools in education on our children's cognitive development, including their effect on their executive function and skills like critical thinking, reading comprehension and capacity for sustained independent effort. We must ensure that we are preparing our children for a world we cannot predict by giving them the one tool that will always be relevant, a strong and independent mind.
This Motion rightly calls for Singapore's approach to AI enabled growth to be anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all. I agree. And this is why I spoke today about two critical things that the AI transition is challenging us to protect: time and mind.
For the workers of today, we should legislate the right to flexible work so that productivity gains are reclaimed as time for rest, care and connection. And for our children, the workers of the future, we must protect the cognitive friction necessary for learning, ensuring that we are cultivating independent minds that can solve a hard problem without reaching for a digital crutch. The AI transition is not just an economic event. It is perhaps the most significant opportunity in a generation for us to ask what kind of society we will build with the time and capability that technology returns to us? Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support this Motion. AI is already reshaping our economy. It is improving productivity, enabling new business models, and strengthening our global competitiveness. For Singapore, this is an important opportunity. But alongside these benefits, there is also a real concern – how do we ensure our workers are not displaced faster than they can adapt?
Over the course of human history, economic growth has been corelated with the creation of new jobs. When countries moved through industrialisation for example, as industries opened, new jobs were created for people all around. Of course, economic growth can also come not just from increases in labour, but also increases in productivity, and this is also to be welcome because it creates higher paying jobs for those who are working. Singapore has benefited from both of these trends.
Against this backdrop, the conceptual concern with AI is a simple one: will it increase productivity so much that significantly fewer jobs will be needed? The implication for this is that the fewer people who have jobs or alternatively, those that control capital, will get all the benefits from the higher productivity while a large group of people will lose jobs. Essentially, the winners will take a lot more and there will be a larger number of losers.
If we look at developments in other countries, we see that governments are beginning to respond. They do so not by stopping technological change, but by introducing measured safeguards to ensure that workers are treated fairly as the adoption of AI increases.
One area I wish to discuss is the use of AI in the job selection process itself. For instance, in the European Union, the recently adopted Artificial Intelligence Act recognises that AI systems used in employment, such as those involved in hiring, evaluation, and performance monitoring, can significantly affect workers' livelihoods. These systems are therefore classified as \"high risk\", and are subject to requirements such as bias testing, transparency disclosures and human oversight.
This complements Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation, under which individuals have the right not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing where such decisions produce legal effects concerning him or her or significantly affect him or her. In an employment context, this means that important decisions, such as hiring or dismissal, cannot be made purely by algorithms without meaningful human involvement.
In New York City, the Automated Employment Decision Tools Law requires that AI systems used in hiring or promotion undergo regular bias audits, and that applicants are informed when such tools are being used.
While these are not laws which directly prevent job loss, they do ensure that decisions affecting employment are not made with reliance on AI in an opaque or unaccountable manner. They also promote fairness and help guard against unintended discrimination in automated decision-making.
Meanwhile, in countries such as Germany and France, labour laws require employers to follow structured processes before layoffs, including consulting employee representatives, providing advance notice, and making efforts to retrain or redeploy workers.
Our NTUC is engaged in similar activities with our employers here. These requirements may not be specific to AI, but they help ensure that transitions are managed in a structured and responsible manner.
Mr Speaker, these examples suggest that instead of blocking technological change, governments recognise that legislation can provide guardrails and ensure that as companies adopt AI, they do so in a way which takes into account the impact on workers. This is particularly important in maintaining trust between employers and workers. If workers feel that decisions are being made transparently and with safeguards in place, they are more likely to support rather than resist the adoption of new technologies.
For Singapore, we can consider whether there should be clearer expectations around human oversight in employment decisions involving AI. While many employers already adopt such practices, formalising this principle can help ensure consistency across sectors. We can also explore whether workers should have a clearer right to transparency, including the right to know when AI systems are being used to assess their performance or influence decisions about their employment.
In addition, it is worth considering whether we should strengthen expectations around responsible workforce transitions. When major technological changes significantly affect jobs, employers can be encouraged to provide structured support such as retraining opportunities or redeployment pathways.
Ultimately, it is important to recognise that legislation alone is insufficient and must be complemented by strong institutions, proactive employers and workers who are willing to adapt and learn. Our goal should be to maintain a system where businesses remain innovative and competitive, workers feel secure and supported, and opportunities continue to expand over time.
This leads me to my second point – what we can do for jobs which are most likely to be affected by AI. AI is particularly effective at performing routine and rules-based tasks. As a result, roles in areas such as administrative work and those involving entry-level analysis are more exposed to displacement.
However, the issue is not simply that these jobs may disappear. More importantly, these roles often serve as entry points into the workforce, providing workers with the experience and skills needed to progress. If such opportunities are reduced, workers may find it harder to build careers over time.
In this sense, the risk is not only displacement, but also the gradual erosion of career pathways. Over time, this could lead to a situation where it becomes increasingly difficult for individuals to move from entry-level positions into more skilled and higher-paying roles.
Therefore, beyond retraining in a general sense, our focus should also be on facilitating practical transitions. Workers should be supported in moving into adjacent roles where their existing skills can still be applied and built upon. This makes transitions more feasible, particularly for mid-career workers.
At the same time, companies can be encouraged to redesign jobs so that AI complements rather than replaces human workers. For example, while routine tasks can be automated, human roles requiring judgement, communication and problem-solving can and should be retained and enhanced. This way, AI becomes a tool which increases productivity rather than a substitute for labour.
In practical terms, employers adopting AI can be encouraged to identify adjacent roles for affected workers early on and to provide structured pathways for redeployment into these roles. This may include short, focused training modules or job redesign which allow workers to gradually build new competencies.
Such measures help ensure that workers are not abruptly displaced, but are instead guided through a managed transition where their skills and roles within their organisations are preserved. The unions, the Government and employers can work together on a framework for this.
In relation to the creative industries, including music, writing and acting, we should consider if legislation or further protection is needed in relation to copyrighted material being used to train AI and whether remedies for this should be purely private or whether there is scope for the Government to provide a framework for such materials to be protected. This may include the right to one's image and voice. If left purely to private law, only the well resourced would be able to take up the matter, whereas if there is a framework for this, individual artistes, writers and others might be able to benefit from such protection.
Singapore has navigated many economic transitions successfully over the years. Each time, we have combined openness to change with a commitment to social mobility and shared progress.
The transition to an AI-driven economy will be another such test. It will require us to strike a careful balance between innovation and protection. If we approach this thoughtfully, we can ensure that AI becomes a source of opportunity and that growth remains inclusive. I support this Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, today's Motion rightly recognises the transformative power of artificial intelligence and affirms that AI-enabled economic growth must remain inclusive.
My speech consists of three broad points.
First, we must protect the economic positions of workers and prevent the economic fruits of AI from accruing solely to those who own the AI models or produce the hardware powering AI.
Second, we must ensure that AI-resilient employment pathways remain viable for Singaporeans.
Third and most importantly, we must hold firm to the idea that technology should serve humanity and not the other way around, because ultimately, the goal is not just growth without joblessness. It is growth without losing who we are as humans and as Singaporeans.
Sir, the second limb of the Motion Statement calls upon the House to emphasise that Singapore's approach to AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all while the fourth limb asks the House to affirm that economic progress must remain inclusive and that Singapore must not have jobless growth.
These are extremely important goals, because if the rise of AI is not managed properly, it could represent not just technological disruption but a recalibration of power between labour and capital. For example, last month, Meta announced that the keystrokes and workflows of every one of its employees in the US will be recorded. Screenshots will be taken occasionally throughout the workday. All this data will form datasets used to train AI systems that could one day replace these employees. Other companies could follow suit soon.
While this is being done in the US, we in Singapore should ask whether companies such as Meta should be allowed to harvest employee data in this way without any clear safeguards. Should there not be stronger protections about how such data is collected and used? Should workers not have a stake in the value that is created in their own data?
If we fail to address these questions, we risk sleepwalking into a future where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few technology giants who increasingly use AI to take over work previously done by their human employees. These firms will continue to be the engine of economic growth, investing in larger and larger data centres and more powerful semiconductor chips that continue to generate gross domestic product (GDP) growth.
As a country, Singapore may benefit through our shareholdings in and partnerships with these tech companies. However, we must ensure that these benefits, which primarily accrue to the capital owners, do not come at the expense of the labour force. These developments pose a real risk that workers who are replaced may see their economic power steadily eroded, with a larger number of workers having to chase after a smaller pool of lower-paying jobs.
I do not mean to be alarmist in suggesting that if unchecked, what could emerge is a form of digital serfdom, a system where workers like serfs of old are not bound by land or feudal lords but by algorithms.
We are already seeing the beginnings of this future play out in real time. Already, platform workers work in service to black box algorithms that have a great deal of control over their earnings and how many hours they work. As AI advances, many cognitive and white-collar jobs will become increasingly automated and possibly, under the control of algorithms. Roles once considered secure may no longer be so.
As such, we need to strengthen frameworks for worker protection in areas such as retention benefits and the rights of workers over data they create at the workplace. AI-enabled growth must not come at the cost of workers and a further tilting of the balance of economic power towards capital owners.
Sir, the third limb of the Motion asks the House to equip and support workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities and advance together. Even as AI threatens to automate and replacement many existing roles, there remain many forms of labour that are difficult to automate using AI.
For example, plumbers, electricians, air-conditioning technicians, phlebotomists and other skilled trades have been assessed to be much less likely to be replaced by AI. These jobs are essential pillars of a functioning society. Yet for too long, we in Singapore have undervalued these roles, both economically and socially. If we are serious about ensuring that growth remains inclusive, we must correct this imbalance. In many other first world societies, the job of a plumber, garbage collector or an air-conditioning technician pay high enough to allow a middle-class lifestyle. This is not the case in Singapore.
We have made a policy choice to fill these roles with lower-paid foreign workers while our local workers are channelled into high-paying white-collar jobs. While this has worked well for us for decades, this may no longer be sustainable as generative AI threatens to reduce the number of well-paying white-collar cognitive roles.
We must therefore raise wages and improve career pathways in blue-collar sectors that are currently less attractive and yet also less vulnerable to displacement by AI. We must elevate their status not just through policy, but through culture and education so that Singaporeans will no longer see such jobs as undesirable.
This may require difficult trade-offs. For example, should we recalibrate our policies in certain sectors to ensure that wages for local skilled trades rise meaningfully and attract more Singaporeans to fill these roles?
At the same time, we must make better use of our strong vocational institutions. Our ITEs and polytechnics should guide more students towards specialised high-value trades. In an AI-driven future, the dignity of work must not be tied solely to whether a job is white-collar or high tech. We must expand the range of jobs that Singaporeans considered attractive and meaningful.
Mr Speaker, AI will undeniably determine the future of our economy, our society and our lives. But we should not allow AI to come to define us as humans, as citizens and as Singaporeans. I say this because the question before us is not merely whether AI will create or destroy jobs. The deeper question is this – what kind of society and what kind of human beings will we become in an age shaped by AI? Because Sir, if we are not careful, we may succeed economically, yet diminish ourselves in more fundamental ways.
For example, AI has created a world where knowledge is no longer scarce. Texts can be summarised, essays can be written and equations can be solved in seconds. I spoke before about my own experience as an undergraduate struggling through dense text. It was slow, often frustrating work, but it was through that struggle that I learned how to think, how to question and how to make sense of the world.
Today, however, the effort required to complete any cognitive activity has collapsed to an extent far greater than when the calculator replaced the abacus or the typewriter replaced the pen. In encouraging our students to leverage AI, how can we ensure that they can continue to learn how to grapple with ideas, how to formulate arguments, how to problem solve and how to cultivate intellectual independence?
Sir, I reiterate my caution – that Singapore must become an AI-resilient society and not an AI-reliant one. By constantly outsourcing our tasks to AI, we may erode or undermine our capacity for creativity, imagination, judgement and even empathy, or let these practical skills atrophy from lack of use.
The danger here is the temptation to use AI as a shortcut for thinking through and solving problems. On the one end, there are those who regard AI as a kind of second brain, outsourcing memory, decision-making and even aspects of judgement to ChatGPT or Claude.
It is true that AI tools can sharpen our thinking and serve as intellectual aids. However, in creating a layer of artificial mediation between us and the world, I am concerned that AI would dull our capacity to make sense of the world. By making sense of the world, I mean the ability to interpret, comprehend and coherently perceive the world around us on our own terms, through our own cognitive efforts. And over time, this would involve reflective trial and error, balancing our considered interpretations and judgements of the world with how the world comes to bear upon us.
Interpretation and judgement are practical skills that must be honed through constant and regular use. And we develop these skills by exercising, testing and challenging them. Making judgements about the world and what should be done is a distinctively human task that should not be easily surrendered.
I am not against the idea of a second brain. My worry is more specific – that the reliance on a second brain, if left unchecked, will weaken the equity and reflexes of the first brain.
On the other end, we see people forming emotional attachments with AI companions. These are relationships that stimulate empathy but do not truly reciprocate it. It demonstrates the real risk that people can lose sight of human relations in the real world. If people see these AI companions as a comforting shortcut to finding companionship in contrast to the hard work of developing friendships with others around us, we may see a further impoverishment of our social networks.
In both cases, the danger is the same. We begin to substitute authentic human experience, sense-making and judgement with artificial approximations. And when that happens, we may gradually lose our ability to navigate the world with clarity on our own terms. Mr Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): Sir, a final point. There is a traditional Malay art form that is close to my heart: the pantun – a poetic form with its own specific rules. Made up of four lines, the pantun has a specific metre and rhyme scheme. Its imagery is typically drawn from nature and scenes of everyday life, to communicate important social values and advice.
A pantun that does not follow these structures and conventions is usually not regarded as a good pantun, if it may be called one at all. Many pantuns are still known among Malays by heart, passed down orally through generations. In short, the pantun embodies a tradition – connecting the Malays today to our forefathers before.
Hence, I want to ask: do we lose something valuable if we teach students to use AI to generate pantuns, rather than discovering the fun of experimenting with the lines themselves? Does the skill of using AI to generate pantuns necessarily translate into the craft of writing a good pantun, or even the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate the art form? And what is the long-term impact to the Malay language, culture and tradition when a cultural motif is reduced to an AI output?
(In English): Sir, a final point. There is a traditional Malay art form that is close to my heart – the pantun. This is a poetic form with its own specific rules. Made up of four lines, a pantun has a specific meter and rhyme scheme. Imagery is usually drawn from nature and scenes of everyday life, to communicate important social values and advice. A pantun that does not follow these structures and conventions is usually not regarded as a good pantun, if it may be called one at all.
Many pantuns are still known among Malays by heart, passed down orally through generations. In short, the pantun embodies a tradition, connecting the Malays today to our forefathers before. Hence, I want to ask: do we lose something valuable if we teach students to use AI to generate pantuns rather than the fun of experimenting with the lines themselves?
More importantly, does the skill of using AI to generate pantuns necessarily translate into the craft of writing a good pantun or even the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate the art form? And what is the long-term impact to the Malay language, culture, and tradition when a cultural motif is reduced to an AI output?
Sir, I am not suggesting that we return to a time before AI use. We have to adapt. But we need discernment. We must be clear-sighted about what AI can and cannot offer, and always ask what is the purpose AI is serving and whether it is fit for that purpose? We must avoid being boxed in into an AI-centric gaze in which we are left with a narrow and artificially mediated understanding of reality and an impoverished capacity to make sense of and relate to the world and those around us. Sir, let me close my speech with a pantun.
(In Malay): When delivering a pantun in Parliament;
It is best not to use AI;
The Malays are cultured and courteous;
The poet's inspiration will not be abandoned.
(In English): When delivering a pantun in Parliament, it is best not to use AI. The Malays are cultured and courteous, the poets' inspiration will not be abandoned.
Mr Speaker: Order, we have been in the Chambers for close to five hours. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.10 pm. Order, order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.51 pm until 4.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]
(Motion)
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a director of a company that makes AI-enabled applications and consults on the same.
In the three and a half years since ChatGPT's release, I have had two moments of awe and dread. The first was in November 2022. GPT-3.5 could iterate on software features, generate ideas, write code. Five years ago, it was received wisdom that everyone should learn to code. Today, coding ability is cheap and abundant. Computer science graduates, even from top schools, like Stanford, are finding it difficult to find jobs. GPT-2 was a toy that generated amusing limericks. Three years later, its successors have made an entire profession's scarcity disappear. We used to talk about prompt engineering in 2023 and 2024. That talk has died down too.
The second was in November 2025, when Anthropic released Claude Code, a reliable AI agent paired with a frontier model. I could leave the computer running overnight and there would be work done at the end. It is a different experience from chatting with a chatbot. The chatbot engages you in back and forth, refining your ideas, indulging your whims, red teaming your speeches. The agent, unless it needs clarifications, just goes and does things. It may be off by a bit, but you give your input and it takes another five or 50 minutes before it comes back with the problem solved. A very smart junior colleague.
Now we have AI agents, Claude Code, Codex tools, that have made me, if I may borrow Internet lingo, Claude-pilled. I use Claude Code for my own work. I can give it the most wishy-washy specifications, and it returns the most wonderful data workflow or website layout. For someone who could never build a pretty website to save his life, it is liberating.
There is a spirit of play in working with these tools that every Singaporean deserves to experience. It is an exhausting world it heralds – software engineers pulling 80-hour weeks while running multiple AI agents overnight so that someone, human or machine, is always on the clock. Jobseekers, especially recent graduates in white-collar work, applying to hundreds of jobs without a single interview. Job portals, like LinkedIn, have become memory holes for resumes, where the lived experience is like shooting an application into the void.
The pace of change humbles us all. I am suspicious of any assertion that starts with \"AI will never\", because the shelf life of those predictions tend to be measured in months. What concerns me is not the destination, but who gets left behind on the way there and whether we are building the institutions to ensure no one does.
I have three propositions. First, that access to premium AI, especially AI agents, must be universal, not gated by course enrolment or union membership. Second, that we must treat the handful of companies building frontier AI with the same strategic seriousness we bring to bilateral relations with countries, because their decisions on pricing, access and deployment now shape our productivity frontier as directly as any trade agreement. Third, that we must buy time for workers by upgrading our retrenchment framework for AI-speed displacement.
Sir, I believe access to premium AI, especially AI agents, is a right, not a privilege. Intelligence, in the sense of uplift, should not stratify according to wealth. I spend a couple of hundred dollars a month on these tools because they are game changing. But for those who cannot afford to, it bakes in inequality from the start. Does it simply disqualify them from the off?
The Government has partially adopted the 2024 suggestions of my colleague Gerald Giam to provide universal premium AI model access. The SkillsFuture Premium AI Access Scheme, six months of free tools for Singaporeans who enrol in selected courses, is a step in the right direction. Likewise, NTUC's subsidies covering 21 AI tools. These are good starts, but they are unnecessarily gated behind course enrolment and union membership. And critically, they likely will not cover AI agents – the tier where the real productivity gap will open.
Why does this matter? AI agents are expensive to run. We may hope agent access follows the cost curve of Internet bandwidth or compute, but there is no necessary reason it should. It is an empirical question.
Anthropic's CEO said in January that 80% of its revenue comes from enterprise customers, driven by API calls on a pay-per-token model. If agents remain enterprise-grade by default, then individual citizens – jobseekers, freelancers, retirees – are locked out of the tier where the real productivity gains are being made.
Three possible directions.
One, negotiate sovereign access – a bulk licensing agreement with frontier AI providers for volume-discounted AI agent access for all citizens.
Two, if agent access is employer-provisioned in the market, make it universally so, require companies above a certain size to provide agent-grade AI to all employees, the same way we require CPF.
Three, if frontier agents remain too costly, identify a minimal, viable agentic tier and fund that universally.
Will the Government make premium AI access a universal entitlement, rather than gate it behind course completion or union membership?
Sir, I learnt recently that even AI engineers at the global top two or three frontier AI labs are worried about falling behind because they cannot use Claude Code. And having just returned from China, I learned first-hand that one cannot use Claude Code there at all. Anthropic blocks API calls from mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau entirely.
If even engineers building frontier AI are desperate for access to one another's tools and if entire countries can be locked out, then access is not a convenience. It is a strategic capability. And the question for our country is whether we will secure it or whether we will be price-takers forever.
There are, perhaps, three to five companies in the world whose decisions on pricing, access and deployment will shape every economy's AI trajectory. When Anthropic or OpenAI decides what to charge for agent-tier access or whom to serve, that decision shapes Singapore's productivity frontier as directly as any trade agreement.
We should therefore treat this class of companies – frontier AI firms that have crossed a threshold of systemic importance – with the same strategic seriousness that we bring to bilateral relations with countries. Not because they are sovereign, they lack the durability and legitimacy of states and remain subject to home-state law, but because their decisions carry sovereign-grade consequences for our economy and we should engage them accordingly.
What does that mean in practice? Four things.
First, negotiate access at the sovereign level. In the possible future where frontier AI agent costs go up, not down, Singapore should seek bulk licensing agreements for agent-tier access the same way we negotiate energy supply. This means accepting that frontier AI access may be a permanently higher line item in the national expenditure and procuring it systematically, because the alternative – citizens priced out of the tools that define productivity – is worse.
Second, we trade based on what we have. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has described the AI stack as a five-layer cake: energy, chips, infrastructure, models and applications. In my view, we do not have energy at scale. We do not have frontier model capability. At the application layer, there is little moat outside of the knowledge agglomerations we can build for ourselves. We would be competing with some of the highest cost bases in the world.
But Singapore Inc builds good data centres. And we are among the world's leaders in water reuse and integrated water management, which is a binding constraint on data centre expansion across water-scarce regions in Southeast Asia. If we position ourselves as the infrastructure partner of choice for this region, that is real leverage – something we can bring to the table in exchange for access, for pricing and for presence.
So, when a company like Anthropic or OpenAI approaches us, we should be their preferred regional bilateral partner in rolling out and scaling their data centre buildout regionally, as well as all the infrastructure needed to make these data centres work.
Third, we need to attract real technological presence. We should seek frontier AI companies establishing development offices here – not predominantly sales offices, which was the experience with the FAANG companies in the 2010s. And I would prefer that we be quality-conscious. Most companies that call themselves \"AI companies\" are not frontier AI companies. We need targeted strategy and engagement with frontier AI companies specifically.
Fourth, get Singaporeans inside these labs. Once you are in the frontier AI ecosystem, it becomes much easier to circulate within that group of companies.
I would welcome the Government doing some fact-finding – engaging our local and overseas Singaporeans already in these companies and roles, understanding how they or their colleagues got hired and disseminating that to our students and technical researchers. Right now, anecdotally, half a million to million-US-dollar salaries, excluding equity, in the US for AI researchers are fairly common. So, it is clearly in our interest to figure out how to get more Singaporeans into this tight labour market. What I would really like to see is a Skills Framework for frontier AI lab researcher.
Sir, my last point is about the transition. Let me start with a person. In Hangzhou, a quality assurance supervisor named Zhou joined a tech company in late 2022 at RMB25,000 a month, about S$4,800, reviewing AI model outputs for accuracy and safety. In 2025, his employer decided an AI model could do his job. They offered him a reassignment at roughly 40% less pay. He refused. They terminated him. Zhou went to arbitration and won. The company sued and lost. The company appealed and lost again, at the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court. The ruling was published on 28 April this year, three days before International Workers' Day.
The court's reasoning is worth our attention. The company argued that AI had made Zhou's role obsolete – a \"major change in objective circumstances\", justifying dismissal under China's Labor Contract Law. The court disagreed. AI adoption, it held, is a deliberate business strategy, not an unforeseeable event. A company that chooses to automate cannot unilaterally shift the full cost of that decision onto the worker. The company had not shown the contract was impossible to perform and the reassignment at 40% less pay was not a reasonable alternative. The court added that companies should prioritise retraining workers and helping them transition to higher-level roles.
The principle, that a deliberate business decision should not externalise its full cost onto the worker, deserves serious consideration in Singapore.
If a Singaporean Zhou were retrenched tomorrow under our existing framework, would he win? Our existing Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment (TAMEM) is advisory, not statutory. An employer can lawfully automate a role and terminate the worker without first attempting to redeploy or reskill them. And the public purse, through SkillsFuture and Workforce Singapore, would pick up the cost of that worker's transition. There is no AI-specific notice period. There is no statutory redeployment-first obligation. There is no individual cause of action for the worker to challenge the reason for his or her termination.
The data suggests we are entering the zone where this matters. MOM's own fourth quarter of 2025 Labour Market Report reported about 14,490 retrenchments in 2025, up from about 13,000 the year before. PMET retrenchment incidence reached 10.1 per 1,000 resident employees, above the pre-recessionary norm of 8.0 set during 2015 to 2019. Retrenchments were concentrated in Financial Services, Information and Communications, and Professional Services – the most AI-exposed sectors. Information and Communications employment declined outright in 2025.
The Government announced the Tripartite Jobs Council on 30 April. I, of course, welcome its intent. But it creates no new powers, no new obligations on employers and no new rights for displaced workers. How does the Government intend for this Council to work?
Too often, what workers experience is not a frank conversation about AI-driven restructuring but a Performance Improvement Plan, a process that, in many cases, is a bit of \"wayang\", designed to paper over a predetermined outcome. I foresee that such potential misleading reasons may be given and workers must have the power to be able to challenge this.
I propose three directions.
First, a 90-day mandatory transition notice before AI-driven role elimination.
Second, a re-deployment-first obligation, retraining or reassignment before AI-driven termination. These provisions will slow the velocity of AI disruption. And velocity is what determines whether adjustment is possible.
Third, for workers to be able to substantively challenge the reasons for their termination if they feel they are misleading, so that these AI restructuring protections will be real.
Sir, in closing. Finland gave people unconditional cash as income. They were happier, less stressed – and the great majority still walked into the employment office and asked for work. The American pollster David Shor polled Americans this year: three to one, across every political persuasion, they chose job creation over direct transfers. People, when offered the choice between a universal basic income and employment, invariably choose employment. Not because they are irrational, but because a job is where you are needed, and being needed is not something a universal basic income can replace.
So, no jobless growth – yes. But more than that: no growth where the gains are captured disproportionately by capital and the burden of adjustment falls on labour. Universal access, so intelligence is not rationed by wealth. Strategic engagement, so we are not price-takers in our own future. And a retrenchment framework where the company that decides to automate bears the cost of that decision before the worker does.
I do not think the awe and dread goes away. But in a country that builds for its workers, there is hope for a brighter future. Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sanjeev Tiwari.
Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I start, my greetings to my fellow unionists on both sides of the viewing Chamber. Thank you for the support.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as unionists, our role is not just to support change, but to ensure that the change works for our workers. With all the discussions so far, there is no doubt that AI brings about new opportunities, new tools, new ways of working and the potential for better jobs. For the Labour Movement, an AI transition with no jobless growth must means three things:
First, AI augments workers, it does not replace them wholesale. Two, the productivity gains from AI are reinvested into people, into training, into new industries, into better wages and real growth. Three, no worker is left to navigate this transition alone.
I will speak to each of these in turn. Ensuring productivity gains are shared, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we are not deliberate, the gains from AI will not automatically be shared. They will tend to concentrate in firms with the scale and capability to deploy it. The business case for transformation is compelling, and I support the Government's announced efforts to support enterprises on this to accelerate their AI adoption, so that they can seize new opportunities.
However, I call on businesses seeking to grow their pie, to be laser-focused on job redesign and training to bring their workers along with them. Here, I must appreciate the many hon Members who have supported this call.
Globally, there are warnings that AI could significantly reduce entry-level white-collar roles in the coming years. Closer to home, DBS Bank has announced plans to reduce its contract and temporary staff by around 4,000 across various markets, with AI adoption.
While firms rationalise their workforce sizes and skills mix, we must be clear-minded that not all of such rationalisation may translate into economic growth, that enables our families to thrive, children to flourish and seniors to enjoy their golden years.
Workers are therefore paying attention. They want to know that there are pathways for the gains from AI to benefit workers, and not just management and shareholders. Many workplaces are only at the beginning of figuring out what such pathways need to look like and the pitfalls of failing to provide such pathways.
As mentioned by some Members, recently, courts in China have been active in reviewing cases regarding the dismissal of employees due to AI-related restructuring and choosing to protect labour rights against unfair AI-related layoffs. In one case, the arbitration panel clarified that AI replacement was not valid grounds for dismissal. In another case, a massive role and salary reduction due to AI taking over the work was not considered a reasonable reassignment proposal.
I would like to believe that we will not see such court cases in Singapore, hence companies must be held to a human transition standard. When a company deploys AI that eliminates roles, it should be required to have a transition plan, re-deployment offers, funded retraining, phased timelines.
It must work with the unions through the CTCs or the tripartite frameworks, to ensure this is managed together. We should make this a baseline, and not the exception. The social contract between employer and employee must evolve alongside technology.
Unions should be involved early in the company's transition plans to integrate new technology, implement job redesign and transition workers to handle new work.
In roles that AI is not displacing, AI is increasing the speed, density and complexity of work rather than reducing it. However, I caution that when AI has pushed human boundaries and job redesign is not done adequately in tandem, there is concern that the working environment will be unsustainably, with very high intensity and pressures that can lead to burnout, fatigue and poorer psychosocial health. We already see this in many of today's workplaces, especially for PMEs, where work is increasingly outcome-based and the boundaries between work and personal life are more blurred. AI risks accelerating this trend even further.
The psychosocial implications of AI enablement deserve further attention too. Our time-based employment protections were designed for a less digitally connected era with more fixed working hours and clearer boundaries. Today, these new emerging work patterns suggest there is room to further evolve how we can support workers.
This is where our unions in Singapore play a critical role. Through collective agreements, company-level engagements and multi-company initiatives, such as the Queen Bee partnerships for the NTUC's CTC initiative, unions ensure that productivity gains are translated into better jobs, better wages and most importantly better working conditions, not just higher output and shareholder returns.
In addition, when AI is deployed to support hiring decisions and performance reviews, we must watch for unintended biases and ensure safeguards for the confidentiality of information.
Supporting workers through transitions. Even when gains are shared, there is a harder question we must confront: what happens to workers whose jobs are displaced altogether?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the standard response we often give is to re-skill, adapt, move on.\tThat advice assumes that workers have time, the financial buffer and margin for error to take such risks. However, not all workers have this luxury. I want to be honest, because vague optimism is a luxury that the displaced cannot afford and we must make sure the system watches for this.
This is especially so for our mid-career and older PMEs. They are workers with mortgages and bills to pay, with children still in school and often, elderly parents to take care of. They are not just managing careers. They are carrying entire households.
For them, transitions are high stakes. A failed transition is not just a momentary setback, it can mean prolonged unemployment, income loss and long-term repercussions for their loved ones. And this we are already seeing in the data that is provided by MOM, where there has been a rise in PMET retrenchments compared to the pre-recession norms in 2019, reflecting their greater exposure to sectors undergoing restructuring.
This is where we must go further to support our breadwinners and their families, ensuring that reskilling leads to real job outcomes, that transitions are supported and that pathways to good jobs are clear, especially for those making mid-career shifts.
Instead of welfare, we have workfare. And instead of minimum wages, progressive wage models for key segments of our workforce. For the AI era, we can seek better support for our PME jobseekers. We must continue close monitoring of those who applied for jobseeker support and help them bounce back as soon as possible for the next better job.
Mr Deputy Speaker, giving workers a genuine voice in AI adoption, where the first two pillars of sharing gains and supporting transitions cannot happen without the third. Giving workers a genuine voice in how AI enters their workforces is equally important.
Across advanced economies, one principle is becoming clear, worker voice must be part of how technology reshapes work. In countries, like Belgium, unions and employers are already working together to establish norms around after-hours communication, workload and staffing.
In Singapore, we have a strong foundation in our tripartite model. But as a unionist, I want to make a broader point. If we are serious about ensuring AI is used fairly and that the gains from AI-driven transformation reach workers, then we must welcome unions to represent PMEs who are most vulnerable in the AI era.
PMEs are not a monolithic group – an engineer in aerospace, a financial analyst in banking, a project manager in the tech phase – very different work environments and go through very different impacts of AI transformations. Unions are able to shape workplace norms from ground up, in a targeted manner that recognises diversity. Hence, employers should consider allowing unions to represent PMEs.
The mechanism for having the workers voice at the table is already here, it is the CTC. Through the CTC, unions work directly with management to chart out transformation roadmaps, redesign jobs and upskill workers so that no one is left behind when a company transforms.
Let me just give one example. SBS Transit, with support from the NTWU and the CTC Grant, overhauled its bus maintenance operations using AI. The company implemented AI-powered diagnostic systems for predictive maintenance and instead of cutting jobs, it created a new diagnostic expert career scheme for over 50 workers. Such examples must be amplified and more employers should do such things.
We must continue to leverage this to support workers and enterprises in the AI transition. More recently, NTUC is partnering global technology leaders, like Amazon Web Services and Huawei, to equip 100,000 workers and 100 enterprises with AI skills through the CTC ecosystem.
At the individual level, union members can also tap on union support for up to half of the subscription fees for AI models. This is in addition to the six-month subscription provided through the Government. I hope more leading MNCs can work with our unions to provide more training and uplift the AI skills of workers for our collective future.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I call for Singapore to move forward in these areas.
First, on sharing gains: we must ensure that as enterprises transform with AI, the gains are shared with workers through fair wages, better working conditions and clearer norms around work intensity, including expectations on after working hours communication and responsiveness. They must be calibrated to our Singapore context but clear in intent.
Second, in supporting transitions: we must strengthen how we support workers through the AI transition by ensuring that AI enables enterprises to unlock new growth, that training leads to real job opportunities, that reskilling is twinned with job redesign and that workers are not left to navigate these changes on their own.
Third, giving workers voice: workers and their unions must be engaged early when AI is introduced into workplaces. Not just on hiring and other employment decisions, but on how AI changes job scopes, workflows and performance expectations. This means welcoming unions' ability to represent PMEs, and scaling mechanisms, like the CTC, so that worker voice is embedded in every transformation journey.
An AI transition with no jobless growth is not a slogan. It is a commitment. A commitment that growth should mean something to everyone, not just those at the top of the economic pyramid, but to the nurse, the teacher, the logistics worker, the small business owner, the young person entering the workforce for the very first time.
They are not footnotes in the story of technological progress. They are the reason progress should matter at all. These are not competing priorities; they go hand-in-hand, and we are standing at one of those rare inflection points in history where choices we make today will echo for the next generations.
That is where the tripartite partners must deliver, must make this happen and that is also what I hope this House will help us deliver. I strongly support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as someone working in the aerospace and advanced manufacturing industry, focusing on strategy, digital transformation and artificial intelligence (AI) transformation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand here today with a deep sense of gratitude. I grew up in a very ordinary Singaporean home with working class parents but was given an extraordinary opportunity to build and retrofit advanced factories across the world.
From Germany to the United Kingdom, from North America to Asia, I have had the privilege of building and working on industry 4.0 facilities, cutting edge factories equipped with some of the most sophisticated machines ever created, machines that produce components of such precision that they can only be manufactured in a handful of places in the world and facilities that assembled some of the most advanced engineering systems ever built.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after all these years, one lesson stands above all else.
It is not the machine, nor the technology that determines success. It is the people. I have seen factories with the best technology money can buy struggle because of misalignment, because of distrust, because workers, unions, management and government were not moving in the same direction. And I have seen more modest facilities outperform expectations because everyone was aligned to a common purpose.
That is why this debate matters, because when we talk about transformation, especially one driven by artificial intelligence, we are not just talking about technology. We are talking about people, about workers, about livelihoods, about dignity.
And I want to acknowledge our labour movement, NTUC Secretary-General, Mr Ng Chee Meng, and Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Members of this House, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Saktiandi Supaat, for putting forth this Motion. Their position is not just right. It is also timely.
It is timely because it complements the direction set out by Prime Minister Mr Lawrence Wong in his Budget speech and the May Day Rally, where he spoke about how Singapore must confront the realities of AI and global uncertainty while standing firmly with our workers. And even as technology reshapes our economy, we must not leave our people behind.
Our Labour Movement have echoed this with clarity and conviction. That this transition must drive Singapore's next phase of growth, but it must be anchored in fairness and opportunity for all. We must equip both workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities so that progress is not just created but shared. This is the promise we must make to our next generation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, having worked across different countries, I have encountered many labour movements, many focus on protecting jobs, protecting specific jobs that exist today and often to protect the jobs of today, they invariably have to resist change, even when the tide of change is inevitable. But what we have in Singapore is different.
From my enterprise experience, our tripartite partnership between the NTUC, Singapore National Employees Federation and the Government is unique, so unique that many of my overseas colleagues are genuinely puzzled by how well it works with real positive outcomes for all, because our unions do not just protect jobs, they protect workers.
And our union leaders, like brother Samad from the Union of Power and Gas Employees (UPAGE), brother Fahmi from United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI), brother Poobalan and Goviden from SATS Workers' Union (SATSWU), brother Gabriel from the Amalgamated Union of Statutory Board Employees (AUSBE) and many of our union leaders here, stand with the workers, not just for where they are today, but for where they need to be tomorrow. They focus on keeping workers relevant, employable and ready to take on better opportunities as the economy evolves.
And that, Mr Deputy Speaker, is something that we should never take for granted. Allow me to frame my position on the motion around three key ideas. Transformative power, opportunity for all and jobless growth.
First, on the transformative power of AI. The impact of AI can be understood at three levels, the individual, the enterprise and the industry. And at every level, success depends on how well workers, businesses and Government work together. At the level of the individual, AI is a force multiplier.
It enhances productivity, augment skills and allows each worker to do more, do better and do faster. Many of us are already experiencing this today through tools, like Open AI, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Claude, Gemini and Canva, but this transformation does not happen by chance. Workers must be prepared to learn, adapt and continuously upgrade themselves, and businesses must invest in training, redesign jobs and empower their workforce to use these tools effectively.
And the Government must provide the support structure, strong skills framework, accessible training pathways and broad-based access to technology. That is why I am encouraged by the support the Government is providing to help Singaporeans adopt AI tools, further strengthened by NTUC's initiative to subsidise AI subscription to its members. This is important because AI cannot become a tool only for the privileged few. It must remain accessible to the masses so that every worker has the opportunity to improve productivity, strengthen capabilities and participate meaningfully in Singapore's next phase of growth.
At the level of the enterprise, AI enables better decision, sharper operations and greater efficiency. It turns data into insights and insights into action. But to realise this, companies need the right framework. Workers need the right capabilities, and the Government must provide the right environment to scale transformation responsibly.
At the level of the industry, AI creates entirely new value. It reshapes business model. It transforms competition and unlocks new growth.
In a tight labour market, like Singapore, this enterprise and industry transformation must go hand in hand with deep business process reengineering and meaningful job redesign, as mentioned by a few of the Members here. And speaking from my own experience in the industry, the decision to adopt AI is really just about tax incentives, as characterised by Member Mr Andre Low. The real driver is how we upskill and reskill our workers so that they can take on higher value-added jobs that are increasing in demand and the opportunity cost of not doing so.
The tax incentives help companies invest in the necessary AI tools and infrastructure. But equally important are the schemes that support workers through this transition, whether it is programmes such as the SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant, NTUC CTC Grant and the Union Training Assistance Programme, and Workforce Singapore's Career Conversion Programmes, these initiatives support job redesign, training and even provide wage support while workers undergo upskilling and reskilling.
Very often, AI adoption is not a binary choice between technology and workers. It is about re-engineering business processes so that enterprises can do more with a more capable, more skilled and more productive workforce to take on the challenges of the world.
These values, unlocked by AI, must be shared – shared so that workers are uplifted, businesses grow stronger and society moves forward together. But ultimately, this is a social compact we must continue to uphold between workers, businesses and government, one anchored on fairness, inclusion and shared progress.
Taken together, AI is not just any other technology tool. It is a system-wide transformation. That is why tripartism matters even more in the age of AI. And I am heartened to hear the position of the Labour Movement.
Second, on opportunity for all. Mr Speaker, this transition will create economic growth. But it is also a period of real uncertainty. We must acknowledge these challenges.
Our fresh graduates are feeling it. Many struggle to secure permanent roles. Multiple internships are becoming the norm. At what point do we ask whether this becomes a substitute for proper employment?
As AI reshapes professions from developers to lawyers, how do we ensure there are still meaningful entry points for our young people? If companies begin to question entry-level roles, then we must also ask, who will train the next generation of our workforce?
Our mid-career workers feel this even more deeply. With families and responsibilities, they worry that job transformation may render their experience less relevant. Our blue-collar workers – our technicians, our operators and drivers – are asking hard questions about automation and the future of their jobs.
These fears are real. If left unaddressed, they can divide our society. That is why this opportunity for all cannot be left to market forces alone, a point also raised by Member Poh Li San.
It requires companies and especially middle managers to give fresh graduates a real chance. It requires businesses to redesign jobs and invest honestly in upskilling and reskilling. It requires all of us to work together so that every Singaporean can find their place in this new economy. Only then can we say that this is not just growth, but opportunity for all.
Finally, on jobless growth. In many economies, jobless growth means growth without jobs. But in Singapore, our context is different. We are already near full employment. So, this is not just about creating more jobs. It is about ensuring our people can take on the jobs that are created.
