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 2 of 2.
“Section 53 allows the end-user identity information to be disclosed to victims for a prescribed purpose, based on reasonable suspicion that the end-user has engaged in harmful activity. This power has real value. First, it serves as a deterrent. When perpetrators know they can be identified and held accountable, some might think twice before posting that intimate image, sending a threatening message or coordinating a harassment campaign. Second, it empowers victims. They deserve the option to pursue justice beyond content removal. They will have the option to pursue civil remedies under the new statutory torts. They can seek damages for the harm they have suffered. But none of that is possible if they do not know who they are taking to Court. So, while I support this power in principle, the bigger question is how it can be implemented responsibly. Because, Mr Speaker, identity disclosure is a one-way door. Once disclosed, information cannot be undisclosed. And the risks are real, not theoretical. We have seen the bad that can happen when someone’s identity is exposed. They include some of the very harms this Bill targets, like doxxing, and in extreme cases, even extend to actual physical harms. And this is why the standard matters. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that these measures are not meant to affect ordinary users who act responsibly. The Bill allows identity information disclosure for a prescribed purpose based on “reasonable suspicion” of harmful activity, short of a formal determination. This means that someone could be unmasked based on an allegation that may not ultimately be proven. And yes, penalties exist for misuse. But penalties are also reactive. They punish the harm after it occurs.”
“I would like to urge this House to go a step further by getting the Commission to commit to doing so by accepting our amendment. Public reports by the Commission will help build public confidence in its work. They will also help researchers, civil society groups and even Government agencies better understand what is happening online so we can respond more effectively. Transparency is not a burden. It makes good regulation sustainable. And related to transparency is the question of consistency. Beyond aggregate reporting in the form of annual reports, there is also the question of how the Commissioner makes individual decisions for each case and whether they create precedent. As the Bill does not require for decisions made by the Commissioner to be published, my colleague, Andre Low, has sought clarification on whether the Commissioner will be bound by prior decisions or if each case will be decided with fresh discretion. This matters because consistency in decision making is fundamental to fairness. Published decisions, even in anonymous or partially redacted form, provides predictability and prevents arbitrary outcomes. I would also like to thank the Minister for his clarification that the framework on end-user identity disclosure is developed through close consultation with industry partners, and I appreciate the graduated approach. One defining feature of the Bill is the powers that it grants the Commissioner to unmask anonymous users. Section 52 allows the Commissioner to require an online service provider to obtain end-user identity information even if it is not already in the provider’s possession.”
“I welcome the Minister to clarify what mechanisms there are to ensure the Commission and Commissioners will remain operationally independent, particularly when handling content that is politically sensitive. Third, how will Singaporeans know that the Commission is working as intended? Mr Speaker, the powers granted to the Commission can only be justified if Singaporeans can see that they are being used effectively and appropriately. We deserve to know. Is the system working? Are reports being handled fairly and quickly? What kinds of harms are the most common and are we adapting to emerging threats? I invite the Minister to clarify how the Commission’s effectiveness will be measured and to whom it will be held accountable. We believe that the Commission can and should do better to counteract the opacity of online service providers in regulating online harms. For this reason, the WP has tabled an amendment requiring the Commission to publish annual reports. The report should contain: the number of reports received; quantity and types of directions and orders issued by the Commissioner; turnaround time for resolving reports; findings on risk assessments and trends relating to online harms. This is neither radical nor unprecedented. It is the standard practice of the Commission’s foreign counterparts with similar mandates – the Australian eSafety Commission, the UK’s OFCOM and the EU’s Digital Services Coordinators. Australia and the EU even go a step further to enshrine mandatory review of the legislation after a fixed period to ensure that they remain relevant. I was heartened to hear Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam state that the Commission will consider publishing regular reports for public awareness.”
