Cassandra Lee
Singapore
“In this context, as IMDA and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) continue to review and update the regulatory framework, I would like to ask if the Ministry would share any updates on whether it is considering any further developments in relation to the regulation of social media use by adolescents and youths.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I just ask because I encountered fire safety issues in my constituency. Batteries will become more prevalent. The Ministry has said in the Budget that you will step up on public education, as well as strengthening the regulations on online sale advertisement of active mobility devices (AMDs).”
“I would like to thank the Ministry for looking into our suggestions. Very grateful for the Ministry's update. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State on a point that she raised earlier about drink driving. She mentioned that MHA will be revising the threshold to 15 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.”
“How should supervisors support employees undergoing fertility treatment? How should HR facilitate conversations and present options to employees navigate challenging family situations? For the longest time, Chairman, we have left it to private market forces to deal with a national issue.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to seek a point of clarification from the Leader of the House. First of all, I thank NMP and Senior Counsel Ms Kuah Boon Theng for sharing her experience sitting on disciplinary tribunals pursuant to the Legal Profession Act (LPA).”
“I thank the Minister of State. I recognise that last September, MOH mentioned to a Parliamentary Question that you are looking to review these limits.”
The complete record
Every one of 57 lines we hold for Cassandra Lee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“In this context, as IMDA and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) continue to review and update the regulatory framework, I would like to ask if the Ministry would share any updates on whether it is considering any further developments in relation to the regulation of social media use by adolescents and youths.”
“Under the proposed amendments, only the provisions found to be anti-competitive will be void, with the remainder of the agreement continuing to be valid and enforceable. This represents a more calibrated and commercially sensible approach to competition enforcement. The Bill, however, focuses on traditional media companies, publishers and broadcasters. My question is therefore whether there is a possibility of an expanded scope of the Bill – that is, regulating content creation companies that do not fit within the traditional entities that are regulated by the IMDA Act. The media landscape is undergoing profound transformation. We are witnessing the rapid rise of digital and social media ecosystems where news and current affairs content are increasingly consumed online through non-traditional channels such as social media. Indeed, audiences, particularly younger ones, rely heavily on news outlets, like Mothership, to receive news. What we are seeing is the emergence of local companies that are media producers and content-driven businesses that do not necessarily operate traditional newspapers or broadcast channels. They, nevertheless, produce and disseminate large volumes of content that are consumed and trusted by the masses. Yet, they may not always fall neatly within the categories of regulated persons under existing legislation. Given the increasing role of local digital media companies and content businesses in disseminating news and shaping public discourse, could the Minister share whether the Ministry is considering whether aspects of this competition framework may in time need to extend to entities that perform media-like functions even if they do not fall within traditional licensing categories?”
“Mr Speaker, the IMDA (Amendment) Bill seeks to further harmonise and align the competition frameworks governing the telecommunications and media sectors. This Bill builds on substantial public consultations that concluded in January 2026 and follows from the introduction of the converged Code of Practice for Competition in the Provision of Telecommunication and Media Services in 2022. I support this Bill. Unlike many other industries, the regulation of media companies is not only about economics, it is fundamentally about the role media plays in society. Media companies shape public discourse and influence how citizens understand and form opinions. For these reasons, competition rules in the media sector are essential not just to ensure efficient markets. But also, to prevent excessive concentration of influence over information. If left unchecked, high levels of concentration in media markets may result not only in economic dominance but also in gatekeeping power over what information reaches the public. In this context, the Bill's strengthening of competition oversight is particularly in relation to ownership, control and market conduct and this is both timely and necessary. At the same time, the Bill reflect the Government's responsiveness to industry feedback and its willingness to refine legislation to better reflect market realities, particularly in the media services sector. One significant amendment, for example, is the treatment of anti-competitive agreements. Previously, where an agreement was found to be anti-competitive under section 62 of the IMDA Act, the entire agreement could be rendered void.”
“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?”
“Clarity on these operational points will be important to ensure the framework works effectively on the ground. On my final point, on data protection, the Bill provides that the collection and handling of biometric and other personal data within Singapore-designated areas in Malaysia. I would like to understand how this will be operationalised. How will such data be stored, processed and transmitted back to Singapore? What safeguards including infrastructural guardrails are in place to prevent unauthorised access or breaches? In the event of a data breach, what avenues of accountability and redress will there be? I will conclude on a brief point on operational readiness. This Bill is a significant step forward. It supports a more efficient approach to cross-border movement between Singapore and Malaysia. But legislation alone is not sufficient. Much will depend on how these arrangements are implemented on the ground. Officers will need to be clear on the scope of their powers, the limits of their authority and the zones within which they operate. Processes must be consistent. Checks must be carried out with diligence. And information must be handled securely and responsibly.”
“Clause 43 provides certain immunities to the Malaysian preclearance and incident management officers in the discharge of their duties. Could the Minister clarify what happens if those powers are exceeded? What channels of redress are available to affected individuals? On clause 44, this provides for a reciprocity mechanism, where regulations may be made if the protections accorded to Singapore officers in Malaysia are substantially less favourable. I would like to ask: has the Government reviewed Malaysia's corresponding legislation? And how will it assess whether the duties, powers and protections are, in law or in practice, substantially less favourable? I am heartened that the Bill expressly addresses cross-border incidents, including security, public order and medical emergencies within the transit areas. There is a considered and well-structured approach in doing this. But I would like to seek clarification on the operational aspects. For example, in the event of a train breakdown in transit, how will repairs, recovery or towing be handled? Will these arrangements be set out in subsidiary legislation, bilateral agreements, or operator-level protocols? How will we ensure that the experience of the traveller continues to be of good quality? Second, on major incidents, where an incident extends beyond defined zones or requires coordinated response from both sides, how will the coordination be carried out in practice? What are the protocols for joint operations, and how will command and responsibility be determined in such situations? How will this impact response times to these major incidents? Much will depend on the ability of our officers on the ground to deal with the matters or seek or grant consent quickly.”
“I would like to understand what happens after that handover. If the Malaysian authorities intend to assume custody of the items or the individual, how will this be carried out? Will this be done through existing legal frameworks such as mutual legal assistance, operational cooperation or extradition processes? Once the individual or item is in custody with Singapore authorities, will the case then proceed fully under Singapore's evidence laws and the criminal procedure? Clause 24 is a mirror provision in that it provides the same limits on the powers of a Singapore preclearance officer in the Singapore designated area in Malaysia. I would like to similarly understand what happens once the Singapore preclearance officer hands over the custody of the item or individual to his or her Malaysian counterpart. On this note, how would Singapore criminal law apply in the designated area? In particular, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the effects of the clauses 26(3) to 26(6). These provisions in substance provide that conduct committed outside Singapore but within a designated Singapore area of the cross-border railway, which is Bukit Chagar, is treated as though it has occurred in Singapore if it would be an offence under Singapore border control laws. Such conduct can be prosecuted and punished by Singapore Courts, regardless of whether it is an offence under Malaysian laws. However, Singapore officers cannot arrest the person for that conduct until the person is physically within Singapore. In this vein how does clause 26(6) apply since clauses 39 and 40 which deal with concurrent criminal jurisdiction does not expressly reference the designated area? My next point relates to the powers, privileges and immunities of the officers.”