Because growth will come and new roles will emerge. But if our workers are not ready, if skills are not kept in pace, we risk a different kind of jobless growth – not a lack of jobs, but a mismatch between jobs and the skills our workforce has. Avoiding this means focusing on capability, not just capacity.
Businesses must transform jobs, not eliminate them. Workers must continue learning. The Government must support hope with strong systems and pathways.
When we do this well, growth will not leave people behind. It will lift them. My Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the discussion about AI today is no longer something distant from our lives. In Singapore and around the world, one thing is clear – AI brings hope, but also concern.
Within our Malay/Muslim community, these concerns are real. Young people worry about the future of employment and whether opportunities still exist for them. Those in mid-career are anxious about whether their experience and skills remain relevant. And blue-collar workers – including drivers, technicians and general workers – wonder whether their jobs will be replaced by automation.
We must acknowledge these concerns. But at the same time, we cannot view AI only as a threat. We must see it as an opportunity – an opportunity to progress together.
Allow me to touch on three important points in the AI transformation.
First, on building skills to be part of this transformative force. AI will only become a force multiplier if we know how to use it. That is why we must be prepared to continuously upgrade ourselves – to reskill and upskill.
This is where it is important for us to make use of the support available – whether through Workforce Singapore (WSG) programmes, NTUC, or community initiatives, such as M3+. At M3+ Pasir Ris–Changi, for example, we run various programmes to help the community enhance their skills and employment opportunities. These include Women-at-Work to help women return to the workforce, as well as the Career Marketplace held in Pasir Ris to open access to career opportunities and employment networks.
And these efforts do not stop there. Through the HashTech programme in Pasir Ris–Changi, we are beginning to introduce our children to AI, robotics and autonomous systems – including through activities such as Robot Wars. This is not merely an activity. It is an effort to build confidence, exposure and future-ready skills from a young age.
Regarding skills, the fear of AI should not prevent us from learning how to use it wisely. The concern that AI could diminish any deep understanding of the Malay language and culture, as well as other skills, is understandable – if it is used without understanding the basics and its limitations.
Like any other tool, what matters is how we use it. Mastery of and appreciation for the Malay language remains key in understanding its beauty, values, and meaning.
However, if used appropriately, AI can also help preserve our heritage. AI can assist in digitalising old Jawi manuscripts, producing batik designs inspired by traditional Malay motifs and facilitating the learning and translation of the Malay language. Even classic Malay films can be preserved for future generations.
Technology should not erode our identity. If used wisely, AI can help preserve the language, strengthen culture and carry Malay heritage into the future with confidence.
Allow me also to share a pantun.
Golden bananas brought to sea,
One ripens atop a chest,
If AI is used very wisely,
Culture is inherited, in the heart it rests.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at its heart, this is not just an economic transition. This is a test of our social compact, a compact that must now be renewed for a new era where businesses commit to not just profits but to people, where workers commit to not just jobs, but to lifelong growth, and where the Government continues to stand with both, ensuring that no one is left behind.
If we can do this, if we can move forward together with trust, purpose and shared responsibility, this transformation will not divide us. It will make us stronger because when workers, businesses and the Government move together, we do not just adapt to change. We shape it, we benefit from it and we ensure that every Singaporean moves forward together. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Terence Ho.
Assoc Prof Terence Ho (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this timely Motion. I would like to first declare my interest as the executive director of the Institute for Adult Learning at the Singapore University of Social Sciences.
AI, as we know, is a transformative technology. All of us recognise that it will profoundly transform business models across the economy and with it, the content and nature of work.
As a small, open and technologically advanced nation, Singapore must strive to be at the forefront of new technologies, especially one as significant as AI. In addition to being critical for our economy, AI also has considerable potential to help address Singapore's demographic and societal challenges.
But whether we embrace AI or fear it, there is no escaping the impact it will have on our companies and workforce.
I will make four points in my speech.
First, jobless growth is not an option for Singapore as good jobs are integral to inclusive growth and to a fair and vibrant society.
Singapore's social compact is based on self-reliance through work. This means providing for oneself and one's family through employment and income. It has been said before in this House many years ago that \"a job is the best welfare, and full employment is the best protection for the workers of Singapore.\"
In this social contract, the Government's role is to nurture a pro-enterprise business environment conducive to investment and job creation. Any Singaporean who is willing to work hard will have enough to meet his or her housing, healthcare and retirement needs through CPF savings. In practice, significant Government support is given in the form of housing grants, CPF top-ups and healthcare subsidies to support home ownership, retirement adequacy and healthcare assurance.
Singapore's socioeconomic model has evolved over time. We now have more extensive risk pooling through social insurance, complementing individual savings in meeting healthcare and long-term care needs. There is more structural or permanent social support in the form of the Workfare Income Supplement and Silver Support. And the Government, recognising the greater risk of economic and job disruption, has introduced income relief for the involuntarily unemployed through SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support, which has been discussed by Members of this House.
Yet employment and income remain central to Singapore's socioeconomic model and social compact. Recent advances in AI pose a challenge to this model. Globally renowned AI pioneers and industry leaders have warned of the possibility of mass job displacements arising from AI. Predictions of a so-called \"white collar bloodbath\" or a \"jobs apocalypse\" have stoked public fear even as other commentators have asserted that these fears are overwrought.
Transformative technologies in the past have indeed eliminated certain jobs, but they have created new jobs as well so that we are not all without jobs or leading lives of unlimited leisure.
Generative AI has raised particular concern because it can take over jobs and tasks associated with human skill and creativity, including cognitive tasks such as coding and data analysis and creative tasks such as writing and design. These tasks require skills built through years of education and training and are consequently well remunerated. They underpin many of the good jobs that Singaporeans aspire to.
While we should not underestimate the disruption from AI, there is still time to adapt and respond. That is because the extent of job disintermediation or displacement depends on the speed of technology diffusion, which has historically followed an S-curve.
I filed a Parliamentary Question in March asking whether MOM has detected any signs of AI prompting a slowdown in the hiring of fresh graduates. Indeed, many Members of this House have pointed to this concern. The response I received then, which was reaffirmed yesterday as well, was that employment rates for young degree holders has remained broadly stable.
This may be because the adoption of AI is still in its early stages for many companies here. It takes time for more firms to move from viewing AI as a mere project or productivity enhancement tool to fundamentally reorganising work processes around it. As the pace of AI adoption picks up, however, the benefits to firm productivity and profits will grow, but so too will the impact on jobs.
A related concern that many in this House have also discussed is that in the AI age, profits will increasingly accrue to technology companies and those who own shares in these companies, and less to workers as skills become commoditised.
While we must consider the need for greater social support and new channels of redistribution to keep our society inclusive, we must also continue to equip citizens to provide for themselves through good jobs and incomes.
Some of us may remember what President Tharman explained in an interview in 2015 at the St Gallen Symposium. He was describing Singapore’s approach, and I quote: \"It is about keeping alive a culture where I feel proud that I own my home and I earn my own success through my job. I feel proud that I’m raising my family. And keeping that culture going is what keeps a society vibrant.\"
If we look around the world at how economies have developed, it is clear that the key to success is the emergence of a strong middle class enabled by education and job creation. Many countries with large natural resource endowments have not done well, because their focus has been on resource extraction, benefiting the few, rather than education and skills development, which benefit the many. It is also evident that Singapore succeeded precisely because people are our only resource. Singapore's economic development has been a story of inclusive growth – and that is the path we must stay on.
This brings me to my second point, which is that we must support workers to develop deep domain knowledge, learning agility and career resilience. To equip workers for the AI age, training in AI tools is certainly important. Familiarity with AI and understanding of the strengths and limitations of different AI tools comes with frequent use, tinkering and experimentation. But that, as many in this House have also realised, is only part of the answer. After all, AI tools are supposed to become more intuitive and easier to use over time.
The real value that people bring to jobs lies in deep understanding of domains or subject matter, which means all of us still have to put in the hard yards to learn and avoid \"cognitive offloading\" by creating productive friction in the learning process, whether in schools or at the workplace. AI can provide the scaffolding and can help personalise learning, but it must not become a substitute for thinking.
The key skill that many have identified is learning how to learn, being adaptable and resilient to changes. This means getting out of our comfort zones, continuously challenging ourselves, getting used to different tasks and work environments, and working in diverse teams.
This is everybody's responsibility: to take ownership of our own learning and career development, leveraging public funding and resources where available.
Employers too have a responsibility. The Singapore Opportunity Index developed by MOM highlights how employers can create opportunities for their workers such as through recruitment practices, career development pathways and job design. By identifying employers with a good track record of supporting career growth, employers will hopefully be encouraged to invest in their workers and help them chart their careers.
The third point I would like to bring up is that we must not only upskill workers for jobs, but also upgrade jobs for workers. As I mentioned in my speech at MOM’s Committee of Supply debate, there will continue to be strong demand for workers in areas such as healthcare and skilled trades, driven by an ageing population and the relative resilience of these roles to AI displacement.
However, such jobs have difficulty attracting Singaporeans as they are perceived to be less prestigious or rewarding, or perhaps less comfortable compared with white-collar office jobs. But the risk is that Singapore will become increasingly dependent on foreigners to take on essential work even as Singaporeans struggle to find jobs that meet their aspirations.
Today, over 40% of the resident workforce have university degrees. Jobs and occupations that have traditionally been regarded as non-degree jobs therefore have to be redesigned to be suitable for a broad range of workers, including graduates.
Pay is only part of the issue. The jobs have to be redesigned to tap on workers' \"head, heart and hand\" skills, so that they are more engaging for workers and more resilient to AI disruption. This may involve taking on greater professional responsibility, increasing the cognitive, analytical and innovation content of jobs, and creating more opportunities for interpersonal engagement in the jobs. AI tools can in fact support the upgrading of vocational and semi-skilled jobs by augmenting human expertise. By making the whole range of these jobs attractive to Singaporeans, we can avoid structural overqualification or underemployment. Enterprises can do so by centring job design on skills rather than credentials.
My fourth point is that Singapore should build up expertise as a global reference point for skills-first and human-centric job redesign. A skills-first approach means that workers are not pigeonholed by formal qualifications into certain jobs or occupations. Employers recognise that workers, regardless of their starting point, can upskill to meet job requirements. Likewise, the scope of jobs and occupations can expand to make fuller use of workers' skills.
AI is already fractionalising jobs – breaking them down into tasks, some of which are assigned to AI and others to human workers. It is important for job redesign to be human centric so that human workers can still make a valuable contribution, augmented by AI and technology, rather than have processes entirely automated with minimal human involvement.
With agentic AI now able to execute processes that span multiple job roles, it is no longer enough to redesign tasks within a particular job. Instead, organisations must look at redesigning end-to-end work processes. This is a capability that must be embedded within organisations as AI continually reshapes the nature of work. Singapore has the opportunity to set the pace in skills-first employment practices and human-centric job redesign, which will benefit both our firms and workers and is critical for our social compact.
The Institute for Adult Learning’s Centre for Skills-First Practices recently launched a series of skills-first working papers and accompanying roundtable discussions. They attracted much international attention, with participation from experts, policy-makers and industry practitioners around the world.
The impact of AI on work and learning is an issue that all countries and societies are grappling with, and no one has all the answers. It is a fertile area of research as firms and societies seek to adapt and transform. We are in a complex operating environment with no tried-and-tested playbook to fall back on. As one corporate leader I spoke with recently put it, we are learning and adapting mid-flight.
Both learning and job redesign in the age of AI must be iterative and experimental. We need the best minds in Singapore and around the world focused on this. Just as Singapore has world-leading research centres in new technologies like quantum computing, we should build up expertise and experience in adult learning and human-centric job redesign.
Today, there are nodes of excellence across the institutes of higher learning. For instance, the polytechnics and ITE are among the national centres of excellence for workplace learning. The Singapore Management University has set up a Resilient Workforces Institute, while the Singapore Institute of Technology has launched a Skills Assessment and Validation initiative. At the Singapore University of Social Sciences, the Institute for Adult Learning has an Adult Learning Collaboratory and a Centre for Skills-First Practices. With end-to-end expertise from research to translation, the Institute for Adult Learning can serve as a national focal point for adult learning and employability.
Together, we can build up Singapore as a thought leader and living laboratory in the areas of adult learning, career health, human-AI complementarity and skills-first practices. As a global innovator plugged into international networks of cutting-edge research and practice, Singapore can help to shape the future of work in a way that supports both economic growth as well as human flourishing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Motion before us powerfully expresses the commitment of Singapore’s tripartite partners to inclusive development that benefits both workers and firms. This is important because it can no longer be taken for granted that economic growth in the future will be accompanied by full employment and rising incomes. Beyond adapting to AI, our end goal must be to enable every worker to grow, to contribute, and to find meaning in work.
The formation of the National AI Council and the Tripartite Jobs Council underscores this commitment. It is a whole-of-nation effort where everyone has a part to play.
Recently, an American journalist approached me to find out how Singapore is addressing AI and its impact on jobs. She noted that many major US corporations are under pressure to slash headcounts to boost profits. Indeed, there are expectations from shareholders and investors that management will replace workers with AI. When I shared with her that Singapore’s priority is equipping workers to work with and alongside AI, she described the contrast, in her words, as \"stark\" and \"inspiring\".
With our unique tripartite collaboration and the commitment of all partners, I believe that companies and workers can approach the coming AI transition with resolve and confidence.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yeo.
Mr Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir): Mr Deputy Speaker, AI can be scary. I recall the first time at work when I received a draft legal submission from my younger colleague who had some content generated by AI, the alarm bells went off in my mind. \"Is the content reliable? Am I going to be taken to task by the Court for submitting this?\" I was anxious and worried even though the content had been verified and put together with considered \"human\"-generated legal analysis.
This incident made me recollect what happened when I first joined the legal profession. I would find written memos on my desk with instructions on matters from a particular Senior Partner. When I asked once, whether an email might be easier, I was told that an email was not reliable and that with a written memo, it was assured that I would receive the message. We all know better than to argue with our bosses but eventually, the written memos did move onto become emails, perhaps with the realisation that the email instructions would reliably reach me, even after office hours.
As with each industrial and technological transformation in history, be it the steam engine, electricity, digitalisation with personal computers, connectivity with the internet and now AI, change and transition always bring with them anxiety and the fear of the unknown. Humans are wired to be untrusting of that which we cannot control – and maybe even rightly so.
With AI, we feel this acutely in Singapore. Many Members in the House have spoken about these concerns and the anxieties felt by Singaporeans from all walks of life. As the adage goes, \"change is the only constant\". Fear of the unknown is a natural reaction, but we should use it as a galvanising force to re-think old ways, learn new ones and as a result, seize new opportunities and grow.
This Motion is therefore a timely one. It recognises that harnessing AI to grow, is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, while AI can be a driver for the next phase of Singapore’s economic development; on the other, if its development and deployment is left unfettered, it can lead to societal ills such as job displacement and widening inequality.
As the Prime Minister pointed out during his Budget Statement, AI is but a \"tool\". How we harness it and manage its deployment will shape our economy, our jobs, our lives. Our approach to AI-enabled growth, as the Motion states, therefore, must be anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunities for all. The Motion resonates because it is about putting people at the centre of Singapore's approach to AI-enabled growth. Growth must be inclusive and benefit our people. We cannot have jobless growth at all costs.
Sir, awareness of AI's disruptive nature to the workplace and to our workforce is extremely high. The anxieties and concerns of our workers and PMEs across industries are not hypothetical. They are real, even quantifiable. A recent NTUC survey found that more than half of our PMEs feel an urgent need to upskill just to stay relevant. Nearly a third are actively anxious about being replaced. Other studies have shown that half of Singaporeans fear that their roles could be automated, and many are concerned that AI will benefit the bottom-lines of corporations more than it benefits the everyday worker.
Our young graduates entering the workforce for the first time face a daunting reality. As AI automates routine execution, employers are raising the bar, demanding higher-order critical thinking and AI collaboration skills from the outset. Left on its own, the AI disruption could very well lead to unfair outcomes. Organisations and individuals who manage a head-start or transition well, will benefit exponentially, while those who do not, will be left behind.
For years, we have proactively anticipated a disruption like this, by investing and imbuing in Singaporeans the value of lifelong learning and the need to regularly upskill through programmes, such as SkillsFuture. This has put us in a good starting position as we push hard on AI adoption, like the National AI Impact Programme that aims to support 10,000 enterprises and help 100,000 workers become more AI fluent.
However, AI fluency and literacy among our workforce and the general population is also equally important.
On this I would like to raise two points.
First, you will recollect my personal anecdote at the start of my speech. Fluency with any tool, be it computers or smart phones in the past or AI today, is about building confidence.
Mr Lim Boon Heng, a former NTUC Secretary-General shared with me, his experience with the Government's computerisation efforts in the 1980s. It was a strategic decision at the time, but workers were afraid of computers. So, the Government designed computer appreciation courses that were rolled out by the NTUC, using early Apple computers. Familiarisation with the use of the keyboard and for those who remember, playing games like PacMan! Workers slowly got past the fear and embraced the familiarity. Importantly, the key message must be, this is a tool that can help you do a job, better, faster. Now, that new tool is AI.
While it is vital that we upskill our workers to leverage on the AI tools that are relevant for their respective workplaces, AI fluency and literacy should be a national endeavour that is available in our schools, our Community Clubs and even our Active Ageing Centres.
The idea is to embed AI fluency and literacy as a part of life, be it in creating a simple e-Greeting Card with an AI tool that creates moving graphics or building a billion-dollar company using bots. Only then can we envision an entire people advancing collectively together in an economy with AI-enabled growth.
If embracing AI is a national strategic move, then we should roll out a national AI literacy and fluency programme for all Singaporeans.
Second, supporting workers to become AI fluent should be more than just providing them with the AI tools and the know-how on using them. We must also equip and afford workers the time and ability to learn how to apply the AI tools in their workplaces.
Getting young graduates past the door, and securing older workers and PMEs in new roles are imperative, but if AI is to transform our economy, we must ensure that our workforce learns effectively through deeper learning while persuading our businesses and organisations to create workplaces and systems that allow our workers to test their new skills, learn from mistakes and improve. Learning must be coupled with building capability.
At its broadest and most pervasive use as a tool, AI can generate content, summarise and answer in seconds. We need a workforce that not only can use the AI tool to obtain these outcomes, but to work with AI as a collaborative partner while applying judgment, reason, creativity and context to drive high-impact value – the human elements.
Prof Er Meng Hwa, in a recent Business Times article advocating for deeper learning, gave the example of Micron Singapore, whose in-house AI upskilling initiative did not stop at awareness but allowed employees to use AI tools to extract insights faster, analyse risks better, automate route tasks, plan projects more effectively and improve decision making.
How do we persuade more businesses and organisations to devote the time and precious resources to obtain these objectives together with us? Upskilling our workforce to ensure that they have the necessary credentials and knowledge may get them past the door, but it is no guarantee that businesses and organisations will employ and train workers in the way that will build on and optimise their AI capabilities.
This Government has been deliberate in focusing our policies on long-term advancement rather than on short-term gains. I am therefore confident that the AI National Council, led by the Prime Minister, will lay out plans and initiatives on the same basis.
In fact, we already have, within our system, the ability for the Government, unions and employers to collaborate closely to achieve the long-term objective of ensuring that our workforce is effectively equipped with the knowledge, skills, deep understanding and practical application outcomes.
Our tripartite model, where all three partners, having built trust, mutual respect and equal partnership over decades, working hand in hand through this new phase of AI adoption, will help us to ensure that our workers, our businesses and our economy can seize new opportunities and advance together.
Before I conclude, I wish to support the proposal by NTUC Secretary-General, Mr Ng Chee Meng, for the setting up of a market intelligence and foresight system contextualised to the Singapore market. We can appreciate how useful it would be to draw insights from information, data points, analysis and the research of tripartite partners to sense-make for early signals, coordinate responses and provide proactive early intervention, where necessary.
That said, while supporting our workers to retrain and move on to different roles to prevent displacement is important, we should also explore the possibility of using information from the same system to identify how the Government can incentivise AI startups to create new jobs and opportunities for our workforce. For example, it has been reported that AI movie production startups in China are supported with incentives and financial support. They are reported to have pioneered micro-dramas or vertical dramas that is a new entertainment format making waves globally.
Sir, if we are to leverage on AI as the next phase of Singapore’s economic development, we must transform, not only our economy but also the lives of every worker, every Singaporean. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. I would like to thank my NTUC sisters and brothers in this House for coming to support this Motion.
Knowledge workers like PMEs are highly exposed to AI, unlike earlier waves of automation that mostly impacted the rank and file. Many of our middle-income PMEs belong to a sandwiched or under-served group. They are expected to perform like the top but are less protected than the bottom and they face increased competition from foreign PMEs. Mid-career PMEs are sandwiched between younger and older dependents, and cannot afford to lose their jobs. Yet they can take a longer time to find new jobs when displaced due to their higher income and age, often at the expense of a pay cut.
We perceive PMEs as privileged and adaptable, who have resources and can take individual responsibility to upskill and also to cope with setbacks. This assumption no longer holds true. AI is set to both augment and disrupt job tasks across all PME sectors at all levels. We must recognise AI as a transformative technology that has the potential to create new opportunities and shared prosperity but also the potential to widen inequality by concentrating wealth and power at the top, especially if guardrails are disregarded for the broad middle in the race to adopt AI.
To this end, I submit that Singapore’s approach to AI must be human-centred while AI-enabled growth must be worker-centred. This means that we commit to what I call the \"3 Es”. The “3 Es” are equitable growth, enhanced protections, and engaged workforce.
First \"E\", equitable growth. When we talk about AI-driven jobless growth, this does not necessarily mean mass unemployment. However, it may mean that the gains from AI may not trickle down to the broad middle. Earlier this year, the Economic Development Board (EDB) announced that the expected number of jobs to be created fell to 15,700, the lowest in at least 20 years, despite having attracted more investments than the year before. This indicates that while we may not see jobless growth, we may well see growth with less jobs. Jobseekers could be competing for fewer vacancies, underemployment could rise and wages could stagnate. Young graduates may find more challenges securing full-time employment compared to before.
Globally, we have already seen a wave of companies, especially those in the tech sector, announce wide-ranging job cuts citing AI as a cause.
Equitable growth means that gains from AI-enabled growth will be shared with workers, in the form of better wages, welfare and work prospects. As a start, we need to raise our standards for what constitutes fair and responsible retrenchment, such as by requiring early retrenchment notifications, supporting unions to negotiate for retrenchment benefits according to industry norms and designing AI grant incentives with conditions requiring employers to demonstrate efforts to meaningfully re-deploy workers whose roles and tasks are taken over by AI.
As Singapore aims to attract the world’s top AI talent to our shores, we must also ensure this builds up and strengthens our Singaporean Core. I ask that the Government encourage reciprocity through programmes, like the Capability Transfer Programme, so that knowledge and expertise flow to our local PMEs. At the same time, the Government can also invest in homegrown AI talent by sending them on training stints to top AI companies overseas through programmes like the Overseas Market Immersion Programme. Bringing in global expertise and developing our own global talent pipeline are two sides of the same coin. Both deepen the capabilities of our local workforce.
Second “E”, enhanced protections. Inevitably, some workers will be impacted in the transition to AI. We cannot leave them to sink or survive on their own. They will need career guidance, financial support and grace to bounce back stronger. I thank the Government for launching the Jobseeker Support Scheme for involuntarily unemployed workers to benefit from transitional support for up to six months while they train or search for their next job.
The income threshold for Jobseeker Support Scheme is currently set at $5,000 excluding CPF, which would only cover less than 20% of resident PMEs. I hope that the Government will consider raising this threshold to the gross median resident PME income, currently at $8,400 as of 2025, or consider some other suitable schemes of equivalence to address the needs of impacted PMEs. By the same token, the Government can also consider allowing those with HDB housing loans a temporary deferment for up to six months, especially if they are unable to meet the mortgage payments to ease immediate cashflow needs.
Singapore has taken a considered, framework-based approach to AI governance. We are not behind. We are being deliberate. Through IMDA's Model AI Governance Framework, CSA’s addendum to secure Agentic AI systems and voluntary testing toolkits, we have encouraged innovation and responsible adoption.
But as AI moves from assisting decisions to making them, including in hiring, promotion and restructuring, we must keep pace. Other advanced economies have already taken the lead to explicitly classify employment-related AI as “high-risk”.
This matters greatly to workers. Will recruitment AI automatically rank candidates with disabilities lower? If HR relies on an AI tool to shortlist who stays and who goes during restructuring, what recourse does a worker have if the outcome feels unfair? Who is accountable in this case – the HR team, the employer who procured the AI tool or the developer who built it?
These are not hypothetical concerns. A joint Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD)-GovTech study found that large learning models can reliably guess personal characteristics, like gender of candidate from other data points like hobbies and volunteering, even when resumes are anonymised.
We are fortunate to have passed the Workplace Fairness Act. Its principles – that employment decisions must be fair and merit-based and that every worker deserves fair access to good jobs – should apply regardless of whether those decisions are made by a human or by an algorithm.
But while these principles are technology-agnostic, our current anti-discrimination levers have yet to explicitly address how they interact with AI-mediated decisions. As AI adoption accelerates, employers need clarity on what responsible use looks like, and workers need assurance that existing protections travel with them into an AI-enabled workplace. We should close this gap, not with regulations that stifles innovation but with clear, practical tripartite guidelines to ensure the just and fair transition. Singapore's strength is our tripartite approach and we should leverage it.
To that end, I ask that the Government consider the following. First, that employers who adopt employment-related AI be guided to conduct risk assessments proportionate to the level of impact and ensure meaningful human oversight. Second, that HR professionals be supported with training and self-assessment tools to use AI responsibly and identify biasness. Officers involved in data governance and cybersecurity can also update their skills and knowledge in this evolving area as more companies adopt AI that is integrated with enterprise data. And third, that workers be given transparency. They should know where AI is being used in decisions that affect them, what guardrails are in place and how existing avenues of redress apply. And fourth, that we explore going upstream, working with AI vendors and developers to ensure that the underlying software meets some baseline principles of fairness and transparency before it reaches our workplaces. The International Labour Organization has started this journey and Singapore, with our tripartite DNA, can be a frontrunner in this space.
Third and final \"E\", engaged workforce. Workers master AI and figure out how to embed AI into their workflows, not the other way round. Ultimately, an organisation cannot be run by no workers and AI alone. Simply imposing AI from the top will not produce results and can even create resistance and sunk cost. Workers are end-users and experts in their own workflows. They know where AI adds value and where it falls short. If you want AI to work, you have to ask the people who do the work.
We already have a proven mechanism for doing exactly this – our NTUC's CTCs. CTCs bring management, unions and workers together at the company level to co-design transformation plans, pairing technology adoption with job redesign, skills upgrading and better wages.
Let me share one example which the Prime Minister shared during the May Day rally. At Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), where our Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU) worked with management through the CTC to roll out a Smart Scheduler that could handle multiple shift patterns and cut rostering time from more than 90 minutes to under 15, so that nurse managers could spend more time on other core work instead.
Senior Enrolled Nurse Lilian Teng, 69 years old, who has worked at TTSH for the past 19 years, put it simply: with technology making work less physically demanding, she can continue working effectively for as long as she remains healthy. That is what an engaged workforce looks like.
But company-level efforts alone will not be enough. With the formation of the Tripartite Jobs Council, the Government, employers and unions can now coordinate sectoral transformation with workers at the centre, ensuring that AI training, job redesign and transition support are shaped by those on the ground, not just decided from the top.
Critically, the Tripartite Jobs Council can level up the CTC ecosystem to extend its reach beyond large employers to SMEs that may not have the resources to navigate their transformation alone. CTCs engage workers at the company level. The Tripartite Jobs Council will do it at the national level. Together, they ensure that AI transition is not something done to our workers, but with them. In Chinese, Sir.
(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, artificial intelligence is here – and it has arrived fast and with force. But we must ask: when AI generates wealth, whose pockets does it go into? I raise three points.
First, share the cake fairly. AI creates wealth, but that wealth cannot flow only to employers. Workers help bake the cake and they deserve a slice of it too.
Second, if jobs are lost, we cannot leave people to fend for themselves. The eligibility criteria for Job Seeker Support assistance can be broadened, so that more PMEs can benefit and have greater security. We must put up the umbrella before the rain comes – prepare for the storm before it arrives.
Third, walk this road together. The AI transition cannot be decided by employers alone. As the saying goes, three cobblers together are better than a Zhuge Liang. The Tripartite partners, unions and employers must work together, only then can we go far, steady and fast.
Share the cake fairly and walk forward together. That is the AI future that belongs to every Singaporean – one that puts people at its heart.
(In English): To conclude, there has been much said about AI as a double-edged sword. This metaphor has been used ad nauseam, but this is not untrue.
AI's impact on the broad middle means that it is a \"once-in-a-generation technology\" but could also be a once-in-a-generation divider that concentrates gains to those who control AI while displacing the very same workers who helped to design, implement and build it.
Equitable Growth, Enhanced Protections and Engaged Workforce. These are three principles that must guide us in the way forward if we hope to anchor AI as an enabler in our AI transition in fairness, resilience and opportunities for all, because every worker matters. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Jasmin Lau.
The Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Jasmin Lau): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened carefully to Members today. There is genuine concern across the House about what AI will mean for our workers. These concerns are real, the Government shares them.
We cannot slow down the development of AI. But we will not leave its outcomes to chance. We will work hard to secure a different deal, between the companies that prosper here and the workers whose effort makes that prosperity possible.
Where companies benefit from operating and growing in Singapore, we will expect a fair deal for workers. Not just in words, but in how jobs are designed, how people are trained and how gains are shared. Where public resources and policies are used in support of business transformation, we expect companies to deliver clear and meaningful outcomes for workers.
In my conversations and engagements across the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) and MOE work and through the Economic Strategy Review, the same concerns come up again and again. Will my job exist in five years' time? Will AI widen inequality and leave the vulnerable behind?\tIf AI makes companies more productive, will workers share in the gains?
These are not unreasonable fears. They come from people who have worked hard, built up skills and experience over time, and now sense that the ground is shifting beneath them. I will take each of these questions in turn.
First, on whether today's jobs will continue to exist. Let me be honest. Some roles will change substantially. Roles built primarily around repeating the same steps are the most exposed. This is not a verdict on the value of the people who do that work. It is a signal to us in government and to employers that we need to act now and not after the disruption arrives. And act, we will.
But AI is more than just a technological advancement that replaces jobs. At the same time, it is opening up entirely new ways of working and new kinds of roles that did not exist before.
Some academics have described AI as an \"invention of a method of invention\". It expands the space of problems that can be solved, the products that can be built and industries that we can create. A small biotech team in Singapore can run experiments that would have required a national lab decades ago. A solo founder can ship software that took a hundred-man firm to deliver three years ago.
So, competition sharpens, but the frontier also moves outward. That is why the Economic Strategy Review Committee that Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan and I co-chaired, focused on identifying new areas where Singapore can use AI to build a real competitive edge. And the Prime Minister's National AI Council will take this forward.
Members have pointed out the impact of AI on PMEs, as AI automates routine and analytical tasks. The Economic Strategy Review team recognised this, which is why helping businesses and workers proactively navigate the transition was the focus of the committee chaired by Minister of State Goh Pei Ming and Minister of State Desmond Choo.
For displaced workers, the committee studied how the Government, employers and unions could offer more timely help. As mentioned in our mid-term update, the Economic Strategy Review is studying ways to encourage earlier retrenchment notifications as raised by Mr Ng Chee Meng.
On PMEs specifically, the committee recognises that they may face greater job uncertainties and will recommend more targeted support. This includes considering enhancements to the Jobseeker Support Scheme, as Mr Patrick Tay suggested, and tapping on private sector expertise to strengthen placement support for this group.
For workers at risk of displacement, the Economic Strategy Review will recommend practical ways to help them move into more resilient roles with stronger demand. We will identify sectors with sustained labour demand and lower AI displacement risk, and we will work with unions and employers in those sectors to create clear, supported entry points for workers making the transition. We must make these pathways walkable and not just visible.
To illustrate, a mid-career worker in a routine administrative role, for example in data entry or customer service, could be worried about AI displacing him. With job facilitation and reskilling support, the worker should be able to move into a sector where there are roles that build on his existing skillsets. For example, the worker could explore adjacent roles in healthcare administration. This is where we are seeing robust demand given the growth of our population healthcare needs, and healthcare requires uniquely human skills that are more resilient to disruption.
All this requires more than courses. It requires employers, unions, training providers and placement support working closely together, so that workers do not fall through the cracks during transition.
No government in the world has all the answers to this transition and I would be wary of any that claims otherwise. What we in Singapore can commit to is this: we will not wait for perfect solutions before acting. We are starting now and we will adjust our efforts along the way.
Second, on inequality. Members are right to worry. Technologies that amplify capability can also amplify gaps between those who adapt quickly and those who struggle to keep up. As Mr Mark Lee points out, some risks we face are that productivity gains accrue more to those already ahead, while the bottom of the career ladder may face erosion.
Our response is to raise the floor and widen the door. This means starting earlier: building AI literacy into our schools, so that all students develop confidence with AI and not just those who have access to resources.
Currently, every ITE and polytechnic student is already taught AI literacy as part of their course, and we are now bringing AI literacy and safe AI tools into primary and secondary school classrooms. This means that all students, regardless of economic background can learn about AI safely. They can also learn how AI can benefit their learning, such as to help them refine their ideas, and they also learn when they should not use AI.
As Minister Desmond also pointed out earlier today, we are committed to supporting students who may not have strong family or parental supervision and support. While AI literacy in school will give them a good and strong foundation, we must continue to develop partnerships with the community and with self-help groups to make sure the supervision and support continue outside of school.
Learning must continue beyond graduation. From the second half of 2026, all of our IHLs will offer selected AI-related courses at significant discounts for their alumni, for a period of one year.
For workers already in the workforce, Singaporeans who complete selected AI training courses will receive six months of complimentary access to premium AI tools. We will track take-up and usage to see if we need to do more.
Every Singaporean, regardless of starting point, should have the chance to experiment with AI tools and to build fluency.
The third question is the hardest and the most important. Will workers share in the gains? We should be clear: this does not happen automatically.\tLeft on its own, technology can lead to very uneven outcomes. That is why this is not just a market question. It is a question of how we shape norms and expectations in our economy. So, let me set out clearly what we expect.
Companies that benefit from AI should invest in their people, not just in technology. That means training as many existing workers as possible and not just hiring new ones. It means facilitating their employees' access to frontier AI tools, creating communities of practice and incentivising learning and upskilling.
It also means redesigning jobs in close consultation with workers, as suggested by Ms Yeo Wan Ling, so that people can work alongside AI, using judgement, context and experience, rather than treating workers simply as a cost to be reduced. And where roles do change or disappear, it means making a serious effort to redeploy and reskill workers within the organisations before turning to retrenchment.
We are not just asking our companies to do national service. We are asking them to do what is in their own long-term interest. In an AI age, human instinct and intuition will remain key. We all know that when we work with AI, we need to steer it. Ask the right questions and apply judgement as we refine the output iteratively.
It is not one shot. If you do not develop people who understand the context of your organisation and use this knowledge to reinforce your AI systems, you will be left with a very shallow and hollow company in future. If companies here replace humans completely with AI, they will find themselves, in future, to have no competitive edge, when AI is available to all companies. They will also find themselves at the mercies of AI companies. So, what we are working towards, is an approach that best positions our companies for sustainable growth in the long term.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat brought up the need for balanced regulatory approaches that do not disincentivise AI adoption. Indeed, we will not seek to legislate our way to good outcomes. That has never been Singapore's primary approach. But we are equally clear that \"voluntary\" cannot mean \"optional in practice\".
Where public resources are deployed, we will ask for worker outcomes. We will work with companies to meet these expectations. Where there are persistent gaps, we will review how our support is applied. We will discuss with our tripartite partners on how this can be done fairly and effectively, in a way that incentivises companies to invest in training, job redesign, redeployment and placement.
If we do this well, we will be able to create and sustain good jobs in the AI age. A good job is not just a job that exists. It is one that allows a worker to progress. It should pay fairly and reflect the productivity gains that technology brings. It should build skills that remain relevant, including as part of routine on-the-job training, so that workers are not stuck doing tasks that are easily replaced by automation. And it should give workers a sense of dignity and agency, not reduce their role to simply following instructions generated by machines.
We have seen that when there is strong commitment, this is possible. At PSA, AI and automation have helped deliver record cargo volumes. At the same time, the company reskilled and redeployed more than 2,000 workers into higher-skilled roles. And they continue to hire thousands more, because they are growing faster than the competition.
To Mr Andre Low, I would say: automation and augmentation are not mutually exclusive. Protecting a worker can mean being intentional about automating tasks that are repetitive and physically demanding and upgrading the skills of the same worker so that technology can augment his capabilities as he takes on a higher value role.
Even smaller businesses are playing their part. Take for instance our local pawnbroker Maxi-Cash. In the past, a customer wishing to trade in jewellery would interface with a sales advisor, who would pass on their case to a valuer to assess the authenticity of the jewellery. Maxi-Cash enhanced this process by reskilling 25 of their sales advisors to use an AI-enabled authentication system, which can accurately assess the composition of jewellery in just five seconds. Now, these sales advisors can complement the existing pool of valuers, relieving their workload and reducing the customer wait times. This is the kind of responsible transformation we want to see in Singapore as the norm, not as the exception.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened carefully to the many suggestions and perspectives shared in this House today, from Members on both sides. We may differ on specific policy ideas or on how particular measures should be designed, funded or sequenced. That is the nature of democratic debate, and it is very healthy.
But I believe there is broad agreement across this House on a fundamental principle: that the gains from growth and progress must be shared fairly and broadly with all Singaporeans. This should not be a matter of party or ideology. It is a principle that we must uphold together as Singaporeans.
So, let me say this plainly. If Singapore succeeds with our AI ambitions – and we should never assume success is automatic, because it will require sustained effort, difficult choices, adaptation and, perhaps, some good fortune too. But if we succeed, then the Government will ensure that the benefits are widely shared.
The gains must not accrue only to those who already have capital, advantages or access. They must translate into better wages, better opportunities and greater security for all Singaporeans. The best protection for workers is not only redistribution after disruption. It is shaping how gains are created and shared from the outset and ensuring that Singaporean workers retain agency within an AI economy.
This Government has been able to deliver these outcomes over decades of Singapore's development. And we are determined to continue doing so, as we navigate this AI transition. Our policies have never been static. We have continuously adapted, refreshed and strengthened them as circumstances changed. And that discipline will continue.
Ultimately, every Singaporean should be able to look at what Singapore has built and say, \"I have a stake in this progress. I have a share in this growth. This future, belongs to me and my family too.\"
This shared commitment is also what makes Singapore's approach to this transition distinctive. Our strength is not just technology. It is the way we work together, across Government, businesses and unions.
To workers watching this debate, I want to say this directly to you: the Government is on your side, and we are acting before the disruption reaches you, not after. You will not be doing this alone. Our commitment made in this House today is our commitment to you.
To our business leaders: AI gives you powerful new capabilities. But how you use them will define your company's future, and your relationship with the people who built it alongside you. The companies that will lead in 10 years are not those that stripped costs the fastest, but those that built stronger teams by combining human judgement with machine capability.
But I want to be clear about something else as well. Not every business needs to adopt AI, and not every pursuit needs to be seen through the lens of AI transformation. There is real value in things that are fully human created, and that value may grow, not shrink, as AI becomes more prevalent.
When everything around us is auto-generated, optimised and scaled, the things that are not will stand out. The live performance and encore that cannot be repeated. The hand-thrown ceramic bowl that carries the mark of a human hand. The meal prepared with care and craft, not just consistency. The conversation with the calligraphy master who has spent a lifetime honing his art.
I think we will see a revival of appreciation for these things. And Singapore should not just acknowledge this, we should embrace it. Our artisans, our performers, our craftsmen are not swimming against the tide of AI. In a world saturated with AI-generated content, they may find themselves exactly where the world is looking.
Beyond the near-term transition, there is a longer-term question we must answer. What do we need to do now with our education system, to prepare our students for the future world?
We must accept that AI will continue to get better at the tasks which machines do well. All the more, we need to focus on what makes us distinctly human. The curiosity that asks a question nobody has thought to ask. The creativity that connects ideas across domains in ways no training data predicts. The empathy that reads a room, earns trust and knows when the most efficient solution may not be the right solution.
We often call these soft skills. In an AI age, they will become the hard edge of competitive advantage for our people and for Singapore. That is why we will review our education system, to make sure we develop these qualities with the same rigour and intentionality we have always applied to academic excellence.
We must continue to build strong foundations and make sure our students do not become overly reliant on AI shortcuts. Our human brains are muscles that require exercise, and genuine mastery – the kind that holds up under pressure and that AI cannot simply replace – comes from hard work, from practice and from deep understanding. So, it was good to hear Ms Eileen Chong agree with this and we thank her for supporting our approach.
But rigour and exploration are not opposites. The student who has truly mastered something is precisely the one with the confidence to venture beyond it. He will ask harder questions; to take on problems without the obvious answers and he will develop interests that are genuinely his own. What we are building towards is an education system that demands both the discipline to go deep and the freedom to go wide. Not just because our students deserve both, but because Singapore's future depends on both.
