Charlene Chen
Singapore
“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?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have met parents of victims of bullying cases at my Meet-the-People Session and usually two underlying themes are what they are concerned with: transparency of process and accountability of perpetrators.”
“So, I ask whether existing MCCY or PA's platforms can incorporate hyperlocal volunteer-learner matching for sports, arts and mentoring, grant prioritisation for recurring, sustained youth-led initiatives, not only one-off events. Chairman, belonging cannot be siloed by age. We need integration.”
“Chairman, I acknowledge that many initiatives already exist. Does MOE set benchmarks to ensure fidelity and consistency of implementation across schools? Otherwise, how does the Ministry detect when resilience building is weaker in certain schools?”
“What matters is whether the structure of the class matches the needs within it. When early intervention is effective, behavioural and learning gaps often narrow. Support intensity reduces as students mature and manpower can then be redeployed to incoming cohorts. In this way, we move from reactive escalation to early calibration.”
“Accreditation should be tiered and developmental, recognising capability-building rather than compliance. This is feasible. CCE exists. Surveys exist. Peer systems exist. Counsellors are deployed. The Charter aligns these under clear national guardrails.”
The complete record
Every one of 52 lines we hold for Charlene Chen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“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?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have met parents of victims of bullying cases at my Meet-the-People Session and usually two underlying themes are what they are concerned with: transparency of process and accountability of perpetrators. I would like to ask: number one, does the Ministry facilitate formal apology protocols that provide closure for the victim? Number two, does the Ministry track whether victims continued to struggle after the case is closed and whether it sees the need to? And lastly, what extent will the recommendations from the Comprehensive Action Review be adapted for institutes of higher learning (IHLs) and will IHLs be required to adopt a centralised reporting platform, like the ones rolled out for the other schools?”
“So, I ask whether existing MCCY or PA's platforms can incorporate hyperlocal volunteer-learner matching for sports, arts and mentoring, grant prioritisation for recurring, sustained youth-led initiatives, not only one-off events. Chairman, belonging cannot be siloed by age. We need integration. And when generations interact regularly, identity becomes shared, not fragmented. I also hope that MCCY can consider how we can nurture cross-generational mangling as well. Chairman, if loneliness is rising, the response is not only more services. It is better design, design spaces that are easy to access, design systems that match initiative with opportunity, design programmes that reward continuity. From a youth's perspective, the difference is simple. Instead of asking, "Where can I go?", the answer becomes obvious: "Right here." That is what it means to design belonging, not as a slogan, but as everyday reality. Forming a "We First" Generation”
“It is available because certain off-peak hours are designated youth-access blocks. She and her friends rehearse a dance routine. Next door, a group of students are revising together. An uncle from the neighbourhood drops by to conduct a small mentoring session, matched through a community platform. These are small design changes. But from a youth's perspective, the difference is large. Connection becomes convenient. Participation becomes routine. Belonging becomes local. So, I ask whether MCCY could review under-utilised rooms for youth-designated time blocks. Pilot simplified, youth-friendly booking systems. Incorporate small acoustically treated multi-use rooms in future precinct upgrades. This is not about building new complexes. It is about existing infrastructure being more youth intentional. The second is programming. We have grants, youth organisations and platforms. But initiative often remains fragmented. A secondary school student recently wrote to me, asking if she could put posters to match volunteer music teachers with learners who lacked access. Her instinct was right: connection happens when people teach, learn and serve together. But why should she have to rely on void deck posters? Imagine instead: a neighbourhood-based matching feature within existing community apps. A polytechnic student who plays the violin indicates she can volunteer for two hours a week. A Primary 5 student who cannot afford lessons signs up. The match is facilitated through the Community Club. Basic safeguards are in place. They meet weekly. They are no longer just volunteer and learner. They become part of the same community. Belonging deepens not through consumption but contribution.”
“Recent surveys show that young Singaporeans experience more loneliness than older age groups. Many say they feel more anxious speaking face-to-face than online. Loneliness is not just the mood. It shapes identity. If a young person repeatedly feels unseen or peripheral, that experience becomes part of how they see themselves and their place in society. So, the question before us is not only how to run more programmes. It is this: are we designing everyday Singapore in a way that makes connection easy or effortful? I suggest we focus on two levers: spaces and programming. A young man once told me that when he felt overwhelmed, he would go to the skate park in Tampines. He did not go there for a structured activity. He went because it was where he felt understood. That detail matters. When mirrored panels at Bayfront MRT were frosted, dancers felt displaced. That linkway had quietly become a rehearsal space, a place where they practised, formed friendships and improved together. The provision of mirrored space at Marina South Pier MRT acknowledged that informal spaces matter. These examples show something important. Young people do not only need facilities. They need places where they feel ownership. Youths tell me that they compete for library seats or spend money at cafes just to have somewhere to study together. Community Clubs exist, but booking systems can feel formal, adult-controlled or difficult for spontaneous use. If our spaces feel distant or procedural, young people simply retreat to their rooms and to their screens. So, imagine this instead. A secondary school student finishes classes. She books a small multi-use room in her neighbourhood Community Club with two taps on an app.”
“Chairman, I acknowledge that many initiatives already exist. Does MOE set benchmarks to ensure fidelity and consistency of implementation across schools? Otherwise, how does the Ministry detect when resilience building is weaker in certain schools? Can the Ministry assure this House that students' access to structured resilience education, timely counsellor support, for example, does not vary meaningfully from school to school? That is my first set of questions. My second question on special needs and behavioural issues among students in mainstream schools. Could the Ministry share whether it tracks how long it takes on average from first observation to deployment of additional support in Primary 1? And whether the Ministry has studied whether incorporating a short structured executive function baseline into the existing Primary 1 framework could shorten the window and enable earlier manpower calibration at the cohort level, especially when support density is higher in certain classes?”
