Fadli Fawzi
Singapore
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, are there any other nursing homes that have been found to have significant lapses in an initial audit, similar to Windsor Convalescent Home and LC Nursing Home, but have been given the opportunity to rectify these lapses and are still being monitored by MOH?”
“As we have seen with Changi Airport, Singapore is capable of building infrastructure that both impresses the world and benefits the lives of Singaporeans. Changi drives our economic competitiveness while simultaneously being a place for Singaporeans to gather, relax, celebrate and create memories.”
“I thank the Minister for the question. I just would like to again state my concerns with the issue. Firstly, if these fees go a long way back and they affected a large number of people, because these are very routine things, then, would the Minister agree with me that there is a real risk of some kind of administrative oversight?”
“But what was the legal basis of enabling them or allowing them to understand that they were allowed to charge these administrative fees? So, again, I reiterate my second question: what legal basis did each of these agencies think that they had authority to impose these fees and charges in the first place?”
“Are there other agencies, other fee regimes or other categories of collection which the Government has reason to believe may sit on similar uncertain legal foundations? Should this House expect further validating legislation in future sessions? If no such review has been undertaking, I would be interested to know, why not?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification. I just would like to make it clear. I have no problems going forward about regularising such provisions. My concern is that we have no idea about the actual numbers that are being involved and we are asked to extinguish the rights of these people to claim any monies.”
The complete record
Every one of 108 lines we hold for Fadli Fawzi, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“As we have seen with Changi Airport, Singapore is capable of building infrastructure that both impresses the world and benefits the lives of Singaporeans. Changi drives our economic competitiveness while simultaneously being a place for Singaporeans to gather, relax, celebrate and create memories. So, as we develop the infrastructure befitting a global hub status, I hope the House can appreciate that the real measure of a truly world-class infrastructure is whether the people who build our country can truly enjoy it.”
“It would not just benefit Singaporeans enjoying the nightlife, but also people who finish or start work after the MRT shuts down, and staff and travellers going to the airport for late night flights. Affordable late-night mobility should be part of a vibrant, world city like Singapore. And with AVs, what was previously economically and logistically infeasible could become a reality. I urge LTA to seriously consider trialling self-driving buses on bus routes overnight as well, as this is a use case that could benefit many Singaporeans while traffic levels and any risk posed by the AVs to public safety are also much lower. Eventually, we can even consider expanding AVs to support school bus services, which is another area where a shortage of drivers and rising cost pressures have made it more difficult for school bus operators to sustain operations. For example, AVs could be used to shuttle students who live more than four kilometres from their school since bus operators are now no longer contractually required serve them. This is not to suggest that automation is a substitute for valuing human work. Even with AVs, Singaporeans will continue to depend on thousands of bus captains for the foreseeable future. While we rely on AVs to supplement our manpower needs, we must continue to make sure that our bus operators enjoy the wages, career progression and working conditions that commensurate with the skills and socially valuable work that they do. Bus driving should be seen as a profession Singaporeans should be proud to enter and not simply one that we struggle to fulfil. Sir, in this speech, I only want to affirm that ordinary Singaporeans should not feel alienated from the world-class infrastructure sitting in our country.”
“While AI threatens to change the face of many professions, we continue to face persistent labour shortages in the public transportation sector. Currently, less than a third of bus captains are Singaporeans. The Acting Minister for Transport has also acknowledged that recruitment and retention are the biggest challenges preventing further expansion of the bus network. Frontier technologies, like AVs, could offer a potential solution. AVs have already been trialled in Punggol to ply short, fixed route services and self-driving public bus services will also be piloted in Marina Bay and One-North from the second half of 2026. Should the self-driving public bus service pilots in Marina Bay and One-North be successful, I would like to suggest that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) next consider deploying self-driving public buses to build a network of night bus services. We could start by running self-driving night buses along existing Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines when these lines are closed during the overnight hours. Late night bus services have in the past suffer from low ridership and the NightRider and Nite Owl Services have been discontinued since the COVID-19 pandemic. But even before the pandemic, we never had a proper network of late bus services that replicate even on a limited basis the connectivity provided during daylight hours, unlike in other major global cities like London, New York, Hong Kong or Beijing. The pre-pandemic NightRider and Nite Owl services only operated uni-directionally, from the city to various housing estates, and primarily serviced people having a night out in the city. But a proper network of self-driving late night buses bus services, running along existing MRT lines would be truly revolutionary for Singapore.”
“The Freedom Pass was described not only as providing access to essential goods and services but also as a widely prized mechanism for participation in life of the city." What the research suggests is that providing free travel on public transport helps with seniors' well-being and enables their civic participation. Crucially, it makes senior citizens feel like they belong and have a place in society. This comes back to my earlier point that Singaporeans must not feel alienated from our world-class infrastructure. Singaporeans, regardless of age or means, must be able to use that infrastructure, not merely benefit economically from them. I should acknowledge that my hon friend from Sengkang, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, had also called for off-peak public transport to be made free for seniors and persons with disabilities during the 14th Parliament. The then Minister for Transport, S Iswaran, rebuffed this proposal with the warning that the ensuing financial burden is by no means insignificant. The WP has consistently argued that public transport should be viewed primarily as a public service rather than a profit centre. Especially for our seniors, public transport helps to fulfil important non-material needs such as for companionship, community and belonging. These are sometimes overlooked when we consider the matter only in terms of dollars and cents. Sir, the Freedom Pass has demonstrated its value for the senior citizens of London. As Singapore becomes a super-aged society, I believe that our senior citizens here similarly deserve their own Merdeka Pass. Mr Speaker, the Motion also mentions the role of frontier technologies in anchoring good jobs in Singapore.”