“Clause 39 in substance provides that if an offending conduct is committed while the train is in transit, or within the defined zone, it is treated as if the offending conduct took place in Singapore. Such cases can be tried in our Courts unless the other country has criminal jurisdiction, is under no obligation to cede such jurisdiction to Singapore and decides to commence criminal proceedings. Clause 40 then adds that if criminal proceedings are sought to be brought in Singapore Courts on the basis that criminal jurisdiction under section 39, the Public Prosecutor's consent is required before such proceedings may be instituted. This raises a number of questions. First, where the same conduct is an offence under both Singapore and Malaysian law, and both countries have jurisdiction, how will it be decided which side will take the lead in the prosecution? The Minister earlier mentioned that the country for which the train is bound will take the lead. Is this coded in our legislation? Will there be exceptions? For example, what if there is a disagreement on the proviso under clause 39(2)? If Singapore disagrees that there is no obligation to cede jurisdiction, for example? Second, on clause 40, could the Minister clarify how the Public Prosecutor's consent mechanism will operate in practice? More broadly, how will this safeguard ensure that individuals are not exposed to the risk of double prosecution for the same conduct? My next point relates to enforcement powers of preclearance officers. Clauses 15 and 18 make clear that the Malaysian preclearance officers in Singapore may remove items or detain individuals for the purposes of border control but they must transfer the custody to Singapore officers, and they do not have arrest powers.”
“Across these zones, laws may shift or apply concurrently. From a commuter's perspective, this raises a practical question: at what point do Malaysian cross-border laws apply within the Malaysia designated areas located in Singapore and how does this interact with the continued application of Singapore law? For example, where a traveller carries an item that is unregulated in Singapore but regulated under Malaysian law will the traveller be stopped within the Malaysia designated area located in Singapore? Will there be an opportunity to dispose of the item? Or will enforcement proceed regardless? Or to use another example, if a traveller carries the same amount of cash, will he face different obligations depending on where they are in the journey: where Singapore laws apply, a declaration is required if the traveller is entering or leaving Singapore with cash above S$20,000, whereas in areas where Malaysia laws apply, the threshold is US$10,000. Will differences in the laws that apply have any practical impact on commuters, of course, beyond what is already encountered at conventional checkpoints and how will these situations be managed operationally? This leads me to my next point on concurrent criminal jurisdiction. Matters such as public disorder, voluntarily causing hurt, molestation and drug‑related offences in transit areas are not hypothetical concerns; they will need to be dealt with if and when they arise. I therefore wish to seek clarity on the precise circumstances and locations in which concurrent criminal jurisdiction is contemplated under the Bill and on the mechanisms by which competing jurisdiction is intended to be managed.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill is timely as we gear up for the highly anticipated opening of the Johor Bahru-Singapore RTS Link. This Bill deals with the technical aspects of jurisdiction and law, yet it has very practical impact for the everyday commuter seeking to cross the border; shaping the way immigration is experienced at the checkpoints. For the commuter, the questions are straightforward: when I make this journey, do I understand what rules apply, and can I rely on them being applied clearly and consistently? When Singaporeans tap in at Woodlands North, are they already subject to Malaysian law? If Singaporeans unknowingly carry something that is not allowed into Malaysia, will they be stopped on our side? If an incident happens mid-journey, who investigates and under which law? If there is an accident, a dispute, a lost item or even a medical emergency on the train, which country’s officers should we approach for help? I support the Bill and I would like to seek clarification on several aspects of the Bill hoping to cover some of the practical concerns that commuters may have arising from the Bill. Let me begin with the broader legislative framework. Co-located border control is not new globally. But each of these systems is shaped by its own legal and bilateral context. So, my first question is this: how does our framework differ from those models and what were the specific design choices made for Singapore and Malaysia? Understanding this will help us better appreciate the safeguards embedded in our system and whether there are lessons we have consciously adopted or chosen to depart from. The Bill also envisages multiple zones as a commuter moves across the border: the designated areas, the defined zone and the train in transit.”
“Clear allocation of responsibilities and risks not only help reduce disputes, but also provides businesses and investors with greater certainty, making it easier to obtain financing support. At the same time, I also believe the Government can play a greater coordinating role. For example, integrating resources to form a list of professional consultants and contractors for industry reference to reduce cost and uncertainties for businesses when selecting professional capabilities and improve overall project quality. I also suggest that when formulating relevant lists, priorities should be given to capable Singapore companies so public resources can create positive cycles in the local economy and further drive the development of local professional capabilities. In terms of the manpower, the "flood protection manager system" is necessary. Businesses are also concerned about specific implementation matters, including training, certification and compliance's cost. For SMEs, there need to be corresponding transitional and support measures to ensure policies can be smoothly implemented. Finally, while addressing coastal protection, we must also consider the ecological environment. Our country has lost about two-thirds of its coral reefs since the 1960s, while existing ones mainly distributed in the Southern waters. I urge the Government to strengthen environment impact assessments when implementing projects and adopt nature-based solutions to enhance coastal protection capabilities while protecting our marine ecosystem.”
“This Bill makes coastal protection a responsibility shared between the Government and private parties. At a practical level, a considerable portion of the affected private owners and businesses are concentrated in the Ayer Rajah area that I serve. Therefore, in my exchanges with these businesses, I have heard more directly about the specific difficulties and considerations they face when fulfilling the relevant requirements. What businesses are most concerned about is cost and uncertainties. Coastal protection projects often involve substantial capital expenditure, not only for the construction itself, but also for preliminary risk assessment, design and subsequent long-term maintenance and rectification. How these costs are borne and when they are invested will directly affect businesses' investment decisions regarding the coastal areas. Especially for lessees, they must also weigh the relationship between lease tenure and investment recovery, otherwise they may face situations where huge investments are made, but very difficult to recoup. Another key issue is the continuity and allocation of responsibilities. Coastal protection projects have long cycles and may be completed by different owners in phases. When ownership or leases are transferred during the process, how responsibilities transfer accordingly and who bears the responsibility if problems emerge in the past design or construction remain uncertain. If clear rules are lacking, businesses will face higher risks during transaction or financing and may therefore become more conservative, affecting their overall investment willingness. Against this backdrop, clearer institutional arrangements are particularly important.”