“Will it include lawyers and technologists who can keep up with the fast-evolving digital landscape, mental health professionals who understand trauma, and people with lived experience of online harms? Additionally, Minister Teo also rightly pointed out that victims are at the heart of the Commission, and she also importantly flagged the need to minimise the traumatisation of victims. How will the Ministry ensure that there are trauma-informed care and processes for both the victims who engage with the Commission and Commission staff who will have extensive interactions with these victims? Second, will the Commission remain independent when it matters the most? The Commissioner is appointed by a Minister and is subjected to Ministerial Direction. The Commissioner will make important assessments on the factual veracity and reputational harm of statements, a profoundly difficult and at times, contentious exercise. Unlike public agencies, political officeholders themselves can make reports to the Commission. This means that the Commissioner may find herself having to make judgments about factual accuracy and reputational harm, judgments that could, in some cases, involve content critical of political officeholders, possibly including the very Minister who appointed her. To be clear, this is not a question about the integrity of any future Commissioner or Minister. It is about how good governance is not solely built on trust in individuals but also on systems that work, and which remain independent and accountable. For the Commission to become a trusted institution that endures, we need to ensure that it is structurally resilient against potential conflict of interest and/or abuse.”
“Still, most platforms acted appropriately on only half of the harmful content reported. For harms that are, by nature, constant, invasive and hard to escape, five days feel like forever. This Bill offers victims more tools, ways to get harmful content taken down faster, and to hold perpetrators accountable. That matters, and I support it. At the same time, a good idea still needs good implementation. Given how this Bill grants significant powers to a new agency, the OSC, that will safeguard our rights in this fast-evolving space, I believe it warrants further examination of the Bill with care and rigour. Mr Speaker, whether the Bill's policy objectives are achieved hinges heavily on the proper functioning of the OSC. The Commission will have an extensive mandate. It will receive and triage reports, investigate whether thresholds of harms are met, issue directions and orders, monitor their compliance and handle appeals. This is a lot of responsibility and it is crucial to get three things right: capacity, independence and transparency. First, will the Commission have what it takes to do the job? It will be on the frontlines dealing with cases that will require an exacting mix of legal expertise, technical knowledge and sound judgment under pressure, all set amidst the fast-moving digital landscape. Given these responsibilities, I second my colleague He Ting Ru's point that the Commission should be staffed and resourced like a quasi-judicial body, not a customer service centre. I look forward to the Minister's clarification of what is the anticipated resourcing for the Commission in terms of manpower and budget. What specific expertise will be recruited?”
“The report content should include the number and types of reports received, processing times, the content of orders and directions issued, online harm risk assessments and trend analyses and personal privacy protection measures taken. Publishing annual reports can make the mechanism more transparent and provide public reassurance that this Bill is effective. (In English): Mr Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my support for the intent of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill to provide victims of timely means of redress, promote and improve online safety, deter and prevent online harmful activity, and promote accountability as well as responsible and reasonable conduct online. The statistics tell us a troubling story. MDDI's Perceptions of Digitalisation survey found that 84% of Singapore residents encountered harmful content last year. One in three experienced harmful behaviour directly. The SHE report also shows that female youths were twice as likely to experience sexual harassment online. Mr Speaker, online harms are not a mere inconvenience. They can be severe, life-altering threats to safety and peace of mind. Because online harms can be constant, invasive and hard to escape, they can be as harmful, if not more harmful than physical harm. We know that the current system is inadequate. Victims of online harmful activities face challenges reporting such behaviours to online service providers. They report the content; they wait hours, usually days. Often the content stays up. Ministers Teo and Tong referred to the IMDA's 2024 report, which found that platforms took an average of five days or more to act on user reports of harmful content that violated their own community guidelines.”
“Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the objectives of Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill. This can provide more timely channels for victims of online harm to seek help, improve online safety, deter and prevent online harmful behaviour and promote rational and responsible online conduct. We can and should, ensure that victims receive more timely and comprehensive relief. At the same time, the WP believes this Bill can be further optimised and therefore proposes several amendments to the Bill. We suggest expanding the definition of "harmful online content". The Bill currently includes 13 categories of online harm, including common online harassment, doxxing, online stalking, intimate image abuse and child sexual abuse material. We suggest including two additional categories of online harm, namely content that encourages self-harm and suicide and sexual grooming of children and vulnerable adults. This would enhance the scope of the Bill's jurisdiction. Furthermore, we can also strengthen the fair and just implementation of the Bill. The Bill will establish the OSC to assist victims of online harm through unified regulatory and appeals mechanisms. Our amendment proposal advocates for the courts to be the final arbiter for appeals, in order to improve the appeals mechanism and strengthen independent oversight. Another suggestion is to enhance transparency and accountability mechanisms. We propose amendments requiring the commission to submit annual reports to Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, I hope my generation's chapter will be about building a Singapore that not only secures our place in the world and successfully transforms our economy, but which also nurtures the heart of our nation, our people, our relationships, our capacity for care and compassion. This is how we will successfully navigate an uncertain future and build a better Singapore, not just for ourselves, but for generations to come. I look forward to working with all Members of this House to make our shared aspirations a reality. I support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“The returns on these investments may not show up directly or immediately in economic figures or productivity metrics, but they will show up in the form of stronger families, more cohesive communities and a society that truly puts we before me. Mr Speaker, the President painted a compelling picture of our next chapter. One that is guided by trust, firm in resolve yet open to change, confident yet humble, diverse yet united. This is the Singapore I want to help build. Yet this chapter can only materialise if there is trust. Trust cannot be taken for granted, nor can it be held and maintained by the Government alone. It must be cultivated at every level of society, within families, between neighbours and across generations. Building trust means having difficult conversations about the gaps between our aspirations and realities. It means having the courage to admit that what got us to SG60 may not get us to SG100. Building trust means having difficult conversations about the gaps between our dreams and aspirations. Trust grows when we engage each other constructively and in good faith. It deepens when we acknowledge that no single entity has a monopoly on wisdom and talent. It endures when we demonstrate that listening leads to action. Success follows when we trust each other and work together towards a shared goal, a shared goal of building a Singapore that embraces different definitions of success. A Singapore that understands that true national strength comes from both economic competitiveness and social resilience. A Singapore that is not just a successful nation but a society worth living in.”
“As we celebrate increased lifespans, we must acknowledge that living longer costs more. Healthcare expenses naturally increase with age. Many seniors, including those that I meet in Tampines, face not just the rising cost of living, but also the recurring costs of managing chronic conditions, paying for mobility aids and specialised care. For some, these costs may not be fully covered by their retirement savings or the various subsidies available. As families and households get smaller, more of our seniors also have the additional challenge of navigating ageing without the social support networks that past generations have had. Ageing with dignity means having genuine choices about if and how much to work, and meaningful options for social connection and purpose. It means ensuring that those who do work do so because work contributes to their well-being, and not because it is essential for their survival. As Singapore ages, I hope we will have deeper conversations about what adequate retirement really means, because beyond the economics of ageing lies a fundamental human need for connection, purpose and community. Some may view the above suggestions as costly in an era where we must be physically prudent. I respectfully suggest that these are not costs, but investments. When we support families, we invest in our demographic future. When we prioritise our children's well-being and nurture their resilience over test scores, we invest in a generation that is capable of thriving in uncertainty. When we care for our caregivers, we invest in the social fabric that holds our society together. When we ensure that our elderly can age in place with dignity, we invest in the values that define us as a people.”