“It is thus heartening that the upcoming of North-South Corridor is designed to be multimodal with dedicated bus lanes and cycling paths to allow as many ordinary Singaporeans, including those who do not own cars to directly use and benefit from the new expressway. These two examples of our airport and our expressways hopefully clarify my point that our infrastructure should be designed with public access in mind. Our people should be able to use our world-class infrastructure to enhance our immediate quality of life. Sir, while we are on the topic of public access to our world-class infrastructure, I want to reiterate the Workers' Party's (WP's) call for public transport to be made free for seniors and people with disabilities during off-peak periods. I have previously in raised in this House that the Freedom Pass in London is a worthy model to consider emulating. The Freedom Pass is given to London residents above the age of 66 and those with eligible disabilities to freely travel across the Transport for London network. There are, however, peak hour restrictions on weekday mornings for holders of the older persons' Freedom Pass. There is a study on the Freedom Pass, which was published in 2014, and I hope to read part of the abstract into the record. In their article, "More than A to B: the role of free bus travel for the mobility and well-being of older citizens in London", the author stated that "travelling by bus provided opportunities for meaningful social interaction. Travelling as art of the 'general public' provided a sense of belonging and visibility in the public arena, a socially acceptable way of tackling chronic loneliness.”
“Even if one is not catching a flight, one can spend an afternoon at Jewel. Families can gather there for meal at one of the many wonderful restaurants. Couples can go for a date at the Canopy Park and everyone, young and old, can enjoy the Rain Vortex. Changi Airport is an excellent model of infrastructure that generates economic value while simultaneously enriching the everyday lives of Singaporeans. Yes, the airport creates job opportunities but it also offers social and recreational amenities to ordinary Singaporeans, including those who are not frequent flyers. And I think it is good that Changi Airport is not merely the preserve of jetsetting elite but open to all Singaporeans in the sense that there will always be something for someone to do that even if they are not catching a flight. Sir, this element of public access is what our world-class infrastructure should always aspire to include. In our pursuit to be a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, we must ensure that Singaporeans are not and do not feel alienated from the world-class infrastructure which underpins and makes possible the hub status. Allow me to further illustrate my point with the more mundane example of expressways. They undoubtedly facilitate trade and logistics. Goods can be efficiently transported from our port terminals to our industrial estates and commercial zones and vice versa. But while we appreciate the economic efficiencies created by our network of expressways, we should also keep in mind that two-thirds of Singaporean resident households that do not own cars, including myself. Non-car owning Singaporeans can only directly benefit from an eight-lane expressway if they are riding in a private hire car, or one of the bus services that ply an expressway sector.”
“Mr Speaker, hardly anyone in the House will disagree that our openness to the world and our world-class infrastructure are key reasons for Singapore's prosperity. Our major gateways like Changi Airport and the Port of Singapore have enabled our nation to punch above our weight. Our future success will rely on us being at the forefront of connecting people, markets, ideas and capital. Today's Motion affirms the role of a world-class infrastructure in reinforcing Singapore's position as a global transport hub and anchoring good jobs in, Singapore. All of us here can appreciate how and why this is important. However, I hope the House will join me in reflecting whether our world-class infrastructure should only have the purposes of consolidating our status as a transport hub and anchoring jobs here. Should we not ponder on the question who should our world-class infrastructure serve? Should our class infrastructure merely facilitate the movement of capital, goods and talent across borders? Or should it also improve and enhance the everyday lives of Singaporeans? My answer, Mr Speaker, is that our world-class infrastructure should not just create economic opportunities for Singaporeans. No doubt that is an important objective. However, it is also imperative that our class infrastructure is something that serves our citizens directly. As far as possible, our infrastructure should not merely facilitate Singaporeans getting good jobs but also tangibly improve the lived experiences of our people. By this, I mean ensuring that Singaporeans can genuinely enjoy or benefit from our infrastructure. Changi Airport offers an example of what I mean. Changi is unquestionably a world-class aviation hub. It is also well loved by Singaporeans, something that we all are proud of.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, are there any other nursing homes that have been found to have significant lapses in an initial audit, similar to Windsor Convalescent Home and LC Nursing Home, but have been given the opportunity to rectify these lapses and are still being monitored by MOH? If so, how many? My second question is, will MOH consider providing smaller nursing home operators with greater support, for example, through a review of foreign manpower requirements? My third question is, for the transparency and welfare of residents, will MOH reconsider its stance of not informing residents and their family about audit findings before any regulatory action is confirmed?”
“95 cents if sold through SingPost. Meanwhile, low-cost brokers in the market offer rates as low as 0.03%, or even flat fees of around $1 to $2. Why were these lower-cost options not included in the list of approved brokers? By allowing SDS shareholders to sell their shares only from a short list of brokers, competition may be reduced. This may, in turn, disadvantage shareholders, especially those who are already unfamiliar with accessing financial services. Additionally, senior SDS holders with mobility issues or limited digital savviness are only able to authorise a third party to sell the Singtel SDS on their behalf at SingPost branches. The flat fee of $17.95 charged for this transaction may represent a large proportion of sale proceeds for SDS holders who hold small quantities of shares. Half of the SDS holders own less than 1,360 shares, or a shareholding of less than approximately $6,000. For those small holdings, these fees will materially erode the value realised. Will the Government consider waiving the fees for the very elderly SDS holders that are selling only small amounts of shares through SingPost, so that they can unlock their holdings for use during their golden years at no cost? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, at the outset, let me state that the objective of this Bill, which seeks to provide Singaporeans with greater flexibility and ownership over their Singtel shares that they hold in their CPF accounts, is a good one. The SDS scheme is a legacy scheme introduced in 1993 and many Singaporeans who bought shares under the scheme would be seniors now. The proposed transfer would enable SDS holders who hold shares in their individual CDP accounts to consolidate all their holdings and make it easier for them to track and trade these shares. This is a positive move. However, there are several aspects of the implementation that warrants closer scrutiny. First, more than two in five SDS holders do not have individual accounts. I would like to ask why the Government has chosen to create designated CDP accounts for the sole purpose of holding Singtel SDS for these SDS holders, instead of simply seeking the consent of SDS holders to create standard individual CDP accounts and transfer the SDS into these accounts for them? A designated account appears to be a workaround rather than a fully empowering solution. If the policy intent is to give shareholders true ownership and control, then enabling them to hold these shares in regular individual CDP accounts would seem more consistent with the goal. Second, I note that only a select list of brokers has been authorised to facilitate the sale of these shares. What is the rationale behind limiting participation to this group? In today's market, there is a wide range of brokerage platforms offering competitive commission rates lower than the commission rates currently cited for selling Singtel SDS. Currently, the commission rates are 0.24%, if the shares are sold through Philips Securities, or a flat fee of $17.”