“The Bill provides for the establishment, registration and regulation of flood protection managers including the qualifications and standards a person must satisfy, and the training and assessments a person must undergo, before being appointed. How does the Government envision the training and certification pathways for flood protection managers? Will such training and accreditation be made through SkillsFuture? Will the Government consider transitional support, such as grant schemes, training credits or phased compliance, to assist smaller affected landowners and lessees who may not have the manpower or expertise to take on such operational demands? Lastly, on the impact on our coastal marine environment. More than two-thirds of Singapore's coral reefs have been lost to coastal development and reclamation since 1960s. Our Southern Coast is home to some of our reefs and unique marine life. I ask if the Government will require affected landowners and lessees to undertake environmental impact assessments, and if there are plans for the Government to assist with mitigating some of the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the coastal protection measures. I also urge the Government to give due consideration to natural coastal protection solutions, which can safeguard our coastlines while preserving the ecosystem. In Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is a land scarce nation. The impact of rising sea levels brings long-term and real challenges. I support the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Bill and is committed to establishing a continuous coastal protection line to effectively address the risk brought by climate change.”
“With this model, ESG and sustainability funds may find it to be an attractive proposition to become coastal landowners. These approaches open the door to new streams of investment and innovative financing products. I hope the Government will explore and encourage these alternative financing avenues at an appropriate juncture. On technical support, 70% of Singapore's coastline is state-managed. As the Government will undertake coastal protection measures for the majority of the coastline, the Ministry is likely to be best placed to identify trusted consultants and contractors for coastal protection. Will the Government consider developing a vetted panel of contractors or an accreditation scheme for private sector use? I ask for a panel, because many business owners have shared with me that they have different needs, and some have indicated that they already have plans to construct some infrastructure over the next few years while others say that they have components that can be submerged with no issue to flood risk. So, there are specific needs and we hope that the companies can seek their own contractors and consultants when implementing the projects. I suggest that Singapore-based firms be prioritised, if we have such a list, so that public spending in this area also strengthens our local economy. Next on flood protection manager. Some companies I have engaged with have asked about the specific responsibilities of a flood protection manager, and I would like to seek clarifications on the Government’s plans on how the scheme will be implemented.”
“Upfront disbursements would provide business owners with greater certainty and allay concerns around cash flow, while subsequent reimbursements may cause more hesitation amongst business owners. As for leaseholders, they would now have to consider the remaining length of their land tenures when deciding whether such investments are financially feasible. New lessees may also seek to negotiate shorter tenures to avoid the obligations under the Bill. Higher financial support at the stage of title acquisition, whether in the form of upfront subsidies or subsequent disbursements, can help lower the financial barrier and more effectively address the cost burden on businesses. While we want to protect our coastlines, it is equally important that we continue to sustain the commercial viability of coastal properties for businesses. Another suggestion is to view the implementation of coastal protection measures as investments. In a recent Straits Times report, it was suggested that public financing alone may not be sufficient to support all coastal works. Financial instruments, such as sustainability-linked insurance or green bonds, may allow the private sector to structure the financing for coastal protection measures as an investment rather than cost. Affected businesses sharing the same stretch of coastline could also consider coming together to get joint funding for a coastal project, with payments made based on the share of the land that they occupy. Another model is for landowners to obtain financing and manage the design, implementation and ongoing maintenance of the coastal protection measures end‑to‑end, passing the relevant costs on to new lessees over time.”
“Second, the set up of a tribunal or adjudication body to address issues at first instance. This is similar to the Strata Titles Board, which hears matters related to certain disputes arising in respect of strata titled property and orders for collective sales of property under the Land Titles (Strata) Act. Third, model clauses addressing issues of liability for parties' adoption in agreements. I recognise that some of the issues outlined may need to be privately addressed through commercial negotiations and it may not be feasible to legislate for many of the circumstances. However, greater clarity on how obligations and liability transfer with ownership or are apportioned will help prevent disputes and protect incoming landowners. This is particularly important in an uncertain economic climate, where policy-making must remain flexible. Further, clear allocation of risks and responsibilities would give companies and investors more certainty and therefore, greater ease in attracting financing for these coastal protection projects. Next, implications on businesses and their opportunity, costs and support. The Government has announced that it will provide businesses affected with both technical and financial support and I appreciate that details will be disclosed at the appropriate juncture. I would like to raise a few points for consideration. Coastal protection infrastructure often involves substantial capital expenditure. Beyond the construction of coastal defences, costs can also include studies needed to properly assess flood risk. For new landowners, such expenses will naturally be priced into land costs. The mode of grant, of disbursement, will also make a significant difference to business owners and their decision to take up coastal land.”
“Moreover, the owner that has to upkeep the measures may not be the original owner who had planned and constructed these measures. If defects in design or construction emerge years after completion, will the incoming owner be obliged to rectify them at their own cost or will there be a period of time after the transfer of ownership during which the new owner may seek recourse against the previous owner who carried out the works? Especially if the previous owner had received financial support from the Government to carry out those works? Landowners will be given at least 10 years' advance notice to implement coastal protection measures. Where a transfer of lease or ownership transfer occurs within this first 10-year notice period but before the end of the timeline, and the first owner completes the planning for such a set of measures, will the subsequent owner be bound by those approved plans? If deficiencies later emerge in the plans, will the subsequent owner have recourse against the first owner? The situation becomes even more complex if the land is sold mid‑construction. On co-ownership, the Bill imposes duties on owners and long‑term lessees of prescribed places, but it does not break down what happens where more than one person owns the land, for example where the land is held in joint tenancy or tenancy‑in‑common. There is a question as to whether, co‑owners of the same prescribed place are intended to be jointly and severally liable for compliance with the implementation, operation, maintenance and rectification obligations. May I invite the Government to consider statutory guidance on the transfer of obligations and latent‑defect liability and the assignment of liability between co-owners.”
“Singapore is a land-scarce, island nation. The impact of the rising sea levels from climate change is significant. I support the Bill as it recognises the longer-term challenge that Singapore faces. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] I take care of the division of Ayer Rajah. Ayer Rajah extends across southwest of Singapore's coast. It includes the coastal areas that are home to several private businesses that, under this new legislation, must implement, operate and maintain coastal protection measures. I have spoken with some of these affected businesses at an engagement session held at Ayer Rajah Community Club earlier in February. Businesses have shared their views with me. Many are positive and cooperative. They tell me that PUB has been actively engaging them. For that, I thank PUB and the agencies. Today, I wish to focus my remarks and suggestions on four aspects: first, the transfer and apportionment of responsibilities and liabilities upon change of ownership and in co-ownership situations; second, the cost on private businesses and support; third, the requirement of appointing a flood protection manager; and fourth, the impact on our coastal marine environment. First, on transfer and apportionment of responsibilities and liabilities. During the engagement, one question that we had in the room was the issue of latent defects in coastal protection measures and how liability will be managed when ownership or long‑term leases change hands. Coastal protection projects have long life-cycles. It is possible that planning and design are undertaken by one owner, while the responsibility and implementation or construction falls upon a subsequent owner.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I just ask because I encountered fire safety issues in my constituency. Batteries will become more prevalent. The Ministry has said in the Budget that you will step up on public education, as well as strengthening the regulations on online sale advertisement of active mobility devices (AMDs). I ask the Ministry what is the Ministry's strategies, viz a viz fires involving compliant batteries. Is the Government considering strengthening regulations like more stringent mandatory battery certification framework, regardless of its application? Secondly, are there plans to strengthen cross-agency efforts to raise awareness of fire safety in homes and housing estates, including at common corridors?”