“What matters is whether the structure of the class matches the needs within it. When early intervention is effective, behavioural and learning gaps often narrow. Support intensity reduces as students mature and manpower can then be redeployed to incoming cohorts. In this way, we move from reactive escalation to early calibration. This approach lightens teacher workload, reduces cumulative strain across levels and ensures that children receive timely support during their most formative years. If we detect early and deploy early, we support our teachers, strengthen student outcomes and give parents confidence that inclusion remains both compassionate and workable. Reigniting Our Love for Mother Tongues”
“Chairman, as inclusion deepens in our mainstream schools, we must ensure that support arrives early enough and scales quickly enough to ease pressure in the classroom. In Primary 1, teachers are not only teaching literacy and numeracy. They are helping children learn how to sit still, sustain attention, regulate impulses and transition between tasks. When several students in one class struggle with these foundational skills, the teacher spends much of the lesson managing behaviour. Instructional time shrinks. Strain builds for teachers and for students. MOE already conducts systematic screening for literacy and numeracy at Primary 1 and SEN officers support teachers in identifying social-behavioural difficulties. Behavioural identification, however, is largely supported through observation and monitoring over time. I propose that we strengthen this process by incorporating structured executive-function indicators into the existing Primary 1 screening framework. A short, cohort-wide baseline around 30 to 45 minutes could provide objective data on learning readiness skills such as attention regulation, working memory and impulse control. This is not diagnostic. It does not label children. It strengthens early planning. It allows schools to identify early on which cohorts may require heavier classroom support before strain accumulates. Importantly, this information could be linked to calibrated manpower deployment. Where a Primary 1 cohort shows higher-than-usual support needs, temporary para-educator or co-teaching support could be deployed earlier rather than after prolonged escalation. And where support density within a class is particularly high, flexibility in class composition or size should be considered. There is no single ideal class number.”
“Accreditation should be tiered and developmental, recognising capability-building rather than compliance. This is feasible. CCE exists. Surveys exist. Peer systems exist. Counsellors are deployed. The Charter aligns these under clear national guardrails. International evidence shows resilience improves when it is embedded, measured and systematised. Without baseline guarantees, outcomes remain uneven. With structured standards, every student receives consistent support regardless of school. The Power of Arts in Student Well-being”
“Chairman, resilience should not depend on which school a child attends. While initiatives exist, implementation varies. In some schools, resilience skills, peer systems and early detection are embedded. In others, they depend heavily on local bandwidth and priorities. If resilience is foundational, certain elements must be guaranteed nationally. High-performing systems already do this. Finland embeds well-being as a formal objective in its national curriculum. Denmark mandates a weekly class, Klassens Tid, dedicated to emotional dialogue and conflict resolution. Japan's Tokkatsu, part of its national curriculum, systematically develops social responsibility and emotional regulation. These are not optional add-ons, but structured expectations. I therefore propose a National School Mental Well-Being Charter. The principle is clear: centralise standards and accountability, decentralise delivery and innovation. First, a national baseline for resilience education: a minimum annual allocation within Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) for mental health literacy and coping skills; defined developmental competencies at key stages; central vetting of external providers. Second, a standardised well-being framework. Denmark uses national digital well-being audits to systematically track student mood and welfare trends. Singapore can adopt a nationally validated annual instrument measuring belonging, coping confidence and psychological safety, used for internal improvement, not public ranking. Third, clear support benchmarks. Finland's three-tiered support model ensures timely intervention for students who need more help. Our Charter should define timelines for counsellor access, minimum training and supervision standards for peer supporters, structured referral pathways.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his responses. I just have three supplementary questions. Given that Large Language Models (LLMs) may be used to train the data, train and help people understand the data better, how does the Ministry assess potential data privacy risks, and are there going to be safeguards or informed consent standards being considered to protect vulnerable users? The second one is, given that AI systems may overly affirm users' views, which may actually reinforce harmful thinking, and also over reliance may reduce actual help seeking behaviours, has the Ministry assessed this risk? And lastly, I am glad that the Senior Minister of State has mentioned cross-cultural differences. Is the Ministry willing to support studies to understand how AI counselling tools can be used better and how their impact will be on mental health outcomes in Singapore?”
“But good governance improves decision quality. And in a small nation where our people are our greatest resource, helping Singaporeans future-proof both career and family aspirations is not intrusion, but an effort to support informed life choices for the long term. 5.00 pm Fertility - A Public Health Priority”
“Our education system quite rightly trains us to pursue academic excellence, secure good jobs and build economic stability. Family formation, however, is often treated as something that can wait – something we optimise after everything else is in place. But biology does not operate on career timelines. Fertility declines with age. Assisted reproductive technologies exist, but they are not guarantees and their success rates declines as age increases. This creates a mismatch between perceived flexibility and biological reality. This is not about blaming young Singaporeans. In fact, it is precisely because they are rational and responsible that many delay, wanting to be fully prepared before taking on parenthood. But when we delay family formation until we feel completely ready and overestimate the flexibility of future timelines, we may unintentionally narrow our own options. So, my proposal is straightforward. Beyond financial incentives, we should address this behavioural blind spot directly. First, integrate clear, evidence-based fertility education into existing young adult touchpoints – universities, workplaces and premarital programmes – delivered in a neutral and non-judgemental way. Second, develop life-course planning tools that help individuals map career and family aspirations in parallel, rather than sequentially. In fact, I support the hon Member, Ms Hany Soh's proposal on fertility screening after couples go through ROM. The aim is not to pressure anyone. If someone does not want children, that choice must be respected. But if someone hopes to have children "someday", policy should ensure that "someday" is grounded in realistic and informed awareness of biological timelines. Addressing the planning fallacy will not reverse fertility trends overnight.”
“Chairman, let me begin with this: there are Singaporeans who do not want children and that is entirely their choice. But there are also many who, in their ideal life plan, hope to have both a meaningful career and children at some point. The issue we face is not desire. It is timing. Structural pressures – long working hours, housing pressures, workplace expectations – are real and policy must continue addressing these. Allow me to share a personal reflection. Ten years ago, when I was close to my mid-30s, a professional mentor and his wife gently asked me if I was considering having children. I smiled and said, "Let me give birth to my journal article, before I give birth to a child." In my case, publishing journal articles was my KPI. I felt I needed to stabilise my career first, because I was unsure whether I could give both my work and a child the attention they deserved. For many Singaporeans, it may not be journal publications – it may be a promotion, financial stability, a home or building up savings. He shared with me a Chinese saying: 我们说成家立业，不是立业成家. We settle down first and then establish a career, and not the other way around. I did not appreciate what he meant then, but over time, I reflected on it differently. I went on to publish my papers. I eventually started my family, but by then I was in my late 30s. And those who have had children later in life will know, it is simply more physically exhausting. On hindsight, this was a classic example of the planning fallacy. The planning fallacy is our tendency to assume that future plans will work out smoothly, that constraints can be managed later and that we will have more time than we actually do. In early adulthood, career milestones are highly salient.”