“I think the Minister asked me what I meant by administrative oversight. What I mean is human error. In all systems, no system is perfect. I think it is perfectly understandable if people make mistakes. If this issue affects a large number of people, there is a larger chance that a mistake would be made. That is what I mean by administrative oversight.”
“I thank the Minister for the question. I just would like to again state my concerns with the issue. Firstly, if these fees go a long way back and they affected a large number of people, because these are very routine things, then, would the Minister agree with me that there is a real risk of some kind of administrative oversight? That is one. I think this is in contrast with the finality of the extinguishing of the claims. Because my concern is that there is a real risk of oversight due to the amount and people involved. We should not have such a finality of extinguishing their claims. And we should give them some time, or at least the option of refunds. So, that is one part of it. The other part is a question that I raised earlier about how they decided they had the statutory basis to charge administrative fees. Because going forward, this will be useful as a process issue, to avoid being in such a similar situation, going forward.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification. I just would like to make it clear. I have no problems going forward about regularising such provisions. My concern is that we have no idea about the actual numbers that are being involved and we are asked to extinguish the rights of these people to claim any monies. So, would the Ministry agree with me that the numbers are important, especially when assessing the risk of any oversight that has occurred with regard to the regulation of this Bill?”
“But what was the legal basis of enabling them or allowing them to understand that they were allowed to charge these administrative fees? So, again, I reiterate my second question: what legal basis did each of these agencies think that they had authority to impose these fees and charges in the first place? And lastly, it would be good for this House to reflect on why is it that this happened. So, I would also like to reiterate my last question on whether a cross-Government review has been commissioned in response to the discovery, because if it has happened for such a routine manner for over a long period of time, one can easily think or suspect that it may recur in other areas, so that we can nip this problem in the bud early.”
“I would like to thank the Ministry for the clarifications. To begin with, I would like to clearly frame my concern with the Bill. The effect of the Bill is to, now and forever, extinguish the ability of those affected to claim any sort of financial restitution from the Government should they need be. Against this, we also have no idea about the size of the people who are affected. We also do not know the quantum affected. Are we talking about hundreds of thousands, or hundreds of millions of dollars? So, I hope the Ministry can understand why there is this deep concern with me, especially since as I have said before, these are not obscure transactions, but routine transactions which affect a huge number of people, a huge number of citizens of Singapore. And again, these are things, like paying to expedite a TOP application, paying to register a renovation contractor, so I hope the Ministry understands why it is, one, important to get a sense of the numbers, both in the sense of the total amounts that need to be claimed and the total amount of people affected. So, I would like to reiterate the questions that I have asked: how much money in total was collected under each of the four validating clauses and over what period? How many Singaporeans have been affected by these collections? How many are we talking about? And I think it is important to know this information before we decide on this matter. The other thing that sort of makes me apprehensive is that, on what legal basis did each of the agencies think that they had authority to impose these fees and charges? Because if I am not wrong, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that it was classified under administrative fees.”
“Are there other agencies, other fee regimes or other categories of collection which the Government has reason to believe may sit on similar uncertain legal foundations? Should this House expect further validating legislation in future sessions? If no such review has been undertaking, I would be interested to know, why not? Sir, before we sign off on a retrospective validation covering years of collections under four separate statutes, I believe it is reasonable for the House to be informed about how and what else the Government knows about the matter and what it is doing about it.”
“How much money in total was collected under each of the four validating clauses and over what period? Moreover, how many Singaporeans have been affected by these collections? This is information this House should have before it is asked to put the matter permanently to rest. Second, on what legal basis did each of these agencies think they had the authority to impose these fees and charges in the first place? Every one of these validated categories was presumably charged pursuant to something – a rule, a subsidiary instrument, an administrative direction or an internal policy. It would assist this House and bolster public confidence in the Bill to understand what the legal basis was in each case and why it was thought at the time to be sufficient? These are questions about how the relevant agencies arrive at the view of their own powers. Third, how and when did the Government come to realise that there was a problem? Fourth, what has the Government done to satisfy itself that this problem is confined to four agencies and the categories listed in Part 4? A defect of this kind arising across four agencies under four different parent Acts is not the sort of thing one expects to find in isolation. Is there something specific to the internal processes of these agencies that led to all four of them to independently arrive on a mistaken view of their rule-making authority, or is there a possibility that the rulemaking frameworks of our statutory bodies have a common weakness, which has now been exposed in these four cases, but may still be present in others? Fifth, has a cross-Government review been commissioned in response to the discovery that led to Part 4? If so, who conducted it, what was its scope and over what timeframe?”
“Mr Speaker, most of this Bill is uncontroversial housekeeping. Hence, I focus my remarks on Part 4, which is of a rather different character. Part 4 asks this House to declare that the sums collected over a period of years by four agencies under MND, namely HDB, NParks, URA and the Commissioner of Building Control were always validly collected. When a statutory body has collected fees without the clear rule-making authority to do so, the responsible course is to come to Parliament, put the position right, and ensure that the underlying functions continue on a sound legal footing. That said, Mr Speaker, I think this House should take a moment of genuine interest in how we came to need Part 4 at all. These are not minor agencies charging obscure fees. Three of them are Statutory Boards with long histories and well-resourced legal and policy functions behind them. The list of affected collections include some of the most routine transactions a citizen in Singapore will have with the state, paying to expedite a TOP application, paying to register as a renovation contractor, paying a release fee after a vehicle has been clamped in the car park at the foot of one's block. For each of these fees were being levied and collected over a period that the Bill, itself, implies ran for years on a legal basis that the Government now concedes was inadequate. It is a significant thing for this to have happened across four agencies under four different parent Acts, and to have gone undetected for as long as it did. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister a few a few questions, because this House and the public deserve clarity. First, what is the aggregate quantum of the sums being validated under Part 4?”