“On right-sizing AI adoption, AI adoption will not be one-size-fits-all. Different firms in different sectors face different constraints. This is especially true for our SMEs. As we all know, SMEs employ the majority of our workforce, with nearly half in small and micro enterprises. We cannot afford to leave them behind. But many SMEs face real constraints: cashflow, uncertainty of returns, manpower and implementation capacity. So, support must be right-sized and practical. Not just funding, but end-to-end support to help enterprises adopt, integrate, scale AI in their core processes, redesign legacy systems and tailor solutions to different business needs. These uneven application of AI adoption heighten uncertainty amongst youths as to job security and progression. In particular, I ask: how will the Ministry reduce uncertainty for SMEs adopting AI? For example, will the Ministry facilitate the provision of shared solutions or proven use cases jointly developed with trade associations and Institutes of Higher Learning? The newly announced Champions of AI programme will go some way to support the integration of AI into business processes. How will the Champions of AI programme sit alongside schemes like the Enterprise Innovation Scheme and the Productivity Solutions Grant, given that they are administered by different statutory boards under different Ministries? Renewed Possibilities for Libraries I understand that MDDI is looking at supporting our libraries with renewed possibilities. I would like to request that the Ministry look at renewing our libraries with family at the top of its mind. Sir, I noticed I have run out of time.”
“Mr Chairman, this AI transformation must be managed carefully because it brings anxiety to many. From my conversations with youths, two concerns have been repeatedly raised. First, displacement by AI. Second, right-sized AI adoption. On displacement, young professionals and youths preparing for their first jobs are concerned that their jobs will be displaced by AI. Youths I have spoken to have shared that they are worried that they cannot keep up with the pace at which AI is evolving. And as AI make some tasks redundant, their jobs may also be made redundant. This applies to both youths looking to enter the workforce and those already in the workforce. Despite being digital natives, professionals and even technology professionals, they are nervous that it would be difficult to get ahead of the AI curve. Many of those in the workforce are willing to upskill but they are time-poor. They need flexibility in training, employer support and buy-in and clear outcomes from each course that they take. Employers, in turn, ask for confidence and assurance that training translates into productivity. So, the question is not what to train, but how to make training work in practice. What are the Ministry's plans to equip the workforce with the relevant confidence and skills needed to leverage AI in their respective domain expertise? What are the Ministry's plans to ensure that workforce training can be closely tied to improved productivity and business outcomes? What are the Ministry's plans to encourage greater employer buy-in and support to facilitate employee training? I support the Government's plans to explore how it can broaden the TeSA programme to help all young Singaporean workers continue to stay relevant.”
“They did not grow up with AI, and it may not come naturally to them to use AI. We must consider carefully the impact of AI on our mid-career professionals. What is the Ministry's plan to ensure that senior and mid-career lawyers are equipped to learn AI skills, reskill and redesign their job roles? At the same time, how do we train young lawyers, when AI can already do so much that juniors do today, but faster? Junior lawyers must learn to think like lawyers, grounded in legal rigour. But they must also interpret technology, review AI outputs critically and exercise human judgement in complex cases. How does the Ministry plan to support new training pathways so young lawyers build fundamentals, while learning to work alongside AI? We need a sector-wide approach to job redesign so that the whole profession moves together. I encourage the Ministry to take the lead. Third, support for in-house legal counsels. MinLaw said at the Asia-Pacific Legal Congress 2024, that MinLaw is committed to better support in-house legal counsel. In-house counsels play a critical role in supporting business and strengthening Singapore's attractiveness as a regional hub. Yet their needs are often under-emphasised. Against this backdrop, I ask the Minister: what are the Ministry’s plans to better support in-house legal counsels, especially in AI adoption? Will the Ministry support access to AI tools and target upskilling so that in-house legal counsel can continue to deliver value in an AI-enabled economy? Impact of Generative AI”
“Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as legal counsel in an accounting firm. At the Opening of Legal Year, the Chief Justice noted a key challenge: attrition driven by fundamental shifts in the practice. Clients now expect higher-quality work, delivered faster. This is placing real pressure across the profession. At the same time, our legal sector is more open than before. With more international firms and regional competition, there are pressures to do more, faster and at lower cost. These pressures will only intensify as AI becomes embedded in legal practice. I wish to speak on three areas: maintaining a Singapore core; the evolving role of lawyers in the age of AI; and support for in-house counsel. First, maintaining a Singapore core. The Committee Report on the regulatory framework for law practices proposed changes to Qualifying Foreign Law Practices (QFLPs) and caps on Singapore lawyers in FLPs. These proposals reflect a concern: sustaining a strong pipeline of local legal talent. In essence, local firms build Singapore law capability, while foreign firms deepen foreign law expertise. The Ministry has yet to respond, with consultations just closed. This raises a key tension: openness versus preserving a Singapore core. Some of the young lawyers and law students that I have spoken to shared their anxieties with me. They are not sure where they fit in the larger plans that the Ministry has for the legal profession. How does the Ministry intend to balance market forces with regulation to protect that core? And how will the Ministry ensure Singapore lawyers continue to access high-value international work? Second, on the evolving roles of lawyers in the age of AI. Senior and mid-career lawyers are not AI-natives.”
“I would like to thank the Ministry for looking into our suggestions. Very grateful for the Ministry's update. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State on a point that she raised earlier about drink driving. She mentioned that MHA will be revising the threshold to 15 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. I am wondering how MHA arrived at that revised threshold and how MHA intends to enforce this.”