This will not mean abandoning our standards. It will mean expanding what we count as excellence. A student who asks unexpected questions, who pursues something deeply out of genuine interest, who can hold two contradictory ideas and work through them – that student is not behind. In the world that we are building, that student may be ahead of all of us.
We are committed to doing this, together with our educators, our parents and young Singaporeans themselves. Because if we get this right, if we develop a generation that is not just AI-literate but deeply human, then Singapore will not just survive this transition. We will be the kind of society that the next era of human progress is built around.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have been honest today about what this transition will demand – of the Government, businesses and workers. Not every path will be smooth. Some will face real disruption, and our responsibility is to ensure no one faces it alone. We will make AI work for Singaporeans. And we will ensure that as our economy grows, our workers move forward with it.
But I want to end where I believe our attention must ultimately rest – on the generation we are building. If we develop Singaporeans who are curious, creative and deeply human, people who can ask the questions that machines cannot and earn the trust that algorithms never will, then we will not merely manage this transition. We will define what comes after it. I support this Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan.
The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I begin by declaring my interest as the Deputy Secretary-General of National Trades, Union Congress (NTUC) and the executive secretary of the Singapore Industrial and Services Employees' Union (SISEU), where I am closely involved in supporting our workers. Today, I want to continue to support our senior workers and reflect their concerns in the age of AI.
Let me start by sharing about Mdm Foo, a 55-year-old jobseeker who approached NTUC's e2i for assistance.
After leaving her previous job of more than 20 years, she found that the job search process had changed quite dramatically. Even resume writing has changed. Resumes used to be written for people, but she found out that today, they are often screened by machines first. Job applications also moved to digital portals that are not so intuitive for people like her to navigate. So, she felt lost and uncertain.
Mdm Foo's experience is not uncommon among senior workers and reflects their anxieties about changing work processes. For some, AI presents true opportunities. For others, it creates uncertainty and anxiety. And for many of our senior workers, their experiences are shaped by three key gaps that I think we collectively must try to address.
The first is the access gap. While Singapore has made progress in closing the access gap for seniors, smartphone ownership among them still lags behind other age groups. In addition, seniors may have less access to AI tools.
I saw this first-hand at one of the AI workshops organised by my union SISEU for about 90 union leaders whose median age was about 53. While all of them used smartphones, many were trying AI tools for the first time. Understandably, there was some initial hesitation. But with simple, guided use cases, they quickly picked it up and were using AI to generate posters for the union's Family Day and membership campaign. Some even went to the extent to do banners for their families for birthdays and anniversaries.
As we ended the session, many leaders came forward to share with me that they enjoyed the session and now, they realise that it is not so difficult to learn to use AI tools. The only thing they asked for is that they wished the session could be longer and the font on the slides to be bigger for them.
This encouraged me because it shows that the issue is not a lack of willingness, but rather a lack of access and, to some extent, to some of them, it is about confidence, which we can overcome by curating and customising access to AI tools and making time for our seniors to learn and to increase their knowledge.
Second, skills gap. We see a gap in training participation, where MOM's 2025 report found that residents aged 50 to 64 had the lowest training participation rate at 44.5%, compared with about 60% for those who are below 40 years old.
It is easy to tell seniors to go and upskill, to go and take a course and reskill, but in reality, we know that with commitments, with bills to pay, with limited time and energy, taking the first step sometimes is not easy. Many of them, we must remember, have lived through repeated cycles of change and transformation and may feel fatigued, uncertain or even question the relevance of more training.
These concerns are real. We must make training more accessible for them, at a suitable pace, through practical and bite-sized modules, and make AI more relevant to their job skills.
The third is the opportunity gap. Even when senior workers are willing to learn, they may not have the same opportunities to benefit from AI in their actual jobs.
OECD's Employment Outlook 2025 highlights that across OECD countries, opportunities to learn by doing fall with age, where 62% of adults aged 25 to 29 reported such opportunities, but this falls to 45% among those who are 60 and above. In addition, a 2025 Pew Research Centre report found that 73% of workers who used AI at work were aged 18 to 49, while only 27% were aged 50 and above.
This is why we need to work with employers to give our seniors the opportunity to use AI tools and to reap productivity gains in their job. Senior workers bring valuable experience and with AI, these strengths can go even further. I have spoken about this no fewer than two times in this Chamber.
Research from the Stanford Digital Economy Lab supports this. It highlighted that senior employment in the US has remained resilient and may even have grown with the introduction of AI because they see that seniors bring tacit experience, knowledge and soft skills that enabled them to increase productivity with AI.
To our senior workers, we understand your challenges and we are with you in this transition. Take the first step with us. Start a course, try a tool, learn from those around you and you can thrive in the AI economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Motion before the House is important. It emphasises that growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all and resolves to equip workers to seize these new opportunities. That must also apply to our senior workers.
NTUC recognises that long-lasting impact is best achieved through a partnership approach and has taken proactive steps through an AI-Ready SG initiative, which focuses on three key areas.
First, training and upskilling workers to address skills and access gaps. To close the skills gap, NTUC LearningHub has developed a comprehensive AI learning pathway, with three different levels for learners with different proficiencies: foundational training to build AI literacy and fluency, intermediate training tailored to sectors or job roles, and advanced training for those in deep tech and who want to develop deeper AI specialisation and capabilities.
I am glad to note that to date, there has been strong interest. Since February 2026, more than 4,000 workers have enrolled in LearningHub's AI courses. I am also very happy that 39% of them are seniors.
Dr Neo has suggested certification of competencies. This is something that the LearningHub has already been doing. For example, it works closely with companies to design AI courses aligned with the Government's skill frameworks and that are tailored to companies' needs. We also partner with industry leaders such as AWS and Microsoft to certify learners' competencies based on industry demands. We will continue to expand this to more sectors and more industries.
At the same time, under AI-Ready SG, we are also closing the access gap by providing union members with subsidies of up to 50% for AI premium subscription tools through NTUC's Union Training Assistance Programme (UTAP). I am happy to also let Members know that in the first of these AI tool subscriptions, NTUC's premium subsidy does cover a range of tools, including coding and agent-based tools such as Claude Code, Codex, Manus and others. I think there are a total of 20 or 21 tools.
We are offering this as part of membership privileges only because we are using the existing UTAP funding model catered for members' training. But we will continue to review this, depending on the take-up and the interest over time.
We are also partnering sector agencies like the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore to develop sector AI training pathways for our union leaders.
Second, we are supporting firms in business transformation and job redesign through NTUC's CTCs. To date, NTUC has formed 3,800 CTCs, embarked on over 900 business transformation projects, benefitting over 300,000 workers.
Let me share another example. I know you have heard many examples over the course of this debate. It is from the Evergreen Group, a local office and stationary supplier. Through a CTC Grant project with the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union (SMMWU), it implemented an AI-powered e-ordering system to automate the ordering process and improve inventory management. With this new system, manual work such as order processing was reduced by about 60%. Workers could focus on higher-value tasks such as managing customer relationships and using data to optimise inventory.
As they became more productive, the company could handle 40% more orders and provide wage increments for its employees. This is what we mean by win-win outcomes – where businesses become more productive and our workers progress with them.
Third, we are improving job matching with new products and services to help workers access good jobs. Let me go back to Mdm Foo from the start of my speech. Through close support from her e2i career coach, she gained a deeper understanding of her skills and the new job market. Her coach also introduced her to NTUC's AI Career Coach and e2i's AI Interviewer. With support and encouragement, Mdm Foo could confidently use these AI tools to sharpen her resume and also practise her interviews before the actual session. I am glad to share that Mdm Foo has found a new role and has gained familiarity with AI in the process.
Mr Deputy Speaker, AI Ready SG is one example of how we can realise the intent of this Motion. It supports workers to build AI skills, gives them access to tools to apply these skills and works with businesses to improve productivity and create new opportunities.
Looking ahead, we welcome companies and partners to come onboard as we scale our efforts and increase our reach to ultimately deliver better support for our businesses and for our workers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, these efforts are important and we are already seeing encouraging outcomes. But the scale of change brought about by AI is also significant, with great uncertainty and anxiety among workers. This is why tripartism, with its proven track record built over many decades of open communication and trust, is critical to this challenge.
Singapore has navigated major transitions before. In the 1980s, when computers first entered the workplace, workers were concerned that these machines could replace their roles in data entry and filing and companies were anxious about costs, skills shortage and disruptions to their daily operations.
But tripartite partners leaned forward. The Government invested in infrastructure and skills, including the National Computer Board, to drive nationwide adoption of IT. Employers stepped forward to transform their businesses with new technologies and redesigned workflows. The Labour Movement drove skills upgrading en-masse, organised workshops and seminars, preparing workers mentally and practically for change.
Because tripartite partners moved together in solidarity, firms became more productive, workers took on better jobs with better pay, and Singapore strengthened its competitiveness.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Tripartite Jobs Council will be a key platform to realise our shared aspirations for the AI era as laid out in the Motion. It will build on efforts across the Government, employers and the Labour Movement and enable partners to scale outreach, accelerate policy implementation and direct resources so that workers and enterprises can seize opportunities from AI.
The Tripartite Jobs Council will take on a practical and iterative approach. We may not have all the answers upfront, but we are clear that our deep trust built over decades of cooperation and shared goals will allow us to achieve our aspiration of inclusive economic progress. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now speak in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore needs to harness artificial intelligence (AI) to drive the next phase of economic growth. But more importantly, this growth must be built on a foundation of fairness, inclusivity, and resilience for all.
Singapore's tripartite partners – unions, employers, and the Government – have worked closely together over many years, building deep trust that has allowed us to unite and overcome challenges together, no matter what difficulties we face. We will continue to support our workers in seizing opportunities and strengthening their competitiveness in the age of AI.
In February this year, the NTUC launched the \"AI-Ready SG\" initiative, actively encouraging workers to learn and master AI tools. This initiative helps them bridge the gaps in awareness, skills and access, so that they are better prepared for the AI-driven economy. As the saying goes: \"Opportunity favours the prepared, and success belongs to the most persistent.\" The age of AI is already upon us. I hope that everyone will join NTUC in actively upskilling, learning and applying AI.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, AI is the defining technology of this generation. But we face this challenge with strong foundations built over decades of tripartite cooperation.
To our tripartite partners, let us continue working closely together to help our firms transform and stay competitive, while supporting our workers to remain productive and to maximise opportunities.
To our workers, we will continue to support you to leverage AI.
And to our senior workers, your experience matters and it is my firm belief that it will be an advantage in the AI era. Take that step with us, upskill and learn, including from your younger colleagues, and together, we can close the access gap, narrow the skills gap and expand opportunities for all. Because in Singapore, we have always believed that progress must be inclusive, that as we move forward, we move forward together, because every worker matters. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me begin by acknowledging what many Singaporeans are feeling right now – uncertainties, anxieties, a sense that the ground is shifting beneath their feet; the world feeling less predictable than what it used to be, with trade tensions, fragility in supply chains, wars in the Middle East and the sharp rise in oil prices.
Closer to home, Members of this House have spoken about something that weighs on the minds of all of our fellow Singaporeans: the anxiety that AI may erode our skills, our experience built up over years or even take over our jobs. This anxiety has been sharpened by news of large tech firms announcing layoffs attributed to AI adoption.
These are legitimate concerns and we take it seriously. And a change of this magnitude is indeed unsettling. But AI can and will create opportunities that we cannot yet fully imagine. Of course, it will, at the same time, also bring about disruptions that we cannot fully foresee.
But there are, at the same time, early signs that gives us reason for cautious optimism. Recent global surveys show that two in three companies that made earlier AI-driven cuts are already rehiring. Why is that so? Because they found that AI could handle the predictable and the routine, but customers still wanted human judgment, empathy and the genuine connection that AI could not provide.
Let me offer a small illustration of my own. In the preparation for my speech today, my team used AI to help refine the work to me. It surfaced useful references, including our MOM's newly released study showing only about 6% of firms in Singapore have reduced headcount due to AI adoption. But one thing it could not appreciate was the impact and the anxiety that many, many workers feel.
It could not offer empathy, it could not empathise, it could not understand nuance, nor could it generate policy responses that capture the essence of what workers are really experiencing. And this is what no algorithm can replace.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Motion before us makes four commitments. The Government and MOM take each one seriously – all of them as foundations to build on and to go beyond.
Mr Ng Chee Meng spoke about the transformative impact of AI on our workforce. The Government has long recognised AI's potential. Our current efforts build on a strong foundation of work already done in this space. We formed out first National AI Strategy in 2019, well before the introduction of ChatGPT and we embarked on national AI projects in areas such as education, healthcare, logistics, security and municipal services.
When large language models exploded onto the scene in late 2022, making AI accessible and general-purpose, we refreshed our strategies with the National AI Strategy 2.0 in 2023 and developed plans to invest over $1 billion in AI compute capabilities, talent and industry development. And this included establishing AI Centres of Excellence and growing the number of AI practitioners.
As AI picked up speed and interacted with major shifts in our external environment, we convened the Economic Strategy Review last year to sharpen our response. And more recently at Budget this year, we formed the National AI Council chaired by our Prime Minister to drive the practical transformation of our economy using AI.
At every step, we have acted proactively with our tripartite partners to drive concrete action and transformation across the sectors. As a result, while we will walk into uncharted waters into an uncertain future, we can do so with some confidence and we are not totally unprepared.
Various Members have raised concerns over the impact of AI on job displacement and many have also put forward thoughtful suggestions on how we can better support workers and businesses through this transition. We hear your concerns and we welcome the suggestions raised by Members on both sides of the House.
There is, in fact, broad agreement across this House on what we are trying to achieve, which is inclusive growth for all in this AI transition. Where we may differ, is in how we get there. Our approach has always been to invest in our people, keep our workers economically valuable and shape how the gains from AI are created and shared. Rather than dwell on fears, on apprehension, we want to be able to inspire and motivate our workforce to continue to grow.
Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Andre Low highlighted structural threats to inclusive growth. I appreciate the seriousness with which they have engaged on this issue. We recognise the conundrums. The question is: where and how to intervene?
Mr Giam proposed a National AI Equity Fund to pay every Singapore Citizen $500 funded by the companies that benefit from AI and Mr Low similarly proposed a payout for those displaced through redundancy insurance. I recognise the need to strengthen our systems to ensure that no one falls through the gap in this transition. And I agree that the broad sharing of productivity gains does not happen automatically, because markets alone will not guarantee good social outcomes.
Let me be clear. The Government has always known this and has always been acting on it. Both Mr Giam and Mr Low's proposals rest on a more pessimistic premise, that Singaporeans are essentially passive passengers in the AI transition, without agency to seize the opportunities and can only rely on support for a journey they cannot steer.
I cannot hold on and I will not hold on to such a premise. Both your proposals are not empowerment. To me, it is a settlement. Resigned to the fact that mass displacement is inevitable and that the best we can do is soften the blow. We should have more confidence in the tenacity and the adaptability of our fellow Singaporeans.
Redistribution alone is insufficient if workers are excluded from the economy. Singapore's tradition has been to invest in people rather than to compensate them for the circumstances; and that is our true policy tradition, rather than what the Member, Mr Low, had described.
The better use of any surplus generated by AI adoption is to fund accessible and effective upskilling that amplifies Singaporeans' value. And to that end, the Government has spent over $10 billion over the last five years on local workforce initiatives.
The choice before us, Members of the House, is between two very different visions. One says we get a handout, and then with that, a small share of the pie that the machines produce. Whereas, on the other hand, we feel that you deserve to grow the pie with the machines and share in our economic prosperity through good jobs and good wages.
The first vision initially may seem generous, but ultimately, caps and diminishes your broader end objectives. The second demands more from the Government, more from employers and also more from workers, but it treats all of our fellow Singaporeans as capable adults, with futures worth investing in, not as a population to be managed through transfers.
And Members of the House, I believe the second vision is possible, because as AI transforms how we work, some jobs will evolve. Some jobs may disappear, but if we are able to get everyone on the same ship moving together, I believe we will prevail. And as Mr Mark Lee and Ms Yeo Wan Ling said, it also creates new opportunities for businesses and workers. Our duty and our focus will be to help all of our workers and our businesses seize them.
So, we should never build the case in this debate on angst and on apprehension. Our approach is not to fear the future, but let us forge the future ourselves, because that is the true Singapore spirit.
We have seen through each wave of technology and economic restructuring with this very spirit, but we are not complacent. MOM is closely monitoring AI's impact on our workforce. Our inaugural survey of the firms shows that AI is currently augmenting, rather than replacing labour in Singapore. Only about three in 10 firms have adopted AI currently, and amongst the firms that have adopted AI, only a small minority, about 6%, reported reduced headcount.
More commonly, firms are redesigning jobs, they are creating new AI-related roles, indicating that AI is changing how work is done, how they are being reorganised, rather than reducing jobs. And seven in 10 firms using AI are already seeing productivity gains.
However, as I have said, we should never be complacent. We must be prepared that as AI adoption gains pace, momentum and scale, the impact on jobs would be greater. And that is why we constantly prepare ourselves.
We have the goal to enable more businesses to succeed. At the same time, where their workers use AI to do better jobs, rather than be replaced by AI. Where their work becomes more fulfilling, more meaningful, not less. And where the benefits of AI are shared between the businesses themselves and the workforce.
For workers seeing a more flexible pace of work, AI can enable new forms of flexible work and fractional work done by small teams or even \"solopreneurs\". Now, beyond flexibility, AI can also reshape who participates in our workforce, including seniors, as Ms Poh Li San spoke about. And we will explore how to scale flexible work models through the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment.
Dr Hamid Razak spoke about the hesitation and anxieties he heard from the ground, especially among older PMEs who wonder if their skills still have a place. And Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked for businesses to be better supported. Let me share what Government is doing to prepare individuals and businesses for this transition.
First, we are reforming our workforce and skills support system to deliver more timely and effective support. As I shared after a five-hour debate yesterday on the Second Reading of the Skills and Workforce Development Agency Bill, this formation of SWDA will bring the skills and employment facilitation capabilities of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore under one roof, making it more seamless, more integrated for individuals and employers to obtain the appropriate support.
We agree with Mr Ng Chee Meng that the intelligence that we have in gleaning and harvesting all the data in the SWDA, this intelligence must continue to be built on a foundation of trust, and we look forward to working closely with our tripartite partners to ensure that our assessment of the labour market continues to be grounded and also current. This will be an important part of how we stay ahead of disruption and support workers driven by AI changes.
This includes platform workers facing the deployment of AV, as Ms Yeo Wan Ling highlighted. MOM and SWDA, they are already working closely with the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and tripartite partners to strengthen transition pathways for these drivers, ahead of actual AV deployment. I want to add that actually, as a proxy, it is SWDA. But actually, it is SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore working closely with MOT currently.
Second, we will do more to improve Singaporeans' AI literacy. Today, there are over 1,600 AI-related courses on the MySkillsFuture website. We will introduce diagnostic tools for individuals to assess their current level of AI readiness and find courses which suit their needs, deliver proven training outcomes that are aligned with employer demand.
From the second half of this year, Singaporeans who enrol in the selected SkillsFuture AI courses will receive six months of free access to premium AI tools. This will help them to apply classroom learning to their daily lives and work. Mr Kenneth Tiong suggested to make this access universal without condition. That was something that the Government considered carefully. But not all Singaporeans require frontier agent-grade tools. For many, free versions are good enough and widely available.
By tying subsidies to training, we are better able to target those who are more serious about levelling up the use of AI and we help them to make optimal and responsible use of such powerful tools. As Assoc Prof Terence Ho and Mr Alex Yeo shared about earlier on, we hope Singaporeans will tap on the resources available and be proactive in their learning journey.
As Minister of State Jasmin Lau shared, IMDA will also be expanding the TechSkills Accelerator programme to develop AI-bilingual workers, starting with accountancy, legal and HR professionals. More details will be shared in due course.
Third, to support businesses, I have also emphasised time and again that we have set aside over $400 million for the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package. I do not want to go too much into it because I believe I have already covered in most of my Second Reading speech yesterday. But Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether the grants could be tied to worker outcomes conditions. Today, businesses tapping on the Workforce Development Grant (Job Redesign+), are required to support workforce outcomes, such as wage growth and retention as part of their transformation plan. Later this year, eligible businesses will also receive $10,000 under the redesigned SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit and this can be used to offset out-of-pocket costs for eligible workforce transformation programmes, including those under the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package.
We agree with Mr Mark Lee that Trade Associations and Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package addresses these issues while ensuring that the workforce is brought along on the journey. Chambers play a particularly important role in connecting firms with the right expertise and resources. That is why we have appointed the Singapore Business Federation and SNEF as anchor programme partners for the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package so that integrated workforce transformation support can be brought directly to firms, we can help to accelerate AI adoption across sectors.
We are also supporting the Labour Movement's efforts to transform businesses and workers. The Government topped up the NTUC CTC Grant by around $200 million in 2025 and extended the grant to 2028. More recently, we worked with NTUC to expand the grant to better support Queen Bee companies to drive cluster-level transformation.
Notwithstanding the fact that I stepped out for a short while to answer a call, I am heartened to hear Mr Ng Chee Meng's sharing of how CTC has helped many businesses transform, while improving the lives of workers. I particularly note his exhortation and his suggestion to further expand the CTC initiative and share his ambition to elevate the CTCs to a tripartite level. We look forward to working with tripartite partners to jointly explore ways to make this a reality.
There are calls for us to go beyond project level interventions, to make a more structural shift in financial incentives for companies to invest in workers. Structural mechanisms, the likes of what Mr Andre Low called for, already exists. Grants, like the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit, create direct financial incentives for companies to invest in the capabilities of their workers. We will continue to review and enhance such support as part of the work of the SWDA.
I think all of us should appreciate the importance of supporting enterprise transformation, not as a blanket, boiling the ocean strategy, but differentiated, precise and targeted sector-by-sector, company-by-company supporting their enterprise transformation. Even though it is more tedious, I believe it is also in the long run, more sustainable.
Lastly, we have strengthened transition support for workers who are displaced, so that they can bounce back stronger. The Government cannot protect every job but we will certainly do our best to support and protect every worker because every worker matters.
So, with AI transition, work processes will reorganise and change, jobs will also change. Some jobs may get replaced. Going through transitions can be challenging. But I assure all of our workers that you will not walk alone. We have recognised for some time that we must strengthen our support mechanisms as the pace of change accelerates.
This is why we launched the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support (JS) scheme last year. This is as part of our refreshed social compact under Forward Singapore. The JSS provides temporary financial relief and job search support to involuntarily unemployed individuals. It has made a difference for many Singaporeans, helping them to regain their footing and to return to work with confidence.
Perhaps Mr Andre Low may have some misperception about the scheme. It is not a redundancy insurance because it does not just merely provide a cash payout for displacement. It is a support for re-employment. The JSS supports workers in their re-employment journey. It provides a degree of financial support for the lower- and middle-income precisely so that they do not rush into the first available job that may not be a good fit.
WSG compliments the Jobseeker Support Scheme with hands on wrap around support to improve the quality of their job search, and we are cognisant of the fact that prolonged unemployment can harm the worker's longer term career prospects, and that is why the financial support is time bound. It tapers downwards because we believe that the first two to three months when the worker is involuntarily unemployed is when the impact is most felt. So, what we do is we try to raise the level in the initial part to encourage workers, to provide that lift, and when it tapers downward, we hope that the workers will be able to find the right jobs for them.
But we hear calls. Mr Ng Chee Meng and Mr Patrick Tay proposed to raise the JS scheme income threshold to better support higher-income individuals. We will look at how the Scheme can be improved and we will study this carefully.
We also hear Mr Ng Chee Meng's call for earlier notification of retrenchments to the Government, before employees' last working day, and Mr Mark Lee's reflection of businesses' concerns on this.
We want to strike the right balance. Tripartite partners are already discussing shortening the retrenchment notification duration under the ongoing Employment Act review. We, on our part, would like to see notification to the Government happening before or by the last day of work of the affected workers as far as possible, because then this would also enable a timelier employment facilitation support to workers.
To Mr Kenneth Tiong's suggestion on strengthening protections for displaced workers, the Employment Act already provides broad based protections by establishing procedural safeguards, like notice periods and dispute resolution avenues. This applies to all types of displacements, not just due to AI.
Our AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience and shared opportunity and this is not something that would happen naturally. Mr Vikram Nair asked what safeguards we have to ensure that workers are treated fairly as AI adoption increases. The Government has developed frameworks, such as Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI and AI Verify to establish clear responsibilities for actors across the AI supply chain, giving clarity to AI developers and users on responsible practices, including HR technology solution providers. And Mr Saktiandi Supaat rightly pointed out that AI adoption is uneven at varying speeds across sectors, worker segments and businesses of different sizes. Without deliberate effort, the gains from AI could flow to some while others are left behind. In China, the courts have ruled that it is illegal to replace employees with AI purely to cut costs.
Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan and Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari spoke about the work NTUC has done in recent years to equip workers with AI-related skills and supporting workforce transformation. These are exactly the kind of capabilities we should draw on to ensure that more workers and businesses know what support is available and that AI adoption can accelerate across the economy.
This is why we supported wholeheartedly NTUC's proposal to form the Tripartite Jobs Council. The Tripartite Jobs Council will take a coordinated tripartite approach to mobilise enterprises and workers towards fair and resilient growth in an AI era. As Assoc Prof Terence Ho noted, AI must augment workers, not replace them. We will leverage SNEF’s business advisors and NTUC's CTCs to help businesses adopt AI in ways that drive growth and enhance job roles, prioritising technologies that augment human capabilities and not replace them. We will harness our tripartite partners' strong links with workers, unions and employers to drive broad-based AI training across sectors and career stages, so that no worker is left behind as AI reshapes our journey.
In those technologies or businesses that have to undergo restructuring, we will work with the businesses to help pivot, upskill and reskill the workers.
We will also pay special attention to students and younger workers who are anxious about AI's impact on entry-level jobs. The IHLs continue to enhance their curriculum to keep pace with AI advancements. All IHLs will offer selected AI-related courses for their alumni at a significant discount for a year, starting in the second half of this year.
Graduates entering the workforce can also tap on MOE's SkillsFuture Work-Study Programmes, which combine classroom training with on-the-job training at companies to build both the skills and experience that employers value.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim called for the expansion of youth apprenticeship pathways. We agree. Structured learning must be complemented with real workplace experience. We will continue to work with sector leads, like the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Infocomm Media Development Authority to support apprenticeships in high growth sectors, learning from our experience from programmes, like GRIT, we stand ready to refine and to expand these programmes, if necessary.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. Singapore has weathered deep disruptions before, from the Asia Financial Crisis to SARS, to COVID-19. Each time, each crisis we came through not because the Government had all the answers, but because workers, businesses and Government stood shoulder-to-shoulder. That is the strength of tripartism.
In many countries, AI becomes a tug-of-war. Workers on one end, business on the other. Progress contested, trust strained. Singapore does not have to go down that road. We work together to make our entire economic pie bigger and make sure that the benefits are widely shared.
To our workers wondering where you stand, there will always be a place for you. Your experience, your judgement, matters more than ever and your commitment to our country, your support through the years, through the decades, we are deeply appreciative. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
To all of our young graduates, your ideas, your drive, matters more than ever. Your enthusiasm, your curiosity, that connect – that curiosity that Minister of State Jasmin Lau talked about just now – matters more than ever and we are behind you.
For all of our businesses, if you are unsure, you are uncertain as to where to start, you do not have to figure it out alone. We will walk alongside with you. We will help you to transform, will help you to compete so that together you can create better opportunities both for your businesses and for your workers.
We will not leave the future of work, the livelihoods of our workers, our Singaporeans, to chance. We will shape a transformation that is inclusive, forward thinking, anchored in real action.
Singaporeans will never be helpless passengers to an AI-driven future, but Singaporeans will be our fellow co-pilots as our AI journey takes flight. And we will move forward in the Singapore way with Government, employers and the unions working together to ensure that our AI transformation creates good jobs, clear pathways for every Singaporean worker towards a better future because every worker matters. With this, I rise in support of the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: In Parliament, we are also adopting and embracing AI as we equip our staff on this journey. Leader, please move the exemption first.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: I see a few hands being put up. Please raise your hands again, those who wish to seek clarifications. Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: Thank you Speaker. I have clarifications for the Minister of State Lau and Minister.
My clarification for Minister of State Jasmin Lau is, I am glad to hear that she has put to me that automation and augmentation are not mutually exclusive. She went on to define that as being intentional about automating repetitive and physical tasks and upgrading the skills of that same worker. So, I am glad to hear that because that is exactly how I have defined augmentation in my speech.
And she also noted that I use the term automation in my speech as a shorthand for scenarios where a job is entirely fully automated away at the expense of the worker. And this is abundantly clear.
To Minister Tan. He suggested that proposals by my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam and myself, are anchored on the premise that Singaporeans are hapless passengers along for the ride on this AI journey. I would urge the Minister to clarify how he has managed to read that basis into our speeches.
And secondly, I will simply use the language of Minister of State Lau as well, that we do not believe that strong social safety nets, and upskilling Singaporeans and urging them to embrace AI are mutually exclusive. It is not a zero-sum game. It is not a binary equation. In fact, we believe that strong social safety nets are precisely what will enable Singaporeans to take a risk-taking approach and embrace the opportunities that AI will deliver.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Very glad to hear that we are on the same page. I thank Mr Andre Low.
Dr Tan See Leng: Likewise, I am really glad, particularly from Mr Low that, and I presume, since he is mentioning his name, Mr Giam as well, that they believe that Singaporeans have what it takes to work with the Government, with the unions, with the businesses to chart their own future. So, I thank the Member for that affirmation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you, Sir. My response to the Minister, yes, I definitely believe Singaporeans have the ability to chart this future for themselves. But the Minister has offered a choice of two visions in his response to my speech; and I thank him for reading it carefully. But I do not agree with his characterisation of my proposal as a resignation to displacement.
The National AI Equity Fund is not about a compensation for failure. It is about providing the security required for assurance and success. And I would like to remind him that the proposal I put forward has actually got two limbs. The first provides a direct stake in our prosperity. The second, which utilises nearly half the fund, is a direct investment in the skills and competencies of our workers.
It provides a wage support and technical expertise that companies, especially SMEs, need to conduct on-the-job training that is fully relevant to their workers.
And earlier, Minister of State Jasmin Lau said gains from AI must translate into greater security for all Singaporeans.
Can the Minister elaborate on how the Government intends to ensure workers receive a direct and tangible share of AI productivity gains beyond just more training? Specifically, what is the Government's plan to move from discretionary spending to a structural sharing of AI wealth to protect the economic agency of our workers?
Dr Tan See Leng: I think the straight answer is through real income improvement. For today's Motion, the NTUC Secretary-General will be wrapping up. But in the months, in the years ahead, I have shared that SWDA will have very clear key performance index outcomes, including tying the Enterprise Workforce Training package, job redesign to specific skin in the game for both the businesses tapping on such grants, to improvement in real wages and career progression for the workers. That is how we envisage the pie to be shared.
Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: I would like to ask two clarifications of the Minister.
First, why does he believe that the SkillsFuture course enrolment is a reliable proxy for seriousness? I have some of my residents who have gone for some of these AI courses; they are not very complimentary on the content of these courses. So, there is a perception that some of the quality of these courses is not as good as it could be.
And second, does the Minister not think that universal supply of frontier agentic tools will create its own demand eventually?
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, I heard Mr Tiong's speech earlier on and where he also expounded on his experience in learning a lot of the cutting edge, I think it was Anthropic Claude, and he mentioned a few of that.
I must say that not everyone, myself certainly, would have his level of expertise when it comes to AI. What we are trying to do is to make it pervasive to bring as broad a segment of our population as possible and tying it to a slightly lower hurdle for them to acquire that confidence, that comfort in using AI.
So, our journey is about ensuring that everyone gets a stable path, covering a pathway devoid of potholes, bringing hopefully everyone to base camp before we prepare to scale the peak. I think I have articulated the vision.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling: Thank you, Speaker. I have a clarification for Minister of State Jasmin Lau. In my speech on job redesign, I had asked for AI grants to be tied to mandatory job redesign requirements and productivity gains linked to worker outcomes. And I am very glad to hear that the Ministry has set out expectations of companies that benefit from AI and a vision for good jobs in the AI age. I am also very happy to hear that you have committed by saying that public support will come with worker outcome expectations.
Would the Minister of State be able to share what specific worker outcomes will be tracked and whether job redesign will be an explicit condition of our AI grants, or simply an expectation that companies are just encouraged to meet? And what kind of mechanisms will you be putting in place to track and recognise companies that do this job redesign well?
Ms Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for the clarification. I think this is something that we should discuss together with all of our tripartite partners, whether it is with unions as well as business leaders, to make sure that any of our grant and support schemes do not end up making things even harder for companies that want to transform.
But yes, this is the direction that we are committed towards and we should discuss this further in the coming months.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee: Mr Speaker, I would like to seek a clarification from Mr Kenneth Tiong. I believe my speech has put forth my concerns about advancing mandatory notification for businesses. I would like to clarify on his proposed 90-day mandatory notice for AI-driven role elimination.
In practice, AI transformation is often gradual and task-based, with roles evolving through redesign, augmentation and changing workflows over time rather than a single identifiable point of elimination.
Even in my own company, it starts at 10% of tasks being automated, then 30%. And it is merged with another function. Then, the scope changes. The issue is therefore operational reality and definitional ambiguity.
So, could the Member clarify how companies, especially many of our SMEs, are expected to determine when this 90-day notice should formally commence? Would the Member also agree that if definitions are too rigid, firms may avoid gradual redesign altogether and may instead move towards sharper restructuring exercises, which may ironically worsen outcomes for workers? There is another possibility that this might even inadvertently cause slower AI adoption and weaken business competitiveness.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: To the extent that there is a court jurisdiction as was the case in Hangzhou in China, I think that they can be made a point to determine whether something is substantively AI-driven redundancy or not. I think in practice, it will probably depend on the composition of tasks that are automated as well as things that perhaps the employer pays a lower effective remuneration for them. But that is why it is very important for there to be an adjudicated process, as I have pointed out in my speech, for workers to be able to better challenge some of these concerns.
Of course, I acknowledge that some of these things may introduce friction for businesses. I certainly do not deny there is a trade-off. But if we do believe that there is this potential for AI to foster very rapid employment changes, then certainly, I think we should err on the side of caution.
Mr Speaker: Can I invite Mr Ng Chee Meng to do your rounding up speech?
Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members who have debated and supported this Motion with such conviction.
All Members recognise that AI adoption is not optional. If Singapore is to stay competitive, both enterprises and workers need to raise AI fluency to seize new opportunities. There is also a clear consensus on the transformative potential of AI and on our collective responsibility to manage its impact on our enterprises and our workers.
As Minister Tan See Leng and Minister of State Ms Jasmin Lau have pointed out, left to the market, AI growth may not automatically benefit workers. Members like Mr Yip Hon Weng warned about an outcome where some workers gain but others risk falling behind.
I am therefore glad that through this Motion, the Government has affirmed that it will not leave outcomes to chance, but will shape the direction of AI growth deliberately and I look forward to the measures that will be unveiled through the Economic Strategy Review report.
Mr Speaker, Members raised ideas that deserve serious consideration.
In my opening, I put forth four practical moves: first, building market intelligence and foresight for an AI-enabled economy; second, enabling enterprises to transform with AI and do so in a way that benefits workers; third, enabling workers to seize new opportunities; and fourth, enabling displaced workers to bounce back with dignity and confidence.
These are no-regrets moves – practical, grounded and effective. They lay the foundation for AI growth that translates into good jobs and better prospects for our workers, guiding how AI is adopted, how work is reorganised and how workers can move through change with support and dignity.
Let me draw on Members' contributions and address them.
First, on intelligence and foresight. Workers and enterprises need more than information. They need trusted intelligence, put directly in their hands, so that they can navigate this transition with clarity, not anxiety. I thank Mr Alex Yeo, Ms Poh Li San and Ms He Ting Ru for supporting this proposal.
Ms He Ting Ru highlighted the need for Singapore-specific research so that we know the impact of AI disruption on our more vulnerable workers. Mr Alex Yeo pointed out that such intelligence could also help us identify where AI is creating new jobs and new industries so that the Government can move early to incentivise AI startups and enterprises to generate fresh opportunities for our workforce.
Assoc Prof Terence Ho likewise underscored the need to deepen local research on how AI is reshaping work to inform our responses and to position Singapore within global research networks on human AI complementarity. Within NTUC, we have begun contributing to this work through our Labour Alliance co-laB (LAB), a research community we formed with academics that brings together experts across our IHLs. Working with our tripartite partners, the co-LAB seeks to translate international best practices into insights grounded in Singapore's labour market realities so that researchers, adult learners and human resource practitioners alike can have an earlier, clearer basis to act on AI transformation.
Second, on enabling enterprises to transform with AI. Mr Mark Lee spoke about enterprises' need to transform to stay competitive, making the important point that enterprise and workforce transformation must move together. Mr Yip Hon Weng reinforced this – that the real constraint is not the technology, but workforce readiness, and we must move from AI adoption to AI fluency, with clear accountability for worker outcomes. Mr Gerald Giam had a proposal to support employer-led on-the-job training model so that employers, especially SMEs, are incentivised to train and retain workers. I acknowledge and support the objectives behind these proposals. It is precisely what our CTCs are doing – supporting firms to embark on transformation through structured projects that embed worker training and outcomes.
I thank Minister Tan See Leng for supporting NTUC's suggestion to further expand the CTC initiative. What we must now do is to deepen it, scale it and focus our efforts on AI across more businesses and sectors.
Mr Mark Lee called for a clearer enterprise \"front door\" so firms, especially SMEs, are not slowed down by having to navigate multiple schemes and processes. He also suggested that trade associations and chambers could become platforms that accelerate AI adoption across sectors.
This is exactly what the Tripartite Jobs Council is setting out to do – to consolidate tripartite partners' various capabilities under one roof to better serve out our enterprises and our workers. I am glad the Government has supported NTUC's proposal to form this Tripartite Jobs Council.
Third, on enabling workers to seize new opportunities. Mr Alex Yeo made the point that equipping our workers requires building capability and confidence at the workplace so learning translates into deeper skills. Mr Kenneth Tiong highlighted the importance of providing our workers access to AI tools. Dr Neo Kok Beng suggested that we define competencies for the AI age and validate competencies through certifications. I note these suggestions.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Vikram Nair also made the point that job redesign if done well is the key to ensure that AI creates opportunities and pathways for our workers to grow. Dr Hamid Razak spoke for the PMEs, residents and parents carrying this anxiety about AI not just for themselves, but for their children. Indeed, AI-relevant pathways must be tied to job redesign to provide a smoother transition for our youths and PMEs.
Several Members have raised concerns about our young graduates. Mr Mark Lee, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms He Ting Ru and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim highlighted that fresh graduates face challenges not just in finding good jobs, but in accessing the foundational entry-level roles where they learn to become professionals.
NTUC supports the Government doing more to provide wage supplements if indeed there are wider signs of labour market weaknesses. But should this be done too early or too broad a scale, employers may not have the right incentive to pay the full wages. This is also why good research and understanding of the labour market is needed.
My fellow labour Members of Parliament – Mr Desmond Tan, Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Yeo Wan Ling – spoke up from our unions' perspective. Their asks: that productivity gains are shared, that workers are supported through transitions and that workers are given a genuine voice in AI adoption – exemplify what the Labour Movement stands for in this renewed tripartism in the AI era.
Mr Yip Hon Weng called the Government to establish clear conditionalities for our support schemes to ensure that public funding goes towards worker outcomes. Ms Yeo Wan Ling called for AI grants to be tied to mandatory job redesign requirements and productivity gains linked to worker outcomes. Mr Andre Low made a similar point that we need accountability mechanisms to ensure that our investments in AI are ensuring augmentation, not automation. In response, Minister of State Ms Jasmin Lau shared the Government's commitment that where public support is given, the Government will expect companies to make the effort to support worker outcomes.
Mr Saktiandi, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Ms He Ting Ru highlighted how AI can cause an uneven impact on jobs as well as uneven benefits across different worker groups.
Members also highlighted segments of workers who may require additional attention. As Mr Saktiandi and Ms He Ting Ru pointed out, caregivers and our vulnerable workers may have unequal access to AI tools and training. Mr Sharael Taha and Ms He Ting Ru spoke about the need to support women. Gig and Platform workers, as Ms Yeo explained, must be consulted. Their lived experience is critical input as work evolves with AVs and AI. She also called for clearer visibility on the national AV deployment timeline so platform drivers can plan transitions.
I also thank Ms Yeo, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Fadli Fawzi for speaking up for our skilled tradesmen. Amidst AI disruption, we must do more to equip them in AI fluency and build sustainable and respectable career pathways so that they have better work prospects and wages.
Senior workers, as Mr Desmond Tan spoke passionately on, may face more challenges in keeping up with AI disruption and require dedicated support.
I fully agree with Members that we must be alive to the needs of specific segments of workers. I echo Mr Saktiandi's call for sound policies to shape the trajectory of our AI growth so it benefits workers and citizens and remains inclusive.
As Ms Poh Li San rightly reminded us, AI also has the potential to augment our workforce and reduce reliance on foreign labour, unlocking the human bottleneck that constrains many businesses today.