“Such discretionary power cannot be left unchecked. We need clear statutory safeguards to ensure these powers are exercised fairly, transparently and in the public interest. However, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“How will we ensure that the relationship between the regulator and the companies does not become even more opaque and hidden from public view? The Bill also introduces broad concepts, such as control and essential resources, which underpin many of its new powers. While flexibility is useful in a fast-moving digital landscape, overly broad definitions may create uncertainty. Businesses may find it difficult to assess whether routine commercial arrangements fall within the regulatory scope. Similarly, the category of regulated persons can be expanded by the Minister. These raises questions about how emerging digital platforms, such as streaming services, will be treated. Clear guidance will be important to ensure that regulation remains targeted and proportionate, without inadvertently discouraging innovation or investment. The Bill is also framed as promoting competition. Yet in practice, Singapore's media landscape has long been characterised by structural concentration, particularly in sectors, such as free-to-air broadcasting and print. The Bill clearly strengthens the regulatory tools available to the Government to structure the media industry to promote competition. However, these additional powers granted to the Government by the Bill should not inadvertently result in the further erosion of media pluralism. For example, the expansion of merger controls to any person acquiring a 30% stake in clause 3 gives the Government a virtual veto over the financing of media entities. How will the Government reassure Singaporeans that the expanded merger controls will not be used to block legitimate investment in independent or alternative media platforms? Sir, the Bill affords the Government with a broad swathe of discretionary powers to regulate the industry.”
“We suggest that the Minister should make public a detailed reasoning behind a separation order before one is made. Additionally, the Bill introduces a dual track appeal mechanism, allowing affected parties to seek reconsideration by the authority or appeal to the Minister. While this adds procedural flexibility, it does not address a broader structural concern – the absence of an independent appeals body which is not under the executive. In other areas of competition law, appeals are heard by independent tribunals. This provides a layer of separation between the regulator and adjudicator, enhancing confidence in the system. Here, both the separation order and the appeal are issued and heard respectively by the executive. While there may be practical reasons for this arrangement, the Government should explain why an independent appeal mechanism is not being adopted, particularly given the increasing complexity of digital market regulation. Sir, another area of concern relates to transparency. The Bill allows for certain regulatory determinations, such as the designation of dominant players to be communicated through private notifications rather than public gazetting. While this may streamline administration, it reduces public visibility into how market power is assessed and regulated. In sectors as critical as media and telecommunications, transparency is not merely a procedural matter. It is the cornerstone of public trust. Consumers, competitors and investors all benefit from understanding who holds significant market power and how that power is being managed. The Government should, therefore, clarify how it intends to balance efficiency with transparency in implementing these provisions.”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to do three main things: one, enhance the provisions relating to fair and efficient market conduct and effective competition in the media industry so that they are aligned with that in the telecommunications industry; two, reduce the regulatory burdens on the media industry; and three, provide IMDA with additional powers. The Bill is a necessary and timely update to harmonise regulations within a converging digital market. While the direction of travel is broadly understandable, the Bill does grant the Government significant powers. Sir, I believe that there must be stronger safeguards that accompany such significant powers. One change in the Bill is clause 15, which amends the law to vest the power to issue a separation order, which can require a company to restructure or divest parts of its business to address competition concerns, directly in the Minister rather than IMDA. While it may align with the existing practices in the telecommunication industries to place such powers directly in the hand of the Minister, this also raises important questions about the concentration of decision-making authority within the hands of political officeholders. Structural remedies are complex and technical. They have far-reaching implications for markets, investors and consumers. It is therefore important that such decisions are guided by clear objective criteria and that they be seen to do so. The Bill does not currently require the detailed publication of reasons for such decisions. Without this, there may be concerns about transparency and predictability. Businesses need clarity on how decisions are made and the public needs confidence that such powers are exercised in a fair and consistent manner.”
“We must be clear-sighted about what AI can and cannot offer and always ask what is the purpose AI is serving and whether it is fit for that purpose? We must avoid being boxed in into an AI-centric gaze in which we are left with a narrow and artificially mediated understanding of reality and an impoverished capacity to make sense of and relate to the world and those around us. Sir, let me close my speech with a pantun. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] When delivering a pantun in Parliament; It is best not to use AI; The Malays are cultured and courteous; The poet's inspiration will not be abandoned. (In English): When delivering a pantun in Parliament, it is best not to use AI. The Malays are cultured and courteous, the poets' inspiration will not be abandoned. 3.51 pm”
“Hence, I want to ask: do we lose something valuable if we teach students to use AI to generate pantuns, rather than discovering the fun of experimenting with the lines themselves? Does the skill of using AI to generate pantuns necessarily translate into the craft of writing a good pantun, or even the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate the art form? And what is the long-term impact to the Malay language, culture and tradition when a cultural motif is reduced to an AI output? (In English): Sir, a final point. There is a traditional Malay art form that is close to my heart – the pantun. This is a poetic form with its own specific rules. Made up of four lines, a pantun has a specific meter and rhyme scheme. Imagery is usually drawn from nature and scenes of everyday life, to communicate important social values and advice. A pantun that does not follow these structures and conventions is usually not regarded as a good pantun, if it may be called one at all. Many pantuns are still known among Malays by heart, passed down orally through generations. In short, the pantun embodies a tradition, connecting the Malays today to our forefathers before. Hence, I want to ask: do we lose something valuable if we teach students to use AI to generate pantuns rather than the fun of experimenting with the lines themselves? More importantly, does the skill of using AI to generate pantuns necessarily translate into the craft of writing a good pantun or even the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate the art form? And what is the long-term impact to the Malay language, culture and tradition when a cultural motif is reduced to an AI output? Sir, I am not suggesting that we return to a time before AI use. We have to adapt. But we need discernment.”
