Eileen Chong Pei Shan
Singapore
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very heartened to hear Senior Minister of State Tan confirm that IMDA is indeed looking to expand space for dialects while upholding Mandarin. I am also very heartened to hear Minister Neo then respond to this by saying that dialects are no longer seen in competition with Mandarin.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister. I actually have a supplementary question that is related the equity paradox in AI use. I appreciate the Minister's point about the difference between AI literacy and AI usage, and the importance of adult supervision as our children engage with AI tools from a young age.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his clarification regarding measurement. I am actually really heartened to hear that that MOM is actively tracking the outcomes for individuals who undergo the career conversion programmes, but I also would like to point out that the number of individuals covered by the career conversion pro…”
“Where can they show up without a booking, a programme or a minimum spend? And have the kind of organic encounters that build friendships, spark passion projects and forge civic bonds? Young Singaporeans are already trying to answer this themselves. We see it in ground-up initiatives, like FriendZone and the Casual Poet Library.”
“While legislation alone cannot change workplace culture, it can set a floor. It can signal that the Government is serious about the mindset reset to support Singaporeans in building and growing their families. As a starting point, I have two suggestions. First, move the frameworks from guidelines to legislation with statutory force.”
“It should seek to close not just the skills gap, but the assessment gap that sits between workers who have built a real portfolio of skills and employers who cannot yet see them. I have two suggestions. First, for the new agency to develop practical tool kits that employers can use for portfolio-based assessment and skills-first hiring.”
The complete record
Every one of 67 lines we hold for Eileen Chong Pei Shan, 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 am very heartened to hear Senior Minister of State Tan confirm that IMDA is indeed looking to expand space for dialects while upholding Mandarin. I am also very heartened to hear Minister Neo then respond to this by saying that dialects are no longer seen in competition with Mandarin. In fact, they play a role in deepening cultural appreciation of our Chinese heritage. I would like to echo the Promote Mandarin Council's position that we do not need to pick sides between Mandarin and dialects. So, I would like to ask whether MCCY will be working with IMDA to review the relevance of the policy, which still requires permission for us to screen dialect films. Instead of trying to see where we can exercise more flexibility, why not consider offering the freedom of simply just screening these dialect films? Because if dialect is always the one that requires permission, then have we not already chosen a side?”
“It is perhaps the most significant opportunity in a generation for us to ask what kind of society we will build with the time and capability that technology returns to us. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.”
“Mr Speaker, I am not suggesting that we do not use AI tools in school. I am suggesting that we follow the evidence, not the hype. Generative AI has been public for barely four years. We do not yet have long-term data on how it affects a child's brain. We should not let the speed of a technology cycle outpace the care that our children deserve. I also appreciate the Minister's update this morning that the Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study (SG LEADS) by A*STAR will expand to collect data that will help us understand Singapore children's AI usage patterns and how AI usage affects their learning and well-being outcomes. I hope this will also include the impact of using AI tools in education on our children's cognitive development, including their effect on their executive function and skills like critical thinking, reading comprehension and capacity for sustained independent effort. We must ensure that we are preparing our children for a world we cannot predict by giving them the one tool that will always be relevant: a strong and independent mind. This Motion rightly calls for Singapore's approach to AI enabled growth to be anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all. I agree. And this is why I spoke today about two critical things that the AI transition is challenging us to protect: time and mind. For the workers of today, we should legislate the right to flexible work so that productivity gains are reclaimed as time for rest, care and connection. And for our children, the workers of the future, we must protect the cognitive friction necessary for learning, ensuring that we are cultivating independent minds that can solve a hard problem without reaching for a digital crutch. The AI transition is not just an economic event.”
“But not every child in Singapore has a parent at home who is digitally engaged, has the time to act on that guidance and is equipped to scaffold their children's learning beyond what happens in a classroom. Children from less privileged backgrounds with less access to parental guidance and fewer non-screen enrichment activities may end up leaning on AI more heavily, and not less. For a child who comes home to an overstretched household where there is no one to redirect, question or supervise, AI will always produce an answer, always reduce the friction and always make the thinking easier. That is not empowerment. If AI dependency erodes cognitive development that it is meant to supplement, then the children most at risk are the ones that we are trying our hardest to support. Mr Speaker, my colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim noted during the recent Budget debate that the gap between stronger and weaker university students is no longer about what they submit in written assignment, but about their willingness to question and think beyond the script. These abilities are built or not built over years. If we displace that effort at age 10, our children cannot simply download it at university. And if the children who are doing the most unsupervised AI offloading are those who already have less of these abilities, then we are not closing the gap. We are widening it – earlier. A global study published this January by the Brookings Institution found that the biggest risk of AI in education is the displacement of effortful thinking during crucial development years. Interestingly, 65% of the students surveyed in this study cited the undermining of cognitive development as the top risk of the use of AI. The children themselves can feel the difference.”
“While there is, of course, teacher supervision and guardrails in place, we should also be asking a more fundamental question. Is this early exposure building their capability and ability to thrive in an AI world, or is it building an early dependence on AI-powered tools? Some parents are already asking. Is Primary 4 too early? What are the real gains? And more importantly, what are the trade-offs? These are not just parental anxieties. There are also serious questions being asked by neuroscientists. In his book, "The Digital Delusion", neuroscientist Dr Jared Horvath makes a point that should give us pause. When technology makes thinking too easy, the depth of learning disappears. AI is the ultimate offloading tool. It reads, writes and calculates with minimal user input. But our children are not yet experts looking to offload and increase productivity. They are learners and learning requires struggle. It requires the cognitive friction that AI is designed to remove. If our children start to offload their thinking at age 10, they do not develop the mental muscles needed to spot errors, ask meaningful questions, or form independent views. What we call AI-enabled personalised learning, then risks becoming customised comfort. It feels like progress because it is frictionless, but it may be short circuiting the cognitive development we are trying to support. This brings me to a concern that I raised earlier today: the equity paradox in AI use. I appreciate Minister Desmond Lee's point about how MOE actively engages parents through Parents Gateway and share guidance on how they can better support their children at home.”