On the fourth move to enable displaced workers to bounce back with dignity and confidence, Mr Patrick Tay called on the \"3Es\" – equitable growth, enhanced protections and engaged workforce. He calls to raise the Jobseeker Support scheme eligibility to the PME median income – around $8,400 as of 2025 – and to provide earlier notification of retrenchment. These are in line with the moves I suggested in this House too. These are specific, actionable asks that will make a real difference to blue-collar workers and middle-class PMEs alike.
Mr Andre Low questioned whether the JSS is sufficient and proposed a redundancy insurance scheme instead. NTUC’s position is clear – our focus is on ensuring the right support to help workers bounce back. NTUC is not wedded to any particular form. We will work closely with tripartite partners to innovate, as we have done before. That is how we have come up with Workfare, Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and now the JSS. Our shared aim is to make the JSS even better, so we can better support our workers, especially our PMEs.
Mr Yip Hon Weng also made the important point that we must rigorously track the speed and effectiveness of our existing measures to support workers who face disruption, especially the financial runway for displaced workers.
I also thank Mr Sanjeev Tiwari, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Vikram Nair and Ms He Ting Ru for highlighting the potential of AI to cause harm to our workers, such as how AI may intensify workload and introduce risks of discrimination in employment decisions. Ms Eileen Chong suggested also to legislate the right to Flexible Work Arrangements.
The Labour Movement takes these concerns seriously. We will work with tripartite partners to study these issues, building on the Workplace Fairness Act and the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements.
Members have also surfaced other ideas to contribute to the Motion. Mr Saktiandi suggested for the Government to be the \"first customer\" of useful AI tools and solutions to facilitate broad and widespread utilisation of AI. He also highlighted the need to calibrate data sharing frameworks and ethical guardrails. Ms Poh Li San spoke about ethical use of AI in society, to ensure that it is used as a force for good and not for criminal and harmful exploits. Ms Eileen Chong and Mr Fadli Fawzi spoke about the need to address the impact of AI use on our students, and the impact it might have on our cultures. These important issues deserve separate, careful study and consideration beyond the remit of this Motion.
But I thank Members, everyone, indeed, who have spoken up and contributed to this Motion. I really appreciate the conviction and the commitment expressed for the workers and the enterprises, for us to create the biggest possible pie for Singapore. I also want to thank tripartite partners who have been on this journey every step of the way. MOM, SNEF and all our different partners.
Mr Speaker, with that, let me close. After seven hours and 18 minutes.
I am deeply appreciative, finally, of Mr Sharael Taha's sharing of his experience with labour movements overseas, and his insight that a lack of tripartite trust in their system prevents innovation and change even when this change is most needed. I thank him for highlighting the uniqueness of our tripartite model – where our unions not only protect workers, but focus on keeping them relevant, employable and ready to seize opportunities.
Our tripartite model works because it is based on trust. Even among our own tripartite partners, when there are different views and priorities, we evolve our conversations. We work through differences to find win-win positions that are in the best interest of Singapore and our workers. It is not about labour versus capital, workers against employers, or one group advancing at the expense of the other. Transformation in the AI era can be win-win, and our tripartite model in the AI era will ensure this.
AI is fast-evolving and we do not have all the answers today. Its full impact on jobs and businesses will continue to unfold. We may not agree with every \"how\", but we must set the right direction, and at the same time, know with humility that we are innovating and experimenting with pathways forward in this era.
We have forged a firm commitment – to keep our workers and enterprises at the heart of national efforts to seize new opportunities brought about by AI. And in this Chamber, now it sends a clear signal to every worker – blue- and white-collared alike: this House stands with you. With this House standing united, I am fully confident that we can strengthen our plans and responses at this stage of the AI-enabled growth. Together with enabled enterprises, we will forge \"Tripartism in the AI-era\" for win-win outcomes as we have done before – in Singapore, for Singaporeans.
Not AI instead of workers. But AI that works for workers. Because in Singapore, Every Worker Matters.
Mr Speaker, I urge Members of this House to support the Motion as it stands. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank Mr Ng Chee Meng for acknowledging my OJT proposal. I am aware of the work of CTCs, but my proposal goes beyond what the CTCs currently provide. First is the depth of wage support, and second is the structural design of OJT. While the CTC grant can support training fees and process redesign, its primary lever still remains project-based capital expenditure. It does not provide the aggressive six-month salary subsidy required to derisk the transition for an employer when a worker's productivity temporarily drops because of intensive AI training, and many SMEs currently lack the internal capacity to design effective structured OJT, so my proposal provides the necessary, what we call, \"design brains\" through a dedicated pool of expert OJT consultants to ensure that the mastery that they achieve is both practical and is not just administrative.
Mr Ng Chee Meng: I note the intent of the OJT and agree with the objectives behind the proposal, and it will be studied, considered in our NTUC's work, even as we chart possibilities in career counselling for the youths, and do possible pathways to innovate with the IHLs in career guidance and matches into internship and other possibilities. I will note the point raised and see if we can fulfil the intent, while maybe have variations on the specific pathways.
Mr Speaker: I do not see any more hands and, indeed, after 24 speeches and over seven and a half hours, let me put the question to the House.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That this House – (proc text)]
[(proc text) 1. Recognises the transformative power of new technologies, especially Artificial Intelligence (AI), to drive Singapore’s next phase of economic development; (proc text)]
[(proc text) 2. Emphasises that Singapore's approach to AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience, and opportunity for all; (proc text)]
[(proc text) 3. Resolves to equip and support workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities and advance together; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) 4. Affirms that economic progress must remain inclusive, and that Singapore must not have jobless growth, because every worker matters.\" – [Mr Ng Chee Meng] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Info-communications Media Development Authority (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Digital Development and Information.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Digital Development and Information, I move that \"The Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Bill proposes amendments to the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) Act. Principally, the amendments align the regulatory framework for the media sector with that for the telecommunication sector. The Bill also makes related amendments to the Telecommunications Act.
Let me first set out the context of the Bill and how the proposed amendments fit within the broader regulatory frameworks. I will then bring Members through the two key amendments: firstly, those relating to the ownership and control of key media entities; and secondly, amendments that facilitate regulatory actions by IMDA, together with a number of administrative updates.
As the amendments are technical in nature, let me first set out the background and context. IMDA was established in 2016 through the IMDA Act. The observation then was that the lines between how content is produced, how it is carried and how it is consumed were starting to converge. IMDA was formed through the merger of the Info-communications Development Authority, and the Media Development Authority to become the single regulator and industry developer for both the telecommunication and media sectors.
IMDA relies on the Telecommunications Act as the main legislation for the telecommunication sector. The Telecommunications Act covers the licensing of telecommunication systems and services, as well as competition and consumer interest matters.
Unlike the telecommunication sector, a few regulatory frameworks come together to form IMDA’s toolkit for the media sector. The Broadcasting Act and Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) determine who is a broadcasting licensee or a holder of a newspaper permit respectively, and such entities may be specified as regulated persons under the IMDA Act and be subject to the competition and consumer protection framework within it.
Therefore, the proposed amendments under this Bill deal primarily with the IMDA Act, that is, the competition and consumer protection aspects of our regulatory framework for the media sector.
Let me now turn to the first set of amendments that relate to the ownership and control of key media entities, or regulated persons as referred to under the IMDA Act. The amendments look at the media market structure and practices. They aim to ensure fair competition and market conduct, and that consumers of media services are protected.
Sir, we care about who owns and controls regulated persons. These are companies that shape the information environment for our citizens, especially in the age of AI and disinformation.
Clause 9 of the Bill will replace the existing Section 65 of the IMDA Act. The intent is to broaden IMDA’s oversight of ownership and control changes. Under the amended framework, changes in ownership or control that can allow any person to direct the actions of regulated persons will require IMDA’s prior approval. Specifically, this would apply where a person acquires 30% or more interest in a regulated person, obtains effective control over its operations, or takes over its media business as a going concern. The 30% threshold in the Bill serves as a benchmark for when someone would presumably have control over the entity’s decisions and operations. This is consistent with the 30% voting control level under the Monetary Authority of Singapore's Take-Over Code as well.
With this change, IMDA's approval would now be needed if an entity that is not a regulated person wishes to acquire 30% or more of our Pay TV operators, SingNet or StarHub Cable Vision, for example.
This requirement is in place today for the telecommunication sector, where acquisitions by any party, crossing certain thresholds, such as 30% ownership or control of key telecom entities, require IMDA's prior approval. We are adopting this practice for the media sector.
I should add that under the Broadcasting Act and NPPA, a person must not become a substantial shareholder, which is defined in the Companies Act as having not less than 5% of the total votes attached to all voting shares in the company, a 12% controller or an indirect controller of a broadcasting company and newspaper company without the Minister’s prior approval. These 5% and 12% thresholds give the Government oversight and control over persons who have significant stakes in our media companies to ensure that these companies are not subject to undue influence.
The proposed change under the IMDA Act with the 30% controller threshold will add to these safeguards. IMDA will have the powers to assess such changes with additional market conduct and consumer protection considerations.
Let me now turn to the second set of amendments. Broadly, they consist of amendments to facilitate regulatory actions by IMDA and several administrative updates.
Clause 6 of the Bill empowers IMDA to issue directions for the purposes of maintaining fair and efficient market conduct or to safeguard consumers' interests by promoting fair, transparent and reliable provision of media services. Under the current Act, IMDA's powers to give directions to regulated persons is limited to cases where there is non-compliance with competition or consumer protection rules under the IMDA Act and the Telecom and Media Competition Code.
However, there may be instances where actions of licensees may result in outcomes that are detrimental to consumers or undermine fair market competition, despite there being no breach of the IMDA Act or the Code.
Just to illustrate based on a past telecommunication sector example. It is unfair to you, as a consumer, if your provider abruptly changes the price or the terms and conditions of your subscription during the contractual lock-in period to your disadvantage. To protect consumers, IMDA prohibited such practices in 2015 and could do so quickly through a direction. IMDA subsequently formalised the requirements in the Code.
IMDA does not have such powers to act in this manner for the media sector. IMDA will need to first revise and reissue the Code of Practice before it can act. This takes time and consumers will be worse off during the interim period. With this amendment, IMDA can take similar quick and targeted actions for the media sector through the issuance of directions.
This Bill also makes a few other amendments that are administrative in nature.
First, the new section 65B introduced by clause 9 and the new section 71A introduced by clause 16 of the Bill enable IMDA to obtain specific information to support regulatory decisions. These information-gathering powers are to ascertain a person’s equity interests or voting power in a regulated person for the purposes of assessing ownership changes and gather information relating to the potential designation of a media service as an essential resource.
Second, clause 15 provides that the powers to order structural separation of a regulated person is vested in the Minister rather than IMDA. We recognise that a structural separation is a significant regulatory intervention, and it is appropriate that a decision of this gravity is taken at the Ministerial level. This mirrors the existing position in the Telecommunications Act.
The basis for these powers is meant as a last resort, to eliminate barriers to competition created by the control of bottleneck media resources or the possession of significant market power, after existing and potential regulatory actions by IMDA are deemed to be ineffective to enhance competition and where the Minister is satisfied it is in the public's interest to issue the separation order.
Third, clause 3 updates the definition of parties who can be designated as regulated persons to address potential gaps. To illustrate, the current definition of “regulated person” in the IMDA Act covers a “newspaper company” for the purposes of section 65. A newspaper company is defined in the NPPA as a public company limited by shares in compliance with section 10, which provisions includes, among others, a requirement for all directors to be Singaporean Citizens. This requirement was in place when the NPPA was enacted in 1974.
Sir, the media landscape has significantly evolved over the years. Other forms of corporate structures could similarly hold newspaper permits and their publications may have similar reach and influence, even if the entities do not fall within the narrow definition of a “newspaper company”, such as having Singaporean Citizen-only directors. The updated definition will allow these entities to be captured as regulated persons.
On the broadcasting side, the current definition of a regulated person in the IMDA Act covers only holders of broadcasting licences. Structures, like business trusts, that hold broadcasting assets are not covered under the current definition. We are updating the definition to cover such trust structures. This is aligned with the approach for the telecommunication sector.
Fourth, clause 5 allows IMDA to approve documents prepared by a person other than IMDA as a code of practice or standard of performance for the media sector. This is a practice informed by our experience with the telecom sector, where international standards have been considered and adapted for setting relevant standards for Singapore, such as the use of standards by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for mobile handsets and terminals.
This is a practical, industry-friendly amendment. To illustrate, where there are already good industry standards developed by professional bodies or industry associations, IMDA would have powers to require compliance with these industry-developed standards. It avoids duplicate rulemaking and it builds on industry buy-in because the rules are ones that industry itself has developed.
Fifth, in a similar spirit for our regulations to be practical, clause 9 of the Bill deems it sufficient for persons to notify IMDA, instead of seeking IMDA’s approval, for immaterial transactions to be set out in subsidiary legislation. The intention is to prescribe transactions which do not have an impact on equity interests or control of voting power held by shareholders of key media entities, for example, due to a transfer of shares between a corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary as part of a corporate restructuring. This amendment will lighten the regulatory burden and align the approach taken for the telecom sector.
Lastly, clause 18 makes related amendments to the Telecommunications Act itself.
Sir, these are for alignment purposes. The amendments update drafting, terminology and cross-references so that the two Acts use consistent languages and terms.
In conclusion, Sir, the amendments in this Bill ensure that our regulatory frameworks remain relevant and align the good practices across the telecommunication and media sectors. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Speaker, this Bill equips IMDA with significant preemptive and structural powers. The question before us is not whether these powers are needed but how we ensure they are exercised with clarity, with consistency and with proportionality. I rise in support of this Bill to strengthen competition, protect consumers and ensure that our media ecosystem remains fair, vibrant and resilient. As chairperson of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Digital Development and Information, allow me to briefly summarise the GPC's approach towards this Bill.
Collectively, members of the MDDI GPC recognises the need for Singapore's regulatory framework to evolve alongside the growing convergence of digital platforms, telecommunications and media ecosystems. Our speeches will focus on three broad themes.
First, I will focus on ensuring that a stronger regulatory and preemptive powers are matched by stronger safeguards, greater proportionality and clearer regulatory frameworks. Second, Member Ms Jessica Tan will focus on strengthening fair competition, protecting consumers and ensuring that SMEs and local creators continue to have fair access to essential digital and media resources. And third, Dr Choo Pei Ling will focus on how market influence today increasingly arises through ecosystem dependencies, platforms and infrastructure, not just ownership alone, and why regulation must therefore become more forward-looking and structurally aware.
Taken together, we support empowering IMDA with the tools necessary to act decisively in a rapidly evolving digital landscape while ensuring these powers are exercised transparently, predictably and proportionately. And it is on this principle that I would like to begin my speech.
Let me start with a simple principle. When regulatory powers become broader, the guardrails must become clearer. This Bill introduces a significant expansion of IMDA's toolkit, preemptive directions, tighter ownership controls and even the ability, as a last resort, to restructure parts of the market. These are not incremental changes. These are structural tools that can shape the market itself.
So, we must ask three very practical questions, questions that any business investor or even members of the public would naturally ask. What triggers an intervention? How will decisions be explained clearly and consistently, and will uncertainty create a regulatory overhang that deters investment? Because in Singapore, one of our key strengths is that we are predictable, transparent and rules based.
Investors are not afraid of regulation, but they need to understand the operating boundaries. They need the confidence that decisions are made consistently and not unpredictably. Therefore, I would encourage the Ministry to consider providing clearer guidelines and decision frameworks and ensuring transparent reasoning for major decisions and assurance that these powers are applied in a proportionate and consistent manner.
Mr Speaker, the second point is this; we must recognise the scale of the shift that this Bill represents. We are moving from regulating behaviour to shaping market structure itself or potentially shaping market itself. Traditionally, regulators act when something goes wrong, when there is a breach, when there is harm. Under this Bill, IMDA can act before harm occurs or even reshape ownership structures, where necessary. This is a fundamental shift from reactive enforcement to proactive market structure.
And with this shift, an important question arises. Is IMDA ready for this expanded role? Does it have sufficient data and market visibility to identify risk early? Does it have the economic modelling capability to assess long-term impact? And does it have the institutional strength to make, explain and defend these decisions, which will undoubtedly be legally challenged? More importantly, how will IMDA strike the right balance between competition, innovation and media sustainability? Because in a small market, like Singapore, this balance is delicate. Too much intervention may discourage investment and innovation. Too little intervention may allow dominance to take root. The challenge is not choosing one over the other but balancing all three carefully.
Mr Speaker, I am also mindful that with stronger powers come questions, not specifically pertaining to this Bill but particularly around media independence, regulatory overreach and the role of the state. This Bill is definitely not about influencing editorial decisions. It is about addressing market power – who owns, who controls and whether others can compete fairly. The provisions on this Bill deal with ownership structures, access to resources and competitive conduct. They do not deal with editorial content or journalistic decisions.
In fact, we should recognise an important point – a more competitive and contestable media landscape can actually strengthen this ecosystem. Because when no single player dominates, there is greater diversity of voices, perspective and viewpoints. The objective here is to ensure that no one can control the market unfairly.
Mr Speaker, while the intent is sound, there are also assumptions behind this Bill that we should carefully test.
First, the assumption that market power can be clearly identified early. But in digital markets, conditions change very rapidly. Today's dominant player may not remain dominant tomorrow. Second, the assumption that intervention will always lead to better outcomes. But markets respond, businesses adapt. Sometimes, the outcome may differ from what it was intended. Thirdly, the assumption that more intervention necessarily leads to more competition. But over-intervention can sometimes reduce incentives to invest or innovate.
Therefore, while the powers in the Bill are necessary, their application must be disciplined, evidence-based and carefully calibrated.
Mr Speaker, let me illustrate why preemptive powers necessary, especially in Singapore's context.
Imagine a digital platform widely used by Singaporeans to access news and content has just gained immense popularity all of a sudden. A small change is made to its recommendation algorithm. Some local publishers, especially the smaller, independent ones, suddenly become less visible. Their viewership drops significantly. Within weeks, some may struggle to survive.
But the time the harm is clearly visible and proven, it may already be irreversible. In a small market, like Singapore, once it is lost, it is very difficult to be rebuilt.
This is why in fast-moving digital markets, waiting for harm to occur is sometimes not an option. But equally, this example highlights why such powers must be exercised with clear thresholds, strong evidence and careful judgement.
Mr Speaker, let me now focus on three areas where further clarity will strengthen this Bill.
Under sections 59, 60A and 60B, the definitions of control and association are broad. This is important to prevent circumvention. However, there is also a risk that these definitions may over-capture legitimate business relationships, for example, a venture capital firm investing in multiple media companies or a strategic partnership by multiple firms without the intent to control or a collaborative ecosystem that supports innovation.
So, the key question is: how will IMDA distinguish between genuine collaboration and hidden control?
To strengthen confidence, it will be helpful to provide clearer guidelines on safe harbour principles or clarify what constitutes effective control in practice and focus on substantive influence rather than technical relationships.
Under section 61A, IMDA can act in the public interest, even without a breach. This is forward-looking and necessary. But the concern is straightforward. How do we ensure preemptive action does not become premature action?
To address this, we may consider clear evidentiary thresholds, demonstration of credible and eminent risk, and the possibility of review mechanisms to reassess decisions over time. This ensures that the action is based on real risks, not just theoretical concerns.
Under section 69A, the Minister may order structural separation. This is one of the most powerful tools in the Bill and it must remain exactly what it was intended to be – a last resort. The Bill already provides that other measures must have failed or are likely to fail. But further clarity will strengthen the confidence.
What constitutes failure of prior measures? How do we demonstrate that less intrusive options are insufficient? How do we ensure accountability in such decisions?
Because once exercised, structural separation is difficult to reverse.
Mr Speaker, in closing, this Bill is necessary. It reflects a simple but important reality – that in today's digital age, market power can emerge quickly and sometimes, invisibly. If we wait too long, the damage may already be done. But with stronger power must come stronger responsibility. We must empower IMDA to act decisively, but we must also ensure it acts predictably and proportionately.
Ultimately, this Bill is not about controlling the media, it is about ensuring that no one controls the media unfairly. If we get this balance right, we will not only strengthen competition, we will strengthen trust, resilience and diversity in Singapore's ecosystem. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to do three main things: one, enhance the provisions relating to fair and efficient market conduct and effective competition in the media industry so that they are aligned with that in the telecommunications industry; two, reduce the regulatory burdens on the media industry; and three, provide IMDA with additional powers.
The Bill is a necessary and timely update to harmonise regulations within a converging digital market.
While the direction of travel is broadly understandable, the Bill does grant the Government significant powers. Sir, I believe that there must be stronger safeguards that accompany such significant powers.
One change in the Bill is clause 15, which amends the law to vest the power to issue a separation order, which can require a company to restructure or divest parts of its business to address competition concerns, directly in the Minister rather than IMDA. While it may align with the existing practices in telecommunication industries to place such powers directly in the hand of the Minister, this also raises important questions about the concentration of decision-making authority within the hands of political officeholders.
Structural remedies are complex and technical. They have far-reaching implications for markets, investors and consumers. It is therefore important that such decisions are guided by clear objective criteria and that they be seen to do so.
The Bill does not currently require the detailed publication of reasons for such decisions. Without this, there may be concerns about transparency and predictability. Businesses need clarity on how decisions are made and the public needs confidence that such powers are exercised in a fair and consistent manner. We suggest that the Minister should make public a detailed reasoning behind a separation order before one is made.
Additionally, the Bill introduces a dual track appeal mechanism, allowing affected parties to seek reconsideration by the authority or appeal to the Minister. While this adds procedural flexibility, it does not address a broader structural concern – the absence of an independent appeals body which is not under the executive.
In other areas of competition law, appeals are heard by independent tribunals. This provides a layer of separation between the regulator and adjudicator, enhancing confidence in the system. Here, both the separation order and the appeal are issued and heard respectively by the executive. While there may be practical reasons for this arrangement, the Government should explain why an independent appeal mechanism is not being adopted, particularly given the increasing complexity of digital market regulation.
Sir, another area of concern relates to transparency.
The Bill allows for certain regulatory determinations, such as the designation of dominant players to be communicated through private notifications rather than public gazetting. While this may streamline administration, it reduces public visibility into how market power is assessed and regulated.
In sectors as critical as media and telecommunications, transparency is not merely a procedural matter. It is the cornerstone of public trust. Consumers, competitors and investors all benefit from understanding who holds significant market power and how that power is being managed.
The Government should, therefore, clarify how it intends to balance efficiency with transparency in implementing these provisions. How will we ensure that the relationship between the regulator and the companies does not become even more opaque and hidden from public view?
The Bill also introduces broad concepts, such as control and essential resources, which underpin many of its new powers. While flexibility is useful in a fast-moving digital landscape, overly broad definitions may create uncertainty. Businesses may find it difficult to assess whether routine commercial arrangements fall within the regulatory scope.
Similarly, the category of regulated persons can be expanded by the Minister. These raises questions about how emerging digital platforms, such as streaming services, will be treated. Clear guidance will be important to ensure that regulation remains targeted and proportionate without inadvertently discouraging innovation or investment.
The Bill is also framed as promoting competition. Yet in practice, Singapore's media landscape has long been characterised by structural concentration, particularly in sectors, such as free-to-air broadcasting and print. The Bill clearly strengthens the regulatory tools available to the Government to structure the media industry to promote competition. However, these additional powers granted to the Government by the Bill should not inadvertently result in the further erosion of media pluralism.
For example, the expansion of merger controls to any person acquiring a 30% stake in clause 3 gives the Government a virtual veto over the financing of media entities. How will the Government reassure Singaporeans that the expanded merger controls will not be used to block legitimate investment in independent or alternative media platforms?
Sir, the Bill affords the Government with a broad swathe of discretionary powers to regulate the industry. Such discretionary power cannot be left unchecked. We need clear statutory safeguards to ensure these powers are exercised fairly, transparently and in the public interest. However, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm that owns assets in the media industry.
We debate this Bill at a critical juncture in the global digital landscape, where infrastructure, platforms and data are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. For a small, open nation, like Singapore, our media landscape is not just an industry. It is a strategic asset. It is where our national stories are told, where perspectives are shaped and where trust is built. A market dominated by a single player is not merely an economic risk. It is a vulnerability to our social resilience.
I support this Bill. It is a necessary step to strengthen competition, align our media framework with the telecommunications sector and equip IMDA with the tools to act when markets do not function well.
But the power to intervene is also the power to reshape an industry. To ensure these powers deliver real benefits to Singaporeans without unintended consequences, I seek clarifications in three areas: affordability, worker protection and opportunities for smaller players.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, affordability.
Heartland families today are navigating rising cost-of-living pressures. If media markets are not truly competitive, the consumer ultimately pays through bundling, limited choice and rising subscription costs. Competition policy must not just rearrange ownership. It must reduce prices that families actually feel.
The Bill strengthens IMDA's powers over market conduct and structure. Under section 61A, IMDA may issue directions to ensure fair and efficient market conduct. But how will these interventions translate into tangible price relief for the average family?
Next, I note and support the effort under section 65 to reduce regulatory burden by exempting certain immaterial transactions from prior approval. However, for major acquisitions, approvals remain necessary. This is a significant shift as approval is now required regardless of whether the acquiring party is a media entity or not.
Can the Minister elaborate on how IMDA will assess such acquisitions, particularly where new entrants may bring innovation and capital but are not traditional media players? Can the Minister also clarify how IMDA will ensure that approval processes remain timely and predictable so that we do not inadvertently deter investments that could lower costs through innovation and scale?
Further, under section 65A, IMDA has powers to require the disposal of shares or the relinquishment of control. These are significant interventions that may carry legal and operational costs. Can the Minister assure this House that such powers will be exercised judiciously and that any resulting costs will not ultimately be passed on to consumers?
Finally, under section 69A, the Minister may order the structural separation of a regulated entity. While this can promote competition, it may also reduce economies of scale and increase duplication of costs. I note that this power is vested in the Minister rather than IMDA, given the significant impact of such decisions. Can the Minister elaborate on how this higher threshold of decision-making will be exercised and what considerations will guide such interventions?
How does the Ministry evaluate the trade-off between fostering competition and preserving efficiency so that affordability for households is not compromised? If competition improves on paper but prices do not fall, residents will not feel the benefit. A competitive market must also be an affordable market.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, worker protection. Our media industry is powered by people: journalists, producers, technicians and increasingly, freelancers. While I acknowledge that employment protections fall under the Employment Act and Ministry of Manpower guidelines, the interventions in this Bill can have real and immediate consequences for workers.
Under section 69A, a separation order may require the transfer of business to another entity. Such restructuring can create uncertainty for employees. Can the Minister clarify how IMDA will work with MOM and unions to ensure that workers affected by such changes are adequately supported and that transitions are managed fairly?
Further, under section 65A, IMDA may direct the disposal of business units. Has the Government assessed the potential employment impact of such interventions? Will considerations of workforce stability form part of the broader public interest assessment?
Beyond immediate restructuring, I would also like to understand the longer-term effects. In an environment where structural interventions are possible, firms may adopt a more cautious approach to long-term workforce commitments. While formal employment protections apply, the practical response may still be a preference for leaner organisational structures and more flexible staffing models. Will increased competition in this sector lead to better jobs, or more fragmented and less secure employment?
A more competitive market must also be a more secure job market. A healthy market must also be one that provides stability and dignity for workers.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the impact on local small media players and freelancers. These independent creators are vital to innovation, diversity and the vibrancy of our media ecosystem. While the Bill is rightly targeted at regulated entities and anti-competitive conduct, I seek clarification on whether there may be indirect compliance implications for smaller players who interact with these entities.
The Bill introduces detailed definitions of control and associate under sections 59 and 60B. These are structured around equity interests and defined relationships. However, given that they include arrangements and coordinated actions, can the Minister clarify how IMDA will ensure that ordinary commercial collaborations, especially among smaller players, are not inadvertently captured?
I also note that the definition of regulated persons has been expanded to close potential gaps, including for entities structured through trusts or other arrangements. Can the Minister clarify how this expanded scope will be applied in practice, particularly to avoid unintended capture beyond key media entities?
Further, under sections 65B and 71A, IMDA is empowered to require information from any person for investigative purposes. While necessary for enforcement, can the Minister assure that these powers will be exercised proportionately, particularly where smaller businesses or individuals are involved?
I am also concerned about barriers to entry. If compliance requirements become complex or uncertain, smaller players may feel compelled to incur legal costs simply to ensure they remain compliant. While the Bill reduces burden for certain pro-forma transactions, it also expands investigative and compliance powers. Can the Minister clarify how, on balance, this results in a net reduction of regulatory burden, particularly for smaller and emerging players? If regulation becomes too complex, it risks disproportionately favouring larger players with greater compliance resources.
I also note that IMDA may approve documents prepared by third parties as Codes of Practice. Can the Minister clarify how IMDA will ensure that such externally developed standards remain robust, transparent and aligned with public interest, particularly where industry interests are involved? Regulation should be a ladder for growth, not a hurdle to entry.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a necessary evolution of our regulatory framework. In an age of global media consolidation, we must have the tools to ensure that our market remains fair, competitive and resilient.
But residents will not judge this Bill by its legal provisions. They will judge it by outcomes. Will media remain affordable? Will jobs remain stable? Will opportunities remain open to new and diverse voices?
While this Bill focuses on market structure and not content, we should recognise that in the media sector, structure and trust are closely related. As we strengthen regulatory powers, it is important that confidence in editorial independence and the diversity of voices continues to be maintained.
Residents do not consume regulation. They experience outcomes in their bills, in their jobs and in their opportunities. If we strengthen control over the market without delivering clear improvements in affordability, jobs and opportunities, we risk building a system that is more regulated, but not necessarily better for Singaporeans.
Let us ensure that as we reshape our media industry, we deliver not just stronger rules, but better outcomes for families, for workers and for the next generation of creators. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party does not dispute the administrative case for this Bill. The IMDA already regulates both the media and telecommunications sectors. Drawing on a common framework across both is defensible on efficiency grounds and harmonisation grounds. We accept that.
But the argument goes further than that, because digital delivery has converged, because newspapers and broadcasters now reach audiences over the same networks as telephone companies, the Government says that they should be subject to the same regulatory powers.
I find this difficult to accept this prima facie without deeper scrutiny. The delivery mechanism may be shared, but the nature of what is being regulated is not.
The Bill introduces three significant new powers, a proactive directions regime under the new section 61A, an ownership approval regime under the new section 65, and the Ministerial separation order under new section 69A. My concern is this: this Bill may not be about the media landscape as it exists today. It is about the one that has not yet arrived – a future where genuinely independent media may grow in reach and maturity. And my fear is that this Bill is written to foreclose that future before it has the chance to arrive.
Mr Speaker, the case for regulating telecommunications carrier ownership rests on a concrete fear. The infrastructure – cables, spectrum, exchange points – this is neutral. If a single actor controls it, others are locked out. Regulating ownership is proportionate to that.
Press regulation is different. Newspapers and broadcasters make editorial choices: what to investigate, what to publish, whose voice to amplify. The power to shape public discourse is categorically different from the power to route a data packet.
A press regulation regime needs press safeguards, editorial independence on the face of the statute, so that the regime cannot reach what a publication chooses to investigate or publish.
Plurality conditions on ownership approvals designed to protect diversity of voice. Higher proportionality when restricting a press entity than a telecommunications operator. Independent review on the merits when a media entity is singled out by the executive. Transparency around designations.
This Bill contains little of these. It takes the structural toolkit or design for network operators – ownership approvals, proactive directions, separation orders – and applies it to entities that produce speech.
Mr Speaker, the Government is likely to say that this Bill is about promoting competition. In fact, they have. Let me examine that framing. Our two major media companies today, SPH Media Trust and Mediacorp, are both Government-linked. Both already within the Government's orbit, whether it is formally or informally. Extending regulatory powers over entities already in that orbit makes little sense and does not meaningfully change the competitive dynamics.
The more significant read of this Bill, and my read, is that this is a pre-emptive measure, not about managing existing players, it is about ensuring that no new actor, perhaps a well-capitalised private investor or a media group with genuine editorial independence, can build a meaningful presence outside the Government's reach.
Think of Apple Daily in Hong Kong, or the Washington Post, both funded by individuals with deep pockets of their own and strong political convictions. Jimmy Lai and Jeff Bezos are not politically neutral figures, but their convictions were their own, not the Government's. That is precisely what made their publications independently powerful. They could ask hard questions without needing permission from whoever held office.
The designation power in section 59(1) is the instrument for pre-empting that possibility here. The Minister can designate any newspaper publisher or broadcaster as a \"regulated person\" on no published criteria and bring the full weight of this regime to bear. Singapore does have independent media that falls outside the state's orbit.
Among them is Jom, founded in 2022. It publishes long-form journalism on Singapore's society, politics and policy. As of October last year, it had around 8,000 paying subscribers. I am one of them. It is not funded by advertising or any Government-linked body. It scrapes by because readers choose to pay for serious journalism. It has yet to flourish. It remains small.
Jom is an online publication. On a wide reading, it may well fall within the scope of this Bill. If Jom were ever designated under section 59, all three new powers would apply. Any investor acquiring 30% or more of Jom would need IMDA's prior approval. IMDA could issue proactive directions to Jom on \"public interest\" grounds left undefined in the statute, with no proportionality test and consultation waivable at IMDA's discretion. And the Minister could order its business transferred to another entity – with compensation the Minister determines, subject to no independent review on the merits.
This Bill is not written for Jom as it stands today. It is written for what Jom, or a publication like it, might become in 10 years. A publication with the reach to shape conversations, to hold power to account, and to be read by Singaporeans because it has earned their trust.
That is the future that I fear this Bill is designed to foreclose. A future where Singapore has a genuinely independent press – publications that owe their survival to the readers, not to the goodwill of any government, and that can ask hard questions of whoever holds power, including us. So if this is not the Bill's intent, I urge the Government to clarify.
Mr Speaker, the Bill's three new powers rest on a common foundation: designation. Under section 59(1), the Minister may designate any newspaper publisher or broadcasting licensee as a \"regulated person\" and then bringing it within the scope of all three powers. The Minister selects who is regulated, at their discretion. The selection is the gateway to everything that follows.
First, section 61A – proactive directions. The IMDA may issue proactive directions to regulated persons to ensure fair market conduct, effective competition, and simply, \"in the public interest\". That last ground is left undefined, and a direction under that section may require a regulated person to do or refrain from doing anything specified. There is no limit on subject matter in the text. Consultation may be waived whenever IMDA considers it \"not practicable or desirable\". There is no proportionality requirement and no obligation to give written reasons.
During the consultation process on this Bill, two law firms filed responses on these gaps. Their concerns have not been substantially addressed.
Moving on, section 65, ownership approvals. Any person acquiring 30% or more of a regulated media company now requires IMDA's prior approval. The definitions of \"control\" and \"associate\" are broad, capturing informal arrangements, oral agreements and trusts. There are no materiality thresholds. A standard minority investor protection is treated the same as an acquisition of effective control. The chilling effect on investment in small, independent publications is not incidental to this drafting. It is a foreseeable consequence.
And finally, the \"nuclear\" option, a separation order in section 69. The Minister may compel a media company to transfer its entire business to another entity. Compensation is discretionary. The Minister \"may\" award it, not \"must\". It may be denied entirely if the Minister finds that anti-competitive conduct took place – a finding the Minister also makes. The separation order is also final.
So, there is one decision-maker, at every stage, on every question. No independent check on the merits of any of it. When we debated the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act last year, I raised a structurally similar concern. In that Bill, the powers at least sat with a statutory Commissioner, not a Minister. I proposed an appeal to the High Court on three limited grounds. The Government declined.
The same structural choice, or at least a similar one, appears here. Compulsory restructuring of a media businesses, with the Minister at every decision point and no appeal on the merits available to any Court.
The powers inscribed in this Bill will not belong to this Government alone. They sit on the books for every future Government, every future Minister, in every future Parliament.
Parliament should ask itself whether it is comfortable with that, whoever holds power.
Mr Speaker, let me explain the mechanism by which this Bill forecloses the future I described. Without a single direction ever being issued, without a single separation ever being ordered. These powers do not need to be exercised to do their work.
A rational investor who wants to fund serious, independent journalism in Singapore, they will read this Bill and they will ask, \"Can IMDA issue a direction to this publication on public interest grounds? I cannot define in advance and with no proportionality test and no written reasons and no independent appeal on the merits.\"
The answer appears to be yes. Can the Minister order the business transferred determining compensation unilaterally on the finding of anti-competitive conduct that the Minister himself also makes? If the entity is designated, again, yes.
At that point, investment does not happen. The newsroom does not expand, the publication does not grow. And this is how unconstrained statutory powers work. They do not need to be exercised, they only need to exist in plain language for any investor doing a risk assessment to conclude: not here, not now, not under these conditions.
IMDA acknowledged the weight of this in its own 2022 consultation note. It stated that structural separation requirements may impose significant costs and should only be exercised in very exceptional circumstances. Senior Minister of State Tan has also assured us today that this would be used as a matter of last resort. The proof will be in its application.
So, I have six questions for the Senior Minister of State.
First, on designation. Section 59 allows the Minister to designate any newspaper publisher or broadcasting licensee as a regulated person on no published criteria. What criteria will the Government use to determine which entities are designated? Will these criteria be published before any designation is made? And will the same criteria apply equally to Government-linked and independently owned entities?
Second, and related, on the scope of designation. A regulated person under section 59 includes the holder of a broadcasting licence. I would like the Minister to clarify if this reaches social media companies, including large foreign players with a local presence? Furthermore, would blogs, social media accounts, podcasts and so on, be covered? If so, will the Government publish the criteria that would govern such designation?
Third, on \"in the public interest\". Section 61A permits IMDA to issue proactive directions simply in the public interest. The term is undefined. Will the Minister commit to publishing criteria for when this ground will be invoked?
Fourth, on transferee selection. When the Minister issues a separation order under 69A, the Minister may direct transfer to a separate entity which need not be an independent media entity. Given the structure of Singapore's media market, the realistic candidates for transference are today, Government-linked bodies. What constraints govern the choice of transferee? Can the Minister confirm that the compulsorily separated media business will not be directed to a Government-linked entity without the agreement of the regulated person?
Fifth, on compensation. Compensation under section 69A is discretionary. It may be denied entirely if the Minister finds anti-competitive conduct under section 69A, a finding that the Minister makes themselves, having already ordered the separation. What principles govern this determination of compensation and what safeguards exist to, against the finding being used to deny compensation to an entity whose business the Minister has already compelled, to transfer?
Six, and finally, on the newspaper permit. Following separation, the new entity must reapply for a newspaper permit under section 69A, 3B(2). The existing permit does not automatically transfer. The Government decides whether to grant the new one. Can the Minister confirm that a permit will not be withheld from an entity that has already been compulsorily separated under Ministerial Order, and will there be published criteria governing when the permit application following separation may be refused?
Mr Speaker, I earlier said I hope for a day when Singapore has a genuinely independent press of scale and stature. That day has not come, but the conditions that will make it possible are things that Singapore can build. It will not happen automatically. It will only happen if we make deliberate choices to build safeguards into our legislative architecture and not simply rely on the goodwill of whoever holds office.
That is why I hope that the Senior Minister of State can give us reassurance today that this Bill is intended to build regulatory architecture for the press that is designed to make a future of independent trusted journalism more reachable and not to close it off before it has the chance to arrive?
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, this Infocomm Media Development Authority (Amendment) Bill responds to a structural shift already underway, the convergence of broadcasting digital platforms and telecommunications.
At one level, this is a technical update to thresholds, approvals and enforcement tools. But at a deeper level it is about how Singapore regulates market power in a system where influence is increasingly exercised through dependency, not just ownership. That distinction matters because in a converged digital ecosystem, control does not always appear at the point of acquisition. It can accumulate quietly through minority stakes, infrastructure dependencies and control over distribution systems that sit beneath what consumers actually see and once embedded, these structures are difficult to reverse. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): The media regulation we face today is undergoing a crucial shift. In the past, we understood market structure primarily through the lens of \"who owns the company.\" However, in today's digital ecosystem, influence often stems not from ownership itself, but from \"dependencies\" within the system. When a platform, infrastructure, or data distribution channel becomes irreplaceable, market power may already be concentrated within the system, even without obvious monopolistic practices. Therefore, the key shift in regulatory thinking is: not just looking at \"who owns,\" but identifying \"who is becoming irreplaceable\" earlier. If we only intervene after problems emerge, we often miss the opportunity to adjust the structure.
(In English): I support the extension of IMDAs prior approval requirement to any acquisition crossing the 30% threshold in regulated media entities, including non-licensees. This reflects a necessary recognition that market influence today is not confined within sectoral boundaries. Capital is cross-platform, strategy is ecosystem-based and influence can be indirect but still structurally significant.
The key implementation question is this: how will IMDA distinguish between capability-enhancing investment, competitive concentration risk and longer-term dependency creation within the ecosystem? These effects are often not separable at the point of approval; they emerge over time.
Mr Speaker, the transfer of structural separation powers to the Minister is a significant institutional design choice. This is not routine competition enforcement. It is an exceptional intervention that can reshape market structure itself. The question is therefore not only about authority but about regulatory signalling.