“Singapore has no natural resources; our greatest resource is our people. When young people have stable jobs and affordable housing, they can plan their lives with peace of mind and start families and careers. When middle-aged workers receive support during transitions, they can continue to contribute their experience and skills. When seniors feel respected and needed, they can remain active and continue participating in society. If a society makes its people feel that they are not being left behind, they will be more confident and willing to dedicate themselves to the country. This is what we call "Team Singapore." Investing in people is investing in Singapore's future. (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, AI can multiply our advantage but only if it strengthens people, not sidelines them. If we invest only in machines, we may grow output. But if we invest in people, we grow a nation. When people feel supported in their aspirations, equipped to manage pressure and confident that success is defined fairly, they do not disengage. They step forward. They start families. They build businesses. They lead community projects. They improve neighbourhoods. They carry forward the values that built Singapore. Sustainability is not only about fiscal discipline. It is about ensuring the next generation is resilient, capable, inclusive and united. The most important investment in this Budget is not in technology alone. It is in our people across every generation, especially those who will carry Singapore forward. Because when our people realise their potential, Singapore realises hers.”
“We need a broader, healthier definition. Success is living up to your potential. Success is purposeful contribution. Success is knowing your work – whether in business, arts, sports or service – matters to your community. Our identity as Singaporeans must embrace the diversity of talent through culture and arts, sports and teamwork, academic and technical excellence, entrepreneurship and service. When young people see that there are many legitimate ways to contribute, they feel seen; and when they feel seen, they step forward. This is why continued investment in youth engagement, culture, arts, sports and community initiatives matter. These are not peripheral. They build belonging, shape identity and strengthen a "we first" mindset. Inclusive progress must be designed. Ability exists across society. Opportunity must too. When people feel included, they contribute with confidence. And when they feel part of something larger, they act differently. I have seen this spirit of agency in Tampines. Vareck Ng, a young resident, co-founded a volunteer initiative to improve safety for active mobility users, both walkers and cyclists. After residents raised concerns about near-misses, I brought these to him and a group of advocates. Together, we identified problem spots and worked with the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) Active Mobility Team to improve safety. He did not wait for someone else. He stepped forward, organised others and worked constructively with the authorities. That is youth agency in action. That is Team Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] An ideal budget does not just help us to get through this year but lays the foundation of Singapore's long-term development.”
“The focus group's discussions reinforced this, highlighting weak training-to-job linkages and skills mismatches as persistent concerns. Access to courses is not the same as confidence, training enrolment is not the same as career stability. As we embrace artificial intelligence, we must also not neglect another "AI" – actual intelligence. Technology is a tool. Our people must know how to use it, but also how to question it. We must nurture judgment, empathy, critical thinking and moral reasoning. In my maiden speech, I spoke about the paradoxes of technology: tools that can connect can also isolate; convenience can erode capability. AI presents a similar paradox. If we let machines think for us without strengthening our own thinking, we risk weakening the qualities that make us adaptable and innovative. In my classrooms, I see bright young students already worried about burnout before their careers begin. They are not lacking ambition. They are asking whether they can keep up without losing themselves. If productivity depends on human capacity, resilience must be part of our economic strategy. We must invest in school-based mental health support, workplace mental wellness frameworks, community sports and physical activity, curriculum that builds emotional regulation and bounce-back ability, soft skills that help navigate setbacks. These measures matter for students, mid-career workers adapting to change and seniors staying engaged. A burnt-out population cannot be a productive one. Resilience is not a side issue; it is the foundation of sustainable growth. Managing pressure is not only about coping, it is also about shaping social norms. If success is defined narrowly by grades, pay or title, we risk creating pressure and weakening cohesion.”
“About 60% of over 1,000 respondents cited daily costs as their top concern and nearly one in five highlighted housing pressures. Many also flagged family-raising as a major worry. When cost pressures weigh heavily, aspirations become cautious. On employment, nearly half of 433 respondents cited lack of career progression as their biggest challenge and more than one in four mentioned underemployment. This shows that the issue is not simply job creation but whether jobs enable growth. For long-term productivity, young people must see credible and coordinated pathways ahead. This means continued investment in strong school-to-work transitions, better skills-job matching, predictable housing supply, mid-career mobility support, and accessible lifelong learning frameworks. Structure matters. When aspirations are supported by stable pathways in jobs, housing and skills, people can plan confidently. And when they plan confidently, they commit to families, careers and to Singapore. But our youth are not just beneficiaries of policy, they want to contribute. When they feel trusted and supported, they step forward. Supporting aspirations is just part of the equation. We are raising a generation that is capable but also under pressure. They face academic competition, social comparison fueled by technology, economic uncertainties and rapid AI-driven change. Over 100,000 Singaporeans took AI-related courses last year – a positive sign. But readiness remains uneven. One in five survey respondents felt unprepared for AI-related shifts in their industry and nearly half said they lacked sufficient training due to time constraints or difficulty finding relevant programmes.”