“It has become more salient as we discuss how the AI transition can benefit Singaporeans. As AI generates real productivity gains, the question of whether Singaporean workers will share in these gains as time regained, not just as higher output, is one which the market will not answer on its own. It must be designed for. What does more time mean in practice? It means the parents who can be present and do more than just paying for tuition classes. It means fewer caregivers having to choose between a job and a family member who needs them. It also means rest, real rest, in a country where 61% of employees feel exhausted and 39% of workers dread going to work. These are not soft outcomes. There are conditions under which human capabilities are replenished and sustained. Will the Government and tripartite movement commit to prioritising worker well-being alongside employer gains and economic growth as it shapes AI era policy? If so, I urge the Government to begin by giving legislative teeth to flexible work arrangements. As AI makes company more productive, workers should have a meaningful and enforceable claim on the time that AI frees up. Time to rest and to pursue the kind of human connection that AI cannot replicate, and that our fertility rate is telling us we are running short of. Mr Speaker, I now want to turn to a group of Singaporeans who matter most to our long-term success. If we say that every worker matters, then we must look at the workers who are not yet in the workforce. And I am talking about our children who are in today's classrooms and some of them in the galleries above. Right now, our 10-year-olds in Primary 4 are being introduced to AI tools.”
“These are what we should be imparting to the next generation so that they remain competitive and resilient, no matter how the world changes. (In English): Mr Speaker, I share the values outlined in the Motion: that growth must be inclusive, that every worker matters and that no one should be left behind in the AI transition. Ensuring that no one is left behind involves more than just ensuring job full growth. It requires a commitment to sharing the rewards of AI driven productivity. It also requires that we ensure that future generations of workers can thrive in an era defined by AI and possibly other technologies have that have not yet been invented. Mr Speaker, much of the discourse about AI-driven economic transition has been focused on the need for workers to upskill and remain relevant. While these efforts are essential, they do not answer another equally important question: how do we ensure that the equitable distribution of the AI productivity dividend? Presently, employers are the default beneficiaries. They benefit from either more output from the same headcount or the same output from a lower headcount. Such productivity gains do not automatically become employee gains. Without deliberate policy design, they tend to remain exclusively employer gains. One way to share the AI productivity dividend with workers could be through time. During the MOM Committee of Supply debate in March, I made a case for flexible work arrangements to be given legislative force. The right to request flexible work is not the same as the right to have it. We should not rely on guidelines that place the burden of action on the employee who can least afford to do so. I would like to reiterate the call for flexible work legislation today.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I agree with many of the points raised in the Motion, including the commitment to ensure that no worker is left behind during the AI transition. However, to realise this vision, we also need to share the gains from adopting AI and ensure that future workers can continue to remain competitive and stay ahead of the curve. At present, when technology is adopted to improve productivity, it is often the employer who benefits. I propose upgrading the Flexible Work Arrangement Guidelines so they are given legislative force, which ensures that employees too, can enjoy AI productivity gains. When AI improves productivity and work efficiency, we should encourage workers to use the time freed up to be with their families, to rest, to participate in activities and to build relationships with others. Additionally, the workers of tomorrow – who are the children in our schools today – are also already beginning to encounter AI in the classrooms. Some parents have raised concerns about whether introducing AI to children at Primary 4 might be too early. Neuroscientists have also pointed out that premature or excessive use of AI and technology may make learning too easy, thereby depriving children of the opportunity to develop deep learning capabilities. Children in their formative years should be learning how to think, ask questions and making judgements. I therefore call on the Government to track and regularly report on the impact that AI adoption in our schools has on the cognitive development of students across different age groups. In the AI era, independent thinking and judgement are the very skills that AI cannot replace.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister. I actually have a supplementary question that is related the equity paradox in AI use. I appreciate the Minister's point about the difference between AI literacy and AI usage, and the importance of adult supervision as our children engage with AI tools from a young age. So, I would like to know if the Minister could elaborate on MOE's perspective on how students from more disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those with lesser access to parental guidance or adult supervision, may end up leaning more on AI and not less, and how such dependency might actually erode the very cognitive development that it is meant to supplement, and that these children who are most at risk are precisely the ones that we need to uplift instead of having the AI use deepen the education inequality?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his clarification regarding measurement. I am actually really heartened to hear that that MOM is actively tracking the outcomes for individuals who undergo the career conversion programmes, but I also would like to point out that the number of individuals covered by the career conversion programmes are only a small subset of Singaporeans who do undergo many other kinds of career-related training under the SkillsFuture scheme. So, I would like to ask if the Minister will also like to confirm then that the new agency will indeed also be extending the tracking of these outcomes and whether it is working for these other Singaporeans who are undergoing training, so that Singaporeans can have a clearer picture of what works, what works well, what is not working? And I hope the Minister can agree that, by collecting and publicising data like that, that it will only help to further reinforce the importance of lifelong learning and upskilling amongst Singaporeans once they see the numbers for themselves.”
“These are harder to measure. They require follow-through and some courage in data collection. The agency should also publish anonymised employer level outcome data by sector and by company size. Let Singaporeans see who is genuinely transforming and who is performing transformation. At the workforce level, track whether anxiety is coming down and resilience is going up. Track whether wages and productivity are moving in tandem. Are the benefits of transformation reaching workers across the income and skills spectrum, or whether they are concentrating as they often do at the top? I hope the new agency's annual report will from day one commit to tracking these outcomes rather than cataloguing programmes launched. If we cannot measure it, we cannot improve it. And Mr Speaker, I want to now close where I started – as a Singaporean worker watching this transformation unfold from the middle. Most of us are willing to learn. Some of us have already tried. What we need now is not more inspiration or encouragement. We need a system that holds employers and that moves employers and workers forward together, and that holds both sides to account, one where upskilling leads somewhere, where hiring is fair and where success is measured, not in programmes run but in lives that have durably improved. The new SWDA carries a mandate that workers have heard different versions of before and that is precisely why it should do things differently. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Having already released relevant toolkit to support employers, will the new agency now commit to tracking and posting statistics on the adoption of skills-based hiring by Singapore employers? This could begin with a baseline that tracks the proportion of skills-based job postings, broken down by sector and employers' size. Singaporeans should be able to see year-on-year whether hiring culture is genuinely shifting or whether we still are, as the OECD Index found, bound by a stubborn paper ceiling. My third and final ask, Mr Speaker, is perhaps the most important – measure what genuinely changes in workers' lives and not just what the agency has done. Over the years, we have gotten very good accounting output: how many individuals assisted? How many programmes launched? How many events conducted and persons engaged? These numbers appear in annual reports, announced with pride. But does the completed course means that a worker's prospects have actually improved? Does the formation of a Company Training Committee mean a company has genuinely transformed? I want to propose a simple but demanding shift from measuring output to tracking outcomes. At the individual worker level, we should track wage progression and job retention. Track what proportion of SkillsFuture Credits were used for training that resulted in demonstrable career benefits, not just the uptake of SkillsFture programmes but the programmes' impact on workers' lives. At the employer level, track whether companies are actually redesigning jobs and seeing productivity gains, not just sending staff for courses to access grants. Track if companies are hiring differently, valuing demonstrated skills. Are they also less likely to conduct retrenchments because they invested in their people before a downturn?”