“Making judgements about the world and what should be done is a distinctively human task that should not be easily surrendered. I am not against the idea of a second brain. My worry is more specific – that the reliance on a second brain, if left unchecked, will weaken the equity and reflexes of the first brain. On the other end, we see people forming emotional attachments with AI companions. These are relationships that stimulate empathy but do not truly reciprocate it. It demonstrates the real risk that people can lose sight of human relations in the real world. If people see these AI companions as a comforting shortcut to finding companionship in contrast to the hard work of developing friendships with others around us, we may see a further impoverishment of our social networks. In both cases, the danger is the same. We begin to substitute authentic human experience, sense-making and judgement with artificial approximations. And when that happens, we may gradually lose our ability to navigate the world with clarity on our own terms. Mr Speaker, in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, a final point. There is a traditional Malay art form that is close to my heart: the pantun – a poetic form with its own specific rules. Made up of four lines, the pantun has a specific metre and rhyme scheme. Its imagery is typically drawn from nature and scenes of everyday life, to communicate important social values and advice. A pantun that does not follow these structures and conventions is usually not regarded as a good pantun, if it may be called one at all. Many pantuns are still known among Malays by heart, passed down orally through generations. In short, the pantun embodies a tradition – connecting the Malays today to our forefathers before.”
“Today, however, the effort required to complete any cognitive activity has collapsed to an extent far greater than when the calculator replaced the abacus or the typewriter replaced the pen. In encouraging our students to leverage AI, how can we ensure that they can continue to learn how to grapple with ideas, how to formulate arguments, how to problem solve and how to cultivate intellectual independence? Sir, I reiterate my caution – that Singapore must become an AI-resilient society and not an AI-reliant one. By constantly outsourcing our tasks to AI, we may erode or undermine our capacity for creativity, imagination, judgement and even empathy, or let these practical skills atrophy from lack of use. The danger here is the temptation to use AI as a shortcut for thinking through and solving problems. On the one end, there are those who regard AI as a kind of second brain – outsourcing memory, decision-making and even aspects of judgement to ChatGPT or Claude. It is true that AI tools can sharpen our thinking and serve as intellectual aids. However, in creating a layer of artificial mediation between us and the world, I am concerned that AI would dull our capacity to make sense of the world. By making sense of the world, I mean the ability to interpret, comprehend and coherently perceive the world around us on our own terms, through our own cognitive efforts. And over time, this would involve reflective trial and error, balancing our considered interpretations and judgements of the world with how the world comes to bear upon us. Interpretation and judgement are practical skills that must be honed through constant and regular use. And we develop these skills by exercising, testing and challenging them.”
“We must elevate their status not just through policy, but through culture and education so that Singaporeans will no longer see such jobs as undesirable. This may require difficult trade-offs. For example, should we recalibrate our policies in certain sectors to ensure that wages for local skilled trades rise meaningfully and attract more Singaporeans to fill these roles? At the same time, we must make better use of our strong vocational institutions. Our ITEs and polytechnics should guide more students towards specialised high-value trades. In an AI-driven future, the dignity of work must not be tied solely to whether a job is white-collar or high tech. We must expand the range of jobs that Singaporeans considered attractive and meaningful. Mr Speaker, AI will undeniably determine the future of our economy, our society and our lives. But we should not allow AI to come to define us as humans, as citizens and as Singaporeans. I say this because the question before us is not merely whether AI will create or destroy jobs. The deeper question is this: what kind of society and what kind of human beings will we become in an age shaped by AI? Because Sir, if we are not careful, we may succeed economically, yet diminish ourselves in more fundamental ways. For example, AI has created a world where knowledge is no longer scarce. Texts can be summarised, essays can be written and equations can be solved in seconds. I spoke before about my own experience as an undergraduate struggling through dense text. It was slow, often frustrating work, but it was through that struggle that I learned how to think, how to question and how to make sense of the world.”
“As such, we need to strengthen frameworks for worker protection in areas such as retention benefits and the rights of workers over data they create at the workplace. AI-enabled growth must not come at the cost of workers and a further tilting of the balance of economic power towards capital owners. Sir, the third limb of the Motion asks the House to equip and support workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities and advance together. Even as AI threatens to automate and replacement many existing roles, there remain many forms of labour that are difficult to automate using AI. For example, plumbers, electricians, air-conditioning technicians, phlebotomists and other skilled trades have been assessed to be much less likely to be replaced by AI. These jobs are essential pillars of a functioning society. Yet for too long, we in Singapore have undervalued these roles, both economically and socially. If we are serious about ensuring that growth remains inclusive, we must correct this imbalance. In many other first world societies, the job of a plumber, garbage collector or an air-conditioning technician pay high enough to allow a middle-class lifestyle. This is not the case in Singapore. We have made a policy choice to fill these roles with lower-paid foreign workers while our local workers are channelled into high-paying white-collar jobs. While this has worked well for us for decades, this may no longer be sustainable as generative AI threatens to reduce the number of well-paying white-collar cognitive roles. We must therefore raise wages and improve career pathways in blue-collar sectors that are currently less attractive and yet also less vulnerable to displacement by AI.”
“Should there not be stronger protections about how such data is collected and used? Should workers not have a stake in the value that is created in their own data? If we fail to address these questions, we risk sleepwalking into a future where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few technology giants who increasingly use AI to take over work previously done by their human employees. These firms will continue to be the engine of economic growth, investing in larger and larger data centres and more powerful semiconductor chips that continue to generate gross domestic product growth. As a country, Singapore may benefit through our shareholdings in and partnerships with these tech companies. However, we must ensure that these benefits, which primarily accrue to the capital owners, do not come at the expense of the labour force. These developments pose a real risk that workers who are replaced may see their economic power steadily eroded, with a larger number of workers having to chase after a smaller pool of lower-paying jobs. I do not mean to be alarmist in suggesting that if unchecked, what could emerge is a form of digital serfdom, a system where workers like serfs of old are not bound by land or feudal lords but by algorithms. We are already seeing the beginnings of this future play out in real time. Already, platform workers work in service to black box algorithms that have a great deal of control over their earnings and how many hours they work. As AI advances, many cognitive and white-collar jobs will become increasingly automated and possibly, under the control of algorithms. Roles once considered secure may no longer be so.”