“Ultimately, safer roads begin with a shared commitment – to look out for one another, and to remember that behind every road user is a family. Will the Minister consider further public education and training for road users in order to foster a culture of safety? Sir, this principle of protecting our families must also extend into the digital space. Scams continue to evolve at scale and sophistication, and they disproportionately affect those who are less digitally savvy, particularly our seniors. Here, a calibrated approach is needed. We should continue to strengthen enforcement levers to act more effectively against scammers. At the same time, we must also consider how best to balance deterrence with rehabilitation, especially for our youth offenders, those who have been drawn into such activity due to financial pressures or lack of awareness. In Ayer Rajah, I had a particularly memorable case where a young graduate was looking for a job but fell to a job scam, ended up being a money mule and he was the sole breadwinner for a family of three, all of which were depending on him. When he was charged, he fell further into financial difficulties. I would like to ask the Minister how the Government intends to strike this balance. Beyond enforcement, public education remains critical. We must equip Singaporeans with the awareness and confidence to protect themselves – to recognise scam tactics, to exercise caution and to take personal responsibility in an increasingly digital world. Behind every accident, every scam, is a family who suffers. Preventing accidents and scams protects our families. Coping with Transformation and AI”
“Mr Chairman, recent tragedies, including the accident in Chinatown where a young child lost her life, are sobering reminders of how vulnerable our loved ones are on our roads. Each incident is not just a statistic, but a family forever changed. While our laws rightly distinguish between levels of culpability, there remains concern that certain aggravated cases of dangerous driving causing death may not be met with penalties that fully reflect the harm caused. One case that has been widely discussed is that of Jarrett Tee. In that instance, the offender engaged in dangerous driving behaviour at a very high speed, including what was described as “blocking and braking” a motorcycle, before a collision occurred which resulted in the loss of life. The court dealt with the matter under the existing framework for dangerous driving causing death. However, the case has raised broader questions among members of the public as to whether the current range of penalties sufficiently capture conduct that, while falling short of intent to kill, nonetheless reflects a very high degree of recklessness and disregard for the safety of others. Sir, I raise this not to revisit the specific outcome of any individual case, but to ask whether there is room within our laws and sentencing framework to better account for such aggravated circumstances. In particular, whether we should raise maximum sentences to allow our courts further flexibility to address different levels of culpability – from simple negligence at one end, to highly dangerous driving with a high risk of serious injury or death at the other. Separately, enforcement and penalties are one aspect of ensuring safe roads, but they are not sufficient by themselves.”
“How should supervisors support employees undergoing fertility treatment? How should HR facilitate conversations and present options to employees navigate challenging family situations? For the longest time, Chairman, we have left it to private market forces to deal with a national issue. I ask the Government to take national action at a scale commensurate with the seriousness of the problem. A national problem needs actions to be taken at a national level. Greater Access to Assisted Reproductive Technology Services”
“This is precisely why additional support for SMEs is crucial, so that progressive workplace practices can take root more evenly across the whole economy. To do this, we should focus on shifting mindsets and reshaping HR practices. Beyond policy and legislative scaffolding, let us invest in changing how employers think about workplace support for families. This is not to say that working parents should be given preferential treatment. We must also balance the needs of other employees at different life stages, including those who may not be planning to start families, those who are single and those who are caregivers to their parents. Each employee has their own needs. So, too, do employers, and we need to meet their business considerations and operational requirements. Fairness, for employers and employees, must remain a core principle. How can we do this? I propose that we do this starting with HR practices. I believe that HR practitioners play a significant role in shaping workplace culture and norms. They are often the ones who translate policy into day-to-day practices and guide supervisors on how these policies should be applied. The tripartite Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP), which administers our national IHRP Certification framework, has played an important role in shaping HR standards across industries. We can leverage this framework to further strengthen HR professionals and their management capacity, by placing greater emphasis on the consistent and fair implementation of family-friendly workplace practices. For example, how should performance appraisals be conducted fairly for employees returning from maternity leave? How should managers respond appropriately to urgent childcare leave?”
“The Government has made commendable efforts in recent years to step up support through a multi‑pronged support framework, such as the introduction and enhancements of Government‑Paid Parental Leave and the tripartite guidelines on flexible work arrangement requests. The private sector has also started leaning forward and the community has seen ground-up efforts. I would like to highlight the work done by Fertility Support Singapore, a non-profit social advocacy group started by a group of women in 2020. In 2025, they launched a guidebook as a practical resource to help company leaders understand and implement fertility support in the workplace and create a workplace culture that empathises with employees facing fertility challenges. Their aim for this is also to contribute towards a Singapore where "no employee has to choose between career and family". I ask that we do the same for all working parents. Guide the employers on what to do, how to be supportive. To create a truly resilient workforce, a mindset shift is especially important amongst SMEs, which form the backbone of Singapore's economy, contributing around 50% of our GDP and employing about 70% of our workforce. The capacity to adopt progressive workplace practices varies across businesses and industries, given differences in industry characteristics, stage of growth, cost considerations and manpower needs. Larger and better‑resourced organisations, often MNCs, tend to have more established HR functions and larger teams, allowing them to implement family‑friendly measures more comprehensively. In contrast, SMEs often operate with tighter resources and leaner teams. These structural realities mean that SMEs may find it more challenging to implement such practices and retain talent.”
“Chairman, Singapore's TFR fell below one in 2023. The year 2024 was the Year of the Dragon, which typically gives us a boost in the yearly TFR rate. However, the Dragon could only hold the fort for us by keeping the number steady at 0.97 in 2024. Chairman, I still remain hopeful. Recently, South Korea's birth rate rose for a straight second year in 2025. Its marriage rates also went up. I hope we will soon welcome the same good news for Singapore. In this regard, I would like to ask PMO what is the TFR for 2025. In light of Singapore's demographic challenges, it is more important than ever before that we keep those in our current labour force resilient and supported. To do so, we must strengthen workplace support for families. Housework and caregiving remains one of the main reasons for persons to remain outside the workforce. This was cited in the report on Labour Force in Singapore 2025. The majority of caregivers outside the labour force are mothers taking care of children aged 12 and below. When you add in the caregivers caring for children above age 12, the number grows by more than one third. 4.45 pm Three in four of such caregivers are in their 40s or younger, and 66.5% held tertiary qualifications, including degrees. Caregivers have shared that FWAs and practices for more progressive and inclusive workplaces would encourage them to continue working. From supporting employees who are undergoing fertility treatment, to understanding the pregnant mother and providing that flexibility to the working parent – workplace support for families would go a long way to ensure Singapore is truly Made For Families.”
“These are operational and human considerations that sit alongside policy. How they are addressed will shape whether workplace support translates into sustained participation, stronger teams and continued productivity. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, young Singaporeans have grown up in a different Singapore – one with more opportunities, greater exposure and higher expectations of what a good life can be. They seek to build meaningful careers, achieve stability and have the confidence to plan for their future. Our policies should support these aspirations. At the same time, sustaining these outcomes requires a careful balancing of choices. Economic growth, workforce strength and social cohesion are shaped by how we participate in the economy, how responsibilities are shared and how we respond to changing demographic realities. As a society, we must continue to make adjustments, whether in the way we organise work, support families or remain open and connected to the world. These adjustments require collective understanding and shared responsibility. Young Singaporeans are part of this. Many are already stepping forward, building their careers, supporting their families and contributing in different ways. As expectations evolve, so, too, will the ways in which individuals, employers and the Government respond. A system that is aligned across education, workplaces and support structures, gives individuals the space to make decisions with confidence and to contribute meaningfully over time. This is how we can strengthen both opportunity and resilience in Singapore. I support the Budget.”