“And when it comes to employers who would not prioritise a university degree when assessing candidates' skills, Singapore ranked last. The index findings confirmed what a 2023 Boston Consulting Group's Skills-Based Hiring Trend Report had already shown. While the United States (US), UK and Australia had all reduced degree requirements when hiring for university-level jobs between 2017 and 2022, Singapore moved in the opposite direction. Degree requirements increased by 5.3% in the same period. And here is what is more concerning. While much has been said about making skills-based hiring a priority – and I recognise the groundwork done by introducing the skills-based hiring handbook and establishing the Centre for Skills-First Practices – it is unclear whether any of this has materially changed how Singapore employers hire. I filed a Parliamentary Question last November, asking what percentage of Public Service jobs waived formal academic qualifications and employers' skills-based assessment as a primary hiring criterion. The answer I received was that the Public Service, our largest employer "do not track the number of job postings that do or do not include formal academic requirements in their criteria." I also did not get a direct response to the second part of my question about target and timelines established to accelerate skills-based hiring across public agencies. Mr Speaker, if our largest employer cannot tell us if it is moving in the right direction, how can other Singapore employers be persuaded to do the same? Will the new agency work with the Public Service to lead the adoption of skills-based hiring across public sector jobs?”
“A recent MOM survey shows that the majority of Singapore companies have not adopted AI. Among the 28.5% that have begun using AI, meaningful integration remains limited. For companies that have started or plan to support the use of AI for employees, their focus remains overwhelmingly on training and upskilling and the provision of AI tools and subscriptions, rather than job redesign and career progression. If we invest in upskilling workers, but do not change what they come back to – the same job scope, the same workflow, plus a backlog of work and emails that accumulated while we were upskilling – then we have not transformed anything. So, I ask the Minister, will the new agency be resourced and empowered to drive job redesign at the scale that Singapore genuinely needs? Mr Speaker, my second ask is for the agency to close the implementation gap in skills-based hiring. We have invested significantly into SkillsFuture. Workers have put in time, effort and money into acquiring new skills, but too often they return to a job market only to be filtered out because they do not have the right paper qualifications or past job titles. The evidence tells us that we have a challenge with employer behaviour. Singapore ranked 12 out of 30 countries in the inaugural Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-Institute for Adult Learning (OECD-IAL) Skills-First Readiness and Adoption Index published last year, where we fall short is not in worker willingness to upskill. It is in employer adoption of skills-first hiring practices. Only 21% of Singapore employers saw removing degree requirements and adopting skills-first hiring as a promising way to increase talent availability.”
“I have spent my working life, so far, as an individual contributor, someone who implements strategic decisions more than I make them – a team member who is good at her job, but rarely at the table where such decisions are made. From where I stand, a lot of what workers have heard about workforce transformation has been directed at us. We are told, embrace new technology – learn, use, master. Do not let anxiety hold you back. I understand why. Workers are the ones whose livelihoods are on the line. But we are only one side of the transformation equation. So, today, I want to talk about how the new SWDA must also hold employers accountable. I have three asks. Mr Speaker, my first ask is that the agency makes job redesign a genuine priority. Currently, job redesign is buried in a sub-clause under section 5 of the Bill, which outlines the new agency's functions. It is defined as the review and re-allocation by an employer of duties and tasks among employees. I looked up where this definition could have come from. It appears to have been taken word for word from the 2003 Workforce Singapore Agency Act. Is the 23-year-old definition still adequate for the age of AI? Job redesign, today, cannot simply mean re-allocating tasks between employees. It must ask a more fundamental question. Given what technology can do now, what should people be doing instead? It is the difference between a company that adopts AI by simply layering it onto existing workflows and hoping for the best, versus one that considers which parts of a job can be transformed, automated or augmented by technology, and then deliberately shaping the human role into something more valuable, purposeful and sustainable. Early data shows a challenge.”
“I hope that as the Government leads the private sector in promoting skills-based hiring, it will also publish relevant data in tandem – for example, by tracking how many employers have adopted a skills-first approach in their recruitment process. Third, and more importantly, when publishing data to measure the achievements of the new agency, we should do so from the perspective of Singaporeans and examine the tangible impact on their lives. For employees, we should be measuring whether taking courses using the SkillsFuture training grant has improved employment outcomes – for instance, whether their salaries have increased – rather than simply tracking how many people have enrolled in programmes or utilised subsidies. For employers', we should track whether productivity has improved after job redesign, rather than looking at whether employees have attended training courses or whether companies have received subsidies. The establishment of this new agency is a fresh starting point. I hope we can also seize this opportunity to write a new chapter for the future of Singapore's employment and workforce – one that is told from the perspective of workers. (In English): Mr Speaker, much of the conversation about workforce development and transformation has come from individuals who are senior enough to shape their organisations or by economists and academics looking at workforce transformation or the workforce from the macro perspective. Today, I would like to offer a view from the middle. I speak as a millennial worker who has spent almost nine years in the workforce.”
“Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I support the establishment of the Skills and Workforce Development Authority. I hope that this newly established statutory board will operate in bold and innovative ways across three areas to meet the changing needs of the world and the Artificial Intelligence transition, so no Singaporean is left behind. First, we need to make job redesign a priority. The latest survey report released by the Ministry of Manpower shows that among businesses which have already adopted or intend to adopt AI, more are focused on training and skills upgrading rather than on redesigning jobs. This reflects a concern: that employers will integrate AI into existing workflows rather than begin with employees' well-being in mind by making their future work more valuable, meaningful and sustainable. I therefore hope that the SWDA will invest more resources in and place greater emphasis on job redesign by making it a priority that will strengthen the competitiveness of our workforce. Second, I hope the SWDA can address the gaps in Singapore's skills-based hiring model. Many surveys have found that the majority of Singapore employers still focus on the applicants' academic qualifications and certificates rather than their skills. As one of the largest employers, the Government has also yet to begin tracking data on how many Public Service job advertisements include or omit academic qualification requirements. Mr Speaker, if even the Government has not made a clear start in moving in this direction, how can we encourage more employers to do the same?”
“Sir, my generation is simultaneously asked to have more children and to support our ageing parents so they can age-in-place. Often at the same time and often with the same leave pool. In my maiden speech, I said that caregiving is work and we can and should do more to support our caregivers. Today, childcare and extended childcare leave remains the only legislated form of ongoing paid caregiving leave. Each parent receives two to six days a year, regardless of how many children they have. Yet we know that caregiving demands multiply with each child and does not divide neatly between siblings. Our leave framework should reflect this reality. The Workers' Party recommends extending childcare leave on a per child basis up to age 12. We also propose establishing paid family care leave for Singaporeans with primary caregiving responsibilities for elderly parents or family members with severe disabilities. There is the tripartite standard on unpaid caregiving leave but it is voluntary, only covers hospitalisation events and has only been adopted by a relatively small fraction of employers. It also encourages employees to first use their paid annual leave. So, we are back to the same challenge which I raised in my maiden speech – caregivers burning annual leave time meant for their own rest with no income protection. Singaporeans should not have to choose between caring for their loved ones and taking care of themselves. I call on MSF to seriously consider these recommendations. Adoption of Children”
“Where can they show up without a booking, a programme or a minimum spend? And have the kind of organic encounters that build friendships, spark passion projects and forge civic bonds? Young Singaporeans are already trying to answer this themselves. We see it in ground-up initiatives, like FriendZone and the Casual Poet Library. These are signs of unmet need for spaces that are free and open to all, where people can just be. Mr Chairman, we cannot build a "we first" society through youth panels and volunteerism drives alone. We need physical space for togetherness – spaces where "we" can actually form. So, I hope MCCY can work together with MND and young Singaporeans to co-design a new generation of open, accessible, unstructured community spaces in our heartlands. Spaces that treat the need to gather and belong, not as a luxury, but as essential social infrastructure. National Identity and Youth Participation”
“Sir, I would like to talk about physical space and a challenge which many young Singaporeans live with – loneliness. A 2024 IPS poll found that Singaporeans aged 21 to 34 face the highest levels of loneliness and social isolation of any age group. This is not a uniquely Singaporean challenge. Last year, the World Health Organization's Commission on Social Connection described loneliness as a pressing global health threat. But in Singapore, this is a serious and growing challenge that interacts with something very specific to us – our relationship with space. Singapore is a land-scare country where every square metre must justify its economic value. We are not short of communal spaces. We have parks, Community Centres and integrated hubs, like One Tampines Hub. But space alone does not guarantee connection. There is a difference between programmed spaces and unstructured open spaces. Many of our communal facilities are curated with specific demographics and aims in mind. They function well as spaces of organised activity but less well as spaces of spontaneous encounter. The void deck understood this intuitively. It was the default third space for an entire generation of Singaporeans, including mine. There, community happened without anyone having to organise or pay for it. But the ground-level openness that made the void deck a place you passed through and stayed in has given way to something more structured, purposeful and less porous. Newer HDB estates have moved towards designs where communal spaces sit between floors or on top of buildings, spaces that require intentional visits rather than chance encounters. I invite the House to consider what is the default third space for young Singaporeans today.”
“It found that Singaporeans with childhood exposure to the arts were significantly more likely to value, attend and advocate for the arts as adults. Students and youths already have among the highest physical attendance rates for performances. The data tell us both where the gap is and where the opportunity lies. Sir, I have two suggestions. First, introduce micro grants for small scale community-facing arts projects. They should come with simplified administration criteria and should not be packed to a percentage of an overall budget. For small projects, such micro grants could be the difference between a project happening or it not happening at all. Second, make the arts more affordable and accessible for our youths. They are already the most willing attendees. Let us meet their enthusiasm with sustained, expand, expanded and subsidised access. This could mean expanded subsidised student pricing, extending the SG Culture Pass to students aged 13 to 18, or even exploring co-payments for tickets using funds from their Edusave account. If we believe that the arts build character, empathy and understanding, then we should treat access to them with the same seriousness we treat access to education and enrichment. Empowering Self-employed Artists”
“Sir, I speak today as a Singaporean who is an avid theatre goer. By the numbers, our arts ecosystem appears supported and healthy. The public sector outcomes review reports rising heritage awareness, stable graduate employment in the arts, and growing attendance at festivals and community programmes. The cultural matching fund has dispersed over $400 million since 2014. Last year, every Singaporean over 18 received $100 in SG Culture Pass credits. And if, our arts ecosystem is so well supported, why does it remain so fragile? The Substation had already closed its doors back in 2021. Last year the Projector closed. Last month, Pangdemonium announced its final season after 16 years. Each closure had its own reasons, but when established companies with a track record and loyal audiences cannot sustain themselves or choose to stop as the conditions have become too demanding, then it is not just a series of individual decisions. Perhaps it is a reflection of an ecosystem that remains stretched, and the numbers bear this out: 90% of our arts ecosystem comprises small organisations; one in two arts and culture practitioners is self-employed and any work project to project. While the more accessible grants administered by the National Arts Council (NAC) cover between 50% and 70% of project costs, this also means that every production begins in deficit and need to fundraise the remainder cost. Yet, donation to the arts make up less than 2% of total charitable giving in Singapore. On the demand side, there is a paradox. The 2023 population survey on the arts showed that while three quarters of Singaporeans agree that the arts benefit our community, only three in 10 consume local arts content. This same survey also points us towards answers.”