“I am encouraged that Members on both sides of this House share this concern. Caregivers should not have to choose between caring for their loved ones and taking care of themselves. When we force such choices, we undermine both the caregivers' well-being and the quality of care they can provide. To truly become a "we before me" society, we must do more to recognise and support those who dedicate their lives to caring for others, whether temporarily or permanently. We should value unpaid care work as much as paid employment. Families should get equal support regardless of their choice of care arrangements. Mr Speaker, I wholeheartedly share in the President's aspirations for Singapore to be a place where every citizen leads joyful, fulfilling lives as they age. But more importantly, we should aspire to be a country where every citizen ages successfully with dignity. 2024 MOM figures show that more seniors are staying in the workforce compared to a decade ago. More than a third of our seniors, aged 70 to 74, 35% to be accurate, are still working. For those over 75, the figure stands at nearly 14%. Many of our elderly work in our coffee shops, hawker centres and shopping malls as cleaners, servers, security guards, and in other physical roles. Work can indeed be a source of dignity, purpose and social connection, and we should absolutely support those who choose to. However, we must also honestly examine the full spectrum of motivations behind why many of our seniors continue to work well into their seventies. For some, work represents fulfilment and community. For others, it may be primarily driven by economic necessity. These are not mutually exclusive, but we must ask, do all our working seniors have genuine choice?”
“This recognition is all the more vital as Singapore becomes a super aged society next year. Many more Singaporeans will find themselves in a sandwich generation of caring for ageing parents while raising children and/or setting aside their careers. We can and should do more to support caregivers. When a parent stays home to care for a child, when an adult child takes leave to care for an ageing parent, when grandparents provide childcare, these are work. Work that creates immense value for families and society, even though it is not typically captured by economic indicators. Yet our policies do not always fully reflect this understanding. Take preschool subsidies, for instance. Even as we endeavour to give every Singaporean child the best start in life by enabling access to quality preschool education, subsidies for infant and childcare remain tied to maternal employment status. Higher subsidies are available to families when mothers work at least 56 hours a month. This creates a troubling message that paid work is inherently more valuable than unpaid care work. We should equalise preschool subsidies for all children, regardless of their mother's employment status. Every child deserves the best start in life, and every family deserves support in accessing it, whether the mother works in an office or runs a household, while providing care for other family members. Paid caregiving leave would be another meaningful step forward. Working parents of young children are eligible for two to six days of paid childcare leave a year. But many Singaporeans who work and care for elderly parents or have older children with additional needs must tap on their annual leave when urgent caregiving needs arise, leave meant for their own rest and recuperation.”
“Earlier this year, a CNA Talking Point survey of more than 1,000 secondary school students revealed that 14% of the respondents reported being bullied in 2024, a figure significantly higher than MOE official reports of six bullying incidents per thousand students in the same year. This discrepancy suggests that we may not be seeing the full picture of what our children are experiencing in schools today. I commend MOE for embarking on a Comprehensive Action Review on Bullying, but addressing this challenge requires us to go beyond strengthening protocols and safeguards. We must get to the roots of why children hurt other children, both online and offline. Studies show that bullying has a lasting negative impact on mental health and behavioural development, effects that can persist well into adulthood for both those who are bullied and those who bully. They also reveal that children who bully are often children with poor well-being, those who feel unseen or unheard. All of these tell us something about the profound transformation that our education system needs. How do we nurture resilience in our young so they can better deal with stress, adversity and setbacks in an uncertain world? How do we help more parents recognise signs of distress before they manifest as harmful behaviour? How do we create cultures of empathy and support in and outside of schools, so our children are prepared for meaningful lives as contributing members of society? Mr Speaker, I am encouraged by the President's acknowledgement that families are stretched in caring for both young and old. The emphasis on recognising the value in every job resonates strongly with a challenge that I hope we can address more directly. The undervaluation of unpaid care work that forms the backbone of society.”
