Gerald Giam Yean Song
Singapore
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The focus of my supplementary question will be on the film classification guidelines, which currently state that, quote, "Chinese films meant for theatrical release should generally be in Mandarin, in line with the Speak Mandarin Campaign.”
“Mr Speaker, we cannot allow physical infrastructure expansion to blind us to the shifting digital geography of global trade nor should we allow frontier technology to reduce the economic agency of our transport workers.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies. I understand the difficulty in getting the exact numbers. But is there an order of magnitude that the Government can provide as to how many such fees were collected and what is the total quantum? Just an order of magnitude, does not have to be an exact number.”
“Sir, I thank Mr Ng Chee Meng for acknowledging my OJT proposal. I am aware of the work of CTCs, but my proposal goes beyond what the CTCs currently provide. First is the depth of the wage support, and second is the structural design of OJT.”
“I thank the Minister for responding to my question just now. I am glad to hear that there will be more precise matching with the help of SWDA's the integrated intelligence function. But can I ask if this function will be provided to all jobseekers who approach SWDA or its agencies, like e2i, to seek for job assistance?”
“Sir, can the Minister elaborate a bit more about how SWDA will enhance the job search assistance programme? Specifically, will career counsellors move beyond basic resume editing and portal referrals to leverage real time vacancy data for proactive matching and advocate for candidates?”
The complete record
Every one of 984 lines we hold for Gerald Giam Yean Song, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 20.
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Sir, many of these drivers have been driving for most of their working life and they have no problem reading road signs or even conversing with passengers in English. But they would have great difficulty passing a two-hour English and math test. Has the Ministry considered that this Workplace Literacy test requirement may present an insurmountable hurdle for taxi drivers, especially these experienced taxi drivers who do not possess the educational qualifications? Can it consider doing away with this test requirement for older, experienced drivers?”
“I thank Minister of State Tan for responding. Sir, from what I understand from his reply, the guidelines will only benefit PwDs if insurers had hitherto been applying inappropriate differential treatment indiscriminately. But even if insurers properly followed all their underwriting principles, many PwDs will still find themselves excluded. Does the Government have any plans to step in to assist these PwDs who do not have enough coverage?”
“Mr Chairman, PwDs or special needs often receive inadequate insurance coverage to cover to protect themselves. Even if they manage to get insured, the scope of coverage and the insured amounts is often limited. MAS is proposing to issue guidelines to insurers that they should not indiscriminately reject an application, solely based on a declared personal information subject to disability. Instead, insurers are expected to carry out an objective assessment of every application, based on reliable information or data relevant to the risk being insured. However even under the new proposed guidelines, insurers are not prohibited from declining applications, setting higher premiums or applying conditions in view of the risks presented by an applicant with a disability. Can the Minister explain when these guidelines will be issued and how they will be materially different or more beneficial to PwDs or special needs? Safeguarding Bank Customers”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for her response to my questions. The Minister, if I heard right, said that the population projections by 2050 will depend on trends in fertility and longevity. I understand there might be some concerns about publicly revealing population projections but does the Government have any internal projections for the population in 2040 and 2050 based on the different scenarios? Because in 2013, I recall that the Government was able to project our population until 2030. Now, in 2024, why is it not possible to project it until at least 2040?”
“Mr Chairman, the Government has clarified that it does not aim for Singapore's population to increase to 10 million, and it is anticipating a population of significantly below 6.9 million by 2030. However, with 2030 only six years away and fast approaching, a key question arises – what are the Government's longer-term forecasts? Population projections are a critical tool for public policy planning. Given current birth rates and the intake of new citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs), what are the Government's projections for Singapore's population in 2040 and 2050? These figures are pivotal not just for immediate policy adjustments, but for securing a sustainable future for all. The Government claims that it does not seek to achieve any particular population size. I find this rather strange. If there is no population target, how does it decide how much to regulate the immigration tap or how much to invest in pro-natalist policies to achieve its desired economic, social and security outcomes over the long term?”