“Many continue to navigate tensions between career demands and caregiving. MOM and NTUC have been working with their partners on this front to set clearer norms for flexible work arrangements, to help enterprises understand how to structure return-to-work pathways and job design that accommodates caregiving responsibilities, through tripartite guidelines and programmes with industry partners. Alongside these structural measures, day-to-day workplace HR practices are also critical. How managers respond when an employee announces pregnancy, how performance is assessed for employees returning from maternity or paternity leave and how urgent caregiving needs are handled – these are practical decisions that determine whether employees can remain engaged at work. When these situations are handled well, employees are more likely to remain in their roles, continue progressing in their careers and contribute consistently over time. When they are not, the outcome may be that employers lose talent, with employees leaving and exiting the workforce or disengaging at key stages of their careers to fulfill caregiving responsibilities. Young Singaporeans who otherwise desire to start their own families may also be discouraged from doing so in fear that their careers will suffer. The difference lies in how workplaces interpret and respond to these moments, and how managers are equipped to communicate with care, make balanced decisions and plan for continuity without placing undue strain on teams. I hope that the Government can work with the industry partners, such as the tripartite Institute for Human Resource Professionals, to shape HR practices and standards across industries to place greater emphasis on consistent and fair implementation of family-friendly workplace practices.”
“AI adoption for micro- and small SMEs at scales and speeds comfortable for them, will give them the confidence needed for sustainable and more permanent adoption of AI. Sir, AI will be the defining driver of economic transformation. Our task is to ensure that education, workforce transitions and enterprise adoption move in step, so that opportunities are more broadly shared and our economy remains cohesive and competitive. But at the core, our economy is about families – every job supports a home. I support the Government's investment in Singapore families. I have previously spoken about what I called the "Singapore Puzzle" – Singapore's challenge lies in figuring out how we might remain competitive in a fast-changing world, while staying anchored to the values, our communities and the aspirations of our people. This is reflected in whether Singaporeans feel able to build their careers while, at the same time, starting and/or supporting their families. For many, these aspirations are clear: a meaningful job, a stable family life and a confidence that effort will lead to progress. One area that warrants closer attention is how workplaces support Singaporeans in managing family responsibilities alongside work. These needs arise across different life stages: parents raising young children; working adults caring for ageing parents; and families navigating periods where additional time and flexibility are needed. These are part of everyday life for many Singaporeans. Despite stronger policies, take-up of family related workplace support across employers and employees remain uneven, reflecting the continued influence of workplace expectations and culture on employees' confidence to take time for family responsibilities.”
“At the same time, a not insignificant group also warrants attention: accountants and lawyers embedded within enterprises – that is, in-house accountants and legal counsel. These in-house professionals are central to governance, compliance and strategic decision-making within companies. Their ability to work effectively with AI will directly influence how enterprises adopt AI across functions. Supporting them in their adoption of AI will also strengthen Singapore's attractiveness to foreign companies looking to hire Singaporeans or to set up headquarters in Singapore. These in-house legal counsels and accountants may not be fully reached by initiatives targeted at law firms and accounting practices. It is, therefore, important that AI training, tools and support frameworks extend to such in-house professionals. Supporting this group will strengthen enterprise capabilities more broadly and enable the profession to better capture the opportunities presented by AI. Third, in supporting our local SMEs in their adoption of AI, we may need to reassess the current method of support. Without the deep pockets and resources of larger firms, how can micro- and small SMEs also ride on the train of transformation? The newly announced Champions of AI programme will go some way to support this by tailoring support to each company, including enterprise transformation and workforce training. I hope that the Government will consider the Champions of AI programme alongside the more established schemes, such as the Enterprise Innovation Scheme and the Productivity Solutions Grant to marry the two for micro- and small SMEs, who often face their own unique sets of constraints on cashflows, cost, implementation expertise and change management.”
“This is especially given the nature of these professions, which are cross-jurisdictional in many respects, and which must account for different regulatory regimes and cultural practices and norms in different countries. These are inherently human skills which cannot be replaced by AI. But AI can assist lawyers and accountants in their tasks. I hope that we direct the assistance to help lawyers and accountants to work more efficiently and improve their overall work output, so that they can focus on honing the core skills of the profession. That said, we must recognise and be cognisant of the fact that mid-career lawyers and accountants are not AI-natives. They did not grow up with AI and using AI effectively may not come naturally to them. We must, therefore, be cautious about the impact of AI on our mid-career professionals. When we consider job redesigns, we should ensure that the redesigned jobs are suitable and allow the professional to maximise their strengths and value. As roles evolve, we also need to guide transitions in a way that preserves the professional standards and identity. In adopting and implementing AI, we must not lose sight of the core functions of the professions. And when we consider AI training and reskilling, we need to approach this in a way which is accessible and which works for these mid-career professionals. I suggest that we do not stop at encouraging firms to take up AI technology and for employees to train themselves on AI technology. Firms and employees will adopt this at different speeds, and will vary in how they perceive the necessity, the convenience and the reliability of AI implementation and training. There needs to be thought at a sector level on how to redesign jobs, so the industry can be uplifted together.”
“SMEs may find it harder to attract and retain young talent if they are unable to offer comparable opportunities. If this gap persists, young Singaporeans entering the workforce may gravitate towards firms that can offer AI-enabled roles, many of which are better-resourced global companies. We would not want this to create a structural pull of talent away from local enterprises over time. SMEs form the backbone of Singapore’s economy. I hope that we can look into aligning career pathways across how we train our youths for the AI economy and how our enterprises adopt AI, so that working in Singapore remains competitive and accessible across firms of different sizes. Second, mid-career workers, particularly PMETs and professionals, face a different set of challenges. AI will reshape professions by changing how work is performed, how roles are defined and how value is created. In particular, the expansion of the TechSkills Accelerator to the accountancy and legal professions presents opportunities by strengthening capability-building in these sectors, which are facing ongoing talent and retention challenges. The core value of lawyers and accountants lies in judgement, contextual understanding and accountability. These capabilities underpin trust in these professions and remain central even as AI tools are introduced and implemented. They cannot be replaced by AI. In a more fragmented global environment, where partnerships are increasingly strategic and selective, the ability of Singaporean lawyers and accountants to build trust, navigate cultural contexts and sustain relationships remains critical.”