“While legislation alone cannot change workplace culture, it can set a floor. It can signal that the Government is serious about the mindset reset to support Singaporeans in building and growing their families. As a starting point, I have two suggestions. First, move the frameworks from guidelines to legislation with statutory force. This means making non-compliance actionable. An employer who fails to engage properly or who rejects a request without genuine business grounds, should face consequences. Second, make flexible work a presumptive right for parents of children under three, where the nature of the job allows, not absolute or unconditional, just the starting position that an employer has to justify departing from, rather than a benefit that an employee must request. Senior Employment”
“Sir, the continued decline of our total fertility rate (TFR) to a new low of 0.87 in 2025 is the clearest signal yet that financial incentives alone have not and will not move the needle. They are important, but they do not address a key concern of younger Singaporeans, like myself, which I had raised in Budget debate last week, that we will not have the time or energy to be present parents. For many of us, the structure of working life in Singapore makes parenthood feel like a compromise, not a choice. Last week, Minister Indranee called for a society-wide reset on how we view and support marriage and parenthood. I hope the Government will lead by example with the reset, beginning with a new lever – time, specifically to move from intention to impact on flexible work arrangements. The current tripartite guidelines give employees a right to request and a process for consideration, but do not govern outcomes. The enforcement mechanism, when that process is not followed, is for an employee to approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). We should not underestimate what approaching TAFEP costs an employee relationally. It creates tension. It risks being seen as difficult. I had filed a Parliamentary Question to ask how many complaints TAFEP had received on the improper handling of such requests since the guidelines took effect in December 2024. The answer, one; and it was a case about the format in which the rejection was communicated, not the substance of a rejection. Sir, I do not believe this means that the guidelines are working perfectly. I believe it means that they are not being used. One complaint is not a sign of success. It is a sign of a barrier too high to clear.”
“It should seek to close not just the skills gap, but the assessment gap that sits between workers who have built a real portfolio of skills and employers who cannot yet see them. I have two suggestions. First, for the new agency to develop practical tool kits that employers can use for portfolio-based assessment and skills-first hiring. Second, build skills-first hiring capability into the HR industry transformation plan embedded into certification pathways for all tiers of HR professionals. Singaporean Core and Human Capital Practices”
“Sir, we have invested in building the infrastructure for a skills-first economy. Tools like the career and skills passport launched in November 2024 reflect that ambition. We know that more than 700,000 individuals have accessed the passport as of November last year. This is a good sign of uptake, but uptake does not tell us if there has been a meaningful shift in how employers evaluate and hire candidates. Tools can change how workers present their skills, but tools alone cannot change hiring behaviour. If employers continue to hire based on degrees and past job titles, then the passport risks becoming, as my colleague Andre described yesterday, a digital filing cabinet. The evidence points to a real gap. The 2025 Skills-First Readiness and Adoption Index developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Institute for Adult Learning ranked Singapore 12 out of 30 participating countries. While Singapore made meaningful progress in adopting skills-first practices, key gaps, such as business adoption of skills first hiring and stronger ecosystem coordination, remained. Relatedly, in a survey conducted by the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP), nine in 10 respondents were confident that skills-first hiring widens their organisation's talent pool. However, 63% of hiring managers, the people conducting interviews and on the front lines of recruitment, said they are unfamiliar with skills-first hiring practices. This is a capability gap, not a values problem. The new Statutory Board formed by the merger of WSG and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) was announced as a one-stop shop for workers. I hope it can also become a transformational partner for employers.”
“We just passed a Budget that commits billions to AI adoption that urges Singaporeans to move up the value chain, to exercise judgement, creativity and human insight. Yet come September, will we be assessing the 35,000 12-year-olds who will sit the PSLE on any of these skills? I welcome the long overdue review of our education system. The WP has proposed making the PSLE optional. Students who are academically inclined can choose to sit the exam and compete for a select number of academically specialised secondary schools. Every other student should have a default through-train pathway to a partner secondary school. We should have an education system where the default is that every child passes through compulsory education without a high stakes written exam determining their trajectory at age 12. The question is not whether to assess, but how. Removing PSLE as a default would free up months of curriculum time currently consumed by PSLE exam preparation and give our students more time and space to develop genuine strengths, deeper interest in subjects and also 21st Century Core Competencies. Denise did not ask us to make school easier, she just asked for it to make sense. Less Stressful, More Joyful Learning”
“Mr Chairman, during the recent Lunar New Year, my soon-to-be 11-year-old cousin Denise asked me a question I could not answer. She asked, "Why does the PSLE have to exist?" Before I could respond, Denise clarified herself. "I'm not saying no exams. I understand we need to be assessed. But why does how I perform on a single day determine the outcome of my six years in primary school? If AI can do so many things, why do I still need to memorise so many things for PSLE? Why can't we just add up the scores of all of my weighted assessments?" My response was, why indeed? What struck me the most was not the stress that Denise had described, one and a half years away from sitting the PSLE. It was a decision that she had already made on her own. Going into Primary 5, she had pre-emptively dropped Higher Chinese, not because she had done badly but because she was worried she could not cope in Primary 6. She had looked at the road ahead, thought about her korkor and jiejie's experiences and decided to limit herself before a single PSLE paper had been sat. While I had no good answer for Denise, I promised her that I would raise this in Parliament. What Denise had identified intuitively is a tension that sits at the heart of our education system. Our desired outcomes of education for our children to become confident persons, self-directed learners, active contributors and concerned citizens. By the end of primary school, we want our students to know their strengths and areas for growth. Yet we assess six years of learning via a high stakes, timed, written examination across four subjects in a week. We say one thing and we measure another. This is not a new observation, but it has never been more urgent.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think there is broad consensus in this House that foreign policy begins at home. I have one clarification, about the various engagement sessions that MFA conducts. I would like to ask what are MFA's benchmarks for whether such sessions are effective in building durable understanding and whether MFA tests or tracks these, since they do durable understanding of the public does serve as a strong foundation for us to make hard choices and to sustain them?”