“Sir, I have some clarifications for the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the jobseeker support. I understand that it is going to be funded by taxpayers and it is not an insurance scheme like what the Workers' Party has been proposing since 2006. So, I am a bit concerned now about the fiscal impact and the sustainability of the scheme. What is the quantum that is going to be given to the jobseekers and what is the duration of support that is going to be provided? I believe Parliament needs to know because we are being asked to approve the Budget for this year.”
“Sir, on a separate point: does the Ministry see any cultural value in street hawking? For example, ice cream sellers. It is something that is part of our shared heritage and something that we all remember from when we were growing up. Is that something that the Ministry will consider letting to continue or even grow besides providing just a financial support for these hawkers?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I understand that street hawking licence cost about $120 a year. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State what is the rational for this quantum because it is a considerable amount for some low-income hawkers and can the Ministry consider lowering it? And secondly, what is the actual eligibility criteria for these licences? Are they only given to those who are financially needy?”
“Just one more clarification on that point. The Minister of State said actions will be taken to prevent them from working in Singapore. But is it not that one of the requirements of the tuition grants is for them to work in Singapore for three years after they graduate? So, is there any other measures that the Ministry takes to ensure that they pay back what they are supposed to pay back?”
“Can the Minister of State explained how exactly the Ministry pursues these students who do not fulfil their tuition grant obligations?”
“Sir, I do not think the Minister of State answered my question about how many students have not fulfilled the conditions for the tuition grant, including getting local employment. Is that something the Ministry is pursuing?”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for responding to my question but, perhaps, I was not clear enough in my question. I was not asking about more training. My point was that training has its limits and the adoption of the SkillsFuture credits is nowhere as much as what we would have hoped for. Only three in 10 have used their SkillsFuture credits. And so, the glass is not even half full, in that respect. To acquire skills, workers need hands-on practice, which is why we are calling for an expansion of the use of SkillsFuture credits to use it for, perhaps, subsidies for the use of AI tools, so that they can increase their productivity and get some hands-on experience.”
“Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for speech. I would like to ask some clarifications. The Deputy Prime Minister said that AI can be our augmented intelligence and that we should think hard about how jobs will be changed with automation and AI, and he said that we need to reskill our workers to prepare for AI. However, given that seven in 10 people have not used their SkillsFuture credits since the scheme was started in 2015, does Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat think that it will be useful to expand the use of the SkillsFuture credits beyond core subsidies and give all students and workers more opportunities for hands-on practice with deep tech tools, like AI? This could give results by helping them to boost their productivity at work, for example, summarising long documents or drafting professional emails and reports.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary again for that answer. What proportion of APHs in PHIs are foreigners and how does this compare to the proportion of nurses who are foreigners? And secondly, how is the Ministry encouraging more Singaporeans to take up careers as AHPs?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for answering my questions. Is the attrition rate of AHPs higher or lower than doctors and nurses? I am not sure if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary answered my original question on that. Are the retention and career progression needs of AHPs being, in any way, prioritised behind those of doctors and nurses, despite them playing a very critical role in the recovery of patients?”
“Many rely heavily on school bus transport to commute to and from home, school and social service agencies to attend programmes, such as the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), daycare centres, sheltered workshops and special student care centres. Very often, there are additional costs involved. EIPIC, for example, is a half-day programme. So, the students also need to be ferried from their school to the programme, creating a double whammy in transport costs. I would, therefore, like to call on the Government to increase the monthly household income limit for both the FAS and the ETS, especially for households with special needs members. In addition, more subsidies can be provided to match the inflation of school bus fares. This would ensure that more families can access and benefit from these subsidies to cover the ever-increasing cost of living. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as we chart our cause through the rapidly changing global and technological terrain, our policies must embody a steadfast dedication to fairness, meritocracy and innovation. By nurturing an ecosystem that champions fair competition, leverages the transformative power of AI and robotics and places the welfare and progress of every Singaporean at its heart – we can secure a robust and flourishing future. Let us remain committed to building a society with access to opportunities, a culture of excellence and the value of each individual's contributions shape the Singaporean journey for generations to come. Sir, I support the Motion.”