“Mr Speaker, I first declare my interest as a legal counsel with an accounting firm. Sir, I support this Budget because it recognises the present realities and prepares Singaporeans for the next wave of transformation. In my speech, I want to focus on two areas: our efforts to support Singaporean workers and businesses in embracing and thriving in an AI-enabled economy; and our efforts to support Singaporeans to build not just careers, but also families, to be able to care for their families so that Singapore is Made For Families. First, on an AI-enabled economy. According to MOM's report on the Labour Force in Singapore 2025, 64% of our employed residents are in PMET roles. Many of these roles are knowledge-intensive and involve analysis, coordination and decision-making – areas where AI is increasingly being deployed to augment how work is done. AI is already reshaping white-collar jobs, with greater emphasis being placed on judgement, adaptability and higher-order skills. Singapore’s workforce is highly exposed to AI due to the large share of such roles in our economy. This means that a significant proportion of our workforce will be impacted by AI in the form of job redesign, changing skill requirements and evolving career pathways. I hope we can look into the following three areas as we try to stay ahead of the AI curve. First, on youth and the alignment between AI education and enterprise AI adoption. In the recent AI Festival Asia 2026, and a pre-Budget dialogue organised by young PAP, the youths have called for greater alignment between AI education and enterprise AI adoption. Singapore has made strong investments in AI education and skills development. At the same time, the pace of AI adoption across enterprises, especially SMEs, remains uneven.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to seek a point of clarification from the Leader of the House. First of all, I thank NMP and Senior Counsel Ms Kuah Boon Theng for sharing her experience sitting on disciplinary tribunals pursuant to the Legal Profession Act (LPA). She elaborated on the requirements for a disciplinary tribunal to find cause for disciplinary actions set out in section 83 of the LPA. Arising from Nominated MP Ms Kuah's speech, I have a point of clarification to the Leader of the House. Would the Leader please clarify, in general terms, how would sections 83 and/or 98 of the LPA operate where a member of the legal profession has been convicted of an offence arising from proceedings in Parliament?”
“I thank the Ministers and their teams for their efforts, and I am happy to support this Bill.”
“The Bill would benefit from clarity on how likeness is assessed in the context of AI-generated content. For example, does resemblance alone suffice? Must there be an intent to impersonate or mislead? What evidentiary standards apply? In my view, these clarifications are especially important since resemblance may be subtle, stylised, or partial. In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome this Bill. It is a timely and necessary step towards preventing the propagation of online harmful activities. This is especially important today, when many of us, including young and old, spend much of our time online. The youths in particular are especially vulnerable to online harms, and I am heartened that this Bill provides additional avenues for their protection. In particular, I am encouraged by the Ministries’ efforts to consult widely and engage with the youths while drafting this Bill. The youths form a significant demographic that would be affected and protected by this Bill. In their letter to me, YouthTech Institute shared with me that they participated in the public consultations and dialogues organised by the Government. They voiced their concerns and provided feedback on how the Bill can continue to stay true to its policy goals without chilling legitimate online participation by youths. They tell me that their feedback was seriously taken in and considered. By participating in the drafting process of this legislation, our youths felt seen and heard, inspired and empowered. The youths had this to say: "Thank you for showing us that policy can be made with us, not just for us." I am grateful to the Government for allowing the youth voices to be heard on a Bill that affects matters close to their hearts.”
“Beyond the courtroom, I would be grateful for further clarity on how the Ministry intends to safeguard the confidentiality of victims during the reporting process. Specifically, how will the Ministry ensure that victims’ personal information remains protected, while also upholding the rights of alleged perpetrators to be informed of the nature of the allegations made against them? My third observation relates to the new statutory tort of online instigation of disproportionate harm. Clause 87 of the Bill, which introduces the "tort of online instigation of disproportionate harm", which is designed to offer civil recourse to victims and their associates where public statements, made in response to a victim’s conduct, are likely to incite others to act in ways that could cause harm to the victim. Civil action under this tort requires proof of actual or reasonably foreseeable loss or damage, while some heads of losses, such as financial losses, may be easier to prove, others, particularly psychological injury or emotional distress, have traditionally presented evidentiary challenges. I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification on how the latter cases will be treated. My fourth observation is that the Bill seeks to address "inauthentic material abuse", which is any audio, visual or audiovisual material that has been digitally altered or generated that is false or misleading depiction of the victim’s words, actions or conduct, but is realistic enough that a reasonable person would believe that the material emanated from the victim. In this regard, a depiction of the victim saying or engaging in anything includes a depiction of the victim’s likeness saying or engaging in that thing.”
“Victims of online harm may be reluctant to seek redress due to fear of repercussions, whether from the perpetrator, societal stigma, workplace consequences, or familial pressures. This hesitation is particularly pronounced in cases involving intimate image abuse, doxxing, or harassment, where the victim’s identity is often central to the harm itself. I am heartened to see that the Ministry has been sensitive to this issue. In respect of court proceedings, the Bill envisages that the Rules of Court may be amended to empower the Court to order the redaction of identifying information, including parties' names, in court documents, to conduct proceedings in private, and to issue orders preventing the disclosure of parties’ or witnesses’ identities. I am concerned that in practice, however, victims may remain vulnerable and additional administrative steps may be required to secure their anonymity during the interim period before such orders are granted. I wish to suggest for the Minister's consideration whether a more victim-centric approach would be to introduce automatic redaction, subject to judicial discretion to lift such redaction where appropriate. This would mirror existing protections under the Children and Young Persons Act, where proceedings involving minors are automatically anonymised, and the Women’s Charter, which provides automatic identity protection in the form of prohibition of publication or broadcast of information identifying victims or witnesses. This is applied under the Women's Charter in cases involving sexual offences. Extending automatic anonymity to victims of online harm, particularly those from vulnerable groups, would not only reduce procedural burden but also encourage victims to avail themselves to the options under this Bill.”
“In a Straits Times article, dated 26 September 2023, it was reported that she said: "Often when people come to us, they just want their images taken down, they don’t want to be tethered to their former partner through litigation, which, of course, can take a long time. So, what we provide is rapid assistance. I don’t think we would have the same degree of success with the platforms, particularly where there are grey areas, if we didn’t have these (remedial) powers." To this extent, I note that there is a requirement for victims to first file a report to the online platform before approaching OSC. The duty imposed on the platforms also only starts when the report is accurately and properly filed to the platform. And therefore, the accessibility and ease of reporting on the platforms will be critical in ensuring access to justice for victims through OSC. I seek clarifications on how the Ministries plan to work with the platforms to enable this. Secondly, I also seek clarification if the same content appears across different platforms and sites, how should the victim take action? Should the victim report all incidences he or she is aware of at the same time? Are OSC's directions specific? Or will we land in a situation where the victim is required to repeatedly go through the process of reporting to the platform and then to OSC for each piece of material? Can a victim apply to OSC for the pre-emptive ban of similar materials resurfacing? Member Zhulkarnain had mentioned the advantages that OSC offers in being a more responsive and less adversarial mechanism as compared to traditional litigation. I will not repeat that, but I stand in support of his point. My second observation is on anonymity.”