Will the Ministry set out broad guiding principles on when structural separation is considered appropriate? Not to constrain discretion, but to strengthen predictability in a domain where investment confidence depends on clarity of risk boundaries.
On the reconsideration mechanism, I note the \"either-or\" structure between IMDA reconsideration and Ministerial appeal. Could the Ministry clarify the policy intent behind this design? Is the primary objective speed, finality, or avoidance of parallel processes? Because the structure of review pathways ultimately shapes how regulatory legitimacy is perceived, not just how quickly decisions are resolved.
The Bill adopts broad, technology-neutral definitions of \"control\" and \"essential resource\". That is appropriate in a rapidly evolving environment. But flexibility must still be operationally legible.
Would the Ministry consider issuing illustrative guidance, not fixed thresholds, but examples of what constitutes material influence in practice and what types of infrastructure or systems may be treated as essential resources in a converged media ecosystem? Because interpretability affects not only compliance, but also investment timing and market entry decisions.
Finally, tighter approval requirements will inevitably affect transaction timelines. That is a trade-off the system is making.
In that context, would the Ministry consider over time, publishing non-binding guidance or anonymised aggregated decision patterns, particularly around recurring assessment factors and common risk indicators?
This would not reduce discretion, but it would improve predictability where regulatory patterns are already structurally consistent. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, \"竞争让市场保持活力，但真正让系统长期稳定的，是信任与透明。两者缺一不可。\" (In English): \"Competition keeps the market dynamic, but what truly ensures the long-term stability of the system is trust and transparency. Both are indispensable.\"
Mr Speaker, Singapore is now managing a new form of concentration risk, not only in ownership structures, but in dependency relationships embedded across platforms, infrastructure and digital distribution systems.
Regulation must therefore do two things at once: remain firm enough to intervene early and remain clear enough for good actors to navigate confidently. That balance between firmness and legibility is what this Bill begins to strengthen. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Info-communication Media Development Authority (Amendment) Bill.
This Bill strengthens fair and efficient market conduct and effective competition in the media industry, reduces regulatory burden in prescribed areas, provides IMDA with additional powers and align certain provisions with the Telecommunications Act.
In plain terms, it strengthens oversight of ownership control and strengthens IMDA's ability to act when market conduct harms competition or consumers. Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point is that harmonising media and telecommunications regulation is no longer merely administrative. It is now a policy necessity. In the past, telecommunications could be understood as infrastructure and carriage.
Media was understood as content and publishing, but today consumers do not experience them separately. A citizen watches news, entertainment and commentary over data networks. Digital platforms operate across both infrastructure and content ecosystems, and a small number of major gatekeepers can influence both access and visibility.
In such an environment, if our frameworks remain too fragmented, we create uneven rules for functionally similar activity that can encourage regulatory arbitrage, where firms structure themselves to exploit gaps between regimes rather than compete on service quality, innovation and value.
The Bill's effort to bring media competition and conduct provisions closer to the Telco model is therefore a necessary response to technological convergence.
In this regard, can the Minister clarify how IMDA will ensure consistent principles across telecommunications and media competition regulation while still accounting for the media sector's distinct public interest considerations?
Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns media ownership and control, and why it matters. The Bill strengthens IMDA's framework around ownership, control and regulated persons, including powers linked to controllers and essential resources. It also tightens oversight of significant controls and transactions, including where a party crosses key voting control thresholds.
Now this matters because media ownership is never just a corporate matter. It affects the diversity of voices, the resilience of public discourse and the range of perspectives available to citizens in a small and highly connected media market like Singapore's, concentration of ownership or opaque influence can have outsized effects.
So, when we review ownership rules, we are asking a wider societal question. How do we preserve a media environment that remains trusted, diverse and resilient in an age of consolidation and digital concentration?
For the ordinary citizen, this is not abstract. It affects whether one receives information from a range of credible sources or from an ecosystem that is overly shaped by a few dominant actors. It affects whether media remains plural enough to support informed citizenship and it affects whether public trust in information ecosystems can be maintained. In that sense, stronger ownership safeguards are not only about control. They are about protecting the quality of the information space that citizens inhabit every single day.
At the same time, these powers must be exercised with clarity and discipline. In a globalised environment, the framework must be robust without becoming unnecessarily rigid. The objective is to guard against harmful concentration and opaque influence, while allowing legitimate investment, innovation and sectoral development.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point relates to the public impact of anti-competitive conduct, which the Bill seeks to address more effectively. When markets become concentrated, or when certain players can unfairly leverage control over essential resources, harm flows directly to our citizens. Anti-competitive conduct can lead to fewer choices, weaker incentives to innovate, poorer service quality and higher costs over time. It can also create barriers for smaller or newer players, reducing dynamism and entrenching incumbents.
The Bill gives IMDA stronger tools to intervene in relation to market conduct and essential resources in the media industry.
Competition policy is not merely about punishing bad behaviour. It is about preserving healthy market conditions so that consumers are not disadvantaged by structural imbalances. And in the media space, competition issues are not just economic. They can shape who gets distribution, whose content reaches audiences, and which firms survive. In other words, competition shapes openness.
On the new power to issue directions for fair and efficient market conduct, can the Minister clarify what procedural safeguards will apply where practicable, such as notice, representations and review avenues, so that speed is balanced with due process?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would add that the success of these powers will depend on how transparently and consistently they are applied. Industry players will need clear signals about the thresholds, obligations and enforcement expectations. The public, too, should be able to see that these interventions are designed not to over-regulate, but to preserve fairness, openness and resilience in a converged digital landscape. With these observations, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the IMDA (Amendment) Bill. I declare my interest as Assistant Secretary-General of NTUC.
The Labour Movement welcomes this Bill. Stricter merger approval requirements, clearer direction powers for IMDA against anti-competitive conduct and a more coherent framework as our telecoms, broadcasting and newspaper sectors converge are timely and important. I support the intent of the Bill, and I would like to raise three areas where we can strengthen the worker dimension so that the sector remains competitive, while our workers and PMEs have confidence through change.
Under this Bill, IMDA must give prior approval before any party acquires a 30% or larger stake in a regulated media company. That prior-approval gate is also the right point to look beyond market structure and ask what the transaction could mean for the workers and workforce impacted and affected.
Major consolidation in the infocomm and media sector often comes with restructuring, role rationalisation and changes to how work is organised. In this sector, many of these job roles are undertaken by PMEs. They include engineers, operators, content and production professionals and thus the impact on livelihoods can be significant.
MOM’s Labour Market Report for 2025 identified information and communications as one of the sectors where resident employment declined in 2025, even as Singapore’s economy grew more than 5%. This is why worker confidence and timely support matter in any major sector restructuring.
It is important that the powers in this Bill are exercised in ways that are pro-competition and pro-worker, so that a \"market win\" does not become a \"social loss\". In that spirit, can the Minister consider whether IMDA’s assessment framework should formally incorporate workforce impact alongside market competition impact? This is particularly important as in the course of consolidation, employees may be moved to a different employing entity involving changes to their roles and job scope when the new parent group's competitive model is built on doing more with fewer people.
Singapore’s labour management relations are stable and our tripartite framework has served us well. My ask is that we extend that spirit more deliberately into sector consolidation processes so that where livelihoods are affected, issues, like collective agreement continuity and union representation, are addressed early, and the workers' voice remains present.
In this spirit, I have three questions which I hope the Minister can address.
First, how does the Government intend for IMDA to consider workforce impact as part of merger assessments, and can tripartite partners have a formal role in significant transactions?
Second, will the Government develop clear guidelines, in consultation with MOM and NTUC, on collective agreement continuity, union recognition and representation where consolidations or structural separations result in workers moving to a new employing entity especially if only the property is transferred to a new entity under section 69A(3)(a)(ii), and the workers have to move as well?
Third, would the Government consider putting in place a formal tripartite platform for the infocomm and media sector, so that the workforce issues arising from restructuring and consolidation can be addressed early and systematically?
The Labour Movement stands ready to work with the Government and industry as a constructive partner. We are not asking to oppose change but for clarity, contemporaneous communication, equitability and assurance so that impacted workers will not be left behind. In short, a fair and just transition. I hope today's debate helps move us in that right direction. Mr Speaker Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, this Bill is fundamentally about updating our regulatory framework so that the oversight of the media sector is aligned with clearer, more established competitive safeguards that has guided the telecom sector for years. I support this Bill because it will help Singapore keep pace with how quickly the digital and media world is evolving. Today, the services we rely on – our mobile plans, streaming platforms, online news and even everyday communication apps – are deeply interconnected.
This Bill modernises the media framework through several important updates: the new section 61A, which gives IMDA stronger and earlier intervention powers; expanded definitions in section 2 to capture modern, non-shareholding forms of influence; the new section 72A, which requires mandatory approval when an acquirer crosses the 30% ownership threshold; and the new section 69A, which empowers the Minister to order structural separation in serious cases of entrenched dominance.
These changes recognise that influence in today’s media environment no longer comes only from equity stakes. It increasingly arises from data access, exclusive content arrangements, platform prioritisation and algorithmic control. The Bill ensures that IMDA has the tools to address these realities in a fair and future-ready way.
A key thrust of this Bill is strengthening fair competition. The amendments in section 2 broadens the definitions of \"arrangement\", \"control\", and \"essential resources\" so IMDA can act when a company uses its position – formally or informally – to block others from entering the market.
This matters, because in the digital world, dominance can form very quickly. A platform can become the default choice for millions almost overnight. Clearer rules help ensure that competition remains healthy and that companies compete on quality and innovation and not locking others out. The Bill ensures that no single player can accumulate influence in the ways that reduces competition or harm consumers, keeping the market open, diverse and competitive.
This has real implications for everyday Singaporeans. More families now depend on digital services from news consumption to seniors staying connected, children learning online and households streaming entertainment. When one company becomes too dominant, consumers may face higher prices, fewer choices, weaker service quality and unfair practices like being locked into bundles or platforms.
Section 72A ensures that large acquisitions cannot take place quietly or without scrutiny, it requires IMDA's approval once a party crosses the 30% ownership threshold, thus preventing companies from using control over key digital or media resources to limit choice or raise barriers for others.
While this Bill does not set new standards for service quality or reliability, section 61A allows IMDA to intervene early if anti-competitive conduct threatens the continuity or reliable provision of media services.
SMEs and local creators are vital to our media and digital ecosystem. They bring fresh ideas, local stories and innovative services but often face higher barriers when competing with large platforms.
The new section 61A strengthens fair access to essential resources, such as content libraries, distribution platforms and advertising inventories. It empowers IMDA to issue directions to ensure non-discriminatory access and prevents any player from using control as an essential resource to block competitors. This means that smaller players cannot be denied access or priced out simply because a large competitor controls a key resource.
When SMEs can access essential resources fairly, they are more willing to experiment, invest and innovate. This leads to more diverse content, more home-grown digital services and more opportunities for local talent.
Mr Speaker, while the Bill is timely and necessary, there are areas that require further clarity.
The Bill strengthens IMDA’s regulatory toolkit through section 61A on early intervention, broader definitions under section 2, mandatory approval for acquisitions at the 30% threshold in section 72A, and the new section 69A on structural separation. These powers are necessary to address modern forms of influence in a converged media digital environment. But at the same time, the breadth of these powers mean that clear guidance and transparent processes will be essential to avoid over-correction, ensure business certainty and to maintain a pro-innovation environment.
So while the expanded definitions in section 2 are important to capture modern forms of influence, their breadth does introduce risks. Companies and investors may become overly cautious about partnerships and innovative business models, for fear of inadvertently triggering regulatory scrutiny. Routine commercial arrangements may be perceived as falling within scope, increasing compliance costs and slowing investment decisions. Clear guidance on how these definitions will be applied in practice will help maintain a pro-innovative environment.
Section 69A, which gives the Minister authority to order structural separation, is a powerful remedy and I am glad that the Senior Minister of State had also raised this point and said that it would be a power that would be used as last resort. But even if it is rarely used, the existence of this power may affect investment decisions if criteria are unclear. Clarity on the circumstances under which structural separation may be considered will give industry confidence that it will be used proportionately and predictably.
Mr Speaker, this Bill strengthens competition in concrete ways. It protects consumers and supports SMEs and local creators. It reinforces a fair, open and diverse digital environment. At the same time, increased oversight always carries the risk of over correction if applied too broadly. This Bill itself does not restrict innovation. In fact, by preventing harmful consolidation and ensuring fair access to essential resources, it helps create an open and competitive environment that innovation depends on. But clear guidance from IMDA will be important to ensure that these expanded powers truly support innovation rather than inadvertently discouraging it. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking in support of the IMDA (Amendment) Bill. While this Bill might appear technical, it matters because media is not just another industry. It shapes what people see. It shapes what they know. It shapes who they trust and also how we understand one another as a society.
I do not intend to speak on every single clause in this Bill but I wish to focus on three specific areas: first, whether preventing excessive concentration of control will also help to facilitate new entrance and create jobs; second, whether the new powers will be exercised with sufficient clarity and predictability, so that Singapore remains trusted and investable; and third, whether fairer market conditions will translate to better outcomes for consumers.
My first point is on aspirations and employment. A media ecosystem that is open and contestable should, in principle, create more opportunities. But this Bill does not directly create those opportunities. Rather, it seeks to prevent a market structure where opportunities become too concentrated in the hands of a few dominant players.
This is important because when the market becomes too concentrated, smaller firms might find it harder to enter, new ideas may struggle to find distribution and our young workers might find fewer employers to choose from. Workers would then have fewer pathways into the industry. For our young and our workers, this matters because the media content and ecosystem industry today brings work, such as production and design data, advertising technology, communication and platform-facing businesses.
This is especially important given our current job climate. We encourage Singaporeans to upskill, sign up for SkillsFuture, stay relevant to industrial needs. But if Singaporeans were to upskill, they must also feel that the real opportunities exist at the end of their effort. So, the question is not really about whether this Bill prevents excessive concentration of control, but the question is whether preventing such concentration of control can translate into a more vibrant ecosystem where more players can enter, grow and hire. With this Bill, I hope to be able to say to every Singaporean, if you choose to build your skills in this sector, Singapore is working to keep the media and ecosystem open, contestable and future-ready.
However, there is a tension that we must manage carefully. This Bill introduces strong controls over ownership, voting power, acquisition, effective control and the use and sharing of essential resources. These powers may be necessary to prevent dominance and protect public interest, but if applied without sufficient proportionality, they may create uncertainty for legitimate growth or even fundraising. This is particularly relevant for smaller players or emerging media businesses that may grow in the regulated space over time. Will the unintended consequences then be that new and small players find it harder to enter or scale?
So, my question to IMDA is this: how will we ensure that a framework designed to prevent unfair dominance does not unintentionally reduce vibrancy and entry that competition depends on? Where smaller players or emerging players fall in the regulated space, will IMDA also adopt a proportionate approach to compliance? Will there be clear guidelines for simple processes or differentiated expectation between large incumbents and smaller entrants?
I raise this because competition regulation should not prevent unfair dominance alone. It should also preserve innovation, entry and space for new players to grow. In plain English, we should not protect competition in a way which makes it harder for future competitors to emerge.
My second point is on Singapore's relevance and investability. Singapore's strength has always been not just only stable, but we are clear, predictable and trusted. And these are important reasons why investors choose to invest here. And investability is not an abstract concept because when companies invest in Singapore, they bring capital, they bring capabilities, regional functions and jobs. They create opportunities not just for senior executives but also Singaporeans working in content, marketing, production, communication and many other roles.
You see, investors and business do not expect a market to be unregulated. In fact, good regulations can strengthen confidence. It tells serious players the following things: one, the rules here in Singapore are fair; two, that dominant players cannot abuse their position; and three, that the system will not allow unfair concentration of control.
In this regard, this Bill sends a positive signal. It shows that Singapore is committed to fair and well-governed markets in the media industry. I understand, for example, the Bill closes a gap that says that if any party, including a non-media company, seeks to acquire 30% or more of equity interest or voting power in a regulated person, IMDA would have oversight. This is sensible because media ownership is not just commercial matters, because it affects competition, consumer interest and public trust.
See, at the same time, the powers introduced in this Bill are significant. The Bill strengthens control over ownership and effective control. It allows IMDA to issue directions in relations to regulated person and essential resources. It provides a stronger intervention where competition or the public interest is at stake. These are meaningful powers.
But precisely because such powers are significant, the basis for exercising them should be clear. So, I would like to ask how the Government intends to provide clarity on key concepts, such as public interest, effective control, substantial leasing of competition and essential resources? Will IMDA also publish clear decision frameworks or guidelines on how these concepts will be applied? Will businesses and investors be given sufficient clarity on the types of transactions or conduct that may raise such concerns?
This is important because investors are not just asking whether this system is fair. They are also asking whether this system is predictable. A system can be interventionistic, if needed or when needed, but if the basis for intervention is not well understood, investors may hesitate.
I also note that the Bill provides for reconsideration request to IMDA and appeals to the Minister. This is important. But could the Minister also clarify how does this safeguard works in practice? My point is simple. Strong regulatory power should match with strong clarity. This is how we preserve Singapore's reputation as a place where markets are well-governed, trusted and investable.
My final point is on outcomes for consumers and our residents. The Bill seeks to promote competition in the media industry. More precisely, it seeks to prevent unfair dominance, regulate control and ensure important media resources are not used in ways that harm competition or the public interest. In this principle, this should lead to more choices, better services, fairer access and greater innovation.
But from the perspective of the ordinary resident, the issue is not really how many media companies exist. The issue is whether the media environment, whether what they experience is diverse, reliable, accessible and trustworthy. A person may have access to many sources but still see a narrow slice of content. A young person may consume a lot of media but encounter very little local content. So, when we assess whether market-level competition has improved, I hope IMDA would also consider whether residents actually experience more choice, better service quality and greater discoverability of local content. I would like to ask IMDA how would we assess whether this Bill is delivering better outcomes for the consumer?
Mr Speaker, let me conclude. I support this Bill. It is right that our regulatory framework keeps pace with the changes in the media landscape. But as we do so, we must uphold three balances carefully: first, preventing dominance and allowing new firms to enter; second, regulatory strength and investability; third, market competition and consumer trust. Getting this right would help us to be a more open, vibrant, trusted and future-ready media ecosystem for Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Tan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How): Mr Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate do now adjourn.\" – [Mr Tan Kiat How.] (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate what day?
Mr Tan Kiat How: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Energy Resilience Strategy: An Off-grid and Micro-grid Power Using Smart Energy Management Solutions to be Deployed Islandwide","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
SINGAPORE ENERGY RESILIENCE STRATEGY: AN OFF-GRID AND MICRO-GRID POWER USING SMART ENERGY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS TO BE DEPLOYED ISLANDWIDE
Mr Speaker: Mr Azhar Othman.
Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to move a Motion for a national energy resilience strategy, specifically the adoption of decentralised off-grid and micro-grid power solutions, integrating solar photovoltaic generation and battery energy storage systems, along with a customised smart energy management solution.
There are other forms of renewable energy we can consider, such as small unit waste to energy, hydrogen-based genset and wind energy. But in this Motion, we will only consider battery and solar for simplicity. Kindly take note, any proposed design and data used in my speech are primarily from our very own assessment and should the Government of the day would like to comment, correct or even share their data, I truly welcome the initiative.
Before I proceed further, I declare my position. I am the Executive Chairman of an engineering firm that designs and integrates customised power systems and energy management solutions. My company has completed over 3,000 projects across 20 countries. I hold an engineering degree and have practiced in this field for more than two decades.
Mr Speaker, let me frame this Motion with clarity. I shall first describe Singapore's current power generation architecture. Second, I will examine credible disruption scenarios, both historical and future. Third, I will present a technically grounded, decentralised strategy to counter those disruptions. Finally, I will explain how this strategy makes every estate or constituency in Singapore a resilient node in a national fabric of energy security. There are seven parts to my speech, and these are very succinct.
Part one, current standing; centralised vulnerability. Today, Singapore's electrical grid is overwhelmingly centralised. Approximately 95% of our electricity is generated from natural gas, imported via pipelines from neighbouring countries and LNG terminals. These gas-fired combined-cycle plants are highly efficient, but they remain single-point-of-failure risks. A supply interruption from a foreign source, a gas pipeline breach or a simultaneous failure of two major plants could cascade into a system-wide blackout.
We have already seen warnings. In 2018, a major blackout affected parts of Ang Mo Kio, Yishun and other areas. Each time, the root cause traced back to a localised fault that propagated because our grid lacks sufficient segmentation and distributed backup. At the building level, many industrial and commercial facilities maintain diesel generator sets to power critical loads. But these come with well-known limitations – fuel storage constraints, refuelling logistics during extended outages, emissions, noise and maintenance burdens. Public housing estates, which house 80% of our population, largely lack any form of backup beyond emergency lighting in stairwells. When the grid fails, lifts stop. Water pumps stop. Lightings off. This is not resilience; this is dependence.
On a side note, I understand that a micro-grid project has been initiated by the Government in 2018 but till now, we have not seen the outcome of the project nor implementation of the solutions in a bigger scale. Probably the Ministry-in-charge can update on the development of the micro-grid project in Pulau Ubin?
The second part, disruption scenarios beyond the conventional. We must think beyond routine failures. Consider these credible high impact scenarios.
Scenario A, regional gas supply interruption. A geopolitical event or natural disaster disrupts gas supply. We do have backup supplies, but after that, power plants begin tripping. Without distributed backup, entire neighbourhoods go dark.
Scenario B: a cyber attack. A coordinated cyber attack targets the main power control systems and several power plants' supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks. Centralised command is lost. Even if generation exists, dispatch fails.
Scenario C: extreme weather. Increasingly intense tropical storms, lightning or flooding events can cause simultaneous faults on multiple transmission lines. The grid sheds load in cascading sequences.
In all these scenarios, a single centralised solution – building more gas plants or interconnectors – does not solve the fundamental problem. The problem is architectural, not just volumetric.
Part three, the proposed technical strategy. I propose a layered, distributed architecture comprising three technical elements.
Element one: rooftop and space-optimised solar building integrated photovoltaics, which has been well implemented by the Government. I am glad to see that solar photovoltaics have been deployed on Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks' rooftops and floating farms on reservoirs. We should aim to have deployment on every available suitable surface – multi-storey carparks, school roofs and industrial warehouse tops.
Modern solar modules achieve 24% to 25% efficiency. In Singapore's solar irradiance of approximately 1,580 kilowatt/square metre/year, a typical HDB block roof of 1,500 square metres can host a 250 to 300 kilowatt-peak system, generating roughly 340 megawatt-hour annually – enough to cover common area and essential load needs during daylight hours.
Element two: battery energy storage systems (BESS). Pair each solar installation with a lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) BESS. LFP chemistry offers superior thermal stability, longer cycle life – 6,000 to 10,000 cycles – and no thermal runaway risk – critical for high-rise residential applications.
I will give an example of technical sizing, for the sake of presenting my speech. Take Block 95 at Aljunied Crescent, with an estimated essential load per block, with two lifts, pump and corridor lighting, and a total load of 22 kilowatts. To protect the load running for four to eight hours, the required BESS for 22 kilowatts by six hours, assuming we take a safe margin, is 132 kilowatt-hours. A 150 kilowatt-hour LFP battery cabinet occupies roughly two square metres and fits in a corner of the existing electrical room or rooftop.
That is the load profile for the flat itself. At the same time, with solar generation, the battery charges during the day. When utility fails, an automatic transfer switch with less than 50 millisecond transition seamlessly hands over to BESS. Smart power management controllers shed non-essential loads within 200 milliseconds, preserving stored energy for essential functions.
The deployment of BESS can be done even on an apartment basis. In other words, every unit apartment will have a secondary power, which is another set of batteries, to ensure that every unit will run when the power fails. Like how every unit has a bomb shelter, now each unit has a BESS solution to power the apartment during emergency or power disruption situations. This will have a separate calculation for internal use.
Element three: now that you have the solar power and the battery, comes the control system. Smart power management and load shedding.
A building energy controller (BEC) monitors real-time state of charge, solar generation and load priority. It uses Modbus Transmission Control Protocol or other forms of protocols to communicate with smart breakers and sub-metres. The priority levels will look at:
Level 1: critical, always powered. For lifts, fire systems, water pumps, corridor emergency lighting and security cameras; and
Level 2: non-essential, shed immediately on outage. For air conditioners, water heaters, non-critical office equipment and electric vehicle (EV) chargers.
Residents would receive an SMS or app notification: \"Grid failure detected. Your block is on battery backup. Non-essential load has been temporarily disabled. Lifts and water pumps remain operational.\" Transparency builds trust.
Part four, from individual blocks to microgrids. Multiply this model. One HDB block becomes energy-independent for essential loads, but the real leap occurs when we interconnect neighbouring blocks, commercial buildings and industrial facilities into a local microgrid.
I will give you an example of the Macpherson constituency microgrid. There are 80 HDB blocks with a total of 12 megawatt-hour batteries, 20 commercial shophouses with about one megawatt-hour and five light industrial buildings with another one megawatt-hour. The total constituency storage is 14 megawatt-hour. The total solar generation potential is 25 megawatt-peak.
These assets communicate via a microgrid controller. When utility power fails, the controller islanded the constituency from the main grid. Each block runs on its own battery initially. For longer outages beyond four to six hours, the microgrid controller enables peer-to-peer energy sharing. A block with surplus battery transfers power to a block running low. A commercial building with a large rooftop array shares solar generation with nearby residential blocks.
This is not theoretical. Similar microgrids operate today in various countries such as the US, Italy, China and many others. The technology is mature.
Part five, scaling nationwide. Every constituency, a power island. Scale this design to every constituency – Ang Mo Kio, Tampines, Tanjong Pagar, Jurong, Sengkang and beyond. Each constituency becomes a grid-forming island, capable of operating independently for eight to 24 hours without mainland utility power.
If I were to summarise a national technical summary, that is approximately 10,000 HDB blocks with a total distributed BESS capacity of1.5 gigawatt-hours and additional commercial and industrial BESS of about two gigawatt-hours. The national distributed storage is 3.5 gigawatt-hours, the equivalent to the output of a 500 megawatt gas plant running for seven hours. The total rooftop solar is around 1.5 gigawatt-peak potential across all suitable surfaces.
This distributed architecture provides what no central plant can – inherent redundancy. A failure in one block affects only that block. A failure in one constituency does not cascade to another. Cyber attacks are localised. Physical damage is contained.
Part six, economic and operational benefits.
First, fuel savings. Diesel gensets cost approximately $0.40 to $0.60 per kilowatt-hour to operate, plus the cost of maintenance. With the current conflict in the Middle East, these prices have soared even higher. Solar plus BESS, amortised over 15 years, costs $0.15 to $0.25 per kilowatt-hour for back-up power.
Second, grid services. These distributed BESS assets, when not used for backup, can provide frequency regulation and peak shaving to the main grid. It is not only for power backup, it can also be used for peak shaving. EMA could aggregate them as a virtual power plant (VPP), generating revenue that offsets capital costs.
Third, faster recovery. After a major outage, central plants require hours to resynchronise. A microgrid restores power locally in milliseconds. Lifts restart immediately. Water pumps resume. Elderly residents on upper floors are not stranded, nor will they be in the dark.
Fourth, climate alignment. BESS with solar produces zero operational emissions. Every kilowatt-hour of diesel displaced reduces CO2 by approximately 2.7 kilogrammes. Nationally, this could cut 200,000 tonnes annually, the equivalent of removing 60,000 cars from our roads.
The last part, part seven, implementation pathway, practical and phased.
I propose a three-phase roll-out.
Phase 1, 12 months. Pilot in one constituency – Macpherson or Sengkang. Deploy solar plus BESS on 30 HDB blocks, integrate with microgrid controller and run parallel to the grid for one year. Collect real-world performance, load data and resident feedback.
Phase 2, 24 months. Scale to five constituencies. Refine smart loading algorithms, integrate with main grid control room and establish VPP (Virtual Power Plant) dispatch protocols.
Phase 3, 36 to 48 months. Nationwide rollout. Every HDB block, every major commercial building, every industrial facility. Mandate new buildings to include solar-ready roofs and BESS-ready electrical rooms.
Even though we have somewhat approximate figures for the capital cost for the above, but it is best we compute thoroughly. I believe the ability to ensure the reliability of power for all residents during grid failure is immeasurable.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Singapore prides itself on being a first world nation with world-class infrastructure. But our energy architecture remains a 20th century central model in a 21st century risk environment. We cannot rely solely on imported gas, central plants and diesel generators that fail when we need them most.
The solution exists. It is proven. It is clean. And it can be built block by block, constituency by constituency, without waiting for a crisis to force our hand.
I urge the Ministry to review and approve the establishment of a multi-agency task force, including EMA, HDB, BCA and industry experts, to pilot the first constituency-scale microgrid with solar and BESS. I offer my engineering experience to that effort without reservation.
Let us not wait for the next blackout to remind us what resilience means. Let us build it now.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Speaker, I thank hon Member Azhar Othman for his energising Adjournment Motion.
The power grid is like the backbone of our body. It holds the system together, connecting power generation sources and end-consumers. The Government recognises the importance of having a resilient and reliable grid to power our economy and our daily lives.
A key factor underpinning our grid's resilience is its interconnectedness. The grid is connected to all our power stations. If any generating unit were to trip, other generating units can ramp up to meet the shortfall. The transmission and distribution network itself is also designed with some redundancy to minimise the impact in the event of any single equipment failure.
We recognise that a centralised grid also means that upstream disruptions such as interruptions to fuel supply may have system-wide consequences. That is why we have diversified our sources of gas supplies and maintain fuel reserves in case of disruptions.
Mr Speaker, we take our power system reliability very seriously. Singapore has one of the most reliable electricity grids in the world today. In 2025, the average power interruption time was less than one minute per customer on mainland Singapore and the average frequency of interruptions was about 0.02 times per customer. I would like to thank EMA, SP Group, and power generation companies (gencos) for the hard work that their engineers and workers put in tirelessly to achieve this.
As we introduce more distributed energy resources and renewables such as solar, the grid design will become even more important.
On the supply side, our energy mix will become more diverse as we scale up domestic solar and electricity imports. We will have more distributed energy resources across the island such as rooftop solar panels and battery energy storage systems. Specifically for solar, power generation fluctuates with cloud cover and weather in the daytime. At night, there is no solar electricity. The intermittency brings new challenges to the system.
On the demand side, Singapore's electricity demand is expected to increase significantly with the growth of electricity-intensive loads such as data centres and electric vehicles. There will be a greater impetus to manage load profiles to optimise usage of grid capacity.
We therefore need to accelerate grid innovation to build a more responsive grid while ensuring system stability and optimising land use.
Let me set out what we are already doing.
First, we are planning ahead and putting the required infrastructure in place to support the grid of the future. EMA and SP Group developed the Future Grid Capabilities Roadmap last year to chart a clear direction for building new capabilities.
One concrete outcome is the upcoming SP Technology Laboratory, which will focus on developing new tools and solutions for grid planning and operations. This is essentially the research and development arm that will help keep Singapore's grid ahead of the curve.
Beyond planning, we are also deploying new physical assets to make the grid more resilient. Sembcorp's large-scale battery energy storage system on Jurong Island is one example. It can respond quickly to sudden shifts in supply, helping to keep the system stable when renewable energy sources like solar fluctuate.
Second, we are making the grid more flexible and responsive to change. With more solar, batteries, and electric vehicles coming online, the grid needs to be able to handle greater variability in both supply and demand. Flexibility is what allows the grid to absorb those fluctuations without compromising stability.
EMA's Demand-side Flexibility Roadmap sets out how this will work in practice. Essentially, EV charging stations and smaller battery storage systems can participate in helping to stabilise the grid. For instance, by drawing less power or releasing stored energy when the system is under stress. EMA is currently piloting this with ComfortDelGro to test how it works in a real-world setting.
EMA will also launch a Virtual Power Plant pilot. Virtual Power Plants are digital platforms that can aggregate and optimise distributed energy resources such as solar and batteries as a single power source to meet demand.
Mr Azhar raised the idea of deploying off-grid and micro-grid power systems across Singapore to support grid resilience and also to serve as backup power in the event of potential disruptions. I thank him for sharing his knowledge and ideas.
Indeed, microgrids are one of several distributed energy solutions that we will study further. If managed well, such distributed energy solutions have the potential to provide an additional layer of safeguard by providing energy, ancillary services, or demand response to smoothen peak periods. However, their suitability depends on the operating environment and specific needs, provided the safety requirements and technical standards are met.
Mr Azhar suggested the possibility of deploying battery energy storage systems in HDB blocks and microgrids in every town. We will have to study this further, because high power battery systems also have to comply with the Singapore Civil Defence Force's fire safety standards, which could require additional space and safety infrastructure in densely populated HDB blocks.
Microgrid deployment also comes with real challenges. They could cost more to operate than larger grid systems and may offer lower power reliability if they lack sufficient reserves and redundancies. To be clear, this is not insurmountable. As technology matures and deployment models evolve, we expect many of these challenges to become more manageable over time.
Today, microgrids are deployed in Singapore, primarily to support test-bedding of new technologies and in places where there are specific needs.
The Singapore Institute of Technology has collaborated with SP Group to develop Singapore’s first experimental urban micro-grid on campus. The micro-grid will support test-bedding of new technologies and solutions in a controlled environment, while providing students the opportunity to work with industry partners and energy startups.
In addition, decentralised off-grid energy solutions are commonly deployed by commercial and industrial users. Facilities with critical loads, such as data centres, may invest in on-site generation, battery storage or hybrid systems to enhance reliability, based on their specific needs and constraints.
Diesel generators are an off-grid solution that is being used today. They are typically deployed as localised back-up for individual facilities, such as hospitals and data centres, to continue running their essential operations in the event of power disruption. A battery energy storage system is an alternative source of backup power, although the upfront cost of deploying battery energy storage system is currently still higher than for diesel generators at the same power setting. A battery energy storage system also needs to be recharged, unlike diesel generators. As batteries become more cost-competitive, we expect more end-users to deploy batteries as off-grid solutions, if it meets their operational requirements and as a way of lowering their emissions.
Mr Azhar asked about the Pulau Ubin Micro Grid. The Pulau Ubin Micro-Grid was launched in 2013 as an R&D testbed to reduce reliance on diesel for power generation on the island. It is powered by solar PV, supported by a battery energy storage system and diesel generators, and serves about 30 residential and business consumers. Some system reliability issues have surfaced in recent years, and the micro-grid operator, EDP Renewables, is working to upgrade the system to enhance its overall reliability.
We will continue to study how micro-grids and other distributed energy resources can complement our existing measures to support Singapore's energy resilience.\tAs we do so, we welcome partnerships with the industry on innovative new solutions that can be applied in Singapore, be it on micro-grids or other aspects of grid planning, development, and operations.
Last year, EMA launched the Energy Grid 3.0 Grant Call. Research consortia were invited to submit proposals aimed at enhancing grid planning and operations capabilities, as well as solutions to manage new needs such as inertia. EMA will publish the results of the grant call soon.
This year, the Government has set aside $800 million under the Decarbonisation Grand Challenge, to support research and innovation in low-carbon technologies. This includes energy storage systems and grid modernisation. These efforts reflect our commitment to building a resilient and innovative grid, and we look forward to more impactful and transformative partnerships with industry on this front.
Mr Speaker, the Government is committed to ensuring Singapore’s power system remains resilient and reliable as we navigate the energy transition. We will continue to invest in grid innovation, study developments from around the world, and work closely with industry and researchers to deploy suitable, cost-effective solutions for Singapore. Together, we will build a strong backbone that powers Singapore's future.
Mr Speaker: Mr Azhar Othman. We just have a few more minutes before time.
Mr Azhar Othman: Thank you, Speaker. I just want to thank Minister of State Gan for the sharing about the strategy. Just a couple of comments, if I can.
One is that, yes, we go into data centres, it is a highly huge power guzzler, typically about 70 MW to 100 MW per centre and they are running on diesel as a back-up. So, this is something we may look into closely because that would create another set of carbon emission.
Having said that, on a final point, the micro-grid itself is just another, I would call it a, if you look at the highway, it is just another road, path, for every commuter to use as well. On that note, thank you so much.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang. Do you want to respond?
Ms Gan Siow Huang: I want to thank Mr Azhar Othman on his comments. I fully agree that data centres, they are energy guzzlers. In fact, data centres are also actively looking for alternative solutions that are more sustainable. Electricity imports, hopefully, if we can get that coming, using renewable energy sources. That will give some alternative to the data centres. Of course, batteries, solar, these will also be options that data centres can consider.
And micro-grids, as the Member said, are additional augmentations to complement our existing grid and we certainly would want to keep this in view as we develop our grid of the future.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.00 am. Order. Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 9.24 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risk Assessment of Anthropic's Mythos' Ability to Find Zero-day Vulnerabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government has the capacity to conduct a risk assessment of Anthropic’s Mythos’ ability to find zero-day vulnerabilities; and (b) if so, whether (i) such assessment has been conducted and (ii) there are any plans to mitigate and work with major AI companies to patch important services following the assessment.
20 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government has access to Anthropic's Mythos product and is aware of Singapore banks that have such access; (b) if so, what is the Government's assessment of the risk to the financial system; and (c) what is being done to address the risk of highly capable AI models autonomously identifying and exploiting critical infrastructure vulnerabilities.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Question raised by Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, in relation to AI-enabled cybersecurity risks, has been addressed in my reply to related Parliament Questions in yesterday’s Parliament sitting. The Member may refer to that reply. [Please refer to \"Response to Risks from Frontier AI Models with Potential to Steal Data, Disrupt Critical Infrastructure and Exploit Software Vulnerabilities\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Pedestrian Crossing Infrastructure Including Signal Timings, Crossing Distances and Physical Design Given Increase in Elderly Pedestrian Fatalities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Acting Minister for Transport in light of the 145% increase in elderly pedestrian fatalities in 2025, with elderly pedestrians accounting for 75% of all pedestrian fatalities and 83% of fatal jaywalking cases (a) whether LTA has conducted a targeted review of pedestrian crossing infrastructure including signal timings, crossing distances and physical design; and (b) what infrastructure modifications are planned.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The percentage increase in elderly pedestrian fatalities between 2024 to 2025 should be viewed in context, where the number of fatalities rose from a low base of 11 cases in 2024 to 27 cases in 2025, compared to an average of 18 fatalities annually from 2021 to 2023.
Nevertheless, we want to improve the safety of vulnerable groups. That is why the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has implemented Silver Zones and Friendly Streets, with longer pedestrian crossing times, lower speed limits and features, such as humps and road narrowing to slow down traffic. Beyond Silver Zones and Friendly Streets, LTA is expanding the Green Man+ feature, which provides elderly pedestrians with additional crossing time, to more traffic lights. Overhead bridges are also being progressively retrofitted with lifts.
Drivers also play a critical role in keeping pedestrians safe. Strict penalties are in place to deter dangerous or careless driving, which attracts fines, licence disqualification and imprisonment. In Silver Zones and Friendly Streets, offenders incur two additional demerit points and a $100 increase in composition fines for offences, such as speeding, red-light running and failure to give way to pedestrians.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Revise Healthier Choice Symbol and Nutri-Grade Grading Schemes to Add Measures for Artificial Preservatives, Colouring and Flavours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Health Promotion Board will consider revising the Healthier Choice Symbol scheme or the Nutri-Grade grading system to (i) include additional metrics such as artificial preservatives, colouring and flavours, particularly for products intended or marketed to children and (ii) increase the frequency of audit and review of the scheme and system.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) and the Nutri-Grade grading system help consumers choose products that are lower in sugar, salt and saturated fat. Additionally, the HCS helps consumers identify options that contain more beneficial components, such as wholegrains and calcium, within the same food category. Food additives, such as preservatives, colourings and flavourings, are separately regulated by the Singapore Food Agency for food safety purposes.
The Ministry of Health and the Health Promotion Board regularly review the HCS and Nutri-Grade measures to ensure that they remain relevant in supporting consumers to adopt healthier diets that are higher in beneficial nutrients while limiting those of concern. We will review the suggestions to consider possible refinements to our labelling schemes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study Visits from Foreign Delegations Related to Legal Framework of Death Penalty and Its Implementation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government has hosted or will host study visits from foreign delegations relating to the legal framework of the death penalty and its implementation; (b) whether any such requests have been received; and (c) if so (i) which countries have requested such visits (ii) what have been the outcomes of the requests and (iii) what are the reasons for the outcomes.
Mr K Shanmugam: We have not hosted such study visits. Generally, we assess requests for study visits based on various factors, including the availability of resources, and whether it is in Singapore’s interests to host such study visits. If we receive requests from foreign delegations to study our death penalty regime in the future, we will consider them then.
24 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence regarding the refreshed National Service medical classification (a) whether the refresh is intended to sustain combat unit staffing amid declining birth rates; and (b) how medical reviews resulting in changes to medical exemptions will affect vocational reassignments.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The refreshed Medical Classification System (MCS) is part of broader efforts over the years to optimise the deployment of our National Servicemen in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and the Home Team.
As the nature of warfare and our security landscape evolve, traditional notions of “combat fitness” are no longer sufficient. The SAF and Home Team have therefore adopted technology and developed new operational concepts to address the evolving security threats, taking into account the manpower available today and in the future. This has opened up a wider variety of operational roles for our Servicemen.