“Mr Speaker, today's Motion rightly recognises the transformative power of AI and affirms that AI-enabled economic growth must remain inclusive. My speech consists of three broad points. First, we must protect the economic positions of workers and prevent the economic fruits of AI from accruing solely to those who own the AI models or produce the hardware powering AI. Second, we must ensure that AI-resilient employment pathways remain viable for Singaporeans. Third and most importantly, we must hold firm to the idea that technology should serve humanity and not the other way around, because ultimately, the goal is not just growth without joblessness. It is growth without losing who we are as humans and as Singaporeans. Sir, the second limb of the Motion statement calls upon the House to emphasise that Singapore's approach to AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all, while the fourth limb asks the House to affirm that economic progress must remain inclusive and that Singapore must not have jobless growth. These are extremely important goals, because if the rise of AI is not managed properly, it could represent not just technological disruption but a recalibration of power between labour and capital. For example, last month, Meta announced that the keystrokes and workflows of every one of its employees in the US will be recorded. Screenshots will be taken occasionally throughout the workday. All this data will form datasets used to train AI systems that could one day replace these employees. Other companies could follow suit soon. While this is being done in the US, we in Singapore should ask whether companies such as Meta should be allowed to harvest employee data in this way without any clear safeguards.”
“I have several clarifications to make. Firstly, is the Government engaging the Iranian authorities to secure transit through the Strait of Hormuz for Singapore-flagged vessels similar to what other countries like Malaysia has done and will Singapore be open to paying a toll to pass through the Strait of Hormuz? Secondly, is the Government considering further regulating petrol station operators to ensure that changes in petrol prices, especially increases, are linked to actual market conditions, and if not, why not? And thirdly, what is the status of Singapore's helium supplies following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and whether the Government has contingency plans to help the semiconductor industry access sufficient helium supplies for production and also, does the Government foresee any delays in MRI procedures or increases in the price of MRIs for the rest of the year as a result of shortages in helium?”
“So, I assure the Member that while the situation is uncertain, we will do our best to look after our people.”
“Thank you, Chair. I have two questions for Minister Faishal. The first is, can the Minister share the specific ratio of mosques to Muslim residents that have been used in the mosque construction planning? Secondly, does MUIS have any plans to evacuate madrasah students who are studying in the Middle East and currently stuck there? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Our priority is ensuring that there are sufficient prayer spaces for all Muslims in Singapore. So, simply using a ratio of Muslim population to mosques is insufficient as worship patterns, resident concentrations and mosque sizes vary across Singapore. Instead, MUIS monitors worship patterns closely on the ground. Including me, we go on the ground, we feel what it is like and introduce measures to address the demand and increase the capacity. This includes multiple prayer sessions and expanding or upgrading current mosques. So, where there are shortages, we will make some adjustment and see whether there are opportunities to do so. As I mentioned in my speech, if there are changes to the population patterns or a new housing estate coming up, we will explore building new mosques like what we are doing in Tampines and Tengah. For the Member's second question, I have actually answered the supplementary question. We work closely with MFA and we also listen on the ground. Yesterday, when I spoke to the students, I shared with them, anything that you know, please let us know, because they are there and they may know more information and, I would say, more accurate information than us. When I told them, they felt so happy that we are very serious to know what is happening there and they feel that we really care for them.”
“As the Minister noted, mosques are funded by the community through the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund (MBMF). Mosques have always been community resources and anchors of faith, history and identity, built through sacrifice and collective effort. How can we strike a better balance between prudent urban planning with heritage preservation? Leaving a Lasting Legacy with Wakaf Masyarakat Singapura”
“(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Chairman, in January, I asked a Parliamentary Question about the population planning parameters used to determine whether a new mosque will be built, and whether these parameters include not only Muslim residents, but also the daytime Muslim working population and Muslim foreign workers. The Minister's answer did not reveal the specific population planning parameter or the exact mosque-to-Muslim-resident ratio, that the Government uses. My question was prompted by the planned closure of Masjid Al-Firdaus in Choa Chu Kang. Although located in an isolated area, this mosque has served the spiritual needs of the community, including National Servicemen stationed nearby and foreign workers employed in the area, for more than 60 years. Masjid Al-Firdaus is to be closed once a new mosque in Tengah is completed. This raises the question: what are the specific planning parameters to determine whether and when a mosque should be closed down, relocated, expanded or newly built? Does the Government have a target mosque-to-Muslim-resident population ratio, and if so, may we have some clarity on it? Moreover, while we rely on planning parameters to determine how many mosques to build, we must also consider heritage beyond numbers. For example, because of historical settlement patterns, we still have kampung-style mosques in sparsely populated areas, like Masjid Omar Salmah in Bukit Brown or Masjid Hang Jebat in Queenstown. These mosques may no longer have large congregations but still have long histories that carry meaning for the community. When new housing estates are built, will it be the policy to rationalise the number of mosques by relocating or closing old mosques, like Masjid Al-Firdaus?”
“Chairman, I have a clarification for Minister of State Tan Kiat How. I would like him to confirm whether MOH will take up my suggestion of a caregiver passport and whether MOH has any considerations which may prevent the suggestion from being adopted.”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. Will the Ministry consider having shuttle buses that go beyond the impacted section of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line? For example, if Kovan to Hougang was closed, can we have shuttle buses that go from Kovan to Punggol Coast, to make it more convenient for commuters, or maybe increasing the frequency of trains on the other non-impacted sections of the line, so that we can reduce the waiting time and convenience cost to the commuters?”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, is section 125 of the Penal Code relevant and applicable against Singapore Citizens who serve in the IDF and other foreign militaries? If not, what amendments are necessary to render section 125 relevant to penalise the act of serving in a foreign military?”