“However, Singapore should move towards equalising the fees for SPED schools and mainstream schools. While I am aware that the cost of providing education at both types of schools is different, the school fees should be the same. Sir, mainstream primary school fees are only $13 a month. Then SPED school fees should also be $13 a month not $120, which is the current average. Even lowering it to $90, while commendable, is still not equitable. This is especially so considering the higher costs that parents of special needs children incur in many other areas besides education. The additional costs of SPED schools, should be socialised in the interests of creating a more inclusive and equitable society. School bus fares remain another significant concern for the disability community. As of 1 January 2024, the Ministry of Education has increased the price cap of school bus fares for school bus operators at mainstream schools by up to 13%. But we know that SPED school students face a higher increase in their school bus fares, due to the smaller pool of bus operators who are able to meet their more complex needs. I am aware and appreciate that there are various school bus subsidy assistance schemes, like the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) and the Enabling Transport Subsidy (ETS). While I understand the need to keep the school bus operators sustainable, the adverse impact of the cost of living crisis has made the cost of school bus transport an added burden for many parents of students with disabilities.”
“Can I ask the Minister, how did the Government arrive at the conclusion that these diploma and degree programmes have better employability outcomes? Is there empirical evidence to support this and if there is, are the better outcomes due to the greater skills that these graduates have acquired or because local employers continue to emphasise paper qualifications over skills and experience? In fact, it has been recognised that one of the most effective ways to pick up employable skills is through on-the-job training (OJT) and apprenticeships. As such, I would suggest that the Government subsidise OJT and apprenticeship programmes to the same tune as diploma and degree programmes. In his Budget Statement Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned briefly about how the Government will do more to support those whose jobs are made redundant, through a temporary financial support scheme for the unemployed. He said the Government will be working out the details later this year. Sir, this scheme was announced almost one year ago at the National Day Rally in August last year. How much longer will it take to flesh out? More importantly, how fiscally sustainable will the scheme be? Will it include an insurance component, like what the Workers' Party has proposed through its redundancy insurance scheme, to ensure that premium contributions from employers and employees during times of plenty can be drawn down during economic downturns when retrenchment levels are higher? Mr Speaker, social inclusion must be at the heart of all our economic policies. I am glad to note that the maximum monthly fees at special education (SPED) schools will be lowered to $90, with lower fee caps at all centres.”
“We must strive for the whole breadth of Singapore society to have contact with the best AI models and robots. Only by trying them out as a first mover and being willing to accept and learn from failure can we gain and retain the thousand points of knowledge that no instructor can teach. In his Budget Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong rightly pointed out that we are now in an era of armed conflict, confrontation and terrorism, with major powers prioritising national security over international cooperation and that there is a diminished willingness to tackle global issues. These are stark realities. We must work within the realities of this new world order as the old order is probably not coming back anytime soon. Deputy Prime Minister Wong said that we will pursue better jobs and better growth. He made a commitment to improve wages across professions. In particular, he said that the wages and career prospects of ITE graduates should not be too far behind polytechnic and university graduates. I fully support this. I hope the wages of skilled tradespersons will come much closer to par with knowledge workers, because of the value they bring to our economy and our society. I will elaborate further on this during the Committee of Supply debate on MOM's budget. The introduction of the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which injects another $4,000 into Singaporean SkillsFuture credit is welcome. Deputy Prime Minister Wong said it is to be used for selected training programmes with better employability outcomes, including part-time and full-time diplomas and undergraduate programmes. In addition, workers 40 years and above will have the opportunity to pursue another full-time diploma at subsidised rates.”
“Singapore needs the right institutions and opportunities in order to attract and retain the best minds, including talented Singaporean students, scientists and entrepreneurs. I am under no Illusions about the potential of these new technologies to cause job losses. This is why in January 2024, I asked the Government for its plans to proactively retrain workers who are at most risk of displacement from AI. We need interventions to steel our citizens against AI-driven job redundancy. It is better for us to be the architects of our own disruption than to allow technology to change us for the worse. It is tempting to pull out the old playbook or pouring money into training programmes and encouraging workers to attend courses. However, this approach may not succeed in upskilling an entire workforce in disrupted new technologies. We must also embrace tacit learning, through the hands-on use of AI and robotics. Tacit learning is learning by doing. Using AI tools or robots needs to be made as easy and as commonplace as goggling for answers on a web browser or operating a television remote control. Robots should be deployed more widely in our environment so that the public get used to seeing and using them every day. Giving every Singaporean hands-on practice with AI and robotics will better ensure that the gains of these technologies go to everyone, manual workers and knowledge workers, civil servants and entrepreneurs, MNCs and SMEs. SkillsFuture must also support tacit learning. In February 2024, in my Adjournment Motion on global AI leadership, I called for the subscriptions to cutting edge AI tools to be subsidised by SkillsFuture credits. AI tools make workers more productive and we should give our people more opportunities to use them.”