By providing a more precise understanding of each Serviceman's medical fitness, the refreshed MCS enables our Servicemen to take on roles that better reflect what they can do and thus increasing meaningful opportunities for them to contribute in the SAF and Home Team. Some 1,200 servicemen each year will be eligible for more training activities and roles they would have been previously ineligible for.
SAF pre-enlistees enlisting from October 2027 onwards and Home Team pre-enlistees enlisting from November 2027 onwards will be graded under the refreshed MCS. Similar to today, Full-time National Servicemen who experience a change in their medical conditions during Full-Time National Service may be redeployed as their conditions should commensurate with the requirements of the roles they are in.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Fast-growing Household Liabilities on Singapore's Fiscal Health and Effectiveness of Existing Fiscal Policies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of recent reports that household liabilities have grown at a faster rate than household assets (a) what effect will this trend have on Singapore's fiscal health and the effectiveness of Singapore's existing fiscal policies; and (b) whether the Ministry has any intention to intervene in this matter.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The increase in Household Liabilities has no direct impact on our overall fiscal position, which is determined by the Government's revenues and expenditures. The Monetary Authority of Singapore works closely with relevant Government agencies to monitor household leverage and encourage prudent borrowing.
The Member may wish to refer to the reply to Parliamentary Question No 39, asked by Mr Fadli Fawzi for the sitting on 8 April 2026, for part (b) of his question. [Please refer to \"Measures to Encourage Prudence Among Borrowers as Household Liabilities Outpaced Asset Growth\", Official Report, 8 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 28, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Continued Increase in COE Premiums Despite Implementation of \"Cut-and-fill\" and Other Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) why Certificate of Entitlement (COE) premiums have continued trending upwards despite the cut-and-fill and other measures implemented since May 2023; and (b) where premiums for Categories A and B have doubled over the last five years, whether a similar rate of increase is expected moving forward.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices are determined by supply and demand. COE prices have remained elevated due to a combination of factors. First, demand remains strong, likely due to competitive electric car prices. Second, while we have taken steps since May 2023 to increase supply and the combined supply for Categories A and B continues to increase, Category A supply peaked in the fourth quarter of 2025 and has started to decline.
Our review of COE categorisation for cars is ongoing. We expect to conclude the review by the end of this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Private Hospital Bill Increases That Can Be Attributed to Doctors’ Professional Fees Rather Than Facility Fees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health since the introduction of panel arrangements in the private sector (a) whether the Government has data on the proportion of increases in private hospital bills attributed to doctors’ professional fees compared to facility fees; (b) if so, what is the proportion of increases; and (c) whether these proportions have changed over time.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Integrated Shield Plan insurers introduced panel arrangements in 2016, but this remained small panel until 2019, when insurers and providers began to reference the Ministry of Health (MOH) fee benchmarks for surgeons and anaesthetists charges. As of 2024, most insurers have at least 600 specialists on their panels.
From 2019 to 2024, average private hospital bills grew at about 13% per year. Average professional fees, comprising surgeon fees, anaesthetist fees and inpatient consultation charges made up about 40% of the bills and grew at 9% annually over the same period. Fees charged under hospital-related fees comprising components, like facility fees, ward fees as well as medication and implant charges, made up the remaining 60% and grew at 15% annually.
MOH recognises that escalating costs in the private healthcare sector continues to be a concern. We have taken steps to address this situation, including developing claim rules and enforcing against inappropriate claims, publishing benchmarks for hospital charges and private specialist fees, as well as tightening the design of Integrated Shield Plan riders and enhancing public education on right-sizing insurance. We are studying what more can be done through the Multilateral Healthcare Insurance Committee comprising representatives from MOH, private hospitals, insurers and medical professional associations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Adequacy of Path Diversity of Passive Fibre Infrastructure Owners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in respect of the incident in April 2026 where fibre infrastructure was damaged during third-party construction works (a) whether IMDA's current standards require passive fibre infrastructure owners to maintain physically separate cable routes serving the same geographic areas; and (b) what review is being conducted into whether path diversity requirements for passive fibre infrastructure are adequate.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The question\traised by Ms He Ting Ru\tin today’s Order Paper, in relation\tto the 18 April 2026 broadband service\tdisruption, has been addressed in a written reply to related Parliamentary Questions at the 5 May\tParliament sitting.\tThe Member may refer to that reply. [Please refer to \"Defining Significant Telecommunication Outages to Hours Disrupted and Consumers Affected and Pursuing Third-Party Damages and Restitution for Disruption on 18 April 2026\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incorporating Dental Screening and Malnutrition Risk Assessment into Healthier SG","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in view that poor oral health is a primary driver of inadequate nutrition in seniors, (a) whether dental screening and malnutrition risk assessment will be integrated as a routine pathway under Healthier SG; and (b) what plans exist to expand subsidised dental and denture services for seniors at risk of malnutrition.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also address the Parliamentary Question 31 for written answer raised by Ms Elysa Chen for the sitting on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Introduction of Standardised Malnutrition Screening at Polyclinics and Active Ageing Centres\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The Ministry of Health had addressed the issue of malnutrition screening when we shared our comprehensive approach to tackle senior malnutrition in our response to Parliamentary Question No 43 at the 4 November 2025 Parliamentary Sitting and Parliamentary Question No 18 at the 3 February 2026 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Contributing Factors to Rise in Malnutrition among Older Singaporeans\", Official Report, 4 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and \"EatWise SG Performance Indicators for Detecting Malnutrition Risk among Seniors, Current Performance Levels and Annual Targets for Nutrition Screenings\", Official Report, 3 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 15, Written Answers to Questions section.]
We will continue with these efforts to enhance the capability of healthcare providers to identify seniors at risk of malnutrition and provide better diet and nutrition guidance, as well as ensure the provision of affordable meals.
We recognise that good dental health is an important enabler for seniors to have a nutritious diet. We have put in place several measures to help seniors access dental care regularly, including those at risk of malnutrition. First, dental screening is available through Project Silver Screen, where seniors aged 60 and above can receive dental, vision and hearing screening in community nodes, such as Active Ageing Centres. This enables the early detection of dental problems and referral to Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) dental clinics for follow-up. To further improve affordability of dental care within the community, CHAS dental subsidies were enhanced in October 2025, extending subsidies for 10 preventive dental procedures to CHAS Orange cardholders and increasing subsidy caps for seven restorative procedures (including dentures) for Pioneer Generation, Merdeka Generation and CHAS Blue and Orange cardholders.
The Government has introduced different initiatives to tackle malnutrition. We encourage everyone to take advantage of these and play an active role in caring for their own health by adopting good dietary and dental habits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Waiting Times for Patients Seeking Support for Common Mental Health Conditions Through Primary Care","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what are the median waiting times for assessment, counselling and referral pathways for patients seeking support for common mental health conditions through primary care; and (b) whether the Ministry is expanding capacity in this area.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Patients are usually first seen at the polyclinics and general practitioner clinics, where an assessment and appropriate treatment may be provided. Non-urgent cases will be referred to the mental health clinic if needed. In 2025, the median wait time for non-urgent referrals to the mental health clinic was 23 days.
Those who have more urgent or complex needs requiring specialist care will receive earlier appointments or are referred to emergency services at the Institute of Mental Health or other acute hospitals.
Services, such as assessments, counseling and psychotherapy, are also available in the community at Community Outreach Team and Community Intervention Team, which do not require referrals. The Ministry of Health will continue to right-site care and expand mental health services progressively in the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developing Decentralised Charging Stations for Electric Buses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Acting Minister for Transport given the lack of commercial heavy-vehicle charging points makes ad-hoc charter operations logistically unviable with electric buses compared to depot-based public transport, what plans does the Ministry have to develop decentralised charging stations across various locations, ensuring private operators running non-depot-based chartered services avoid wasted mileage from driving to distant chargers between trips, to encourage their transition to electric buses.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: As of March 2026, there are 298 heavy vehicle charging points across the island, of which 154 are publicly accessible. To support their deployment, the Electric Heavy Vehicle Charger Grant introduced in January 2026 co-funds 50% of deployment costs, capped at $30,000 per charger. Companies can work with the Land Transport Authority if they assess there are under-served areas.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Depot Staff Working with Electric Buses Who Are Certified to Handle High Voltage EV Batteries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Acting Minister for Transport what is the percentage of depot staff working with electric buses who are certified and capable of handling high voltage electric vehicle (EV) batteries.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: All bus depot technicians handling high voltage maintenance of electric buses are required to obtain the National EV Specialist Safety (NESS-BUS) certification. This ensures that they are familiar with electrical safety requirements when handling high voltage batteries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocol to Ensure Government Data is Updated in Timely Manner at data.gov.sg Portal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether there is any protocol for Government agencies to ensure that Government data is updated in a timely manner at the data.gov.sg portal after such data are officially released on either SingStat or agencies' own websites.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Agencies are required to share data that is assessed to be suitable and useful for disclosure to the public as soon as practicable, through platforms, such as data.gov.sg (DGS), OneMap or their own websites.
Today, there are almost 5,000 datasets from across agencies shared on DGS, some of which are automatically updated via application programming interface (API) connections.
The DGS team is taking steps to enhance the timely sharing and updating of datasets. These include expanding and improving API integrations with agencies and tracking high-demand datasets which could be prioritised for such integrations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Downward Revision to Enhanced Fundraising Programme's Fund Matching on Charities' Donation Revenues, Operating Budgets and Staffing Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with the change in Tote Board's Enhanced Fundraising Programme (EFR) to step-down fund matching (a) what is the projected impact of the reduced EFR funding ratio on total donations received by charities; and (b) what is the assessment of the impact on the sustainability of charities’ programmes especially those by smaller community-based social service agencies.
36 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether quantitative assessment has been conducted on how the downward funding adjustments to Tote Board's Enhanced Fundraising Programme (EFR) across the next three financial years will affect the operating budgets, staffing plans and service coverage of social service agencies that receive EFR funding.
Mr Jeffrey Siow:
The Enhanced Fund-Raising (EFR) Programme was launched in response to the disruptions in charity sector fundraising caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. To assist charities during this challenging time, the Government partnered with Tote Board to boost support by increasing matching funds for donations. The programme was intended as a temporary and extraordinary solution for an unprecedented situation.
Since then, charitable donations have rebounded. In charities' Financial Year (FY) ending 2024, total donations reached $3.7 billion, surpassing both the low point of $2.8 billion in FY ending 2021 and the pre-pandemic high of $3.2 billion from FY ending 2019. While data for the FY ending 2025 is still being verified, charitable donations are expected to stay above the pre-COVID peak. At Budget 2025, we announced that matching support for the EFR will gradually return to pre-pandemic levels, consistent with how other COVID-era assistance measures are winding down.
Notwithstanding this, the Government continues to provide support for charities and Social Service Agencies (SSAs) in multiple ways, including:
a. Direct grants for programming and operations, such as the new $50 million SG Partnerships Fund. This is available to Singapore-registered organisations including charities and SSAs;
b. A 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations to Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs), which was extended for a further three years; and
c. Matching grant schemes, such as the Community Silver Trust.
In addition, the Community Chest (ComChest) rallies the community to raise funds for services that serve critical and unmet social needs. In FY2024, ComChest channelled $74.1 million to more than 300 programmes and projects helping individuals, families and communities. IPCs can also continue to apply to the President's Challenge for funding to grow impactful projects that uplift lives and strengthen our community.
In view of the trends in charitable giving and the Government's support measures, we do not expect the donations received, programming and operations of charities and SSAs to be significantly affected by the tapering of the EFR.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Industry Sectors Facing Greatest Productivity Losses from Heat Exposure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower following projections that heat-related productivity losses could reach $2.22 billion by 2035, (a) which specific industry sectors have been identified as bearing the greatest productivity losses from heat exposure; and (b) beyond the existing mandatory rest break framework, what targeted interventions is the Ministry implementing or funding to reduce heat-related productivity loss in these sectors.
Dr Tan See Leng: The cited National University of Singapore study projected economic losses arising from reduced productivity and work capacity due to rising temperatures, considering the direct impact on affected sectors and indirect losses incurred downstream by other related sectors. Across the four sectors studied, the estimated economic losses were highest in the services sector, followed by manufacturing, construction and agriculture. The workers at higher risk are typically those involved in prolonged outdoor work activities, particularly in the construction, marine and process sectors.
In consultation with tripartite partners and industry, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) updated the heat stress measures for outdoor work in September 2024, including introducing targeted measures for these sectors. Construction sites with a contract sum of $5 million or more, shipyards and the process sector are required to have a wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) meter on site for localised measurements. The WBGT readings are used to guide the implementation of other measures, such as rest breaks and hydration requirements.
MOM is also working with companies to promote and conduct trials on the use of technology solutions to better manage heat stress while mitigating productivity losses. These solutions include cooling vests and garments, and wearables that can allow for real-time, personalised monitoring of heat illness risk for workers in the construction and built environment sectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Disaggregated Framework where Driving Schools Provide Foundational Circuit and Simulator Training while Accredited Instructors Provide On-road Practical Training","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a disaggregated modular framework where driving schools provide foundational circuit and simulator training while accredited private driving instructors (PDIs) focus on on-road practical instruction, to alleviate chronic bottlenecks and reduce lesson wait times for learners; and (b) in light of such a framework, whether the Ministry will consider resuming the issuance of PDI licences.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Traffic Police (TP) have been reviewing the driving school ecosystem and policies to increase the capacity of the schools to meet the sharp rise in demand for lessons in driving schools over the last few years.
TP has no plans to re-issue private driving instructor licences. We stopped doing so in 1987 to create a more professional and standardised approach to driver education, where driving schools operate within a structured curriculum and training framework approved by TP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Validating Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework Certification Against Measurable Child Developmental Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether ECDA has independently validated Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework (SPARK) certification against measurable child developmental outcomes including vocabulary, executive function and school readiness; (b) what proportion of SPARK assessment is based on operator-prepared documentation versus direct observation of classroom practice, and whether such observation is conducted unannounced; and (c) whether ECDA will commission such validation and assessment, and publish the findings.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework (SPARK) is a quality assurance framework that accredits preschools based on their administration, management and pedagogical processes. SPARK focuses on validating preschools' implementation of quality processes and practices rather than measuring child outcomes.
The teaching and learning domains within SPARK are underpinned by the national learning and development frameworks which are evidence-based and grounded in child development theories. These frameworks guide preschools in designing appropriate learning environments and activities to support children's holistic development.
The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) validates preschools' processes and practices through documentation, interviews with preschool staff and observation of classroom practices during scheduled centre visits. ECDA regularly publishes the list of preschools that have attained SPARK accreditation. In addition, ECDA shares the validation findings highlighting key strengths and recommendations for growth directly with the relevant preschools and partners them in their quality improvement journeys.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-medical Costs Borne by Families Receiving Home-based Palliative Care","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what assessment has the Ministry made of the non-medical costs borne by families receiving home-based palliative care, including transport, caregiving expenses, adult diapers and income loss from caregiving responsibilities; and (b) whether additional subsidies or financial support is being considered to address these residual out-of-pocket expenses beyond subsidised clinical care.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As the Minister said in his recent speech at the 9th Singapore Palliative Care Conference on 18 April 2026, the Ministry of Health has taken steps to make Home Palliative Care even more affordable for end-of-life patients since 2024. We enhanced means-tested subsidies and removed the lifetime MediSave withdrawal limits for patients using their own MediSave. Palliative care patients who need to defray other costs, such as non-medical costs, can tap on the Reduced Life Expectancy scheme to withdraw their Central Provident Fund savings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Healthpoint Rewards and Other Incentives for Blood Donation on Donor Behaviour","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in view of the introduction of Healthpoints rewards for blood donors from the second half of 2026, whether the Ministry has assessed the potential impact of such incentives on donor behaviour, including both donor retention and motivations for donation.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Healthpoints for blood donation is a small gesture of appreciation, just as Healthpoints is a small recognition for adoption of healthy habits. It is consistent with the World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of voluntary non-remunerated blood donation, which permits small tokens of appreciation, refreshments and reimbursement of reasonable travel costs. It is not conceivable that people treat Healthpoints as a primary motivation for donating blood.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Studies on Maintenance Complexities and Costs of Super-tall HDB Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has conducted comparative studies between super-tall HDB blocks and mid-rise HDB blocks on (i) life-cycle maintenance and operating costs borne by Town Councils and (ii) complexity and cost of implementing upgrading programmes and facade repairs; and (b) whether current funding and maintenance frameworks remain adequate to support Town Councils managing these taller HDB blocks over time.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Maintenance and life-cycle considerations are taken into account upfront in the design of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) developments, including lift provisions, facade design and choice of materials, to ensure long-term maintainability of the blocks.
While taller blocks may incur higher maintenance and inspection costs due to their scale and systems, these developments also house more units. The larger number of households contributing Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) helps to support the maintenance needs of such developments.
Town Councils fund their operations, including maintenance works, primarily through S&CC collections, and are supported by over $280 million a year in Government grants. In addition, HDB co-shares 50% of the costs for facade repairs under the Facade Repairs Co-payment Scheme. The Government will continue to monitor the Town Councils' finances, including the maintenance demands of taller blocks, and assess whether further funding support is required.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Eligibility Age for Singles to Buy New HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for National Development in view of evolving social trends with more singles living independently, whether the Ministry will (i) review the eligibility age for singles to buy new HDB flats and (ii) conduct a study on the changing housing needs of single Singaporeans aged 25 to 34.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) regularly conducts surveys to understand the needs of different buyer groups. For example, the Sample Household Survey surveys households and single occupiers living in HDB flats every five years, and its findings are published on the HDB website.
As mentioned on previous occasions, including the 2026 Committee of Supply debate, the Ministry of National Development is reviewing the minimum eligibility age for singles to buy HDB flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Recent Measles Cases In Terms of Vaccination Status and Age Group","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of the recent increase in measles cases (a) what is the profile of cases in terms of vaccination status and age group; and (b) what does this profile suggest about the main gaps in timely vaccination or catch-up vaccination coverage.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of 28 April 2026, a total of 31 measles cases had been reported this year. Two were tourists, and 29 were residents. Among the residents, five were infants under 12 months of age who were not yet eligible for their first dose of the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine. Of the remaining 24, one is fully vaccinated, two cases had one dose of MMR and the remaining 21 cases had unknown or no vaccination history.
The profile of those infected with measles is consistent with the evidence that completion of the two-dose MMR vaccination confers a high level of protection against measles. Hence, individuals who are unvaccinated or lack evidence of immunity are recommended to complete the two-dose MMR vaccination as per the national immunisation schedules.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extent of Inconvenience and Gaps Discovered from Recent Disruptions in Bus Expected Time of Arrival System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the bus Expected Time of Arrival (ETA) system disruption on 18 April 2026 revealed gaps in system redundancy; (b) what was the extent of this disruption, including services, stops and commuters affected; (c) what fallback mechanisms exist to ensure ETA system continuity for such disruptions; and (d) how LTA is addressing similar disruptions and known reliability limitations.
46 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Acting Minister for Transport in light of recent disruptions affecting the accuracy of bus arrival timings including incidents linked to technical faults and external infrastructure damage (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed the resilience of the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) system; and (b) what steps are being taken to strengthen system reliability and reduce the impact of such incidents on commuters.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) system relies on physical fibre-optic connections to relay updates on bus locations to a central server, which then computes predictions of bus arrival times.
For data security reasons, bus location data is transmitted through dedicated pairs of fibre-optic cables that are privately leased from a commercial vendor. By design, if data cannot be sent through one cable, it will be re-routed to the other cable so that the connection continues to function. This provides a backup against physical damage.
On 18 April 2026, Asia Piling Co damaged several fibre-optic cables when carrying out works. One of the damaged cables was part of a physical connection transmitting to the ETA server. As designed, data was diverted from the damaged cable to the intact cable in that connection pair. However, not all data was successfully sent to the server when the incident first occurred. This resulted in a degradation of the ETA system performance, with only 70% of the expected number of ETA predictions throughout the rest of the day.
The ETA system was restored to full functionality after the fibre-optic cable was repaired. Our investigation revealed no other hardware or software malfunctions in the ETA system, and no relation to the outage that took place earlier this year.
The Land Transport Authority is still investigating why the remaining intact cable did not provide full redundancy for the damaged cable as required of the vendor.
We are currently upgrading the ETA system. The new system, which will be deployed by the end of 2027 will be hosted on a cloud platform. This will improve the resilience of the ETA system against physical damage to its data connections.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforceable Measures against Pet Owners who Fail to Clean Up after Their Pets' Dirty Public Spaces in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the increasing number of pet owners in Singapore, whether the Ministry will review its current stance of relying primarily on public education and consider introducing enforceable measures against pet owners who fail to clean up after their pets urinate in public spaces of HDB estates.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: We encourage pet owners to be civic-minded and considerate. Pet owners should water down or wash off pet urination to keep public spaces clean and prevent bad smells and stains where practicable. There are currently no plans to mandate pet owners to clean up after pet urination.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Preventative Measures to Address Family Violence at National Level","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in addition to the five key pieces of legislation in place to address family violence (a) whether the Ministry has implemented or is planning to implement new preventative measures to address family violence at national level; and (b) how these new preventative measures will enhance the effectiveness of family violence prevention, particularly in increasing public awareness and encouraging early reporting.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) adopts two key strategies to detect and prevent domestic violence.
First, we focus on detecting and encouraging early reporting of domestic violence. As of March 2026, more than 12,500 people in various sectors have undergone the Domestic Violence Awareness Training to learn how to spot and report signs of domestic violence. The “Break the Silence” campaign raises public awareness of the different types of abuse, including non-physical abuse, and encourages victim-survivors and bystanders to seek help by calling the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline. Early detection helps to identify cases before they escalate into higher safety and risk concerns.
Second, MSF provides early support and timely intervention to build family resilience to break cycles of abuse. For instance, Family Service Centres work with other professionals and agencies to support multi-stressed families. Social workers help families work through their challenges and develop safety plans to intervene quickly when early signs of abuse emerge.
MSF will continually review and refine our preventive measures and is exploring possible new preventive measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Introducing Corporate Disclosure Requirements to Encourage Uptake and Normalisation of Parental Leave","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry is studying international standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI 401-3), in shaping parental leave policies; (b) how such standards could inform policies for marriage and parenthood; and (c) whether there are plans to introduce corporate disclosure requirements to encourage uptake and normalisation of parental leave.
Ms Indranee Rajah: The Member had raised a related question at the 8 April Parliament sitting. [Please refer to \"Subsidised Co-living Options for Singles, Addressing Motherhood Penalty, Publicising Shared Parental Leave Take-up Rates as Marriage and Parenthood Ideas\", Official Report, 8 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 28, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Parental leave is intended to provide working parents protected time to care for and bond with their children. We have significantly enhanced these provisions in recent years, covering up to 30 weeks of paid parental leave. Beyond leave provisions, employers play a key role in fostering supportive workplace norms that enable parents to take their parental leave without judgement.
The Workgroup on Marriage and Parenthood Reset will explore ways to further encourage employers to develop practices that support parental leave-taking. We will study the Member's suggestion as part of our efforts. This includes considering global standards and international practices, such as those related to company disclosures on parental leave policies and utilisation. While mandatory disclosure requirements may help to promote transparency and normalise good practices, any decision to adopt them must also take into account our local operating context and compliance cost or impact on employers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Schools with Staggered or Later Start Times","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the number and percentage of schools that have adopted (i) staggered start times or (ii) start times later than 7.30am for at least one day a week, broken down by primary schools and secondary schools; and (b) what are the key reasons and factors that have allowed such schools to adopt later start times.
Mr Desmond Lee: Approximately 70% of secondary schools and 10% of primary schools start later than 7.30 am on at least one day per week.
The Ministry of Education gives our schools the autonomy to decide on their start time, no earlier than 7.30 am. Schools consider various factors when determining their start times. These include student profiles, after-school and inter-school programmes, transport provisions and local transport situations. Where feasible in a school's context, the school may adopt a later start time.
The Member may wish to also refer to past replies to Parliamentary Questions related to school start time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Signage on Popular Footpaths for Other Users to Give Way to Pedestrians","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether LTA will increase the number and prominence of signs on popular pedestrian footpaths to inform other users that they must give way to pedestrians.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) deploys signs and path markings where they are needed to guide users to their appropriate paths. We do so judiciously based on ground conditions. For example, at potentially crowded locations, such as bus stops and crossings, there are signs to remind riders to give way to pedestrians and speed regulating strips to slow riders down.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for 15-minute Transfer Limit between Train Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the rationale for maintaining the 15-minute transfer limit between different train stations when bus-to-bus transfers allow 45 minutes; (b) why fare transfers are prohibited for consecutive use of the same bus service and exit-and-re-entry at the same train station; and (c) whether the Government will consider removing these restrictions.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Public transport fares are based on the distance travelled in a single continuous journey. Transfer rules are designed to set a reasonable limit to the different segments of a single journey for the purpose of fare-charging. This avoids commuters stringing together multiple journeys with distinct origins and destinations into one, thus being charged incorrect fares.
The 15-minute transfer time limit between train stations was introduced in 2018 to facilitate walking transfers between nearby rail stations which can reduce journey time, for example, between Rochor and Jalan Besar stations on the Downtown Line. This 15-minute transfer rule also applies to a few MRT interchange stations where commuters have to exit and re-enter the fare-paid area to make a transfer, such as Bukit Panjang, Newton and Tampines. A longer transfer time limit is applied to rail-to-bus and bus-to-bus transfers as waiting times for buses are longer than for train services.
Fare transfers are not applied to the consecutive use of the same bus service and exit-and-re-entry at the same train station, as there is no reason for a commuter to tap out and tap in again on the same bus service or train station in a single journey.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Centralised Screening Agency to Conduct Background Checks for Those Seeking Employment or Volunteer Roles with Direct Contact with Minors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a centralised national screening agency to conduct mandatory background checks for all persons seeking employment or volunteer roles involving direct contact with minors; and (b) what current requirements exist for private organisations and sports clubs to verify the criminal records of staff working with children.
Mr K Shanmugam: For jobs under the purview of public agencies that involve contact with children and young persons, there are already measures in place to screen for past offences. For example, pre-employment background checks are conducted for individuals deployed to preschools licensed under the Early Childhood Development Centres Act, personnel in student care centres registered as Student Care Fee Assistance Administrators who have prolonged contact with students, and individuals working in the Ministry of Education schools. In the sport sector, applicants to the National Registry of Coaches are required to declare disciplinary and criminal records to Sport Singapore. Applicants who have been convicted of offences, such as sexual crimes, will not be admitted to the registry.
There is currently no requirement for employers in unregulated sectors to verify the criminal records of employees. However, they may still request that prospective employees declare any past offences and take this into consideration in their hiring decision.
The Government has been considering further measures on how to strengthen the screening framework for jobs involving contact with children and young persons. The framework will have to be set up in a way which is possible to implement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Schools' Protocol when Students Sustain Mobility-impairing Injuries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the protocol for schools when a student sustains a mobility-impairing injury; (b) when must schools call for an ambulance rather than use an alternative transport; and (c) whether advising parents to arrange a taxi for a student with a suspected fracture, instead of calling an ambulance, is consistent with the Ministry's safety and medical protocols.
Mr Desmond Lee: When a student sustains an injury, school staff will administer first aid and promptly contact the student's parents.
For emergency cases, where there are visible signs of serious injury, such as breathlessness, wounds with profuse bleeding or head injury, school staff will call for the Singapore Civil Defence Force emergency ambulance immediately and notify parents promptly.
For non-emergency cases, where there are no visible signs of serious injury, schools may arrange for the student to be brought to a doctor at a nearby clinic or be conveyed to a hospital. Such decisions will be made in consultation with the student's parents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Minimise Disruptions to Critical Public Transport Systems Arising from Infrastructure Works","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what measures are currently in place and what additional safeguards will be implemented to minimise disruption to critical public transport systems arising from infrastructure works, including LTA-managed projects; and (b) whether requirements such as pre-works utility mapping and contractor clearance from utility owners are mandated and enforced.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: On 18 April 2026, fibre service cables were damaged during bored pile works carried out as part of the North-South Corridor (NSC) Project. Investigations are ongoing. Should the contractor be found culpable, agencies may take legal action and telecommunication companies may also claim damages.
Contractors are required to comply with the requirements of the relevant utility agencies when working in proximity to their services. For instance, prior to work commencement, contractors must conduct utility mapping and obtain written approval from the utility agencies. The Land Transport Authority enforces against non-compliance, which are factored into future tender evaluations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Mobility Needs and Constraints of Households with Three or More Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the mobility needs and constraints of households with three or more children, particularly in relation to daily caregiving, schooling and logistics; (b) whether existing public transport and point-to-point options are sufficient to meet these needs; and (c) whether additional flexibility, including access to larger vehicles or targeted transport support, is being considered to better support such households.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Government will continue to take steps to make our land transport more family-friendly and provide viable alternatives to private car ownership. Families can use car-sharing services to rent a suitable vehicle or use ride-hailing apps to book larger vehicles with six seats and request a suitable child seat if required for their trip. All public buses and trains are also step-free, which make it easier for families to commute with strollers. We will continue to explore how we can make our transport system even more family-friendly in our Land Transport Master Plan consultations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Over-concentration of Quasi-commercial Activities in Residential Enclaves","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does URA monitor the cumulative impact of multiple approved or exempted uses within a residential enclave; (b) whether there are thresholds to prevent over-concentration of quasi-commercial activities; and (c) how residents' concerns are factored into planning decisions.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) assessment of proposed uses in residential estates takes into consideration various factors, such as the Master Plan zoning, prevailing planning policies and guidelines, compatibility with existing and surrounding uses, preservation of the residential character and living environment of the estate, potential impact on neighbouring residents, as well as residents' feedback and concerns.
Residential properties are intended for long-term residential dwelling purposes. Residents can rent out the property to residential tenants, set up home offices or carry out small scale businesses. These uses are still residential in nature and must comply with prevailing guidelines, such as the relevant occupancy cap. URA may allow change of use from residential to childcare centre in landed housing estates, subject to locational criteria, to serve the needs of working parents who require such facilities near their homes.
There are currently no specified limits for the number of premises that are rented out for residential use or for small scale home-based activities, as these uses should be compatible with the surrounding residential use.
Nonetheless, URA monitors the ground situation and works with relevant agencies, such as the Early Childhood Development Agency, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Manpower, to ensure that the residential character and living environment of private housing estates are preserved. URA takes residents' concerns and feedback seriously. When URA receives feedback on adverse impact posed by certain uses, URA will carry out the necessary investigations and engage the owners or operators to put in place measures to mitigate the impact on neighbouring residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Inter-floor Leak Cases that Remain Unresolved for More than Four or Six Months Due to Uncooperative Parties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development over the past three years, (a) how many HDB flat inter-floor leak cases exceeded four or six months due to uncooperative parties; and (b) what this indicates about the effectiveness of the current mediation-first approach.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) receives an average of about 17,000 pieces of feedback on inter-floor leak each year. The vast majority of cases are resolved smoothly and amicably between flat owners, typically within two to four months. Resolving such cases requires multiple visits to diagnose the source of the leak and carry out repairs, which involves coordinating access between both parties.
HDB works with flat owners to resolve cases as quickly as possible. There are no fixed timelines as the time taken varies with the complexity of each case and the level of cooperation from the parties involved. As at end-March 2026, 10 cases have taken longer than four months to resolve as the upper-floor flat owners were not cooperative. HDB has already taken or plans to take legal action against these flat owners.
As a last resort, HDB may initiate civil proceedings against uncooperative upper-floor flat owners or conduct forced entry under section 28 of the Housing and Development Act, depending on the severity of the case. This approach seeks to strike a balance between encouraging cooperative resolution between neighbours and ensuring timely repairs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending HDB Fire Insurance to Include Coverage on Home Contents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development whether there has been any consideration of extending HDB fire insurance to include home contents insurance as a default, with the option to opt out if a home owner so chooses.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the question asked by Mr Saktiandi Supaat on 24 September 2025. [Please refer to \"Review of HDB's Current Homeowner Insurance Coverage\", Official Report, 24 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 4, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals from Expectant Couples to Sell Their HDB Flats Before MOP as They Require Bigger Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for National Development in each of the past three years (a) what is the number of appeals received by HDB from couples expecting a child and who require a more spacious house, to sell their HDB flat before meeting the Minimum Occupation Period; and (b) how many of such appeals were allowed.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In each year from 2023 to 2025, the Housing and Development Board approved about 15 appeals received from flat owners who require a bigger flat due to growing family size and wish to sell their flat before fulfilling the Minimum Occupation Period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Successful Public Rental Scheme Applicants who are Singaporeans with Non-Singapore Citizen or Non-Singapore Permanent Resident Spouses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB has granted any applications by Singaporeans with non-Singapore Citizen or non-Singapore Permanent Resident spouse and child under the Public Rental Scheme (PRS) in the past three years; and (b) whether HDB will consider revising the PRS to allow such applicants to rent a flat under the scheme.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Public rental flats are prioritised for Singapore Citizen (SC) applicants with at least one other SC or Singapore Permanent Resident's family member. This could be the spouse, parent or child.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) assesses each public rental flat application holistically, taking into account the applicant's housing options, level of family support and input from social workers. In the last three years, HDB has approved a small number of applications from SCs with non-resident spouses and children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Duration for Repair and Redecoration Works for HDB Multi-storey Car Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the average duration taken for repair and redecoration (R&R) works to be performed for HDB multi-storey car parks (MSCPs) in the past five years; and (b) how has HDB been working to shorten the duration needed to perform R&R works at HDB MSCPs.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) generally adopts a seven-year cycle for repair and redecoration (R&R) works for HDB multi-storey car parks (MSCPs). Over the past five years, R&R works for each MSCP took about one year to complete. Those with more complex works beyond repainting and repairs, such as widening vehicular turning access and improving barrier-free access within the MSCP take longer.
R&R works are carried out in phases as the MSCP remains in operation throughout the works. This requires sections of the car park to be cordoned off progressively, which extends the overall duration of the works.
HDB works with its contractors to improve productivity and shorten project timelines where possible, including the use of fast-set materials and materials prefabricated off-site to speed up R&R works on-site.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Accuracy and Reliability of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Disclosures by Listed Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what measures have ACRA and the Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo) put in place to ensure the accuracy and reliability of Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions disclosures by listed companies from FY2025, given that mandatory external limited assurance on such disclosures is only required from FY2029.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Listed companies are required to have robust processes, data governance and internal controls as well as appropriate board oversight on all their disclosures.
Singapore Exchange Regulation's (SGX RegCo's) requirements on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting seek to raise the level of accuracy and reliability in three ways. First, listed companies must use the globally accepted GHG Protocol for GHG measurement, which offers well-established, standardised methodologies and guidance for calculating Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions. Second, listed companies must disclose their measurement approaches, inputs and assumptions for calculating their GHG emissions. Third, listed companies must internally review their sustainability reporting processes to strengthen the accuracy and reliability of the disclosures.
While the requirement for external assurance will only be implemented in FY2029, listed companies have taken active implementation steps and shown progress in their Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions reporting capabilities. Reporting rates have risen from 50% to 87% for Scope 1, and 61% to 93% for Scope 2, between 2023 and 2025. Listed companies have also been supported by tools and resources that help them report their GHG emissions more accurately, such as the Singapore Emission Factors Registry. The Registry provides over 300 Singapore-specific emission factors consolidated primarily from Government agencies.
SGX RegCo will continue to monitor listed companies' disclosures and will take appropriate follow-up action if breaches are found.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standardising Cost-sharing of Additional Fuel-related Costs between Government and Contractors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what criteria are used to determine how additional fuel-related costs incurred by contractors from 1 March 2026 to 31 May 2026 are shared between the Government and contractors; (b) whether the cost-sharing proportion will be standardised; and (c) whether support will be given to contractors who are not involved in key Government projects.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Government is co-sharing 50% of the direct additional costs arising from the use of diesel and bitumen in ongoing critical public sector construction projects, where any delay or stoppages would clearly affect public interest. The construction activities being supported are earthworks, foundation and piling works, reclamation works and roadworks, which are the most severely affected due to their heavy reliance on diesel-powered equipment.
Other contractors are supported through broad-based support measures for businesses, such as the Corporate Income Tax Rebate and Cash Grant. Private sector developers are strongly encouraged to similarly share the diesel and bitumen cost increases with their contractors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Work Pass Holders in Customer-facing Roles are Equipped with Basic Level of English Language Proficiency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government will consider implementing rules to ensure that holders of Work Passes in customer-facing roles are equipped with a basic level of proficiency in the English language; and (b) if not, why not.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Government does not impose English language proficiency requirements for Work Pass holders. It is more appropriate for employers to determine the level of language proficiency required, which is no different from other job requirements, based on their business needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Active Mobility Enforcement Cameras Deployed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of active mobility enforcement cameras that are currently available and deployable by the Land Transport Authority; and (b) whether there are plans to procure and deploy more of such cameras, particularly after 1 June 2026 when tighter active mobility regulations begin.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) currently deploys 60 active mobility enforcement cameras, which are mobile and can be redeployed islandwide to target hotspots.
LTA will deploy more enforcement resources, including cameras and officers, to ensure compliance with active mobility regulations and maintain safety on our public paths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Insights on Older Mothers' Maternal and Child Health and Implications for Workforce Participation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with an increasing trend of babies born to mothers in their 40s (a) whether the Ministry has (i) analysed what the insights are for maternal and child health and (ii) studied the implications for workforce participation; and (b) what targeted healthcare, fertility support and workplace measures are in place to support this growing segment of older mothers.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Both men and women are marrying and having children later. Mothers over 40 years of age have higher risk of maternal and foetal complications. Our public hospitals provide specialised care for such high-risk pregnancies, including being equipped with neonatal intensive care units for newborns requiring greater medical care.
Later marriages and births have also resulted in more couples experiencing challenges in conceiving naturally. As part of the effort of the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Reset Workgroup, funding for fertility health services and support for those undergoing fertility treatments are being reviewed.
On workforce participation, the Workforce Singapore provides a range of job matching and career guidance services, including for mothers in their 40s to stay in or return to the workforce. There are also programmes, such as career conversion programmes and mid-career pathways programmes, to support women who are keen to explore new roles.
Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) play an important role in supporting working parents in managing work and personal responsibilities. The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests set out guidelines for employees', employers' and supervisors' considerations on FWAs.
The Government remains committed to supporting Singaporeans through every stage of marriage and parenthood. Last week, we announced the composition and scope of a newly formed M&P Reset Workgroup. It will develop a longer-term roadmap on how M&P is perceived, supported and realised, propose policy enhancements and mobilise stakeholders across society to collectively support Singaporeans in their M&P journeys.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Indicators for Effectiveness of Engineering and Tech Programme Scholarship","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Education (a) what indicators, if any, does the Ministry use to evaluate the performance of the Engineering and Tech Programme Scholarship (ETPS); (b) what trends has the Ministry observed since the introduction of the ETPS in 2023; and (c) whether the Ministry has any plans to augment the ETPS, including to increase the annual number of ETPS recipients to 1,000.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Engineering and Tech Programme Scholarship (ETPS) develops and encourages pre-university students to pursue engineering and technology courses and careers.
In evaluating the ETPS, the Ministry of Education (MOE) reviews the progression of scholars into Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) related university courses, as well as the impact of the ETPS on their interest in STEM-related careers.
There are early indications of the positive impact of the ETPS. The first batch of scholars graduated at the end of 2024. Among those who have accepted a university course, about 90% chose STEM-related university courses. We will continue to monitor the outcomes of subsequent cohorts of scholars.
Since its introduction, around 600 students have applied for the ETPS each year, with about 200 applicants awarded annually. MOE will continue to review the ETPS, including the number of scholarships to be awarded.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposed Bus Frequency of 10-minute Intervals during Peak and 15-minute Intervals during Non-peak Periods for Estates Not Otherwise Linked to Major Transport Nodes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what are the Ministry’s targets to ensure that bus services with no alternative routes to major transport nodes, such as Service 228, do not exceed scheduled intervals of 10 minutes during peak and 15 minutes during non-peak periods; and (b) how does the Ministry identify and prioritise such essential feeder services for frequency enhancements.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: All feeder services are scheduled to operate at intervals of no more than eight minutes during peak periods, once operations have stabilised. During non-peak periods, the intervals are periodically adjusted based on ridership data and feedback. The Land Transport Authority tracks arrival timing of buses at bus stops against expected intervals and bus operators are penalised for poor reliability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Intended Roles for Singapore in Japan's Proposed $10 Billion Financial Framework to Assist ASEAN Nations to Enhance Energy Security","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what are the possible or intended roles for Singapore in Japan's proposal of $10 billion financial framework to assist ASEAN nations in securing oil supplies and enhancing energy security in the face of future energy supply disruptions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: On 15 April 2026, Japanese prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, announced the US$10 billion Partnership On Wide Energy and Resources Resilience. It is aimed at strengthening energy and supply chain resilience among countries in Asia.