“What I have in mind is a Singapore-adapted caregiver passport that would allow some discounts at supermarkets, pharmacies and other caregiving-related outlets. More importantly, the caregiver passport should also allow caregivers to be involved in discharge and care planning, speed up linkage to respite and training, enable structured workplace flexibility conversations and support daily life participation through community partners. I propose starting with two to three precinct pilots, for six to nine months, enrolling about 100 caregivers per pilot, followed by an evaluation to measure take up, navigation outcomes and changes to caregiver strain. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will MOH seed a caregiver recognition pilot fund to support these pilots, including evaluation, so we can scale up works? Second, will MOH support a low burden verification model during pilots, such as self-declaration with validation through healthcare or social service touchpoints? Third, will MOH fund the minimum operating pieces: coordination, simple QR infrastructure, partner onboarding and modest activation support, so that pilots produce evidence for national adoption? Mr Speaker, recognising caregivers is about strengthening our social infrastructure, so that we can relieve the burden on our caregivers and make support consistent and easy to access for all.”
“Mr Chairman, Singapore is becoming a nation of caregivers. Our ageing society means more Singaporeans will spend a significant part of our lives caring for a spouse, sibling, parent or grandparent who becomes frail, disabled or chronically ill. Support exists, but caregivers still experience it as fragmented. Many repeat their story across hospitals and agencies, with no common way to be recognised as a caregiver and no simple front door that follows them across settings. Unpaid caregiving is not a small matter. A Duke-National University of Singapore study estimated the monetary value of informal caregiving time for seniors, aged 75 and above, who require human assistance, at about $1.28 billion a year. As it focuses on 75-year-old-plus seniors needing assistance, it likely understates the wider burden. This is why early identification matters. Local integrated care research found that distressed caregivers at baseline had about a one in four chance of remaining distressed 12 months later, and highlighted the importance of assessing and supporting caregivers early, including during hospital discharge planning. Budget 2026 strengthens long-term care financing, including a $400 million top-up to the Long-term Care Support Fund to fund additional subsidies from CareShield Life enhancements. But financing alone will not solve the recognition and navigation problem, so I asked the Minister to study and pilot a simple tool used in parts of the United Kingdom (UK) – a carer passport. Once a person is verified as a caregiver, they receive a physical and digital credential that enables recognition across touch points and triggers practical support.”
“The second question is about targets, the target to increase the transition from rental housing to home ownership.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have two clarifications. First, I would like to ask when the monthly household income ceiling for the Public Rental Scheme's eligibility was last revised and whether there are any plans to review this ceiling in light of wage increases under the Progressive Wage Model. Second, what are the targets that the Ministry has set to increase the number of rental households transitioning to home ownership for each year up to 2030?”
“This is something that I have seen first-hand during house visits in my constituency. While the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme and the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) exist to help seniors stay safe and mobile at home, the programme only provide subsidies rather than cash support to help seniors continue living safely and comfortably in their older flats. Moreover, even if the repairs might not be a major cost from our perspectives, it can be a moderate burden that weighs heavy on the minds of our seniors living alone. Some may argue that if seniors wish to continue ageing-in-place, but do not have the cash to afford the renovations needed, they can monetise their flats through renting out rooms or through the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS), but these schemes are primarily meant to supplement retirement income and medical expenses. In particular, the LBS is irreversible. Seniors should not be put in a position where they need to consider monetising their homes just to afford basic repairs. I would like to ask the Government to consider providing targeted cash support for any seniors living in older, smaller flats who may face difficulties paying for repairs under EASE or HIP. This will help seniors ageing-in-place, especially those who are living alone, without any next of kin to support them financially or mentally – to do so with dignity, safety and basic comfort.”
“Unlike rent-to-purchase models, this approach lets families own a new home and build assets early. Alternatively, can HDB consider redirecting the rental payments of these households towards offsetting the cost of the new flat if they want to buy it? Sir, my goal is simple. We must help yet more young families from challenging backgrounds break the cycle of rental housing and participate actively in building stable home ownership, valuable equity and long-term wealth alongside Singapore's growth. Comfortably Ageing-in-place A study conducted, between October 2023 and April 2024, found that senior households where the decision-maker is aged 65 and above now form one-third of all HDB households, up from one quarter in 2018. This is a significant demographic shift. At the same time, 85.9% of senior households wish to continue living in their existing flats rather than move. They want to age in place. The number of single person households is increasing. In 2023, 15.6% of the 1.1 million households living in HDB flats were single person households, up from 12.6% in 2018. In absolute terms, this is more than 30,000 additional solo households in just five years. Many of these are seniors living alone. We must understand what this means in practical terms. Most of today's seniors are baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964. They would have married in their mid-20s and moved into new flats in the 1970s. These flats are now close to 50 years old. Entire towns, such as Bedok, Ang Mo Kio and Marine Parade, reflect this reality – mature estates with ageing flats and ageing residents with more and more living alone. As these seniors age alongside their homes, they must cope with ageing electrical systems, plumbing issues, worn fittings and outdated appliances.”
“I also recognise the dedicated efforts of the HDB Home Ownership Support Team and the coordinated support provided through ComLink+ across multiple agencies. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister: what targets has the Minister set to increase the number of rental households transitioning to home ownership for each year, up to 2030? And what strategies is the Ministry pursuing to shorten the time it takes for families to move from public rental housing into their own homes? My second proposal is a shared equity pilot programme to help families achieve home ownership sooner. Right now, families may want to buy a home and may meet key social agency assessments, but they are stuck because they cannot afford the cash or Central Provident Fund (CPF) down payment. Even with HDB grants, it takes years of steady work and savings to build up that initial sum for down payment. During this time, families miss out getting on the home ownership ladder and building equity. The pilot will target young families, 35 and under, currently in rental housing, as well as young adults in public rental flats who apply for another rental unit when they start their own families. The Government would step in as co-owner, holding perhaps 20% equity in the flat, and instead of the standard down payment, the buyer would only need to put down 2% in cash or CPF, a much lower barrier to entry. This will reduce both the upfront cost and the loan needed. The family still pays monthly mortgage instalments, just like any homeowner. Over time, as their finances improve, they can buy back the Government's share in stages. If they eventually sell the flat, the Government receives its percentage of the sale price.”