“And they must be willing to network with a wide spectrum of people from different cultures and nationalities and understand what motivates them. Singapore is often viewed as a nation of excellence. In local parlance, we do things "swee swee". Give Singaporean a task and when they say they have done it, we can trust that it has been done well. We must never let this culture of excellence slip. It is our advantage in an increasingly competitive world. AI and robotics both have both burst into mainstream consciousness in recent years, with the launch of generative AI and self-driving cars. These technologies could provide a path to boosting Singapore's productivity by enhancing the speed, accuracy and efficiency of various tasks and processes. There are many studies of AI's measurable impact on productivity. For example, a joint study by BCG and Harvard found that consultants using GPT-4 completed 12% more business tasks 25% more quickly with 40% higher quality than a control group without AI-access. These are amazing opportunities for Singapore to take advantage of. The Government can spur a broader uptake of AI and robotics, not only for our scientists and businesses, but also for general purpose use by ordinary citizens. In November 2023, I asked about whether the Government plan to develop indigenous capabilities in creating and deploying AI foundation models, including establishing a national Foundation Model Research Institute. In February 2024, I proposed the creation of a national AI Healthcare Foundation Model which can be used to predict and intervene in a broad spectrum of diseases. I would like to repeat these calls here. These are not just national initiatives but possible precursors to greater regional scientific cooperation.”
“Mr Speaker, Singaporean workers aspire towards making a good living and engaging in meaningful work that uplifts not only their own families, but also their communities, their nation and the world. One inescapable reality of work is competition. We have always had a very competitive culture in Singapore. This has served us well in many ways, from the excellent performance of our students in schools to our efforts the top global rankings and everything from corruption perceptions to business friendliness. However, competition also has a darker side. Singaporeans are not looking to the Government to shield them from global competition. However, we detest unfair competition where people who do not play by the rules or follow local norms, still get ahead. For example, when Singaporean workers see colleagues getting hired and promoted not on the basis of their ability or hard work nut because their manager prefers working with people who share his cultural background, this creates a profound dissonance in them. Why? Because Singaporeans have been brought up to believe that meritocracy is a guiding principle in our society. We want a Singapore which rewards workers and professionals based on their competence and hard work, not connections or tribal loyalties. Nevertheless, while we strive to shape the Singapore that we desire, we are but a small drop in a vast ocean. We have to teach our children and students to deal with the world as it is, not how we wanted to be. They must be taught at home and in schools to speak up when they have something to contribute, not stay silent in the background. They must be encouraged to ask for what is due to them and not simply accept what others decide for them without question.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Can I ask if the Government is pushing for more data computing power in the country, in other words, building more data centres? If so, how would the Government ensure that Singaporeans directly benefit from these developments and we create a more level paying field for everyone to access such computing power, including microenterprises, students and individual Singaporeans? Secondly, what are the Government's sustainability considerations with regard to data centres, given that data centres consume a tremendous amount of energy which contributes to the carbon footprint and environmental impact in Singapore.”
“Sir, I would like to address another point that the Minister made. He said that when there is a choice between taking MRT and a bus on a parallel route, it is faster to take the MRT in many cases. The lived reality for a lot of residents, especially the elderly, is that speed is not the highest priority. Very often, it is if they can walk less and there is a sheltered way all the way that they can take without having to get wet, they would prefer to take the bus rather than MRT. I am not saying that we do not get rid of the buses which have low ridership. But I think the fact is that we cannot just look in terms of efficiency, in terms of the speed of the trip, because different commuters have different priorities.”