“Our students should graduate and enter the workforce with an understanding of how Singapore's prosperity depends on regional peace and open trade routes, why our stance on international law serves concrete national interests and how global shift and technology, climate and demography and more will reshape the world that they will inherit. A Singapore that understands the world that it lives in is a Singapore that can make hard choices and sustain them. This is the kind of resilience that no budget line can buy directly, but which only good education can build over time. Domestic Support for Foreign Policy”
“Mr Chairman, navigating a world that has become more contested, more fragmented and ultimately more dangerous demands not just a capable foreign service, but a geopolitically literate citizenry behind it. I say this, having served nearly seven years as a Singapore diplomat. I know first-hand that our foreign policy is only as strong as our domestic understanding behind it. Our diplomats are skilled but our foreign policy choices often involve navigating between imperfection options, not choosing between right and wrong. And when difficult decisions must be made, whether to take positions that may temporarily strain relationships or navigate between competing interests, those choices are much harder to sustain without a public that understands why we make them. Domestic geopolitical literacy is not a soft compliment to foreign policy. It is a foundation that makes hard choices possible. I appreciate MFA's efforts on this front. Since January 2024, it has conducted some 150 dialogue sessions and workshops with students, youths and businesses. That is a good start. But engagement and literacy are not the same thing, especially as several Members of this House have acknowledged, that in an era where geopolitical actors actively shape public narratives through digital channels, a dialogue session raises awareness. Building literacy requires the same cumulative approach that we apply to other 21st century core competencies, layered across years, integrated into multiple disciplines and reinforced over time. I urge MFA to work more deeply with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to embed geopolitical literacy throughout the curriculum from secondary school onward.”
“I hope the Government will be brave enough to measure what matters most; to trust Singaporeans with flexibility, with dignity and with a little more space to breathe and to be human. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget with the observations I have made.”
“I hope it will build complementary and updated frameworks for career development and ensure labour protection and skill certification to accommodate diverse work arrangements, while safeguarding longer-term income security and career progression. To conclude, Mr Speaker, I am for growth, I am for staying competitive, I am for the adoption of AI. Singapore must remain economically vibrant, strategically relevant and globally connected. Budget 2026 is titled "Securing our Future in a Changed World". I support this aspiration and I humbly suggest that securing our future is not only about securing our competitiveness. It is about securing the conditions for a good life; a life of time for the people we love, a life where we can be present for our children, our parents and our communities; a life within our space in our schools, in our workplaces and in our neighbourhoods, for people to grow into who they are meant to become. For six decades, we have built a culture that equates progress with movement. It has made many of us, including myself, feel guilty when we are still, because if we are not striving, then, surely, we must be falling behind. Perhaps this explains why the Pace of Life project conducted by Prof Richard Wiseman found that we are some of the fastest pedestrians in the world. Well, sometimes progress is indeed about moving forward, but sometimes, as I have learnt after leaving my first job at 31, progress is about floating, catching our breath, looking around, noticing things that we would have otherwise missed when we are rushing from point A to point B. I believe Singaporeans are ready for a conversation about what we are willing to prioritise to build a Singapore that is both successful and sustainable.”
“It is a rational response to a system that sorts early and sorts sharply. The PSLE, for all of its merits in maintaining a set of standards, should not be defining a child's sense of self-worth at an age where they should be discovering who they are and what they care about. I am not calling for us to abandon the bell curve. I am calling for a rethink of how we use it. Rather than competitive grading and sorting, we should use it as a diagnostic tool to track a child's progress over time, identify specific learning needs and celebrate their growth. When access to opportunities is too tightly tied to early academic performance, those of us who take longer to find our footing may find some doors closing before we have even had a chance to knock. This space in our education system should be complemented by space in our economy. I welcome the Budget's emphasis on lifelong learning. Lifelong learning for youths of today may also mean lifelong experimentation – the freedom and space to pursue different paths, combine different strengths and to build a working life that reflects who we are and not just what the market demands of us at the present. Some of our youths are already doing this. They are building portfolio careers, combining roles, projects and pursuits that do not fit neatly into a single job title. This is not a collection of side hustles. It is a reimagining of work that values flexibility, autonomy and personal growth. It reflects the very qualities we say we want in our workforce – adaptability, entrepreneurial thinking and a willingness to take calculated risks. I look forward to hearing more about the mandate of the new Statutory Board formed by the merger of WSG and SSG.”
“This is why at the upcoming Committee of Supply debate, I will be putting forward proposals on per child childcare leave, paid caregiving leave and having actual enforceable flexible work arrangement policies rather than guidelines. These will help us to better support Singaporean families as they grow and age and hopefully, lead to higher fertility and stronger family outcomes. And finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to speak about space. I have spoken about time and how the economy consumes it. I have also spoken about presence and how families need it. Now I want to talk about something that connects the two – whether our system leaves ample space for our people, especially our youths, to grow, explore and become themselves. Let me start with our young. The Budget speaks of the importance of strengthening AI literacy and ensuring that young Singaporeans develop rigorous foundations, so they use AI wisely and not as a shortcut. I agree and would like to ask, what are rigorous foundations in a world where AI can generate code, analyse large datasets and even compose music? Surely, the competitive advantage is no longer what we know, but who we are – our capacity for empathy; for creativity that comes from lived experience and not pattern recognition; our ability to sit with uncertainty and not be consumed by anxiety; and our willingness to try something difficult, fail and try again. I welcome the long overdue comprehensive review of our education system. If AI is going to change the nature of work, then surely it must also change what we value in education. And changing what we value, requires changing how we measure. Singaporean families collectively spent $1.8 billion on private tuition in 2023. This is up 64% from a decade ago. This is not parental access.”