“Mr Speaker, as I reflected on this year’s Budget, I asked myself a simple question. If our goal is not just to get through the next year, but to thrive for the long term, what should an ideal Budget prioritise? One word came to mind – productivity. But not productivity in the narrow sense of GDP or output. True productivity is about enabling people to realise their full potential – our young, our mid-career workers, our seniors who continue to contribute and our persons with disabilities who deserve full opportunity to do so. Singapore has no natural resources. We rely entirely on our people – their skills, resilience, values and unity. If we want to stay competitive and cohesive, we must invest in enabling every Singaporean to reach their potential. Productivity is not about squeezing more from people. It is about helping people grow. Even in a more uncertain world, we are fortunate to discuss this from a position of fiscal strength. With surpluses last year and this year, we have the capacity to invest prudently and strategically in our people. In every Budget, there are two responsibilities: to provide support and to invest. Support reduces inequality and ensures no one is left behind. Investment unlocks potential, because if people cannot reach their potential, the economy cannot either. Let me begin with young Singaporeans. They have clear aspirations: good jobs, affordable housing, meaningful careers, stable paths to marriage and family and lives with purpose. At my Meet-the-People Sessions, housing concerns often surface. Decisions about flats are tied to life decisions – marriage, career stability and family planning. This was also reflected in the PAP Policy Forum’s Pre-Budget Survey.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Residents in Tampines living near the long-running Loyang Viaduct construction have reported prolonged stress from construction noise. So, given that sounds of similar decibel levels can differ in perceived loudness and distress, does the Ministry consider the use of psycho-acoustic factors, such as sharpness and roughness, in the review of thresholds? And another supplementary question would be what are the penalties when construction sites exceed noise thresholds?”
“We should support athletes not only at their peak, but through the transitions that follow. As SportSG oversees these institutions, it would be helpful to track not just performance outcomes, but also well-being, educational progression and post-sport transitions. These indicators matter if we want to support athletes as people, not just performers. Mr Speaker, sport has the potential to support mental health, build resilience and bring people together across backgrounds. This Bill gives SportSG greater flexibility – and with it, greater responsibility. With careful implementation, attention to equity and safeguards for youth well-being, these amendments can strengthen a sporting ecosystem that supports Singaporeans across different abilities, backgrounds and stages of life. I support the Bill.”
“International evidence also shows that less visible sports, including disability and inclusive sports, tend to receive fewer subsidies unless funding models are deliberately balanced. So, my question is this: as SportSG's mandate expands, how will funding models continue to balance elite performance, grassroots participation and inclusive sport for persons with disabilities, without disadvantaging those with less visibility or commercial appeal? While recognising mind sports and e-sports, we should remain clear that physical activity remains central to public health. Resilience is built not only through mental effort, but through movement, teamwork and learning how to recover from setbacks. I therefore welcome the Bill's explicit expansion of SportSG's role in promoting physical fitness activities. As new categories are brought under its umbrella, it will be important to ensure that community sport and grassroots physical activity continue to receive sustained attention and resources. I also support the introduction of codes of practice and accreditation for coaching, equipment and facilities. Safety and quality should not depend on informal networks or personal knowledge. At the same time, smaller volunteer-led groups may worry about capacity. A tiered framework would allow standards to be applied proportionately, with stricter requirements for higher-risk or publicly funded programmes and lighter-touch guidance for grassroots groups, preserving both safety and participation. Finally, the Bill enables a more integrated athlete development ecosystem, including education and career pathways. This is important. Elite athletes face significant pressure and uncertainty, especially as they transition out of competitive sport. Mental well-being should not be an afterthought.”
“Next, the expanded definition of sport also has implications for education. Sports-based DSA pathways have opened doors for many students. But families with more resources are often better positioned to invest in coaching, equipment, or overseas exposure. Others may opt out early, not because their children lack ability, but because the costs or uncertainty feel too high. So, I would like to ask how schools will ensure fair and holistic evaluation for mind sports or e-sports DSA pathways, especially where physical benchmarks are less clear. It is important that these pathways support balanced development, rather than a narrow focus at a young age. More broadly, inequality in sport often starts much earlier than we realise. Some families have the means and confidence to take risks. Others worry about what happens if their child invests heavily in sport but has limited options later on. That is why I strongly support the Bill's provision for educational and career support for both active and retired sportspersons. It helps reduce the sense that pursuing sport is an all-or-nothing decision. But I would also ask whether we have sufficient early-stage, school- and community-based systems to identify and support talented youths from lower-resource families before gaps widen. If sport development is meant to start early, then access and reassurance for families need to start early too. These concerns are made more pressing by the reality that national sports funding is already constrained. NSAs compete for funding based on alignment with Vision 2030, key performance indicators, governance standards and development plans. Athletes in traditional sports have raised concerns about gaps in institutional support, particularly beyond the top tier.”
“And that is why the conditions around recognition matter. Many youths I meet are motivated and capable, but also increasingly tired. They spend long hours on screens – often alone, often under pressure – to perform, to rank and sometimes to secure opportunities like Direct School Admission (DSA). A CNA-Institute of Policy Studies survey found that teenagers in Singapore spend more than eight hours a day on electronic devices, and about 60% struggle to reduce their screen time. This reflects a growing imbalance in how technology fits into young people's lives. As SportSG extends support into this space, it would be useful to hear how governance frameworks will evolve to ensure that youth protection and athlete welfare remain central. My question to the Ministry is a practical one: how will official recognition of e-sports be implemented in a way that does not normalise unhealthy screen habits, especially for youths who are already vulnerable? Recognition should not mean endorsement without limits. For publicly supported programmes, it would be helpful to have clear expectations – around training hours, physical conditioning, sleep and posture education, and referral pathways when concerning behaviours emerge. These are not meant to restrict interest, but to protect well-being. There is also a governance dimension we should consider. Unlike traditional sports, e-sports are not governed by independent federations. They are owned by private publishers, who control game rules, competition formats and even when a title continues to exist. International research cautions that governance models dominated by commercial interests may not always align with public interest goals – particularly when it comes to athlete welfare, integrity and transparency.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must declare I am not as athletic or sporting as my colleagues but I do appreciate good sports and I want to thank our athletes, whether they win medals or not, they spent a lot of time training, the hard work that they put in, the stress that they faced and being in front of the nation, competing with the weight of the nation on their shoulders. I think we definitely should appreciate all of them and I would like to thank them. Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Singapore Sports Council (Amendment) Bill. This Bill recognises something many Singaporeans already know from lived experience – that the way we engage through sport has evolved. And our laws need to evolve with it. But as we widen definitions and expand powers, it is worth pausing to ask not just what we enable, but how these changes will affect people differently – especially our youths, families with fewer resources, and athletes who are already under pressure. As a psychologist, I see sport not only as physical activity or competition, but as part of a wider social system. When designed thoughtfully, it builds confidence, resilience and belonging. When it is not, it can unintentionally add stress and widen gaps. I support the inclusion of mind sports and e-sports in our legal framework. Chess, bridge and competitive gaming have grown significantly in Singapore. Many young people already invest time, effort and identity in these activities. Recognising them signals that we acknowledge different forms of talent, including those based on cognitive skills. At the same time, recognition also carries responsibility. By defining e-sports as "sports" as sports, we are not just enabling support – we are shaping norms. We are signalling what is legitimate and encouraged.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his response. The reason why I have been asking this is also because residents have been experiencing a lot of noise along the Tampines Expressway (TPE) and in the night as well, in the wee hours. I have been receiving a lot of feedback, residents sharing with me, and often times, they email me late, in the wee hours of the morning. And I wonder if the Ministry would consider expediting the use of noise reducing road surfaces. And post completion, when the viaduct is completed, whether there will be post-completion monitoring and additional mitigation measures, if let us say the noise levels exceed what residents can reasonably live with. Lastly, I would also like to ask if the Ministry will be willing to explore enhanced soundproofing measures such as improved window treatments or insulation. And whether when they plan new highways and road expansions, do they consider the impact of the well-being of the residents who live around the area?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Many Singaporeans, including our residents in Tampines, are anxious about employability. Skills upgrading must be built on trust to protect our learners and we need to ensure that training providers are credible, relevant courses are provided and public funds are used responsibly. I have a couple of supplementary questions. Number one, what avenues are available for whistle-blowers, especially those who are not digitally-savvy to report unethical course practises? And number two, if participants find that courses fall short of the promised content, what recourse or mechanisms are there? And lastly, will there be regular audits besides relying on feedback from course participants?”