Singapore supports this initiative and we are awaiting details from Japan on how it will be operationalised. For now, we understand that Japan will channel its support primarily through Japanese entities, such as the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, the Japan International Cooperation Agency and the Nippon Export and Investment Insurance. Singapore will work with Japan and other trusted partners to strengthen regional resilience against future supply disruptions and facilitate the flow of energy and essential goods.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment of Segregated Recycling Bins in Housing Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the success of the Recycling Hub in Queenstown (a) whether similar segregated recycling bins will be deployed in other housing estates; (b) if so, what the rollout timeline is; and (c) if not, what the constraints are and how these may be addressed.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Source-segregated recycling initiatives complement the commingled blue bin system under the National Recycling Programme. We are encouraged that community partners, such as Public Waste Collectors, non-profit organisations and Town Councils have come forward to trial these initiatives, such as the Recycling Hub in Queenstown, which uses smart recycling bins to aggregate clean stream recyclables. These efforts further encourage proper recycling behaviour at the local level.
Source-segregated recycling also takes place at the national level via initiatives, such as the extended producer responsibility schemes for e-waste and beverage containers, where producers are responsible for collecting and recycling their products at end-of-life.
We will continue to encourage and support ground-up initiatives, such as segregated bins to strengthen our recycling ecosystem, by partnering with the community and industry stakeholders on localised solutions to improve recycling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Bukit Panjang LRT Upgrading Works","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the progress of the Bukit Panjang LRT upgrading works; (b) when is the expected full completion of the LRT upgrade; and (c) what can residents of Bukit Panjang expect with the new upgraded LRT system.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit (BPLRT) upgrading works, which began in 2018, is close to full completion. All 19 first generation Light Rail Vehicles have been replaced by new vehicles, and all 13 second-generation Light Rail Vehicles have also been upgraded. The signalling system, power supply system and the Operations Control Centre have also been fully upgraded. The final component of works is the replacement of the physical power rail, which is currently 50% completed and due to be done by end-2026.
With these upgrades to the BPLRT system, commuters will enjoy smoother, more comfortable and more reliable rides. We would like to thank residents and commuters for their patience and understanding over the years, while these works were being carried out.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outlook on Singapore's Tourism and MICE Sectors Given Middle East Conflict","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the Ministry's current assessment of the outlook for Singapore's tourism sector in light of ongoing energy cost pressures, reports of flight cancellations and a stronger Singapore dollar following recent monetary policy tightening; and (b) how these factors are expected to impact visitor arrivals, airline capacity and tourism receipts.
75 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the global energy shortages triggered by the Middle East conflict have impacted the Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions (MICE) industry; (b) whether any upcoming conventions or exhibitions have been postponed or cancelled; and (c) whether tourism receipts from MICE can be sustained and grown in the coming years given the current outlook.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I will take Parliamentary Question 2146 and Parliamentary Question 2213 together. These questions pertain to the Middle East situation and its impact on the tourism sector, including the Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions (MICE) industry. My response today will also cover a related Parliamentary Question (PQ 1502) filed for written answer by Mr Ng Shi Xuan. [Please refer to \"Impact of Global Jet Fuel Shortage on Tourism and MICE Industries and Mitigation Measures\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions section.]
In February 2026, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) announced that it expects international visitor arrivals in 2026 to reach 17 to 18 million, bringing in approximately S$31.0 to S$32.5 billion in tourism receipts. We are off to a steady start, with Singapore welcoming 4.4 million visitors in the first quarter – a 3% increase from the same period last year.
While there have been some postponements, downsizing and cancellations of corporate meetings and conferences, our MICE industry has largely remained resilient. Many major events held recently in Singapore have reported strong numbers. For instance, the Asia Pacific Maritime 2026, which took place in end-March, attracted close to 19,500 trade visitors in its largest-ever edition.
Our events pipeline for 2026 to 2027 also remains healthy. Singapore has secured major association conferences, such as Innovate4Climate 2026, and will host inaugural events including Passenger Terminal Expo Asia 2026 and Innotrans Asia 2027. On the leisure events front, we recently hosted KOOZA by Cirque du Soleil, as its exclusive Southeast Asia stop, and we can look forward to upcoming concerts by Post Malone, Guns N' Roses and BTS.
We are mindful that the tourism sector could be affected if heightened fuel costs lead to airline capacity cuts and fare increases. As the conflict lengthens, travel propensity among more price-sensitive tourists may weaken, especially against a stronger Singapore dollar. STB is actively adapting its market strategies to respond to these shifting dynamics. These include enhancing marketing campaigns and working closely with industry partners to develop attractive offers.
We remain confident in Singapore's long-term tourism prospects, anchored by our world-class infrastructure and reputation as a safe, reliable and trusted hub. STB will continue to pursue a diverse range of MICE events to secure a robust events pipeline and support the development of best-in-class tourism products, concepts and events. This is to ensure Singapore remains a compelling destination, especially as we continue to pursue high-yield visitors as part of our quality tourism strategy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Metrics Determining Introduction and Sizing of Support to Businesses and Households, and Flexibility within Existing Budget without Drawdown on Past Reserves","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) as the war in the Middle East approaches the two-month mark, what metrics are being applied to determine the introduction and sizing of support to (i) businesses and (ii) households; and (b) whether there is flexibility in the existing Budget 2026 to provide further support without the need for a supplementary Budget or a drawdown on Past Reserves.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Government had announced a $1 billion support package in April to move early and cushion the immediate impact of the Middle East crisis. We continue to monitor developments closely and will consider further support based on how the situation evolves. In doing so, we track a range of indicators. These include macroeconomic indicators, like gross domestic product growth and inflation, as well as crisis-specific indicators like global oil and fuel prices, and supply chain conditions. We also closely assess the impact of the crisis on different groups, so that any support can be targeted and effective.
Working within the sums approved in the Supply Act for Budget 2026, the Government has the flexibility to reallocate resources to meet emerging needs. Should we need to exceed the provisions in the Supply Act, we can tap on an advance from the Contingencies Funds or table a Supplementary Supply Bill. At this stage, we do not expect to draw on Past Reserves.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Specific Routes Most Affected by Middle East Conflict","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how does the current weekly number of flights to the Middle East from Changi Airport compare with pre-February 2026 levels; (b) which specific routes are most affected by the ongoing Middle East conflict; and (c) how does our flight resumption strategy balance our ambition as a top aviation hub with the safety of Singaporeans in the sector.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: There are about 55 weekly flights today between Singapore and Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Doha, Dubai and Jeddah, compared to 154 weekly flights before the onset of the Middle East conflict in February 2026.
Airlines adjust, reroute or suspend services depending on their risk assessment and commercial considerations. Changi Airport Group and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore have worked closely to support our airline partners to add more flights to alternative destinations, such as cities in Europe and Australia, while ensuring that the airlines have the processes in place to assess and mitigate any flight safety risks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Meal Allowances or Arrangements for SAF Full-time National Servicemen at Locations without Cookhouse Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) whether SAF full-time National Servicemen at non-camp locations without cookhouse facilities like the Central Manpower Base (CMPB), MINDEF and Defence Science and Technology Agency receive meal allowances during duty hours; (b) if so, what are the current rates; and (c) whether the Ministry will publish these rates on the CMPB website, as is currently done for SCDF and SPF national servicemen.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) does not provide additional meal allowances for our full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) beyond the monthly national service (NS) allowance.
The operational context between the SAF and the Home Team is different. The vast majority of NSFs in the SAF are based in camps or locations that tend to be sited in less accessible areas. For operational reasons, we provide these NSFs with lodging and meals from cookhouses to better accommodate their training and duties.
On the other hand, most Home Team personnel are stationed at locations where commercial meal options are accessible and fresh rations from cookhouses are not available. Hence, a meal allowance is provided to them instead. Home Team personnel based in training institutes with access to cookhouses do not receive an additional meal allowance.
In the SAF, a small group of NSFs perform operational roles at locations without SAF cookhouses. In such cases, the NSF may request to receive fresh rations while on duty, if they so desire, and arrangements will be made. For the minority of SAF NSFs that stay out of camp, the monthly NS allowance already provides for their basic personal upkeep, including the cost of meals.
We have reviewed the NS allowance four times over the past decade to ensure that it remains adequate and will continue to do so regularly.
NSFs who require further assistance due to personal circumstances are supported through the Financial Assistance Scheme. I encourage any NSF facing difficulties to speak with their commanders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rejection of Assistance Scheme Applications Due to Per Capita Income Thresholds Being Exceeded as Unrelated Individuals or Families Share Same Home Address","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many applications for assistance schemes such as the Financial Assistance Scheme were rejected over the past five years due to per capita income thresholds where multiple families or unrelated individuals share the same address; and (b) whether the Ministry will review this criterion to ensure eligibility reflects actual financial dependency, so that individuals facing genuine need are not inadvertently excluded.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: When assessing households' eligibility for ComCare, social assistance officers already consider which household members living at the applicant's address should be included in the household income assessment and which should be omitted. If the Member is aware of any application where certain individuals should be omitted, we invite him to surface to the Social Service Office for review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workload Reduction at Law Firms from AI Use and Guidelines for Such Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry has tracked whether AI adoption in law firms has reduced workload and improved work-life balance for junior lawyers, or whether it has instead raised client expectations and billing demands in ways that worsen burnout; and (b) if no such data exists, whether the Ministry intends to commission monitoring of AI's net impact on lawyer well-being.
81 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law whether the Ministry intends to issue guidelines or implement statutory rules on the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in legal practice.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: My response will also address a related Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Andre Low for the Sitting on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Impact of AI Adoption on Junior Lawyer Training Pipelines and Addressing Developmental Gaps Through One-year Practice Training Framework\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant or speculative trend. It is already significantly reshaping the legal services industry globally. Harnessed safely and responsibly, it is a powerful tool with tremendous opportunities for our legal services industry.
Used in the right manner, AI enhances productivity greatly for a lawyer. Rote tasks such as legal research, document review, chronology building that used to take days can now be done in minutes. Statistics show that nearly 240 hours can be freed up per year with the use of AI. This figure can only grow as AI improves, which it continues to do.
This time saved allows lawyers to reallocate time and effort to higher-value tasks – case strategy, risk assessment, persuasion and advocacy – where human professional judgement truly matters and where AI falls short. Rather than allow the advent of AI to undermine the profession, we should embrace its development and embed its usage in the profession, and this will in turn open up opportunities for younger lawyers to undertake higher value work which they will find more professionally rewarding. We encourage the use of technology and AI, but we are also mindful of its impact on related matters, such as legal education and training, which we will address below.
We do not directly track the specific data that Mr Andre Low asked about. However, we track the benefits gained by law firms who use legaltech tools. In a 2025 legaltech survey commissioned by Info-communications Media Development Authority, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Law Society of Singapore, 90% of law firms that adopted legaltech in the preceding 12 months saw gains in manpower efficiency and 82% saw gains in revenue. These are nascent findings, but they provide an encouraging early indicator that we should continue to harness and use technology and AI.
MinLaw saw the benefits of advancing the use of technology in legal practice even before the current wave of AI tools came into the market. We provided funding from as early as 2017 to support Singapore law firms to adopt legaltech. Today, the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) for the Legal Sector by the Ministry continues to apply, defraying 50% of firms' first-year cost of adopting pre-approved legaltech and AI solutions, capped at S$45,000 per year.
Law firms can also tap on Enterprise Singapore's Enterprise Development Grant to upgrade and innovate, or the general PSG for non-legaltech solutions to improve their productivity and automate their processes.
We are aware that cost is not the only barrier to AI adoption. For many law firms, it is also the challenge of change management. We therefore launched the Legal Innovation and Future-Readiness Transformation initiative in June 2025. This pilot deploys legaltech consultants to help law firms to digitalise and adopt tech solutions. The consultants recommend suitable legaltech solutions and oversee the end-to-end change management process from implementation to optimisation.
As referred to above, what is certain is AI's significant potential in reducing inefficiencies that have traditionally contributed to long hours and burnout. This directly addresses concerns about reducing workload raised by Mr Low.
To equip our lawyers to make full use of these opportunities, we will need to also fundamentally change how legal skills are learned and developed. As Mr Low noted, traditional formative experiences, such as document review and manual research, are increasingly AI-assisted or AI-driven. The way lawyers build their foundation and hone their craft must therefore change. Legal education and professional training are shifting towards equipping lawyers with critical thinking skills, the ability to direct, interrogate and take responsibility for AI-generated output and the capability to exercise judgment and empathy.
Our law schools are increasingly integrating AI into their teaching, and we will have to consider if the teaching curriculum and pedagogy should be refreshed. As an example, National University of Singapore's Law is currently using AI chatbots to simulate witnesses for cross-examination practice, and Singapore Management University Law has dedicated courses on AI in legal practice. The Law Society and the Singapore Academy of Law also conduct generative AI (GenAI) workshops and prompt engineering clinics to equip lawyers with AI skills.
Mr Low has noted that the practice training period has been lengthened from six months to one year. This was one of the recommendations made by the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers in 2018, pre-dating the widespread use of AI in legal practice. The objective was to strengthen the training regime so that junior lawyers are equipped with both sound technical skills and the right professional values regardless of prevailing economic conditions or industry disruptions. With the advent of AI, it is all the more important for junior lawyers to receive strong, practice-ready foundation. This is so that they are equipped to harness AI and to develop core skills that AI cannot replace – advocacy, strategic judgement and the ability to add value to clients.
The professional training framework must also evolve. The Ministry is considering allocating a portion of Continuing Professional Development points specifically to AI‑related courses, so that lawyers remain current as technology evolves rapidly. We will look into ways to strengthen lawyers' skills that AI cannot replace. These include increasing structured mentorship, courtroom exposure and advocacy experience, as these are the tools of our trade, so we must support younger lawyers to learn by observing, practising and engaging directly through human interaction.
Ms Hany Soh separately asked about guidelines and regulations on AI usage in legal practice. In March 2026, the Ministry launched the Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector, which sets out key principles for the safe and responsible use of GenAI and provides practical guidance for implementation. A key tenet is that legal professionals remain ultimately accountable for all work products as part of their duties to clients. The Singapore Courts have also issued a Guide on the Use of GenAI Tools by Court Users, with sanctions for non-compliance in all Court matters.
We have taken the approach of a facilitative Guide rather than prescribed regulations at this stage, so as not to unintentionally stifle innovation and discourage innovators, as AI is still advancing.
AI is here to stay. The question is not whether to adopt it, but how we turn it to our collective advantage. This transformation cannot be driven by policy alone. It requires a concerted effort by all stakeholders – the Ministry, the Judiciary, law firms, senior and junior lawyers, educators and clients. The Future of the Legal Profession Committee, co-chaired by the Chief Justice and the Minister for Law, set up in December 2025, will bring together these stakeholders to look into these issues more deeply.
Encouragingly, there is growing positivity within the profession. Events, such as \"The Next Charter\", that the Ministry organised in March demonstrate a shared recognition that AI, when used responsibly, can strengthen rather than erode the core human skills that underpin legal practice.
This positive outlook extends to the next generation of lawyers. NUS Law final-year student, Kamal Ashraf Bin Kamil Jumat, who spoke at the panel discussion at \"The Next Charter\", highlighted that while AI will reshape legal workflows, foundational skills, judgement, ethics and mentorship remain indispensable. Our law schools share this view and are adapting their curricula to prepare students for an AI-enabled profession while preserving the core values of the law.
With shared commitment, sustained mentorship and thoughtful use of technology, the Ministry, the Judiciary, the profession, educators and clients can together preserve what defines good lawyering while embracing the tools that will shape its future. I am confident the legal profession will not only adapt, but thrive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Work Conditions for Legal Professionals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law with respect to reports that one in three newly admitted lawyers is likely to leave the profession within three years, how has the Ministry been working to improve conditions in the industry especially reported key factors such as excessive workload, poor workplace culture and lack of mentorship.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: This statistic to which the Member refers was derived from media reports following a survey conducted by the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) before this year's mass admission ceremony. The survey asked the respondents, all of whom were about to be newly qualified lawyers, whether they were likely to remain in the current organisation or move to a new law firm; judicial service/legal service/public defender's office; in-house role/academia; alternate legal service provider, or move out of the profession entirely in the next three years. Respondents could select more than one option.
Eighty-five of the 289 respondents, or 29%, in employment selected the option that they would move out of the profession entirely. However, of these 85, only eight, or under 3%, of them selected that option as their sole option whilst the rest selected another option as well to stay within the profession. The survey findings have to be considered in the context of this information as well.
It is also important to consider survey findings within the broader context of other data. For instance, based on our data: (a) the attrition of lawyers from legal practice has remained stable in the last decade. Over the period 2015 to 2024, about six in 10 of the lawyers remained in practice in law firms after five years, and four in 10 after 10 years; (b) in addition, the number of Singapore lawyers in practice in the same period has grown by 26%; and (c) in the same decade, the number of Singapore-qualified in-house counsel has also more than doubled, to support the multinational corporations in Singapore, which has also grown to over 7,000 today.
I have previously shared these data in several of my speeches this year. The analysis of the legal profession and the demand for legal talent also has to be considered in this context. We will thoroughly review all relevant data in considering questions as to attrition from the profession and whether any, and if so what, steps need to be taken to address these issues.
We value each lawyer who enters the profession and endeavour for them to remain in practice or be in the legal industry with purpose and value which they can find fulfilling. Lawyers leave the profession for a variety of reasons, not all of which can be addressed systemically. We will consider the sustainability of legal practice, particularly through the lens of the young legal practitioner. The Honourable Chief Justice and the Minister for Law have therefore set up the Future of the Legal Profession Committee in December 2025 to address these issues, and others, in a comprehensive and holistic manner, and we will share our recommendations when they are ready.
In the meantime, some steps are being taken to address the sustainability of legal practice. For instance, the SAL has launched the Mindful Business Movement to promote mental well-being and sustainable practices within the legal profession. Similarly, the Law Society of Singapore has introduced mentorship and other support schemes to connect young lawyers with experienced mentors, fostering career development, mental well-being and professional growth.
Ensuring that legal practice remains sustainable is important, and it requires the collective effort of all stakeholders from across the profession, including the judiciary, Attorney-General's Chambers, law firms, practitioners and academia.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Youths with Gender Dysphoria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what is the Government's approach to support youths with gender dysphoria.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Gender Dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition that has to be diagnosed by a psychiatrist based on established diagnostic criteria for children and adolescents.
Youths experiencing gender dysphoria have complex medical needs. Our intervention approach is based on ensuring appropriate professional standards and evidence-based care.
Hence, under the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) Treatment Guidelines, children and adolescents with gender dysphoria have to be cared for by a multidisciplinary team to ensure holistic and safe medical care. Psychological support should be the first line of treatment, and hormonal and surgical treatment should not be offered for children and adolescents under 18 years old. For adolescents aged 18 to 20 years old, hormonal therapy, excluding pubertal suppression, may only be offered in exceptional circumstances, with clear evidence of benefit, multidisciplinary team agreement and informed consent from the adolescent and their parents.
MOH, the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Education had also refreshed the Counselling Guidelines, following consultation with local sector professionals. The Counselling Guidelines recommends focusing on youths' overall adjustment and well-being by addressing presenting issues, such as mental health risks or family and peer interactions. To support youths in clarifying issues of sexuality and identity development, therapists should focus on providing non-judgmental and objective care and avoid influencing youths or their families towards a pre-determined outcome.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Relationship between People's Association and Grassroots Advisors who are Not Elected Members of Parliament","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth given that Grassroots Advisers (GRAs) are not public servants (a) what are the (i) nature and (ii) terms of the contractual relationship between PA and GRAs who are not elected MPs; (b) what are the relevant legislation and public service regulations governing information sharing with such GRAs; and (c) whether such information is shared with opposition MPs contemporaneously, and if not, why not.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA).
The role of Grassroots Advisers (GRAs) has been clearly articulated since the early days of our grassroots system and reiterated on several occasions, including in this House.
GRAs are appointed by PA to fulfil various roles. This includes forging stronger people-to-people as well as people-to-Government relations, which have been critical to our national unity and identity. GRAs also help to build up social cohesion within our communities, achieved through a variety of means.
One of the GRA's roles is to actively support the policies of the Government. This would include, where appropriate, explaining Government policy to the people of Singapore, in order for such policies to be understood, supported and implemented. GRAs also assist in the implementation of such policies where necessary, as well as in gathering feedback on such policies to allow the Government to make the relevant adjustments as may be appropriate. In discharging this role, it is critical for GRAs to work with the community to gain support for and implement Government policy. This is not something which opposition Members of Parliament are expected to do.
It is in this context that relevant information as may be appropriate in the circumstance, is shared with GRAs. The type of information shared depends on the specific nature of the function or programme that the GRA is carrying out. As has been explained previously, such sharing of information is carried out in accordance with relevant legislation and Public Service regulations governing data sharing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Student Care Centre Services Remain Affordable and Accessible for Lower- and Middle-income Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has implemented measures to ensure that student care centre services, including those provided by private student care centres, remain affordable and accessible for lower- and middle-income families, particularly in areas where school-based student care demand exceeds available places; and (b) if so, what these measures are.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Children from lower- and lower-middle income families can benefit from the Student Care Fee Assistance scheme (SCFA). After subsidies, families can pay as little as $5 per month for their child to attend student care. All school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs) are required to administer the SCFA. Centres which operate outside of schools, including commercially run centres, can choose to make the SCFA available to their students. Currently, there are over 330 SCFA administrators.
As announced at Budget 2026, the Ministry of Social and Family Development will be raising the monthly household income threshold for the SCFA from $4,500 to $6,500 and updating the income tiers.
As the Ministry of Education (MOE) shared with this House in March 2026, most schools have sufficient capacity to meet the demand for student care. There are a small number of children known to MOE to be on a waitlist of a school-based SCC, but they all have current alternative care arrangements. This is similarly observed for non-school based centres that administer the SCFA.
As part of the ongoing review of the student care sector announced at Budget 2026, we will study if further affordability and accessibility measures are needed to better meet the caregiving needs of families with primary school-aged children.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progression of Workers into Roles that Commensurate with Their Qualifications Over Time","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Ms Cassandra Lee asked the Minister for Manpower in view of findings that overqualification is more prevalent among workers under 35 early in their careers, (a) how does the Ministry track whether these workers progress into roles commensurate with their qualifications over time; and (b) what support measures are in place to help them transition into more suitable positions aligned with their skills.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may refer to the combined oral reply on overqualification delivered on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Survey Finding of Workers Being Overqualified for Their Roles and Implications on Career and Wage Progression, and Underemployment\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Further Support to Employers when Progressive Wage Credit Scheme Ends in 2028","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government has plans to provide further support to employers in the Progressive Wage Model sectors when the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme ends in 2028; and (b) if not, why.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Progressive Wage Credit Scheme was introduced in 2022 as a transitionary support scheme to help businesses defray the costs of wage increases to support lower-wage workers, including those under the Progressive Wage Model requirements. Employers are encouraged to use this period of transition support to invest in upskilling their employees, transforming their businesses and improving productivity so that wage increases are sustainable.
As we had just announced an increase in co-funding for wage increases given in 2026 and to extend support for two more years, it is premature to discuss plans beyond 2028. We will continue to monitor the global situation and review our policies, so that lower-wage workers are supported through sustainable wage increases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Secure Singapore's Energy Supply and Manage Inflation from Energy Price Increases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the war in Iran, what measures, if any, are being taken (i) to secure Singapore's energy supply and (ii) to manage inflation from energy price increases.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This question was addressed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, the Acting Minister for Transport and Senior Minister of State for Finance, and the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, in their Ministerial Statements on the Impact of the Middle East Situation on Singapore at the Parliamentary Sitting on 7 April 2026. [Please refer to \"Impact of the Middle East Situation on Singapore\", Official Report, 7 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 27, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of US-Indonesia Major Defense Cooperation Partnership and Implications for Singapore's Long-term Strategic Interests and Regional Stability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the US-Indonesia Major Defense Cooperation Partnership; (b) how does this development alter the Indo-Pacific security posture; and (c) what are the implications of this evolving regional defense landscape for Singapore's long-term strategic interests and regional stability.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All countries seek to develop mutually beneficial partnerships, and the United States-Indonesia Major Defence Cooperation Partnership is one such example. In a fast-evolving geopolitical landscape, it is to be expected that all countries, including Singapore, will look to entrench their relevance and expand collaboration with their partners of choice.
Singapore will continue to actively engage and seek to make common cause with as many countries as possible, to forge overlapping circles of friends. Over the years, this approach has helped us to foster mutually beneficial relations and engage in constructive defence partnerships. We believe that doing so will contribute to peace and stability for our region.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sharing Peer-reviewed Evidence that Caning Reduces Bullying Recidivism and Restorative Support Following Disciplinary Actions in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education regarding the Comprehensive Action Review against Bullying (a) whether the Phase 1 literature review identified peer-reviewed evidence that caning reduces bullying recidivism; (b) which professionals consulted during the review had recommended including caning as part of standardised disciplinary measures for first-time offenders; and (c) what other specific findings, if any, from the stakeholder engagement process had informed this decision.
94 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education how does the standardisation of caning as a disciplinary measure for first-time offenders sit alongside the Comprehensive Action Review against Bullying's stated objective of building a restorative school culture.
95 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education regarding the Comprehensive Action Review against Bullying (a) what specific counselling and restorative support must schools provide to students following the administration of disciplinary measures; (b) whether such support is mandatory or at schools' discretion; and (c) what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure this support is consistently delivered.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by the Ministry of Education's answer to oral Parliamentary Question Nos 7 to 29 and written Parliamentary Question Nos 41 to 49 on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Implementation of Guidelines from Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Oral Answers to Questions section; and \"Disciplinary Framework Against Bullying in Schools\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Suitability of Japanese Shokuiku System for Meal Provision in Singapore Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Education in respect of the Central Kitchen Meal Model (CKMM) for meals in schools (a) whether the Ministry has studied the Japanese Shokuiku system given its success in producing nutritious and delicious meals in schools; and (b) if not, whether it can consider doing so.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by the Ministry of Education's answer to oral Parliamentary Question on 12 November 2024. [Please refer to \"Assistance for School Canteen Vendors to Offset Rising Costs\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amending Code of Corporate Governance and SGX Listing Rules to Restrict Remuneration Committee Composition and Mandate Remuneration Disclosure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether MAS and SGX will amend the (i) Code of Corporate Governance and (ii) SGX Listing Rules to restrict remuneration committees to non-executive directors exclusively, and mandate the disclosure of specific performance measures determining remuneration, particularly for executive directors who are substantial shareholders or related family members.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The SGX Listing Rules and the Code of Corporate Governance (CG Code) set out baseline corporate governance standards for listed companies in Singapore. The CG Code already stipulates that all members of remuneration committees should be non-executive directors. The SGX Listing Rules require companies to comply with this or explain why they are unable to do so.
As for remuneration of directors, SGX Listing Rules currently require companies to disclose remuneration paid to each director, including executive directors who are substantial shareholders or their family members.
SGX is currently consulting on proposed amendments to sharpen listed companies' focus on shareholder value creation. The proposals include requiring companies to disclose the key performance indicators used to determine the remuneration of executive directors and how these align with long-term shareholder value creation.
The Corporate Governance Advisory Committee (CGAC)1 is similarly reviewing the CG Code to enhance governance and disclosure standards and will publicly consult on proposals in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : CGAC is a permanent, industry-led body established by the Monetary Authority of Singapore to advocate good corporate governance practices among listed companies in Singapore."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of Political Office Holders' Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Alex Yam asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of recent global events, what is the status of the review of political office holder's salaries.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): In January 2026, I had informed this House that the Government had convened an independent committee to conduct a review of the political salary framework that was laid out in 2012. The Committee has completed the review and submitted its recommendations to the Government in April.
The Government recognises that the Middle East conflict is still ongoing, causing major economic uncertainties and clouding the outlook for Singapore. Against this backdrop, the Government has decided to defer consideration of the Committee's recommendations, until the impact of the conflict on Singapore is clearer.
At the appropriate time, the Government will release the Committee's report together with the Government's response. Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to review the report and Government response together then, for a more meaningful debate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Threshold for Compulsory GST Registration Since Introduction in 1994 to Adjust for 30 Years of Inflation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will review the $1 million taxable turnover threshold for compulsory GST registration, given that it has remained unchanged since GST was introduced in 1994 and has not been adjusted for over 30 years of inflation, which has effectively lowered the threshold in real terms and brought more small businesses into the compulsory registration net.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: We explained the considerations for the goods and services tax registration threshold and why it remains relevant to Mr Pritam Singh at the Committee of Supply debate on 28 February 2024. [Please refer to \"Committee of Supply – Head M (Ministry of Finance)\", Official Report, 28 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 126, Budget section.]
Our position has not changed. The Member may wish to refer to the Hansard for the reply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Annual Registration and Deregistration Rates in F&B Sector from 2000 to Present","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what has been the average annual number of registration and deregistration of food and beverage (F&B) sector businesses for the periods of (i) 2000 to 2009 (ii) 2010 to 2019 and (iii) 2020 to the present.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The average annual number of registrations and de-registrations of food and beverage sector business entities for the requested periods are in Table 1 below.
The Member may wish to refer to the Department of Statistics' website for the annual breakdown: https://tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/table/TS/M085641.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Global Jet Fuel Shortage on Tourism and MICE Industries and Mitigation Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the impact of jet fuel shortage globally on our tourism and meetings, incentives, conventions and exhibitions (MICE) industries; and (b) what are the short to mid-term measures that the Government will implement to mitigate such impact.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This reply addresses Parliamentary Questions filed by Mr Edward Chia, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
In February 2026, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) announced that it expects international visitor arrivals in 2026 to reach 17 to 18 million, bringing in approximately $31.0 to $32.5 billion in tourism receipts. We are off to a steady start, with Singapore welcoming 4.4 million visitors in the first quarter – a 3% increase from the same period last year.
While there have been some postponements, downsizing and cancellations of corporate meetings and conferences, our meetings, incentives, conventions and exhibitions (MICE) industry has largely remained resilient. Many major events held recently in Singapore have reported strong numbers. For instance, the Asia Pacific Maritime 2026, which took place in end-March, attracted close to 19,500 trade visitors in its largest-ever edition.
Our events pipeline for 2026 to 2027 also remains healthy. Singapore has secured major association conferences, such as Innovate4Climate 2026, and will host inaugural events, including Passenger Terminal Expo Asia 2026 and Innotrans Asia 2027. On the leisure events front, we recently hosted KOOZA by Cirque du Soleil as its exclusive Southeast Asia stop, and we can look forward to upcoming concerts by Post Malone, Guns N' Roses and BTS.
We are mindful that the tourism sector could be affected if heightened fuel costs lead to airline capacity cuts and fare increases. As the conflict lengthens, travel propensity among more price-sensitive tourists may weaken, especially against a stronger Singapore dollar. STB is actively adapting its market strategies to respond to these shifting dynamics. These include enhancing marketing campaigns and working closely with industry partners to develop attractive offers.
We remain confident in Singapore's long-term tourism prospects, anchored by our world-class infrastructure and reputation as a safe, reliable and trusted hub. STB will continue to pursue a diverse range of MICE events to secure a robust events pipeline and support the development of best-in-class tourism products, concepts and events. This is to ensure Singapore remains a compelling destination, especially as we continue to pursue high-yield visitors as part of our quality tourism strategy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risk of Illegal and Offshore Betting Activities, Tightening Controls on Gambling-related Advertising and Enforcement Measures to Minimise Exposure to Vulnerable Groups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether illegal and offshore betting activities are expected to increase during the upcoming FIFA World Cup; and (b) what enhanced enforcement measures will be taken to curb such activities.
7 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry will review and tighten controls on gambling-related advertising during major sporting events such as the upcoming FIFA World Cup, particularly on digital platforms; and (b) how such controls will minimise exposure to vulnerable groups, including youths.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police will step up enforcement in anticipation of the increase in illegal football betting during the upcoming FIFA World Cup. This includes blocking websites or advertisements that offer illegal gambling services, terminating local phone numbers that advertise illegal gambling activities and blocking payment services, like bank accounts and credit cards, linked to illegal gambling.
Singapore Pools is the only entity licensed to offer sports betting in Singapore.
Gambling advertisements related to unlicensed sports betting are prohibited. It is an offence under the Gambling Control Act (GCA) and a person who is found guilty would be liable on conviction to a fine of up to $20,000.
It is also an offence under the GCA to induce an underaged individual to gamble, including through advertising and promotional activities. An offender would be liable on conviction to a fine of up to $300,000 or to imprisonment of up to six years or both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unfair Access to Driving Lesson Slots from Bot Usage and Third-party Services and Consideration for Centralised Booking System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government has data on (i) how widespread the use of bots or third-party services is in securing driving lesson slots and (ii) how such practices affect fair access for learners; and (b) whether a centralised or queue-based booking system is being considered.\n\n
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) does not have data on the prevalence of the use of bots or third-party services to secure driving lesson slots.
Nevertheless, we have taken action. The three driving schools suspended close to 13,400 accounts suspected of bot activity in 2025. TP has directed the schools to also implement anti-bot measures, such as CAPTCHA authentication, and account restrictions when they detect suspicious logins.
There are no plans to implement a centralised booking system. It is more appropriate, expedient and practical for the driving schools to design and manage their respective booking systems, because they all have different commercial and operating models.
The current wait times reflect fundamentally a mismatch between the supply and demand for Class 3 lessons. The Ministry of Home Affairs and TP are studying additional supply measures to improve the situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend Analysis of Gold and Gold-related Investment Scams from 2022 to Date and Breakdown of Victims by Age Group, and Scam Prevention Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the annual number of scam cases involving gold or gold-related investments from 2022 to-date; (b) whether any trends have been observed; (c) what is the breakdown of victims by age group; (d) what key lessons have been identified; and (e) what further measures are being taken to prevent such scams.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police do not specifically track which scam cases involved gold or gold-related investments. However, in 2025, they observed at least 130 cases involving the handover of physical gold assets to move scam proceeds. Close to two in three victims were aged 65 and above.
The scammers would typically pose as Government officials and instruct the victims to hand over gold as part of their purported investigations into criminal activities. Another modus operandi involved the scammers instructing the victims to surrender gold to resolve fraudulent insurance policies allegedly purchased under the victims' names or for fake investment opportunities. The victims would then pass the gold to unknown individuals claiming to be officials or agents, or leave it at designated locations for collection.
The Police, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) are working with banks and precious stones and precious metals dealers (PSMDs) to put in place measures to better protect potential scam victims. For example, the Association of Banks in Singapore has carried out public outreach to raise scam awareness, including those involving gold handovers. MinLaw has been engaging PSMDs to increase awareness of such scams and has published a Code of Practice to provide them with practical guidance on measures that they should adopt to mitigate scam-related risks and strengthen early intervention.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Road Traffic Accidents by Age of Driver from 2021 to 2025 and Review of Three-year Driving Licence Renewal Cycle for Drivers Aged 65 and Above","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of road traffic accidents caused by drivers aged 65 and above for each year from 2021 to 2025 and how does this compare against other age groups; and (b) whether the Ministry will review the current three-year driving licence renewal cycle for drivers aged 65 and above.
Mr K Shanmugam: Appended in the table below is the annual number of accidents involving injury or death that the Traffic Police (TP) has investigated and determined to be caused by the motorist. This excludes accidents where TP was unable to determine the at-fault party.
The current licence renewal regime aims to promote road safety and provide seniors the convenience of driving in a risk-calibrated manner. The Ministry of Home Affairs and TP will continue to review the licence renewal rules regularly to ensure they remain fit-for-purpose.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Unlicensed Pyrotechnic Use in Past Five Years and Enforcement Measures Against Unlicensed Importation, Possession and Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of known cases of pyrotechnics that were set off without proper licences over the past five years; and (b) what are the measures that the Ministry has taken to prevent the unlicensed importation, possession and use of such pyrotechnics.
Mr K Shanmugam: Pyrotechnics are regulated as explosives under the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act 2021 (GEWCA). Any person who wishes to conduct activities involving explosives, including their importation, possession or use, must obtain the relevant licence from the Singapore Police Force (SPF). Unlicensed use is an offence under the GEWCA and may result in fines or imprisonment.
Between 2021 and 2024, there was an average of about 19 cases annually relating to unlawful possession, discharge and importation of fireworks under the Dangerous Fireworks Act, which has since been replaced with GEWCA. Under the GEWCA, which came into force on 1 July 2025, fireworks and pyrotechnics are classified as \"explosives\" alongside other materials, such as explosive precursors. As the GEWCA applies to a wider category of explosives, SPF does not track the number of cases that specifically relate to fireworks and pyrotechnics.
The Ministry of Home Affairs and SPF tackle unlicensed importation, possession and use of pyrotechnics on several fronts. First, SPF works with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to intercept unlicensed pyrotechnics at our borders. Second, SPF enforces against the unlawful possession or use of pyrotechnics through ground patrols and investigation of reported cases. Third, SPF reminds members of the public of the legal requirements and safety risks through news releases in the lead-up to festive periods.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Enhance Data Collection and Analysis to Assess Role of Fatigue and Sleep Deprivation in Traffic Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are plans to enhance data collection or analysis to better assess the role of fatigue and sleep deprivation as contributing factors in traffic accidents in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider introducing specific indicators or reporting mechanisms to capture such factors.
Mr K Shanmugam: Fatigue is a known contributory factor of traffic accidents. This is one of the factors highlighted in Traffic Police's road safety education materials.
There are no plans to collect additional data or indicators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Road Traffic Accidents Involving Vulnerable Road Users Attributed to Speeding and Traffic Signal Non-compliance in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in the last five years, what proportion of road traffic accidents involving vulnerable road users, particularly motorcyclists and elderly pedestrians, involved speeding or a failure to comply with traffic signals, in view that vulnerable road users continue to account for a disproportionate number of road traffic accidents resulting in injuries or fatalities.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 2021 and 2025, motorcyclists were involved in approximately 64% of speeding-related accidents and 36% of red-light running accidents. In the same period, elderly pedestrians were involved in approximately 0.4% of speeding-related accidents and 2.3% of red-light running accidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing TraceTogether's Contribution to COVID-19 Contact Tracing, Total Programme Cost and Lessons for Future Digital Tracing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) of all COVID-19 cases identified by contact tracing between March 2020 and 13 February 2023, how many (i) were identified with TraceTogether and (ii) would not have been identified through conventional contact tracing methods; (b) what was the total TraceTogether programme cost over its lifetime; and (c) whether the Ministry will publish a retrospective cost-effectiveness evaluation of TraceTogether to inform future digital tracing efforts.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We no longer have detailed data on the TraceTogether Programme as records have all been deleted when we stood down the programme. We estimate that about 600,000 quarantine orders were issued, with TraceTogether supplementing conventional contact tracing methods. This would have a significant impact on suppressing the spread of COVID-19, preventing infections and saving lives.
Unlike the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, where the reproduction number, or R0, was two to four and spread was limited mostly to healthcare facilities, COVID-19 was transmitted more widely in the community with an R0 of five to 10, especially during the Delta and Omicron waves. It was not possible to conduct contact tracing for COVID-19 in the later stage of the pandemic through conventional, manual methods sufficiently quickly to control transmission in the community.
Fortunately, we were able to deploy technology to strengthen our contact tracing capabilities. Together with vaccination, safe management measures and adaptive healthcare protocols that preserved hospital capacity, we were able to weather through the pandemic crisis with one of the lowest COVID-19 fatality rates globally and enable a strong recovery.
The total cost of the TraceTogether Programme, including development of the TraceTogether qpp for handphones and the provision of TraceTogether tokens, was about $180 million. Majority of the cost was incurred for the TraceTogether tokens, which were made available to all residents on request.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Approved Access Applications to PRECISE, SG10K and HELIOS, Research Productivity and Outcomes, and Plans for Public Registry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many applications to access PRECISE, SG10K and HELIOS data have been received and approved, broken down by public-sector researchers, private-sector firms and local startups, and average time to access; (b) how many approved applications have produced publications, patents or commercial products; and (c) whether the Ministry will publish a public registry of approved projects and outcomes, as the UK Biobank does.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: PRECISE-SG100K and the Health for Life in Singapore (HELIOS) are large-scale longitudinal cohort studies to drive research, improve disease understanding, and enable more targeted care. The majority of their datasets were accessible from 2025 through TRUST, our national health research and analytics platform supporting the analysis of anonymised data for health research.
Based on applications for data access on TRUST, there have been 40 approved applications to access PRECISE-SG100K and HELIOS' data. Of these, 34 were from public-sector researchers and six were from private companies. Since then, one publication has resulted from these applications, with more in the pipeline as projects mature. Publicly available listings of approved projects are maintained on the TRUST website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Framework for AI-developed Drugs and Implications on Clinical Trials, and Adequacy of Data Protection Safeguards for National Patient Data","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has studied if AI-developed drugs can shorten or bypass clinical trials; (b) if so, how will the regulatory approval of AI-developed drugs differ from conventional products; (c) what regulations currently govern AI healthcare innovations; and (d) whether existing personal data protection and cybersecurity safeguards can prevent data leakage when AI accesses national patient data for product conceptualisation.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Both artificial intelligence- (AI-)developed and conventionally developed drugs must meet the same international standards of quality, safety and efficacy. The Health Sciences Authority's regulatory approach is aligned with international agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, that have outlined key principles on the responsible use of AI in drug development.
Patient data is robustly protected, including when used for AI development. Existing data protection and cybersecurity safeguards, including those under the Personal Data Protection Act, ensure that patient confidentiality is maintained and that the data is protected.