“This brings me to presence, which requires both time and energy. I want to share tidbits from conversations with friends, peers and young Tampines residents about growing our families, about having a child or having another one. These conversations rarely begin with money. They begin with a pause, sometimes a sigh and then almost always a shared concern that we cannot be the parents that we want to be – present, engaged, patient, even after a long day at work – instead of giving in to screen time because we are exhausted and need a moment of peace. The Government's own data reflects this. The 2021 Marriage and Parenthood Survey shows that over 90% of married Singaporeans want to have two or more children. The reality, however, is that over half of these married Singaporeans had only one or no children. Our TFR has since plunged below one, holding steady at 0.97 since 2023. This gap between aspiration and reality is not a gap in desire. It is a gap in enabling conditions. Young Singaporeans today are not overwhelmed because we do not try hard enough. We are overwhelmed because we are encouraged to get married, to have children, to remain in the workforce, to upskill, to embrace AI, to volunteer and to care for our ageing parents so they can age in place. Yet policies and workplace culture have not fully caught up. Budget 2026 contains welcome measures for families, ranging from additional child Life SG credits, enhanced preschool subsidies and extended means-testing support. Such financial measures matter and we also need a supplementary set of policies to complement them, focused on giving Singaporeans back the time and energy to actually build a family and parent with presence, patience and joy.”
“This matters for Singapore, especially as we call on more Singaporeans to embrace AI at work. The evidence suggests that the risk is not only job displacement, but also job intensification. The risk is not that AI replaces us, though it will replace some jobs, but that it makes us run faster on the same treadmill. AI adoption without guardrails will not give Singaporeans their time back. It may take more of it away. I urge the Government and all Singaporeans to think about not just how AI can make us more productive, but also about how it can give us our time back. Singapore's average full-time working week stands at nearly 44 hours, not including unpaid overtime work. This is among the highest in a developed world. Sixty-one percent of Singaporean employees report feeling exhausted. Burn-out costs the Singapore economy an estimated $15.7 billion annually in lost productivity. Mr Speaker, productivity gains do not automatically become human gains. Without deliberate policy choices, they tend to remain employer gains. If AI can automate routine tasks, what comes next should not only be what additional tasks can be added to an employee's plate at work. Perhaps it is that they leave the office on time most days to have dinner with their families and not only on quarterly "Eat With Your Family" day. Last year, the Prime Minister spoke of building a "we first" society – a society where we look out for each other, volunteer and contribute. I support this vision, but realising it requires something that money cannot buy – time. A "we first" society needs people who have the time and energy to show up for each other – and I hope this will be one of the design goals of our national AI strategy and not an afterthought.”
“Budget 2026 already speaks extensively to Singapore's competitiveness. So, today, I would like to speak about Singapore's liveability, because for my generation, these are not one and the same thing. Mr Speaker, let me start with time. A significant portion of the Prime Minister's Budget speech was devoted to AI. Indeed, AI will reshape how we work, how businesses compete and how public services are delivered. I support the ambition to harness AI as a strategic advantage, but I also want to acknowledge something that many Singaporeans feel but few are saying out loud – that AI fatigue is real. It is the feeling that no matter how fast we learn, the ground is always shifting beneath us. It is the worry that tools meant to make us more productive to make our lives easier are actually leaving us with more to do. This is not just anecdotal. A recent Harvard Business Review article shared the findings from an ongoing study which tracks how generative AI changed work habits at a US-based technology company with more than 200 staff over eight months. The findings were striking. The adoption of AI tools did not reduce workload. They consistently intensified it. AI accelerated tasks, which raised the expectation for speed, which deepened reliance on AI, which expanded the scope of work, which further increased the density and volume of work for each employee. The researchers warned that what looks like higher productivity in the short run can mask silent workload creep and growing cognitive strains as employees juggle multiple AI-enabled work streams and tasks. Over time, it will become harder to differentiate between genuine productivity gains and unsustainable intensity. For employees, the cumulative effect is fatigue and burn-out.”
“Rather than spending more than a year preparing for written exams, we should focus more on cultivating children's empathy, curiosity, creativity and sense of purpose during the critical adolescent period. It is these difficult to measure qualities that will make young Singaporeans shine in the AI era. Mr Speaker, I support this year's Budget. Singapore must sail against the currents. If we do not advance, we will fall back. We must continue to develop and maintain our competitiveness. However, at the same time, I hope that we do not forget that the basis of a prosperous nation is a people who live good lives. Lives where they have time to be with family. Lives where they have energy to grow their families and accompany their children as they grow. Lives where there is space for exploration so each generation can live better than the previous one. Next, I will share my observations and suggestions in English. (In English): Speaker, I rise today to offer a complementary perspective as a young millennial Singaporean. For many of us, the question we want an answer to is not whether Singapore is competitive. It is whether Singapore is still a place where we can live well. I wrote this speech in an attempt to answer one question that I believe is core for Singapore, as we chart our next phase: "What does it mean to live well in Singapore?" In his Budget speech, the Prime Minister spoke of growth, innovation and resilience. These are important, but a good life is not only built on GDP per capita or AI adoption rates. It is built on time – time for the people we love. It is built on presence – the ability to be there for our families and communities. And it is built on space – space for Singaporeans to grow, to explore and to become themselves.”
“Second, presence – something that cannot be achieved even with time, but without energy. A topic I often discuss with friends my age and young Tampines residents is that whether to have children. The biggest consideration is rarely money, but whether we will be an exhausted parent who is physically present but emotionally absent. We all hope to have sufficient time and energy to good parents who can provide our children with high quality companionship. The 2021 Marriage and Parenthood Survey results shows that while over 90% of married Singaporeans want to have two or more children. In reality however, more than half only have one child or none at all. Mr Speaker, I support the series of measures introduced in this year's Budget to reduce the burden on Singaporean families. At the same time, I also hope the Government will also provide a complementary set of policies, including childcare leave based on number of children, introducing paid caregiving leave and upgrading Flexible Work Arrangements guidelines to enforceable legislation. This will allow more Singaporeans to have time and energy to be with family and friends. Third, is space for exploration, which complements time and energy. While AI can become a substitute for many things, it cannot replace personal experience and judgement. This is why we should give the younger generation more space to explore and grow, stimulating their imagination and sense of purpose. I suggest further reducing emphasis on examinations, such as by piloting a 10-year through-train programme from primary to secondary school, allowing students to choose whether to take the PSLE.”
“Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, today, I would like to explore a question that we deeply care about, from a young person’s perspective: "What does it mean to live well in Singapore?" This question seems simple, but it is profound. Living well is not just about high income, big houses or rapid economic growth. Living well is more about whether we have time and energy to be with families and whether we have space to explore and grow. Today, I would like to share three indicators for living well. First, time – a resource that money cannot buy. One of the major focuses of this Budget is AI. I support Singapore in keeping pace with the times and embracing AI. Yet while productivity has improved with the adoption of AI tools at work, workload has increased instead of decreased. International research is beginning to confirm this. The adoption of AI tools has not only failed to reduce the employees' workload, but made them busier instead. This is because the adoption of AI tools has accelerated the pace of work, expanded their scope of work and lengthened their working hours. I cite this example, hoping that while we embrace AI, we also do not forget to face the potential risk that AI brings. The risk is not merely that AI eliminates some jobs, but that it leads to job intensification, resulting in workplace burn-out. Singapore may find ourselves in this situation if we pursued AI adoption without relevant guardrails. I urge the Government and Singaporeans to consider not only how AI can help us improve productivity, but also think about how we can leverage emerging technology like AI to reclaim more time that we can spend with family and friends.”
“Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. The Minister is correct that there will come a day in the future when no living Singaporean remembers the period of independence. Could he share what additional heritage value or visitor experience, beyond the sense of space, would a demolished and subsequently landscaped heritage park at 38 Oxley Road provide, that will not be more effectively delivered through the experience at the $335 million Founders' Memorial, which is purpose-built to honour Singapore's founding values and nation-building journey, including our early nation building years of 1950s to 1970s, and telling the story of how our founding fathers and the founding generation overcame the odds to build an Independent Singapore, establishing it on values and ideals, such as multiculturalism, openness and integrity?”
“Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think to Mr Foo's point about how the Commissioner's assessment will be based on the report that is filed as well as the actions taken by the perpetrator, would Mr Foo not agree that if it is based on a report filed by the victim, then it is alleged actions by a perpetrator, and the Commissioner or the Commission would then need to investigate to ensure that this action has indeed happened, and therefore warrants any directions or orders.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I meant, surely a person should not be guilty until proven innocent; should not be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Mr Foo. I would just like to seek a clarification regarding the Member's point on fair comment, and if the Member can elaborate on what he means. Because surely, a person cannot be guilty until proven innocent, because anyone can lodge a report to this Commission, and I would urge Mr Foo to refer to Part 4 of the draft Bill. And if the Commission has to assess and take action based on a single person's viewpoint, however valid as it may be, surely it should be based on reasonable grounds to believe that something has actually occurred, rather than just a reasonable suspicion?”
“I have a clarification for Mr Foo Cexiang.”
“If more Singaporeans can answer yes to most or all of the above questions, then we know we have made good progress in building not just a safer digital space, but a healthier digital society.”
“Conducting demographic-specific research can help us form a better, more up-to-date understanding of the changing nature of online risks both in terms of content and medium and help inform policy-making. It also feeds into the development of accessible, regularly updated resources to increase confidence, skills and online safety of citizens. Mr Speaker, I reiterate my support for the fundamental intent of this Bill. Victims of online harmful activity need and deserve better recourse than what is available today, and the establishment of the Commission is a necessary step towards that. In the near term, with the establishment of the Commission, we may see more reported instances of online harm, not because more harm is committed, but because fewer people will suffer in silence. This will be a positive development as it means that people trust the system enough to use it. In the long term, online harms will evolve as quickly as technology itself, because they are driven by perverse incentives, financial profit, manipulation or malice. This is why getting the Commission's design right matters. It needs to be capable, independent and transparent enough to adapt to whatever comes next. Mr Speaker, the true marker of Singapore's success in safeguarding our digital spaces will not be one that can be easily quantified. Instead, it will be in something harder to measure, but more important, do Singaporeans feel better equipped to identify and respond to online risks? Do we feel supported and empowered to seek help? Are we more likely to intervene and report harmful content? Is our online discourse becoming more constructive and less toxic?”
“I was heartened to hear Minister mention about limiting its use for legal remedies. What conditions will be imposed on the applicants who receive the identity information? Will there be consequences if they subsequently chose not to pursue the prescribed purpose? How will the Commission intervene if it suspects that information was misused before criminal liability is established? And finally, Mr Speaker, no enforcement mechanism, however well-designed, can eliminate online harms. Our goal should not be to create a system where Singaporeans constantly defer to regulatory power. We must continue to empower Singaporeans young and old to navigate the online world safely, think critically about what they encounter and act responsibly. While it is important that victims have practical solutions to seek timely recourse, it is equally important to prevent that harm in the first place. How do we build a generation of digitally literate, resilient Singaporeans who can recognise risks, respond appropriately and support others? We should actively work to normalise the reporting of harmful content, promote positive online behaviour and challenge the bystander effect. Research consistently shows that bystanders often fail to intervene or report, not from apathy, but from uncertainty about whether intervention is appropriate or how to do it effectively. There is also the potential for the Commission to be a resource that helps all Singaporeans navigate digital spaces more safely and constructively. Enforcement is but one pillar of work for the Commission’s global counterparts. Australia’s eSafety Commission and the UK’s OFCOM also invest in supporting, conducting and evaluating research on online safety.”
“They do not prevent someone from using identity information for vigilantism or sharing it with others in the window before enforcement. Mr Speaker, the Minister has also pointed out that anonymity is not inherently bad. For some users, it serves as protection. Academic literature on online safety recognises the dual nature of online anonymity. It can enable authentic expression while also necessitating education to promote constructive dialogue. It enables marginalised voices to speak up, facilitates frank discussion of sensitive topics and protects some from discrimination or violence. And this is why we are not arguing against end-user identity information disclosure. We are urging that we get the balance right so it works as intended. Deter perpetrators while empowering victims, yet also carefully calibrated to prevent misuse and protect legitimate anonymity. The threshold should be clear enough for consistent application, yet flexible enough to account for context and severity. In this regard, I would still appreciate the Minister’s clarifications on the following. First, on the standard of “reasonable suspicion”. What specific guidelines, training and objective criteria will be used to ensure the definitions of the various “online harmful activities” are applied consistently, predictably and fairly by the Commissioner? Second, on “prescribed purpose”. Minister had earlier mentioned that it would enable victims to bring their case and eventually consider extending it to other purposes. Could the Minister clarify how broad this scope could be? Additionally, how will the Commission verify that applicants genuinely intend to use the information for a prescribed purpose? And third, safeguards for disclosure.”