“Mr Speaker, as a member of the Young People's Action Party (PAP) and the PAP Mental Health Group, I am committed to working with educators, parents and youth advocates to strengthen the mental resilience of our young. Together, we can bridge policy and practice – supporting the MOE's efforts, sharing ground feedback and developing community-led initiatives that make resilience a lived reality, and not just a lesson plan. In closing, Mr Speaker, let us remember that resilience is not just about bouncing back to where we were. It is about bouncing forward to become stronger, steadier and more connected. By aligning our children's mental well-being with our broader national ambition, we give meaning to the spirit of Forward Singapore – building a nation that is vibrant, fair, thriving, resilient and united.”
“Here again, the Charter can guide this transformation by setting broad cultural benchmarks for schools to interpret locally: do students feel psychological safety and belonging? Is success recognised beyond academics? Are conversations about mental health open and stigma-free? In essence, practice builds skills and habits, measurement builds accountability and learning, and culture builds meaning and motivation. Together, they form a resilience ecosystem, where each reinforces the other. Practice without culture becomes tokenism; measurement without practice risks bureaucracy; culture without structure leads to inconsistency. To bring this ecosystem to life, an MOE-led School Mental Well-being Charter could provide the unifying framework. It would serve three purposes: to signal national priority by recognising mental well-being as a core dimension of education; to promote consistency by setting minimum standards of psychological safety and resilience-building; and to encourage innovation, recognising schools that model excellence in student well-being. This Charter could be co-led by MOE, HPB and IMH, rolled out across all school types, and supported by mentorship and peer-learning networks. Rather than ranking schools, it would celebrate those that lead with care, helping others to learn and grow.”
“To nurture belonging, schools can foster kindness as a daily habit, encouraging small acts of care, peer recognition and teacher affirmations. Experiencing kindness, whether online or offline, reinforces connection. Unkindness fractures it. Small everyday gestures of care build the community spirit that sustains well-being. Yet, belonging alone is not the destination. Our students also need to understand what it truly means to succeed and to redefine success in ways that give meaning, not pressure. This leads to the third pillar: a success culture. Singapore has long prized success defined by grades and material achievement. But true success should include growth, purpose and contribution. MOE has taken important steps – through subject-based banding and applied learning pathways – to broaden our definition of success. The next step is to embed this shift in school culture, through stories, symbols and rituals that reflect a fuller picture of excellence. Schools could highlight diverse pathways in assemblies, tell alumni stories that go beyond grades and celebrate perseverance, creativity and community service as much as academic results. At the same time, culture change also means addressing the unspoken pressures that erode resilience – the tuition race, excessive comparison and the fear of failure. Reducing rote learning, valuing soft skills and promoting sustainability-oriented values can help students see success as a meaningful living, not mere performance. Because true resilience is not only about enduring pressure, it is about having the freedom to pursue purpose without being crushed by expectation.”
“They must be felt in the corridors, classrooms and conversations of every school. Let me begin with the first: a wellness culture, one that makes mental well-being not just taught, but lived. A wellness culture means normalising care through visible practises and spaces, calm corners, reflection, rooms and time-outs that make it acceptable to pause and recharge. Policies, too, signal what we value, how schools handle phones and screen time, or whether they explore later start times to improve sleep, sends a message that rest is not an indulgence, but a necessity. Sleep deprivation is not a badge of diligence. It is a silent threat to mental health. Encouraging sports and outdoor activities, likewise, reinforces well-being. Exposure to sunlight, physical activity and teamwork all strengthen mental and emotional health. We can also strengthen peer support networks through structured training and recognition, integrating peer helpers into the school system through accreditation or scholarships. When peer support is legitimised, help-seeking becomes normalised. Finally, language shapes culture. We must move away from labels, like Strawberry Generation or sheltered children. Such words stigmatise rather than strengthen, they close doors instead of opening minds. But wellness alone is not enough. Students also need to feel that they belong, that they are part of something larger than themselves. This brings me to the second pillar, a school culture of belonging. Research shows that a strong sense of school belonging is one of the most powerful predictors of resilience. When students feel seen, supported and accepted, they are better able to cope with setbacks. Belonging breeds resilience and resilience deepens belonging.”