We will continue to monitor developments and strengthen our safeguards as needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Milestones and Outcome Indicators for the 10,000 Palliative Care Competency Training Target by 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what annual milestones has the Ministry set towards its target of training 10,000 nurses and healthcare workers in generalist palliative-care competencies by 2030; and (b) what outcome indicators will the Ministry use to assess whether expanded palliative-care capacity is improving coverage, supporting home deaths aligned with patient preference and reducing hospital deaths.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health tracks the progress of the National Strategy for Palliative Care by monitoring the proportion of patients who receive palliative care in their last year of life, currently at 51%, as well as the proportion of deaths occurring in hospitals, currently at around 60%. We also track the development of palliative care competencies within the healthcare workforce, to ensure that the expertise to deliver quality care is in place. This includes planning for and monitoring progress towards equipping 10,000 nurses and healthcare workers with general palliative care competencies by 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allocated Funding, Implementation Timeline and Existing Trained Workforce to Meet Palliative Care Competency Training Targets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what funding has been allocated to meet the target of training 10,000 nurses and healthcare workers in palliative care competencies by 2030; (b) what is the implementation timeline and annual milestones; and (c) what is the current number of healthcare workers already trained to the requisite general palliative care competency standard.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Public healthcare institutions have been progressively building up palliative care competencies amongst our nursing workforce. Institutes of Higher Learning have also incorporated palliative care training in their respective courses of study for healthcare. We have always emphasised skills upgrading and training and will tap on existing training budgets for palliative care training. As palliative care training has become increasingly embedded across the healthcare system and is no longer confined to palliative care specialists, The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not currently track the specific number of healthcare workers trained in palliative care. MOH will plan for and monitor progress towards equipping 10,000 nurses and healthcare workers with general palliative care competencies by 2030.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Broader Continuous Glucose Monitoring Adoption and Plans to Expand Subsidies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of the subsidies for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) primarily for Type 1 diabetes patients, (a) whether the Ministry has conducted an assessment of the long-term cost-effectiveness of broader CGM adoption, including for Type 2 diabetes, in reducing complications, hospitalisation and overall healthcare costs; and (b) whether there are plans to expand subsidies beyond the current clinically limited groups.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) will continue to review continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems for subsidy coverage beyond patients with Type 1 diabetes. This includes assessing potential subgroups of patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus if the use of CGM is shown to be clinically and cost effective.
Cost effectiveness depends on the price quoted by the suppliers for the Singapore market. Suppliers look to charge more here given our small market size and status as a high-income country. MOH is in constant discussion with suppliers while reviewing subsidy coverage for CGM systems.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requiring Retailers to Display Warning Advisories on Screen Exposure Risks for Young Children on Consumer Electronic Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in view of the potential impact of screen exposure on the physical development and mental health of children below six years old, whether the Government will consider requiring retailers of mobile phones, laptops, tablets and computers to indicate public education and warning advisory messages, as a precautionary measure.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Government has implemented several measures to develop healthy screen use habits in children early as part of Grow Well SG. This includes issuing screen use guidelines to provide parents with clearer guidance, leveraging the childhood development screening visits from zero to six years old to raise parental awareness and encourage behaviour change early, and disallowing smart phones in primary and secondary schools. These measures are showing effectiveness in changing parenting methods and screen use habits, and we are studying further measures, including for adolescents. There are no plans to require retailers of mobile phones, laptops, tablets and computers to display public education and warning advisory messages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving myENV App Accessibility Through Multilingual Features and Age-appropriate Formats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will consider enhancing the myENV app and related advisory materials by introducing more multilingual features and age-appropriate formats, including for Heat Stress Advisories so that such information is more accessible to seniors, children and households that are less English-proficient; and (b) if so, by when.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: We thank the Member for the suggestion. The myENV application currently shows the prevailing heat stress levels and the heat stress advisory in English. In subsequent updates, we will incorporate features and formats to improve usability for users of different demographic groups. We will also consider introducing multilingual features to improve the application's accessibility.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Extend Project Wolbachia to Kovan and Lorong Ah Soo Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment when will Project Wolbachia be extended to estates in the Kovan and Lorong Ah Soo areas.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Site prioritisation for Wolbachia expansion is based on the assessed dengue risk of the area, which includes factors, such as the historical dengue situation, current Aedes aegypti mosquito population and the size and landscape of the area. The National Environment Agency will continue to monitor the dengue situation and update stakeholders on any new release areas for Project Wolbachia.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of LPA to Introduce Public Institutional Donee Options for Individuals Without Suitable Appointees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Government has studied the feasibility of introducing a public institutional donee option for Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for individuals without suitable appointees; (b) how demand for such an option is expected to evolve; and (c) whether pilot schemes are being considered.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In making a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), individuals are strongly encouraged to appoint a trusted family member or friend as their donee, as such persons are usually best placed to act in their interests and understand their personal wishes. For individuals who do not have such support, they may choose to appoint a professional donee, who is regulated under the Mental Capacity Act.
When the professional deputy and donee (PDD) scheme was being conceptualised in 2016, the Government considered whether the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) could serve as a public institutional donee for individuals without suitable people to appoint. However, as the OPG's primary role is regulatory, to oversee and regulate PDD services whilst protecting vulnerable individuals, being a public institutional donee would conflict with its core regulatory function.
The Government will continue to review the PDD scheme to improve the availability of donee options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Caregiver Burnout as Contributing Factor in Emergency Placements and Crisis Interventions for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Government tracks how often caregiver burnout or illness is a contributing factor to emergency placement or crisis intervention for seniors or persons with disabilities; and (b) if so, what trends have been observed.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Caregivers might need respite services due to multiple factors, such as caregiver illness, exhaustion or family emergencies. The Government does not track specific reasons for emergency placement or crisis placement, but rather, the focus is on ensuring that respite care is available and accessible to caregivers who need it.
Caregivers who require support can tap on a range of subsidised respite options. For caregivers of seniors with care needs, this includes the enhanced Home Personal Care, which offers longer service hours and after-hours care. Caregivers of persons with disabilities may tap on the Take-a-Break home-based respite programme, or admission into disability homes for a period. The Agency for Integrated Care and SG Enable work with providers to prioritise clients with urgent care needs, including cases with caregivers seeking help to cope with burnout.
In addition to ensuring respite service capacity, caregivers may tap on the Caregivers Training Grant to offset the costs of attending caregiver training. Community outreach teams also provide various support – including one-to-one befriending from peers with shared caregiving experiences – to reduce the isolation that often accompanies prolonged caregiving.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Higher Risk Classification for Domestic Child Abuse Cases and Median Timeline for Removal and Safe Placement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with respect to cases of suspected child abuse happening at home (a) whether such cases are automatically classified as higher risk necessitating expedited monitoring compared to suspected abuse in a non-domestic setting; and (b) to date, what is the median timeline to remove a child from home and place them in a safe environment in cases of serious alleged abuse.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Cases of suspected child abuse occurring at home are not automatically classified as higher risk. Risk level is assessed based on the nature, severity, immediacy of harm, as well as factors, such as the child's vulnerability, caregiver's capacity and the presence of protective support.
If the abuse was caused by a parent or caregiver, there may be heightened concern, as the source of harm is within the child's primary caregiving environment. Such cases may therefore require closer monitoring and more intensive intervention, depending on the assessed level of risk.
Where serious safety concerns are identified, regardless of setting, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and Police will take expedited action, including the removal of the child if necessary. It is not meaningful to look at the median timeframe for removal as each case is assessed individually based on urgency and risk. In other cases, MSF may first implement safety plans, monitor compliance and work with the family to improve parenting practices before exercising statutory powers to remove the child from the home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Legal Aid Bureau Assistance in Deputyship Applications for Low-income Families in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has assessed barriers faced by low-income families in the deputyship process under the Mental Capacity Act, including legal costs, medical report requirements and the simplified track's consent requirement; (b) what proportion of deputyship applications were assisted by the Legal Aid Bureau in each of the past three years; and (c) what steps are being taken to improve access.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Currently, an application for deputyship under the simplified track costs around $540, comprising a $40 Court filing fee and around $500 for mental capacity assessment, depending on the fees charged by public hospitals.
Lower-income families requiring financial assistance with the deputyship application may approach the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB), a department in the Ministry of Law, or charitable organisations, such as Pro Bono SG. From 2023 to 2025, the LAB provided legal advice and aid to about 750 Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents for matters related to the Mental Capacity Act, including but not limited to deputyship applications.
In 2025, the Ministry of Law also amended the Legal Aid and Advice Act to apply the legal aid means test on the mentally incapacitated person when an altruistic non-next-of-kin deputy applies for deputyship. This will allow more cases to qualify for assistance by LAB.
The best way to avoid the hassle and cost of a deputyship application is to make a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). We recently made the LPA Form 1 application permanently free for Citizens and encourage everyone to make an LPA as soon as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Age-based Restrictions for Addictive Design Features on Social Media and Gaming Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Government has assessed the potential to implement content and communications controls for users under the age of 16 for social media and gaming platforms across both designated social media services and non-designated services.
28 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Government will review the Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services to impose obligations on Designated Social Media Services to limit design features, such as infinite scroll, autoplay and push notifications found by a US jury to be negligently addictive for users under 18.
Mrs Josephine Teo: My response will cover the questions raised by Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Louis Chua, Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Abdul Muhaimin in today's Order Paper, as well as questions by Mr Chua, Ms Elysa Chen and Mr Victor Lye filed for subsequent Sittings relating to the Government's measures to enhance safeguards for children and adolescents when they go on social media platforms. [Please refer to \"Review of Current Regulations and Protection Measures For Children and Teenagers Against Social Media Addiction\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions section; \"Regulating Young People's Access to Social Media Given Negligent Finding on Meta and Alphabet In US\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Oral Answers to Questions section; and \"Assessment of Age-based Restrictions for Addictive Design Features on Social Media and Gaming Platforms\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions section.]
If the Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.
We share the concerns Members have raised regarding online safety for children and youths on social media platforms. Today, the Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services already requires designated social media services to put in place systems and processes to minimise users' exposure to harmful online content, especially younger users.
As the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) announced during our Committee of Supply debate, we plan to extend age assurance requirements to designated social media services. Age assurance is a critical step in ensuring that designated social media services can identify young users and provide them with protective measures on their platforms. We will also consider similar safeguards for online gaming.
We are determined to go further to enhance safeguards for children on designated social media services. MDDI is carefully studying features on these services, such as direct messaging and autoplay, which can result in unwanted interactions with strangers or excessive use for children and adolescents.
To that end, MDDI is in active discussions with the designated social media services, to outline our expectations of the standards they must meet. We will also consult the public, including parents and youths, to better understand their experiences and perspectives across different age groups, to determine the safeguards that are necessary and appropriate. The outcome of these engagements will shape our policy response, which may include restricting access to services with age-inappropriate features.
Beyond regulatory measures, the Government has stepped up efforts to support parents in guiding their children's digital use. For example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has disallowed the use of smartphones and smartwatches during school hours, including during co-curricular activities, in primary and secondary schools. The Ministry of Health updated its Guidance on Screen Use in Children aged below 12 years to provide parents with clearer and more actionable guidance on screen use practices in children. The Health Promotion Board, MOE and Ministry of Social and Family Development jointly developed the Parenting for Wellness toolkit to equip parents with key knowledge and skills to parent effectively in the digital age, and prepare their children to navigate the digital environment safely. The Infocomm Media Development Authority has also launched a set of resources on the Digital for Life portal to empower parents to help their child develop healthy digital habits from young, with content tailored to children's different developmental stages and key digital milestones.
Through these regulatory and public education efforts, we will continue to foster a digital environment where our children can grow and thrive safely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Large Parcel Sorting and Delivery Practices by Courier Companies in Residential Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether IMDA will step up industry regulation of courier companies in the way they sort and deliver large parcels in residential areas; and (b) whether IMDA will set out best practices for parcel deliveries for courier companies to comply with.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Courier service is not a regulated service unlike postal services, which the Infocomm Media Development Authority regulates because it is an essential service.
Nonetheless, the Government has been working with industry partners on best-practice guides to support courier companies in improving the efficiency of their last-mile deliveries in residential areas. For example, the Singapore Logistics Association, with support from Enterprise Singapore, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), published a Best Practice Guide for Last-mile Delivery (Condominiums) to help improve the delivery experience within condominiums. URA and LTA are looking to develop similar guides for different development typologies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accuracy Benchmarks and Liability Frameworks for Intelligence Deepfake Detector Before Public Rollout and Integrating Real-Time Media Verification into ScamShield","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what technical accuracy benchmarks or liability frameworks must the Intelligent Deepfake Detector (INDEPTH) meet before it is transitioned from public service use to public use; and (b) whether the Government will pilot a verification API within the ScamShield app to provide citizens with real-time risk scores for suspicious media.\n
Mrs Josephine Teo: INDEPTH is a deepfake detection platform designed specifically for Government agencies and is not intended for public use. It is not in the public interest to reveal its detection capabilities as malicious actors may exploit such information.
The ScamShield app was developed by Open Government Products in collaboration with the National Crime Prevention Council and the Singapore Police Force to protect the public from scams. It blocks scam calls from numbers verified by the authorities and filters scam SMSes. It also allows users to check and report suspicious calls, messages, such as SMS, WhatsApp and Telegram, and website links, including those that may show signs of digital manipulation, such as deepfakes. The Government will continue to strengthen ScamShield's existing scam detection capabilities and reporting channels and step up public education to better protect users from evolving scam tactics. There are no plans at this juncture to develop a verification API within the ScamShield app to provide real-time risk scores for suspicious media.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Meaningful Human Accountability for Public-facing Autonomous AI Agents and Pathways to Mandatory Governance in High-risk Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information following the launch of the Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI (a) how does the Ministry intend to ensure \"meaningful human accountability\" for autonomous AI agents that interact with the public in the absence of explicit disclosure requirements; and (b) what triggers would necessitate transitioning the Framework from a voluntary code to enforceable standards for high-risk sectors.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Model Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Framework for Agentic AI (Framework) sets out guidance for organisations to ensure meaningful human accountability in deploying agentic AI. They should not allow high stakes or irreversible actions to take place without human review. Appropriate actions therefore include identifying checkpoints or action boundaries that require human approval. The Framework also emphasises transparency towards users, such as declaring upfront that users are interacting with agents and the agents' capabilities and data access.
Agentic AI use cases and the appropriate safeguards are still evolving. Hence, together with sector regulators, we will continue to monitor how various sectors deploy agentic AI and put the above principles in practice, continue to consult and learn from best practices internationally, to make the adjustments to the framework as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of AI-generated Deepfake Political Videos and Regulatory Intervention Thresholds under POFMA and OCHA","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government does testing on vulnerable groups before determining that AI-generated deepfake videos involving political office-holders are so obviously fabricated that directions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 are unnecessary; and (b) what threshold of public confusion arising from such videos must be met before a proactive intervention under the Online Criminal Harms Act 2023.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, a Minister can issue a Correction Direction if a false statement of fact has been communicated in Singapore, and it is in the public interest to issue the Correction Direction. This includes online falsehoods communicated via deepfake videos.
Under the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA), the Government can issue directions to online service providers to disable Singapore users' access to an online content or activity, when there is reasonable suspicion that the online activity is in furtherance of a specified criminal offence under the First Schedule of OCHA, or when there is suspicion or reason to believe that the online activity is preparatory to the commission of a scam or malicious cyber activity. This includes deepfake images and videos.
The Government assesses harmful online content holistically and determines the appropriate response, based on a range of factors for each case and the legal conditions under the relevant legislation. As such, intervention is not determined by any single factor alone.
We recognise that there are segments of society who may be less confident in their ability to discern between fact and falsehood online. Public education initiatives are therefore as important as legislation to help our people become more vigilant and discerning when they go online. For example, the Digital Skills for Life framework, developed by the Infocomm Media Development Authority, equips Singaporeans with skills to identify and respond to false and misleading content. The SG Digital Office also runs Gen AI workshops for seniors, which cover how to stay safe and smart online against AI-generated misinformation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating Smart Glasses and AI Wearables to Prevent Covert Recording and Unconsented Data Collection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry will introduce new regulations for visual indicator requirements for smart glasses to prevent surreptitious recording in public spaces; and (b) how the Ministry ensures that AI-enabled wearable devices used by individuals do not facilitate the mass collection of biometric or environmental data without the explicit consent of non-users in the vicinity.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), organisations, including individuals creating content for commercial purposes, are accountable for how personal data is collected and used. The taking of photographs or making of video or audio recordings is subject to the same rules and principles regardless of the form factor of the device.
While the PDPA generally does not require consent to be sought from persons for photography or recording in public spaces, organisations must ensure that any subsequent use or disclosure of the personal data, including for artificial intelligence features, is for a reasonable purpose and complies with any other applicable laws.
Regardless of the capacity they are acting in, individuals should also note that non-consensual recording, sharing or other misuse of intimate or private content may constitute criminal offences under existing laws, including the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act. Under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act, creators of online content may also be held accountable for harms caused to victims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Disciplinary Measures Used in Bullying Cases by Offender History, Age and Gender, and Rate of Repeat Offences in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education in each year from 2021 to 2025, for bullying-related disciplinary cases in schools (a) how many students received each type of disciplinary measure including (i) detention (ii) suspension (iii) caning and (iv) counselling, respectively, broken down by whether they were first-time, second-time or repeat offenders; and (b) what were the median age and gender breakdown of students in each category.
35 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education in each year from 2015 to 2025 (a) how many male students were caned in schools; (b) what were the categories of offences for which students were caned; and (c) of those caned, what proportion were subsequently involved in repeat disciplinary offences.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by the Ministry of Education's answer to oral Parliamentary Question Nos 7 to 29 and written Parliamentary Question Nos 41 to 49 on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Implementation of Guidelines from Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Oral Answers to Questions section; and \"Disciplinary Framework Against Bullying in Schools\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Participation in PISA Financial Literacy Assessment and Comparative Assessment of Financial Literacy of Singapore's 15-Year-Olds with Other Developed Nations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) whether Singapore has been participating in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for financial literacy and, if not, why not; and (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the financial literacy levels of 15-year-old students in Singapore compared to other developed nations.
Mr Desmond Lee: The financial literacy study is one of several optional instruments in Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Most PISA-participating systems, including Singapore, do not opt for it. We are mindful in our choice of PISA options to avoid overloading our schools and students with international benchmarking studies.
The Ministry of Education and MoneySense, our national financial education programme, regularly monitor our students' and youths' financial literacy levels. Our surveys show that most secondary school students have age-appropriate financial literacy, such as knowing the difference between needs and wants, understanding concepts like compound interest and inflation and appreciating the importance of saving and budgeting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Graduate Employment Alignment to Field of Study and Expanding Five-Year Post-Graduation Survey Beyond Polytechnics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry tracks the proportion of graduates employed in roles aligned to their field of study; (b) what were the findings of the pilot conducted with polytechnics to survey graduates five years after graduation; (c) whether this pilot has been extended to autonomous universities and ITE as previously indicated; and (d) if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Graduate Employment Survey (GES) tracks the proportion of graduates employed in jobs related to their field of study. From 2017 to 2024, this proportion has gradually increased and remained high, with about eight in 10 graduates in full-time permanent employment reporting they were in jobs related to their field of study.
The pilot conducted by the polytechnics in 2019 polled graduates from the polytechnic class of 2014. The results suggest that they were doing well in the labour market, with more than nine in 10 of those in the labour force being employed. Sixty-four percent of graduates in full-time permanent employment were in jobs related to their course of study. Among those in full-time permanent jobs unrelated to their original course of study, 14 percentage points had completed further studies in a different field. Furthermore, the median salaries of those in full-time permanent employment had risen from $2,100 in 2014 to $3,300 five years after graduation.
Similar tracer surveys have been extended to the autonomous universities and the Institute of Technical Education.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recognising Student-Athletes from Special Education Schools Representing Singapore at Sporting Events","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider recognising and supporting student-athletes from special education schools who represent Singapore at sporting events, such as with the Singapore Schools Sports Council (SSSC) Colours Awards or by creating a framework equivalent to the SSSC Colours Awards.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education and the Singapore Schools Sports Council (SSSC) are reviewing the SSSC Colours Award Framework and will consider how student-athletes from Government and community-funded special education schools who represent Singapore at key sports events can be recognised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trends in Online Harassment of Educators and Measures to Support and Safeguard Educators' Well-being","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has observed an increase in online content publicly rating or mocking educators or staff; (b) how such cases are addressed when they amount to harassment; and\n(c) what measures are in place to assess and safeguard teachers' well-being against sustained online harassment.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) has not observed any significant increase in online content that mocks or rates educators. The occurrence of such content is generally low.
MOE takes all forms of harassment against our educators and staff seriously. This includes online harassment. When our educators and staff encounter harassment whilst carrying out their duties, they should inform their school leaders or MOE for advice and support.
MOE maintains a zero-tolerance stance against such behaviours and will act to address them. When our educators or staff face sustained or malicious harassment, MOE and the school may seek police assistance and pursue legal action to protect them. This includes invoking the Protection from Harassment Act and Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act in the case of harmful or sustained online harassment.
Beyond these protective measures, we will continue to promote respectful communication and positive role-modelling within the school community. Our schools will also continue to teach how to express respect in person and online, including discernment in following trends. Creating a safe and supportive environment for our educators and staff requires collective effort from all stakeholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion in Major Games Influencing Choice of Sports Offered in National School Games and Advisory Role of SportSG and SpexSG","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for Education (a) what weight is given to a sport's inclusion in major games like the Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games and SEA Games when determining the sports offered in the National School Games; and (b) whether Sport Singapore (SportSG) and Sport Excellence Singapore (SpexSG) have a formal role in reviewing the sports offered, and if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by the Ministry of Education's written answer to oral Parliamentary Question No 88 on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Criteria for Inclusion of Sports in National School Games\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of AI Impact on Worker Competitiveness and Employability, and Targeted Support Interventions for Affected Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's latest assessment of the salary premium for workers with AI skills in Singapore, including how it varies by sector and seniority; and (b) what further steps will be taken to ensure Singaporean workers acquire these skills and remain competitive in the labour market.
42 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's latest assessment of the top occupations at risk of displacement in Singapore; and (b) what targeted interventions are being considered to address concerns about employability, especially for workers in clerical, back-office and entry-level knowledge roles.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) data shows that professional, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) in the information and communications, financial services and professional services sectors have seen relatively higher retrenchment incidence in recent years, compared to employees in other sectors and occupation groups. Higher incidence of retrenchment indicates ongoing restructuring rather than a contraction in PMET demand.
MOM does not have data on salary premiums for artificial intelligence (AI) skills, as AI adoption by companies in Singapore is still in their early stages. Employee salaries depend on many factors beyond AI proficiency, including sector, experience and market conditions.
To support Singaporeans in acquiring skills, including for AI, to remain competitive, the Government has taken several steps.
First, supporting access to good jobs and opportunities. Workforce Singapore's Career Conversion Programmes supports individuals, including those in clerical and back-office roles, to pivot into new job roles with good longer-term prospects. For fresh graduates who have not found full-time jobs, the Graduate Industry Traineeship scheme provides structured, industry-relevant work experience to help them gain a foothold in the labour market.
To support workers specifically in building AI capabilities, we are strengthening access to AI-related training. SkillsFuture Singapore is making AI learning pathways easier to navigate, so that working adults can identify courses suited to their proficiency levels and sought by employers.
We are also encouraging broader adoption of AI tools. Later this year, Singaporeans who take up eligible AI training courses will receive six months complimentary access to premium versions of AI tools, to build familiarity and allow them to practice applying these tools in real-world contexts.
We will continue to monitor labour market trends closely and calibrate our support as jobs evolve, to help Singaporean workers build relevant skills, including AI capabilities, to remain competitive in an evolving labour market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Duration and Frequency of Platform Workers Receiving Workfare Income Supplement in 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many platform workers received Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) in at least one month for the latest completed Work Year; and (b) of these, how many received WIS for (i) 12 months (ii) nine to 11 months; (iii) six to eight months; and (iv) fewer than six months, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: There were around 58,000 platform workers who received the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) in at least one month of Work Year 2025. Their breakdown by months received is in Table 1 below.
44 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government has any plans to do more to safeguard the privacy rights of migrant domestic workers (MDWs), such as the right to privacy over their location on their off days.
Dr Tan See Leng: Migrant domestic workers (MDWs) are not required to reveal their location on their rest days, which are necessary to allow MDWs to recharge from work and form support networks.
At home, employers must provide their MDW with accommodation with adequate space and privacy. Employers must inform their MDW of the presence and location of any video recording devices in the home.
MDWs who have concerns about their privacy at home or on their rest days may call the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) MDW helpline to seek advice and support. They may also contact the helplines of non-governmental organisations, such as the Center for Domestic Employees and Brahm Centre. There are currently no plans to introduce new provisions, and MOM will continue to monitor the situation closely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Workers' Dormitory Per Room Occupancy Distribution and Meeting Interim Occupancy Standards under Dormitory Transition Scheme by 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Manpower (a) based on the Ministry's latest available data, what percentage of workers' dormitories house (i) 12 or fewer workers (ii) 13 to 14 workers (iii) 15 to 16 workers and (iv) more than 16 workers, per room respectively; and (b) whether the industry is on track to meet the interim occupancy standards under the Dormitory Transition Scheme by 2030.
Dr Tan See Leng: There are about 1,600 dormitories currently licensed under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act, of which 30% are on the new dormitory standards and house 12 or fewer residents per room. The remaining 70% are older dormitories that typically house between 12 and 16 residents per room.
Of the existing dormitories required to transition to the improved interim standards by 2030, 15% of the dormitories have either commenced works or indicated their transition plans to the Ministry of Manpower. These dormitories have a combined capacity of about 111,000 beds, which account for about half the number of beds that need to make this transition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Full-time Employed Caregivers Providing Substantial Informal Care Hours and Over Time Change in Trend","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry tracks the proportion of employed caregivers who provide substantial informal care, such as more than 20 hours per week, while remaining in full-time employment; and (b) how this pattern has changed over time.
Dr Tan See Leng: Results from a survey conducted by the Ministry of Manpower shows that among full-time employed residents providing care to family or non-family members, around six in 10 had spent 20 hours or more a week on caregiving activities in 2025.
As 2025 survey was the inaugural run, we do not have information on how this pattern has changed over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CPF Reduced Life Expectancy Scheme Awareness Levels Among Eligible End-of-Life Patients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the current level of awareness of the CPF Reduced Life Expectancy Scheme among eligible patients approaching end of life; (b) how many patients have applied for early CPF withdrawals under the scheme in each of the last three years; and (c) what concrete measures are planned to streamline referral and approval processes under this scheme.
Dr Tan See Leng: Information on the Reduced Life Expectancy (RLE) scheme is published on the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board's website. Patients applying for the RLE scheme can approach public healthcare institutions (PHIs) to complete the necessary medical assessment report, which PHIs will submit directly to CPF Board. CPF Board is working to raise awareness of the scheme among eligible patients in several ways, such as by providing informational brochures at relevant locations, including PHIs. Between 2023 and 2025, the CPF Board received an annual average of around 2,000 applications under the RLE scheme.
The CPF Board and the Ministry of Health continuously review and streamline our processes. We will tap on existing clinical assessment records of palliative care patients' prognosis, which will make the application process faster.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Private Companies Offering Flexible Care Leave for Healthcare and Mental Wellness from 2022 to 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Manpower from 2022 to 2025, on average each year, what are the number and percentage of private companies that provide flexi-care leave, such as for medical appointments and mental wellness, to employees.
Dr Tan See Leng: Based on the Ministry of Manpower's survey of private companies1, an average of 67.8%, or about 10,400 companies, provided unplanned time-off for employees to attend to personal matters, including medical appointments and other caregiving needs, from 2022 to 2024. Over the same period, companies also offered other forms of non-statutory leave, including non-statutory paid family care leave2 (34.5% or 5,300), paid sick leave without medical certificate3 (27.9% or 4,600) and additional paid child sick leave4 (36.4% or 5,500).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Data pertains to private companies each with at least 25 employees, and to permanent employees and employees on term contract of at least one year.","2 : Paid Family Care Leave refers to leave granted to employees for taking care of their family members, for example, parents, step-parents, parents-in-law, children, spouse; or to accompany them for medical appointments when they are sick or when the main caregiver is not available.","3 : Paid Sick Leave Without Medical Certificate (MC) is collected from 2023 onwards.","4 : MC required."],"footNoteQuestions":["48"],"questionNo":"48"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Community Cat TNRM Programme Outcomes and Strengthening Outreach to Support Responsible Caregiving","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for National Development (a) how has the community cat Trap-Neuter-Rehome/Release-Manage (TNRM) programme fared since its rollout in September 2024, including the take-up of (i) trapping (ii) sterilisation, and (iii) microchipping support; and (b) whether the Animal and Veterinary Service will consider providing more proactive outreach and clearer guidance to support responsible caregiving and strengthen opt-in traceability arrangements for caregiver-linked microchipped community cats.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In partnership with participating animal groups, more than 3,000 cats have been sterilised and microchipped under the Trap-Neuter-Rehome/Release-Manage programme as of March 2026. The Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) has worked with stakeholders including animal groups, veterinarians, community cat caregivers, agencies and Town Councils to develop guidelines for responsible community cat caregiving and to carry out sterilisation and microchipping drives. These draft guidelines are available on AVS' website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Parking Demand in New Estates and Framework for Temporary Conversion of Underused Carpark Spaces for Community Uses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for National Development (a) how long does HDB typically take to assess that parking demand in a new estate has stabilised; and (b) pending the stabilisation of demand, whether HDB will consider a framework for temporarily converting persistently underused carpark spaces for community uses where they can be reinstated for parking if demand rises.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board prefers not to convert car park spaces to other uses during the initial years after the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) is over, as parking demand would take several years to stabilise after the MOP with new residents moving into the estate. Converting parking spaces prematurely could result in parking shortages for residents. It is also not a good use of public funds to convert from car park to alternative use and then converting back to car park use if parking demand subsequently rises.
As car parks are built for vehicle parking, any change of use is subject to technical considerations including fire safety requirements, exit capacity and structural loading and would need to be carefully assessed to ensure that the intended activities can be carried out safely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Wait Times Between BTO Application Closing and Flat Selection or Booking Notification over Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development for Build-To-Order (BTO) project launches in the last five years, what is the 25th percentile, median, average and 75th percentile of the number of months between the closing of the BTO application exercise and (i) the notification to select a flat and (ii) the booking of a flat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The 25th percentile, median, average and 75th percentile of the number of months between the closing of a Build-To-Order (BTO) exercise and the booking of a flat for 2021 to 20251 are set out in Table 1 below2. Successful applicants are typically notified to book a flat about two weeks before their scheduled flat booking appointment.
52 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is being done to regulate the cost of pet insurance; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider allowing pet owners to tap on a small portion of their MediSave for veterinary fees or premiums and with a higher amount for service animals.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Pricing of pet insurance products is determined by insurers' actuarial and commercial considerations. There are no plans to regulate the cost of pet insurance nor allow the use of MediSave to pay veterinary fees or premiums.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Ownership Profiles of Privately-owned HDB Shophouses by Corporate Structure and Citizenship","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) of the approximately 8,500 privately-owned HDB shophouses, how many are held by Singapore-incorporated private limited companies rather than individuals; and (b) of these, how many have non-citizen majority beneficial ownership.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Amongst the 8,500 privately-owned Housing and Development Board (HDB) shops, about 70% are owned by individual Singapore Citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents and about 30% are owned by Singapore-registered companies, both private and public.
HDB does not have data on the beneficial ownership of these companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Framework for Selective Acquisition of Privately-owned HDB Shophouses and Data on Units Acquired","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) since September 2025, whether the HDB has decided on any selective acquisition of privately-owned HDB shophouses where essential services are determined to be insufficiently supplied; (b) if so, how many units have been or are in the process of being acquired; and (c) whether formal and published acquisition criteria have since been established.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has not acquired or identified any privately-owned HDB shops for acquisition since September 2025. As we explained previously, such acquisitions will be done selectively and only when it is necessary to do so.
The assessment will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors, such as the overall supply of shops in the area and whether there are sufficient essential services meeting residents' needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Net Tree Count and Tree Removals, and Encouraging More Tree Planting Under OneMillionTrees Movement 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for National Development in parallel with the launch of the OneMillionTrees movement in 2020 (a) how many trees have been removed; (b) what has been the net change in tree numbers; and (c) what further measures are being considered to encourage more tree planting across the public and private sectors.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The National Parks Board (NParks) manages trees in Singapore's parks, park connectors and streetscapes along roads. To safeguard public safety, NParks had removed about 51,000 trees between 2020 to 2025 in NParks-managed urban greenery areas that were at risk of failure due to interrelated reasons, such as poor health, structural issues and susceptibility to diseases. Where feasible, NParks will carry out replacement planting to mitigate the loss of greenery.
There are also greenery provision measures to mitigate the loss of greenery due to development projects. This includes the Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises programme that requires developers to provide replacement greenery within new developments, which can include tree planting.
The trees planted as part of the aforementioned greenery provision measures are separate from those planted under the OneMillionTrees movement. From 2020 to 2025, there were 830,000 trees planted under the OneMillionTrees movement. We will continue to partner the community in our tree planting efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Measures and Surveillance Deterrents for Unstaffed Community Library Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for National Development in respect of incidents of misuse at community library spaces, such as the Tampines GreenCourt Community Library, (a) what recourse does HDB currently have against individuals who damage or misuse common library property; and (b) whether HDB will consider installing surveillance cameras or other deterrents in unstaffed community library spaces.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The maintenance of community libraries located in the common areas of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates comes under the Town Councils. Like other common facilities, Town Councils may take action under their by-laws against individuals who cause damage to community libraries. Town Councils may install surveillance cameras after obtaining HDB's consent.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Population Records for Urban Birds in Singapore and Growth Rates for Pigeons, Sparrows, Mynas and Crows from 1980 to 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether NParks maintains a record of the population of urban birds in Singapore; and (b) if so, what has been the rate of growth in the population of (i) pigeons (ii) sparrows (iii) mynas and (iv) crows, between 1980 and 2000, and 2000 and 2025.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The National Parks Board tracks the population of pest birds, such as pigeons, mynas and crows, in Singapore. Their annualised population growth rates of these bird species from 2000 to 2024 are shown in Table 1 below. Population studies prior to 2000 were conducted using fewer samples and different methodologies, limiting comparability with more recent studies.
58 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Transport in each year since 2022 (a) what is the average number of complaints that have been received on property damage arising from works carried out by or on behalf of the Land Transport Authority; (b) how many of these have resulted in compensation; and (c) what are the most common causes and mitigation measures.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Since 2022, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has averaged about 100 complaints annually alleging property damage arising from LTA construction works. These are investigated thoroughly and only a handful of cases each year were assessed to have been caused by the construction works with compensation paid. Given the small number of cases, it is challenging to identify common causes.
To mitigate such risks, contractors are required to ensure that workers are adequately trained and brief workers daily on potential hazards and safety measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Pedestrian Crossing Safety for Visually Impaired Pedestrians in Light of Transition to Quieter Electric Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Acting Minister for Transport in light of Singapore's transition to electric vehicles (EVs) that may be quieter (a) what measures ensure zebra and unsignalised crossings remain safe for visually impaired persons; (b) whether acoustic vehicle alerting systems will be mandated or enhanced; and (c) what additional assistive measures are being studied to support visually impaired pedestrians.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: To guide visually impaired pedestrians, tactile tiles are installed where footpaths intersect with driveways of developments and at-grade pedestrian crossings. The Land Transport Authority is also working with industry to study the implementation of acoustic vehicle alerting systems in new electric vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-Up Rates and Usage of SG60 ActiveSG Credit Top-Up and Strengthening Outreach and Programme Offerings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Mr David Hoe asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what proportion of eligible Singaporeans and Permanent Residents did not claim the SG60 ActiveSG credit top-up; (b) how the credits had been used as of end-March 2026 across broad categories of spending; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider strengthening ActiveSG outreach, nudges and programme offerings in light of take-up and usage rates.
Mr David Neo: More than 1.78 million MyActiveSG+ members, comprising more than 42% of eligible Singaporean Citizens and Permanent Residents, claimed their SG60 ActiveSG credits. About 40% of them have used their credits at least once, most commonly for purchase of gym or pool passes, or booking of sport facilities, such as badminton courts.
To encourage more Singaporeans to adopt active lifestyles, Sport Singapore (SportSG) has expanded its range of programmes to cater to an even wider segment of the population and range of interests, from pickleball and street dance programmes to Active Health programmes that promote muscle fitness, balance and nutrition planning. In addition, SportSG has also increased the ActiveSG credit offset limit for its youth and senior programmes, from a baseline of 30% to 60% and 100% respectively. This makes the programmes more affordable and encourages more regular participation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sports Classification Framework and Strategic Funding Allocation Models for Participation and Ecosystem Outcomes Beyond Medal Performance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how does the Ministry classify sports for funding; (b) what model applies to each sport to ensure strategic allocation; (c) how does this classification reconcile broad-based participation with competitiveness at major games; and (d) beyond medal performance, what outcomes does the Ministry track to capture wider ecosystem returns from supporting high-performance sport.
Mr David Neo: This reply will also address the question filed by Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song for tomorrow's Sitting. [Please refer to \"Resources for Sports that Are Not Yet Featured in Major Games But Have High Competitive Potential\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
In answering this question, it is important for us to remind ourselves of what sport is and what sports stands for. Sports has the ability to bring people together, imbues character, and promotes teamwork. And that is why we constantly promote wider participation in sports among our youths – because it is intrinsically valuable for youth development. It nurtures better Singaporeans.
Broad-based sport participation and high-performance sport are mutually reinforcing and support one another. Developing a wider interest and love for sports through a diverse range of sports expands the pipeline for high-performance sport, and means stronger community and national support for our national athletes. When Team Singapore athletes excel on the world stage, it in turn inspires our youth to take up sports and strive for excellence.
The Government's approach to promoting sports programmes and competitions in schools goes well beyond those in the Major Games. Because sport serves a broader purpose for our youths – fostering interactions and social mixing among students and developing physical fitness and values, such as resilience and teamwork.
In selecting sports for the National School Games (NSG), the Ministry of Education (MOE) therefore incorporates factors such as its value to student development, interest levels, school participation patterns, and the ecosystem's capacity – including facilities, qualified coaches and officials, and the National Sport Association's (NSA's) ability to support competitions. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and MOE will work with ready, willing and able NSAs to introduce more sports into the NSG to reflect the diverse interests of our youths.
For high-performance sport, the Government places great importance on identifying and developing athletes and has been increasing investments to help athletes compete better and longer. Developing a strong pipeline of youths in sports included in the Major Games is key to our high-performance strategy. We do this through structured youth pathways, deepening of coaching and specialist expertise, and close partnerships with NSAs to identify and nurture talent early. Just last week, we announced our largest-ever cohort of 247 spexScholars and spexPotential recipients across 41 sports.
As a nation with a small population base and finite resources, we tier our support based on each sport's needs, readiness and potential contributions, with a focus on the Major Games as these are multi-sports and have the largest contingent of Team Singapore athletes, are most watched by and followed by Singaporeans and most able to rally our nation and inspire the Singapore spirit.
The Government has also been investing in emerging sports. Through the Athletes' Inspire Fund, we have supported athletes in sports, such as pickleball, powerlifting, dodgeball and kickboxing. We have supported NSAs in hosting international competitions, such as the 2023 World Youth Tchoukball Championship. With the Government's support, the Tchoukball Association of Singapore attained Charity status in 2024, unlocking access to the One Team Singapore Fund where the Government matches donations dollar-for-dollar. With the formation of SpexSG last month, we will work more closely with and empower NSAs to be strong stewards of their sports.
The sporting landscape is always evolving and the decision on which sports feature in future Major Games rests with international and regional multi-sport governing bodies. Against such a backdrop, we take a practical and long-term view to partner with our stakeholders and invest in sports that show potential, building pathways and community participation, because we value sport and the positive benefits it brings to Singaporeans in and of itself, in addition to being ready should opportunities arise. Emerging sports today can be part of Major Games tomorrow. Floorball is one such example – through sustained effort, community interest and a committed NSA, it was included as an official medal sport at the SEA Games since 2015.
The Government will continue to invest in sports that Singaporeans care about, as these are sports with the power to unite us and bring us together as a nation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following reply was provided by the Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary) for Question No 10 “Risk of Heat Wave Events in Singapore and Development of Advance Warning Systems for Weather-dependent Sectors” during Question Time at the Sitting of 6 May 2026: (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary): The heat advisory that goes out is clearly defined. In my original answer, I explained what a heat wave was. There are clear definitions that we have been using in Singapore since 2016, if I recall. It was then last revised in 2023. [Please refer to \"Risk of Heat Wave Events in Singapore and Development of Advance Warning Systems for Weather-dependent Sectors\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Dr Janil Puthucheary circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply during the Sitting of 6 May 2025. My reply should read as follows:
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary): The heat advisory that goes out is clearly defined. In my original answer, I explained what a heat wave was. There are clear definitions that we have been using in Singapore since 2016, if I recall. It was then last reviewed in 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}