“How can they be ready to take on jobs that do not exist, overcome challenges that we cannot imagine and seize opportunities that we have not conceived? I believe many Members in this House who had spoken about how quickly AI is transforming the workplace, especially for entry level positions, will agree that these questions have become all the more urgent. Preparing our youth for the above requires more than just enhancing curricula or revising the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) scoring system. It demands an educational environment that celebrates different forms of intelligence, have many definitions of success, and which values collaboration alongside competition. And perhaps most importantly, in today's world, it demands an emphasis on the cultivation of uniquely human traits and values that enable meaningful work where machines are limited. Yes, we now speak often about the importance of soft skills. Yet assessment drives behaviour. The reality is that success in all of our milestone exams – the PSLE, the "N" and "O" level exams in their current and future form, the "A" levels – remain overwhelmingly defined by individual academic performance measured largely through written papers. We value adaptability in uncertain times, yet our assessment ecosystem mostly rewards those who can perform consistently within familiar formats and timeframes. We value resilience, yet we rarely assess our students for their perseverance through failure. This holistic approach to education becomes even more critical when we consider the well-being challenges that our children already face today.”
“Families should get equal support regardless of their choice of care arrangements. This is how we truly cultivate a "we first" society. (In English): Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue in English. The President noted how each generation has built on the legacy of those before, embracing change and persevering through crisis. He spoke of the need for unity as we navigate turbulent waters. I could not agree more. I would add that true unity does not mean uniformity. It means recognising and embracing that diverse viewpoints strengthen rather than weaken governance. The complex challenges that Singapore faces in an uncertain world do not come with easy solutions. When we welcome different perspectives in policy discussions, when we create space for constructive debate, when we listen to voices that may challenge conventional wisdom, we make better decisions for all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, the President spoke of the importance of a strong economy in generating the resources needed to secure Singapore's future and improve lives, of inclusive growth and a society where every citizen shares in our country's prosperity. Yet, even as economic indicators tell us about our productivity and competitiveness, they say little about our well-being, relationships, sense of purpose and belonging. We can and should go further – towards a society where prosperity encompasses not just economic well-being, but also emotional, social and spiritual flourishing. The President spoke about preparing our youth for a future that will be different, helping them secure good jobs and giving them a stronger voice in shaping Singapore. Indeed, our children are growing up in a world that is changing at unprecedented speed.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The President noted how each generation has built on the legacy of those before, embracing change and persevering through crises. He spoke of the need for unity as we navigate turbulent waters. I could not agree more. I would add that true unity does not mean uniformity. It means recognising and embracing that diverse viewpoints strengthen rather than weaken governance. The complex challenges that Singapore faces in an uncertain world do not come with easy solutions. When we welcome different perspectives in policy discussions, when we create space for constructive debate, when we listen to voices that may challenge conventional wisdom, we make better decisions for all Singaporeans. The President spoke about how families are stretched in caring for both young and old, and the Government will strengthen support for caregivers. I agree that we can and should do more to support our caregivers. Yet our policies do not always fully reflect this understanding. Take preschool subsidies for instance, which remain tied to maternal employment status. If a mother works at least 56 hours a month, her child is entitled to higher subsidies. This conveys an indirect message: that mothers who choose to become full-time caregivers will get less support. We should equalise preschool subsidies for all children – regardless of their mother's employment status. Additionally, introducing paid caregiving leave would be another meaningful step to reduce the burden of employees, so they have time to care for elderly parents, older children or children with additional needs. We should value unpaid care work as much as paid employment.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for touching on MOE's upstream preventative measures and approaches. My supplementary questions actually pertain to this. I am very heartened to hear about the enhancements that have been made to the CCE since 2021 and I would like to ask if the Minister could elaborate on how the Ministry actually evaluates the effectiveness of some of these changes made, especially in light of some MOE statistics, as of 2024, which indicates that bullying numbers have been held steady in the last five years. And to the Minister's point about how children actually learn from multiple behaviour sources, which thus highlights the importance of upstream preventative measures, I am very heartened to hear about programmes, like the Parenting for Wellness programme and other tool kits that are available for parents, but more importantly, we also understand that implementation is often times as important as programme and toolkit design. So, could the Minister elaborate on what is the uptake rate by parents of the more than 400,000 school-going primary and secondary school children of these toolkits and programmes? And if the uptake rate is low, whether there are other ways to increase this uptake without placing the onus on our teachers that are already burdened trying to manage the situation in school and outside of school?”