“Crucially, it would shift our focus from identifying problems like anxiety or stress, to measuring strengths, such as happiness, optimism and resilience. Importantly, this support should extend across every key transition from primary to secondary school, from Institutes of Technical Education, junior colleges, polytechnics to university and eventually into the workforce. These are the stages where stress often peaks, yet structured mental health support can taper off. Like the UK University's Mental Health Charter, Singapore's version could pair measurement with accreditation, where reviews consider indicators, such as the strength of peer support networks, perceive accessibility of counsellors and teacher readiness, to address mental well-being. This approach ensures we do more than collect data. We also close capability gaps and recognise schools that lead the way. The goal is not to rank or penalise, but to help every school understand its progress and areas for growth. It would also allow MOE to identify exemplary practices that can be scaled nationally, creating a culture of shared accountability and collective uplift, because what we choose to measure signals what we value. And when we value well-being as much as grades, both can thrive together. Number three, build a supportive and inclusive culture, even with strong programmes and robust data, resilience cannot flourish without the right culture. Data tells us what is happening. Culture determines why it happens and whether change endures. At the central level, MOE can set the tone through three pillars: wellness, belonging and success. Well, at the school level, these values are expressed through stories, rituals and daily interactions. These pillars are not abstract ideals.”
“They were passionate, kind and full of heart, showing how sports and volunteering together can teach grit, empathy and purpose. By tapping on community partners, volunteers and youth networks, schools can enrich experiential learning without overstretching educators, allowing them to focus on guiding rather than carrying the process. Through the Charter, such practices can be shared, refined and scaled so that no students' exposure to resilience building depends purely on which school they attend, because resilience cannot be downloaded from a PowerPoint slide, it must be lived, rehearsed and reinforced again and again until it becomes part of who our students are. Two, enhancing measurement, evaluation and continuity. If we are to take mental resilience seriously, we must measure it with the same rigour that we measure academic outcomes. What gets measured, gets improved. Currently, data on student well-being is often gathered through one-off surveys or teacher observations. Valuable, but inconsistent. Without a coherent system, we cannot tell which approaches work best for whom and why. To strengthen accountability and learning, the charter could establish a national evidence framework for student well-being. At the central level, MOE could coordinate research using validated measures of subjective well-being, belonging and resilience. Not to diagnose, but to understand growth and guide interventions. At the school level, educators could use this data to refine their programmes, track progress over time and share best practices through MOE's networks of practice. Beyond timely check-ins, such a framework could track both immediate outcomes, such as knowledge and use of coping strategies, and longer-term effects like sustained resilience and belonging.”
“To make it meaningful, it must go beyond slogans and set out clear dimensions of action, balancing centralised standards with decentralised flexibility. MOE can provide national direction, resources and guardrails, while schools retain the autonomy to adapt approaches to their unique contexts and students' needs. There are three key dimensions where this partnership can be most impactful. One, strengthening practice and experiential learning. Resilience, like any skill, must be practised, not preached. While the CCE curriculum teaches coping and emotion regulation skills, its impact depends on how schools and teachers bring it to life. Some schools excel through CCAs, camps or VIA projects, others may struggle, constrained by time and resources. To make resilience second nature, it cannot remain ad hoc or incidental. It must be systematic, scaffolded and sustained, so students repeatedly apply, reflect and internalise what they learn. At the central level, MOE could define broad developmental milestones for social, emotional learning and guiding principles for experiential education, such as structured reflection after setbacks, opportunities for self-directed projects and feedback that emphasises growth over fear of failure. At the school level, educators could design their own methods through camps, community service, classroom rituals that help students reframe failure as learning. Micro interventions, when practised consistently, strengthen emotional regulation and self-efficacy over time. Partnerships with community programmes, like Sport Cares, could also help. I recently met youths from Sport Cares' Champion Leadership Programme, who organised a carnival for seniors and persons living with dementia.”
“The Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) It's OKAY to Reach Out campaign and the National Council of Social Service's Beyond the Label movement help normalise help-seeking. The Agency for Integrated Care's Youth Community Outreach Team (CREST-Youth) and Youth Integrated Teams extend outreach and assessment to at-risk youths. These are significant and commendable steps forward. But as we scale up these initiatives, two key questions remain: how can we ensure these efforts are truly effective and how do we build a school culture that naturally nurtures mental resilience and not just teaches it? Mental well-being, like literacy or numeracy, is too important to depend on individual school initiatives alone. We need a systematic and sustained approach. That is why I propose establishing a School Mental Well-being Charter, a developmental accreditation framework that recognises schools embedding mental resilience into their curriculum, culture and community. We can draw inspiration from the United Kingdom's (UK's) University Mental Health Charter, which brings together universities committed to making mental health a campus-wide priority. It encourages institutions to share best practices, supports one another through networks and training, and recognises those that demonstrate excellence in promoting mental well-being. A Singapore variant, co-led by MOE, HPB and IMH, could serve a similar purpose: uniting schools and Institutes of Higher Learning that make well-being not just an add-on, but a defining feature of education. This Charter would signal national commitment to nurturing a generation that is mentally strong, emotionally agile and socially compassionate. What might such a Charter look like in practice?”
“First, let me clarify what I mean by resilience. Resilience is not merely the absence of mental illness. It is the ability to bounce forward from setbacks. It is a skill, not a trait. Resilience is not something you build after a crisis; it has to be practised before things go wrong. Just as muscles need to be flexed to grow stronger, resilience must be trained, early, continuously and deliberately. Especially in schools, where children form habits and mindsets that last a lifetime. Investing early ensures that every child has the opportunity to build, practice and strengthen these skills across each stage of their development. But lessons alone are not enough. Mental resilience must be lived, not lectured, practiced through repetition, reinforced through experience, until these coping habits become second nature so that when stress inevitably comes, these habits are reflexive, automatic and strong enough to carry them through. Since 2021, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has strengthened its Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) syllabus to include mental health literacy, emotion regulation, coping strategies, stigma reduction and peer support. Lessons now incorporate breathing and calming exercises, and these are reinforced through Values-in-Action (VIA) projects and co-curricular activities (CCAs). A broader ecosystem of support has also been built around this effort: the Parenting for Wellness Toolbox for parents; the scope of examinations for non-graduating students has been reduced; more than 1,000 teacher-counsellors are being trained; and termly check-in surveys allow teachers to monitor students' social-emotional well-being more systematically. Beyond MOE, national initiatives continue to play an important role.”