“It is unlikely to be a quick or perfect fix given how common online harms are and how deep rooted they are in our daily lives, but it signals our shared commitment to build a kinder, safer Singapore – both offline and online. I support this Bill and would like to share a few reflections and seek some clarifications. My first observation: the creation of the OSC and the scope of its enforcement powers is noteworthy. The speed of takedown is critical. While victims often suffer immediate harm, current means of redress are reportedly slow and sometimes ineffective. IMDA’s 2024 Online Safety Assessment Report found that major platforms acted appropriately only on half of the reported harmful content, often taking more than five days. The unfortunate reality is that victims are often left to navigate complex and sometimes opaque complaint processes, and structural challenges may further hinder platform responsiveness. The OSC plays a vital role in addressing these gaps. Its powers, such as issuing Stop Communication or Restraining Directions, enable victims to take timely and decisive steps to safeguard themselves. Moreover, clause 26(1) provides that the Commissioner may issue a Part 5 direction if the OSC has reason to suspect that the online harmful activity was conducted. This allows OSC the flexibility to swiftly take down online harmful activity. I see that Australia had similar experiences from which we can draw some lessons. The Australian eSafety Commissioner has the power to issue directives to address online harmful activities. Speaking at a 2023 symposium organised by MinLaw and the SMU Yong Pung How School of Law, the eSafety Commissioner from Australia highlighted the value of a dedicated and independent safety regulator in addressing online harms.”
“It is important for us to be deliberate in shaping the tone of our online world for our children, our friends and our neighbours. Because the wounds may be invisible, but they are real – and they last. The Bill is a step in the right direction. The OSC is vested with the authority to issue directions and orders to online service providers, communicators and administrators. Additionally, victims can turn to civil recourse and remedies for redress. In the age of AI, where false and harmful content can spread faster and cut deeper, such protections have never been more important. The youths in particular are particularly and especially vulnerable to online harms. To find out what the youths thought of the Bill, I spoke with YouthTech SG, formerly known as Cyber Youth Singapore. YouthTech SG is a youth-led social movement and charity. One of their divisions is YouthTech Institute which focuses on helping young people navigate the risks and opportunities of technology, including online safety. They wrote to me and expressed their support for the Bill, describing it as a signal for Singaporeans to foster a more cohesive, civil and wholesome digital environment. They also welcomed the Bill’s introduction of new avenues for youths to seek help and relief when harmed online; options that previously did not exist. While the Bill makes important strides in fostering a responsible digital environment, the online culture is ultimately one which requires users to build and that endeavour goes beyond legislation. Having reviewed the Bill, I find that the Bill is a meaningful step forward.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill is timely. I have met with residents affected by online harms and Singaporeans have written to me asking for reforms. From how we stay in touch to how we work, shop, learn and govern, the Internet has evolved into more than just a means of communication – it has become a second life. And the divide between the online and offline worlds continues to blur as technology becomes increasingly interwoven into our daily lives. Our laws need to keep pace with modern day advances and the threats of today. The recent report by SHE, "404 Help Not Found: Lived Experiences of Online Harms Survivors" sheds light on the harsh realities that define today’s digital landscape. Let me share the story of one of the online harms survivors mentioned in the report. As a child, Zane experienced bullying in school. His peers took to online platforms weekly to spread negative remarks about him. Later in life, during his polytechnic years, Zane experienced doxxing. The perpetrator shared his name, school and course on Twitter and threatened Zane. These incidents had an impact on Zane in his growing years. He kept his pain to himself, fearing retaliation and judgement. The emotional toll eventually caught up with him. During his National Service days, Zane experienced panic attacks and had to seek professional help. Zane's journey reflects how cumulative online harms can leave deep psychological scars; ones that linger long after the screen goes dark. And what happened to Zane is not rare. It is a glimpse into a culture where online harm has become casual, even accepted. Where cruelty hides behind screens, and victims often suffer in silence – many times too afraid, too tired and too ashamed to seek help.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I recognise that last September, MOH mentioned to a Parliamentary Question that you are looking to review these limits. Many Singaporeans, including my residents in Ayer Rajah, have told me that they do not qualify for the subsidies because they are retired and they are seniors, but they are also unable to fork out the top-up to pay for their medical fees in cash because that would affect their daily living. With rising costs of living, it is difficult for them. I am asking the Minister of State whether we have a timeline as to when the next review might be.”
“The ones who understand this situation best are our younger generation – those who face these pressures every day. I hope that our young Singaporeans will take part in completing this Singapore Puzzle together. If the younger generation remain un-involved, allowing society to drift away from their ideals and aspirations, then, amid the many alluring choices before us, I cannot be sure that our people will still choose to call Singapore their home. I sincerely invite our youths to join me in shaping our nation's future, to share your hopes and constructive ideas for Singapore, and to make this choice together: to choose Singapore.”
“I will champion policies to strengthen families so that families find their right place in the "Singapore Puzzle". I propose that Parliament explore several initiatives. First, supporting young parents in finding better balance between career and childcare, such as allowing parental leave to increase progressively with the number of children, supporting flexible work arrangements for young parents, exploring how childcare centres can provide responses to common childhood ailments, and fostering truly pro-family corporate and workplace cultures. Second, supporting parents in guiding their children to grow up healthily in the digital and technological age. Third, supporting seniors in truly enjoying fulfilling lives with good physical and mental health, whilst also reducing caregiving responsibilities for their children. But most importantly, we must engage young Singaporeans to work with the Government, to put our heads and hearts together, work hard side by side and piece together a Singapore Puzzle that belongs to us. We must confront this reality and seriously ask ourselves: what kind of Singapore society do we hope to see at SG100? Will it be one with smaller families, fewer people, and shrinking workforce; where elders and younger generations grow distant and the sense of “home" and national identity slowly fades away? Or will it be one where home endures, people remain, where young parents can work with peace of mind and raise their children with joy, where the bonds and responsibilities of family are firmly held and passed on, allowing our familiar Singapore culture and stories to be carried forward, generation after generation, continuing the legacy left to us by our forefathers?”
“How do we compete in this changing world whilst walking hand in hand with our people; how to reach for the stars and chase dreams without forgetting to help the vulnerable? To solve this puzzle, we must first secure the puzzle piece that is the "family". Once the family puzzle piece loosens, all other pieces will inevitably shift out of place. The "we first" that the President and Prime Minister speak of, has family at its core. New parents today face tremendous pressure, having to care for both young and old at home whilst striving to keep up with the increasingly competitive workplace. They harbour big dreams yet often find themselves exhausted. But our generation has more choices. Marriage and parenthood are no longer seen as necessary or default. All the more so when we look at friends who have become parents – exhausted, constantly on the run, barely catching a breath. Just watching them can make one dizzy. Some begin to think it is better to enjoy some peace and quiet. Life is already busy enough without children. Seeing such pressures, many family and friends advise: one child is enough, or even no children is okay! Gradually, more people choose to have fewer children, or none at all. I hope we can work together to lighten the burden for young parents. The Government has already taken swift action in recent years, launching a series of policies to support young parents in starting families. This is just the beginning. Perhaps we are now at a stage in Singapore where there is more support than ever before for families to take root, grow, and raise the next generation because our Government is listening, learning and firmly committed to taking real action.”