“Mr Chairman, I want to propose improving pathways for home ownership for households currently living in rental flats. The Prime Minister, in his Budget debate round-up speech, mentioned the importance of enabling Singaporeans to accumulate assets. As he said, asset ownership gives families a concrete stake in our nation's success and allows them to share directly in Singapore's progress. Imagine a family of five in a rental flat. The parents work multiple jobs. The children study diligently. Month after month, they pay subsidised rent but build nothing – no home equity, no assets to pass down. This is a reality for thousands of families in Singapore. In 2020, Parliament heard that only 2% of public rental households transition to home ownership at each year. For a nation where 90% own their homes and home equity makes up over half of household wealth, families living in rental flats need a leg-up on the ladder of opportunity. Apart from rental flat to home ownership, from shelter to security and from surviving to thriving. First, I am proposing that the Ministry focus on helping more rental households achieve home ownership. In May 2021, then-Minister Desmond Lee shared in a Parliamentary response that only 2% of rental households transition to home ownership each year. For those who do make this transition, this journey takes considerable time. Over a third takes more than 10 years. Another third, take between five and 10 years. A further third managed it in under five years, while fewer than one in 10 succeed within three years. I am hopeful that these numbers have improved since then, thanks to enhancements made to programmes like the Enhanced Housing Grant, the Step Up CPF Housing Grant and the Fresh Start Housing Scheme.”
“Citizens should be empowered under a Freedom of Information Act to make requests for, and given access to, information from public agencies at the level of detail that is requested. Any data or records held by the Government that could inform public debate should also be automatically declassified and made available to the public after 25 years, subject of course to legitimate national security concerns. Without a Freedom of Information Act and a framework for automatically declassifying record after 25 years, the Government would not be compelled to review and release information, and foundational truth risks remaining buried, indefinitely. Facts and declassified documents can be cherry-picked to support a curated narrative. This is not what we want for Singapore. A Freedom of Information Act and automatic declassification would shift the burden of proof from citizens to the Government. The Government must justify why secrecy is needed, instead of citizens justifying curiosity. This empowers historians, journalists, civil society and ordinary Singaporeans to scrutinise decisions made in their name. A mature nation does not fear its own archives. I believe that what the WP has proposed would strengthen our national identity rather than weaken it. We build a genuine national identity when it is grounded in facts, even when these facts are complex or uncomfortable. If we truly believe in accountable governance and informed citizenry, then it is time to enshrine the public's right to know, in law.”
“If AI lowers the cost of deception to $1 per video, then the cost of inaction may be far higher. How will our national AI strategy ensure that Singaporeans are empowered to discern fact from fiction in an increasingly polluted information ecosystem? Declassification and National History Sir, the recent declassification of the Albatross file has transformed out understanding of Separation. For decades, the official narrative surrounding Singapore's independence was that we were abruptly and unilaterally expelled from Malaysia by the Federal Government. That story has shaped how generations of Singaporeans understand our nation's founding. Yet, the Albatross File departs from the prevailing narrative. The documents reveal that after the racial riots in July 1964, confidential talks had already commenced between the PAP and Malaysia's Alliance Party, regarding possible constitutional rearrangements within Malaysia. These discussions eventually led to separation. 3.45 pm This revelation does not diminish our history, it shows that history is often more complex than we think and enriches our understanding of history. But why did this historically significant recourse take so long to come to light? And how many other important records remain inaccessible? The recent declassification of the Albatross File illustrates why a Freedom of Information Act and automatic declassification is necessary. The Workers' Party (WP) has long called for a freedom of Information Act, most recently in our General Election 2025 manifesto. This call is grounded in a simple principle – we trust Singaporeans with the information necessary to hold the Government accountable.”
“Sir, as Budget 2026 advances Singapore's AI ambitions, we must confront that increasingly Singaporeans are exposed to AI-generated misinformation and AI-powered scams at unprecedented scale and speed. A 5 February article in Lianhe Zaobao documented a surge of sensational videos claiming that Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is being forced out and that intense internal power struggles are unfolding. These videos are entirely generated using AI within minutes, at a cost reportedly as low as US$1 or US$2 per 20-minute video. MDDI acknowledged that it has observed multiple online accounts publishing such fabricated claims about Singapore's domestic politics. An MDDI spokesman quoted by Zaobao stated that public education measures and resources have been rolled out and urged the public to rely on official sources and refrain from sharing unverified content. I welcome this response, but I wonder if these measures are sufficient. Given the scale and sophistication of AI-generated misinformation, why was the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) not used against those behind these videos? Enforcement tools like POFMA alone also cannot inoculate society against misinformation. We need a population equipped to question, verify and critically assess what they see online. What structured long-term programmes will the Ministry develop to strengthen media literacy and critical thinking, especially among vulnerable populations such as seniors? Will we expand community-based workshops, school curricula and public campaigns that teach citizens practical verification steps, such as checking original footage, examining sources, and consulting authoritative channels? Can we leverage AI itself to help filter and flag suspicious content at scale?”
“Thank you for the answer. I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, what is the proportion of GIP PRs that have subsequently applied for and obtained Singapore citizenship, and what is the retention rate for GIP PRs over the same period? The second question is: what is the percentage of GIP PRs whose re-entry permits have lapsed or were not renewed after five years due to business milestones not being met? And the third question is, after the changes introduced to the GIP in 2023 – for example, increase in the minimum investment quantum – has the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) observed any change in the volume or profile of the GIP applicants, and how has this affected the business environment for local small and medium enterprises?”