“Mr Speaker, just yesterday it was reported in the news that a teenager who set fire to several pop-up booths at VivoCity and HarbourFront Centre in March this year was found to be experiencing major depressive disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The reports also mentioned that he had been facing financial stress at home and that his actions may be a form of coping. This incident does not mean that every act of mischief stems from mental illness. But it does bring into sharp focus that mental health challenges are faced by some of our youths, challenges that often remain unseen until they manifest in troubling ways. According to the National Youth Mental Health Study conducted by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) between 2022 and 2023, one in three young people reported experiencing severe or extremely severe symptoms of depression, anxiety or stress. Those who spent more than three hours daily on social media were especially at risk. And perhaps, most concerning of all, nearly a third of youths with severe symptoms do not seek help. They worry about whether treatment will work, fear social stigma or have privacy concerns. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine for mental illness. So, how do we help our children build psychological immunity? How do we booster them against the stressors of life? As a parent, I worry whether my own children will be able to cope with challenges that come their way. As a Singaporean, I worry for our children, who will constitute our future workforce, caregivers and leaders. When mental well-being falters, it affects not just the individual, but also relationships, families, workplaces and even the fabric of our community. If we want a resilient Singapore, we must first nurture resilient Singaporeans.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her response. I have actually met some caregivers of loved ones with dementia in Tampines and they have shared how difficult the early stages can be. One caregiver told me that she did not know where to access support, what resources were available or even how to manage her mother's behavioural symptoms that were associated with dementia. So, I have three supplementary questions. First, how can the Ministry ensure that the information about available resources is systematically shared with all caregivers upon diagnosis, especially those who may be less digitally savvy? Second, will there be more support for caregiver respite, given the emotional and mental toll of caring for persons with dementia? And my third question is, as dementia cases rise within our communities, how will the Ministry ensure that both caregiving resources and manpower keep pace and remain sustainable in the long term?”
“Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his Ministerial Statement. I would just like to say that Tampines has a very diverse, yet mutually respectful community. Our residents in Tampines would agree that Singapore's survival depends on our unity. And I believe that harmony comes from confidence and trust and sometimes, not avoiding difficult conversations. So, beyond calling out and effecting the law in response to potential attempts to influence voting behaviour along racial and religious lines, how can we strengthen public awareness and civic education to help our Singaporeans recognise and reject such messages, so that they do not become victims of politically motivated individuals?”
“First of all, I would like to thank the HDB officers for all their help. I think they have been putting in a lot of effort to help resolve some of these dispute cases. And I am very thankful that HDB has also chosen Tampines to pilot the CRU. I just have one question for MND's consideration. I think a lot of the focus has been on the mental health of the neighbours that have potentially been causing a lot of these nuisances. But I also have cases where the mental health of the neighbours on the receiving end have been very badly affected. And I wonder if this could be a consideration, in terms of the severity criteria for MND to step in and activate CRU.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I would like to know what trends or patterns MOM has observed in age discrimination cases. For example, is there any data that happens more of hiring promotions or retrenchments? And the second supplementary question is, how will MOM ensure that older workers, especially those less familiar with reporting channels, feel safe and supported to surface cases of discrimination? And my last supplementary question is about the Workplace Fairness Act. When it comes into force, are there any safeguards that will ensure that enforcement is not just reactive, but also proactive in deterring unfair practices before they occur?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his response. I have three supplementary questions pertaining to enforcement. One, how is the Ministry working with enforcement officers to ensure consistent and proportionate enforcement of cycling and pedestrian path rules, including when to issue warnings versus fines? And what does the Minister of State think of licensing cyclists and their vehicles? My second question is about recourse when pedestrians are injured by cyclists or personal mobility device riders on footpaths or even overhead bridges, what processes are in place to ensure victims receive prompt support and recourse, and whether the Ministry is reviewing ways to strengthen this safety net? And the last question is on engagement, whether the Ministry has actively engaged on things like path design, safety hotspots and enforcement, and whether it has plans to expand public education campaigns to emphasise shared responsibility?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his response. I ask the question because I have a hunch on certain sectors that might be experiencing burnout and there could be some initiatives to help the sectors. So, I am very glad that there is iWorkHealth, the Well-being Champions Network and the Tripartite Advisory. I wonder if there are any other initiatives that can be targeted at both the employers and the employees to support mental well-being?”
“But our forefathers did it and our generation will surely do it too. As long as we support one another and hold firm to our resolve, the marathon ahead is ours to win. (In English): It is our unity, our resilience and our spirit of looking out for one another that will carry us forward. As we race to the top, let us make sure we do not leave anyone behind. Because the true test of progress is not how high we climb, but how many we bring along with us. [Applause.]”
“A worker may be diligent and talented, but if hiring unconsciously favours those who "look the part", it is not merit that decides, but stereotype. And when such institutional barriers combine with self-doubt or prejudice, they can quietly block opportunity. A student who keeps hearing "people like you cannot make it" may begin to believe it. An older worker who feels he will never be given a fair chance because of his age may stop trying. This is why we must continue to identify and dismantle barriers, both visible and invisible, so that Singapore remains a true meritocracy. A society where opportunities are not predetermined by background, but created through ability, effort and fair chance. Because only then can progress feel meaningful, not just for the successful few, but for every Singaporean who works hard and contributes. Mr Speaker, Sir, progress is not just about technology or economics. It is also about psychology. It is about ensuring that even as we advance, we do not lose sight of who we are. As we mark SG60 and look ahead to SG100 and beyond, let us remember the lessons of history. Civilisations that endured were not only those that adapted to change, but those that did so while holding fast to their values. And what are our values? The value of being human. The value of being Singaporean. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In this fast-changing world, we must not forget the most fundamental values of being human. To be human is to have compassion. To be Singaporean is to share the spirit of being in the same boat, moving forward shoulder to shoulder. True progress is progress we make together. We all know how hard it is to bridge race, religion and class, and to strive together as one.”
“When systems are designed so that kindness is the default – like calm rooms in shopping malls that give children with special needs and their caregivers a safe space to reset, or barrier-free ramps in our estates that make access automatic for seniors and parents; kindness becomes second nature. And by celebrating small, everyday acts of care, we show that it is not distant or heroic, but something each of us can practise daily. Finally, in business, kindness must also find its place. Businesses, too, can be a force for good. Corporate social responsibility has grown and companies today are rightly held accountable by consumers. Yet business pressures can sometimes relegate kindness to the background. We should instead support organisations that embed kindness into their DNA, whether through inclusive hiring, supporting employees who show empathy, or giving staff time and resources to serve the community. The role of Government is not to purchase kindness, but to enable it: to make it easier to care, not to pay people to care. In many parts of the world, divisions of race, religion and class are hardening. Singapore has been fortunate to avoid this, but we cannot be complacent. Numbers like the Gini coefficient show that inequality here is moderated after taxes and transfers. Yet numbers alone do not capture the lived experience of inequality. Mr Speaker, Sir, nurturing a "we first" mindset also means ensuring fairness, because kindness at the individual level must be matched by fairness at the structural level. A child from a lower-income family may be just as capable, but if tuition and enrichment is out of reach, he starts the race several steps behind.”
“These approaches should be built systematically into our school curriculum at every level, so that empathy and emotional resilience are not left to chance. And to make them work, we must strengthen support with more counsellors and psychologists to guide programmes and walk alongside our young as they navigate mental and emotional challenges. In families, it means modelling kindness at home, not only to strangers, but to one another. Too often, we forget to be kind to those closest to us. Children may not always listen to what we say, but they notice what we do, including our unkind behaviours and the way we use devices. Even though I worry about my kids' screen time, one day my daughter asked me, "Why are you always on your phone?" And that hit me – I realised that she was also modeling my behaviour. But kindness does not stop at home; it must extend into our communities. And in communities, it means designing systems that make care second nature. In Tampines East, I have seen residents care for one another in many ways. Youths teaching seniors digital skills, volunteers delivering meals to neighbours and families looking out for elderly folks living alone. These small acts of care may seem ordinary, but together they sustain the kampung spirit that defines Singapore. At the national level, we must also renew the Singapore Kindness Movement. Campaigns are useful, but lived experiences matter more. Kindness must reach into digital spaces – from gaming platforms that reward cooperation, to workplace tools that encourage us to appreciate a colleague. We should nudge, not lecture.”
“And it mirrors daily life: the more we let technology think for us, the weaker our focus, the weaker our resilience and the weaker our grit. The lesson is clear, even as we adopt new tools, we must remember that these technologies are fundamentally just tools and we must closely guard our human strengths: judgement, intuition and compassion. Mr Speaker, Sir, our response to technology cannot be just about setting rules or guidelines. It must also be about shaping mindsets. Prime Minister has spoken about the "we" generation. President Tharman has called for a "we first" mindset – one that places the collective good above self interest. I believe this is the mindset Singapore needs as we enter our next phase of progress. A mindset is a lens through which we see the world. It shapes how we interpret events and how we respond to them. And mindsets are not born, they are shaped, by what families emphasise, what schools teach and what society chooses to reward. So, how do we nurture such a "we first" mindset? I believe we must start with kindness. Kindness may sound simple. But it is the foundation of empathy, resilience and perspective-taking; the very soft skills our young will need to survive in the AI era. And kindness must be lived in every sphere of life – at home, in school, in the community and in the workplace. In schools, this means teaching empathy alongside knowledge and equipping our young with stress and emotion management skills that must be practised continuously throughout their school years to be truly honed. Experiential learning – whether through community service projects or outdoor challenges, give children first-hand experience of responsibility and interdependence, and works best when reinforced with encouragement.”
“Trolling, cyberbullying and toxic exchanges fuel stress, anxiety and depression among our youths. Worse still, harmful behaviours are not only displayed, but rewarded. When such conduct gains likes, shares and attention, it creates a dangerous kind of social proof, signaling to our young that bad behaviour is normal behaviour. We also see instant gratification becoming the norm. Short-form videos and reels serve up endless distraction, curated by algorithms that create echo chambers. Many of these clips present extreme or simplistic views, yet our young spend hours "doomscrolling", caught in loops of distraction that they themselves call brain rot. And this is the second paradox: while diversity of thought is at our fingertips, what we consume often narrows rather than broadens our perspectives. The consequences are significant. We are seeing shorter attention spans, weaker critical thinking and reduced emotion regulation. This in turn erodes social cohesion, resilience and grit – all qualities that have defined Singapore's success. And then there is the third paradox of convenience. Technology promises to save us time – groceries at a tap, emails answered on the go. Yet, these same devices have also become relentless sources of stress. Because we can work from anywhere, we end up working everywhere. The flood of emails, WhatsApp messages and notifications deplete our mental reserves. We see a similar trade-off in healthcare. A recent study showed that doctors who leaned too heavily on AI to detect pre-cancerous growths, soon became less adept without it. This is deskilling – the quiet loss of ability when machines do too much of the work.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his address. It is an honour for me, as a new Member to participate in this debate. When my son was a toddler, he walked up to the television and he scrolled across the screen as though it were a giant iPad. That simple moment captures the paradox of progress. As technology propels us forward, it also reshapes our psychology, our families and our society. The question before us is not whether we progress, but how we progress without losing our values and humanity. Our children today are born into a world of touchscreens and instant connectivity. They are more tech-savvy than us. They are growing up with Google Gemini, ChatGPT, generative AI and technologies not yet imagined. But, the ease of technology, however useful, always comes with trade-offs – especially for families. In Tampines East, many young parents tell me they struggle with these trade-offs. With long days spent juggling work, children and ageing parents, they are exhausted. And so, devices often become quick fixes. On the surface, we see children pacified with screens. But in truth, parents are simply trying to survive the day. Mr Speaker, Sir, technology not only changes how we live, more fundamentally, it shapes our psychology. And it is here that we must confront the deeper paradoxes of technology. We saw the rise of the "Me Generation" with the arrival of Facebook in 2004. It amplified our natural tendencies for social comparison. Here lies the first paradox: on the one hand, social media has given us unprecedented ways to stay connected with many; on the other hand, it has left many feeling more isolated than ever. As face-to-face interactions decline, social skills weaken. And online, negativity thrives.”