“Sir, I sense the Minister is trying to paint me as being a populist by calling for all buses to run parallel to the MRT lines. I never called for that. In fact, if the Minister has tracked the arguments I have made about this issue in the past two years, in my area in Bedok Reservoir, several buses were removed. I do not recall calling for the buses to be restored. But my focus was always on increasing the frequency of the remaining bus, which is Bus 228, which is still a live issue with my constituents because whenever I go down to the constituency, it is a very common feedback I get that the frequency of the bus is not enough and, because of that, they call for the bringing back of the other buses that were taken away. But my argument to the Government has always been to increase the frequency of Bus 228. In contrast, Bus 167 was removed and now it has been brought back, possibly because of public pressure. What was the second point that the Minister was asking me about? Does that answer the question that the Minister was asking me?”
“Sir, I have some supplementary questions for the Minister, and I will address his question after that. Firstly, has the Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducted surveys of commuters, particularly elderly commuters, to gauge whether they prefer taking buses or the MRT for routes where both options are available, perhaps because it is less crowded and there is less walking required? And if so, what were the results and what were the reasons why one mode was preferred over another? Secondly, does LTA factor these survey results in deciding whether to withdraw bus services that run parallel to new MRT lines? In response to the Minister's question, I would also offer the point whether the Ministry of Transport (MOT) has considered the cost to the economy, to our environment, if people avoid taking public transport and they choose to continue driving cars or taking other forms of private transport? That entails a cost as well and has MOT calculated the cost of that if, let us say, public transport is not as convenient or is perceived to be not as convenient as it was before?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Given that an estimated 5% to 8% of children have ADHD of varying degrees in Singapore, this would be equivalent to about 38,000 to 60,800 children aged 14 and under. So, what proportion of these children have been treated for ADHD or currently undergoing treatment? Second, ADHD symptoms typically appear between the ages of three and six years. Does the Ministry of Health (MOH) provide or fund training to parents or preschool teachers on how to identify symptoms of ADHD in children and provide guidance to their parents on how to seek professional help and financial support to get it diagnosed and treated early? Lastly, what forms of psychoeducation are available in Singapore to help people with ADHD and their families learn about their condition, the treatment options and coping strategies, and are there any subsidies available to lower-income households for these interventions?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I just want to understand why is it that the Family Scheme under HDB does not include spouses with LTVP who are LTVP holders. Because LTVP is similar to SPR in many ways – as far as healthcare is concerned, they get similar kinds of benefits. So, why do they not get the same kind of housing benefits that SPRs get? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we look after the Singaporean families first, as the resources are finite. As such, we want to support and prioritise Singaporean families. However, as I shared earlier, those with a valid LTVP, even though they may not come under the Family Scheme, they have the option to purchase resale flats, excluding the 3Gen flats and flats under the Prime Location Public Housing model. So, basically, it is about how we prioritise resources. At the same time, we look at the circumstances of the family. So, I want to assure the Member that HDB has allowed appeals in various instances; it is something we look at, on a case-by-case basis. We also work with the residents to see how they can have that housing option. While we move forward, I hope that Members would also understand the situation that we are facing, where we want to balance the needs of our citizens and at the same time, we also want to make sure that there are opportunities for parenthood and provide housing options for Singaporeans, whatever circumstances they are in, and also provide help for those who are in dire need.”
“Thank you, Sir. The Minister did not address my additional suggestion regarding the transparency of Reserves. If the Government does not want to reveal the full size of the Reserves to the public because it is concerned that currency speculators will attack the Singapore dollar, can the size of the Reserves be shared confidentially with MPs or just a cross-party Select Committee, so that they can have a more robust debate and discussion about our country's long-term Budget and expenditure plans?”
“Conversely, expecting MPs to scrutinise, debate and approve the Government Budget and each Ministry's allocation without full knowledge of our Reserves is comparable to making a decision on buying a house without knowing how much money they have in the largest bank account. Mr Speaker, I urge a review of the Government's stance on the secrecy of the Reserves. If the Government wishes to maintain a strategic ambiguity regarding the full size of the Reserves, the figures could be shared confidentially with MPs or with the cross-party standing finance Select Committee that looks into the health of our Reserves and Government finances, which the Leader of the Opposition has proposed. This Parliamentary Committee will then be able to properly consider the specific funding needs vis-à-vis the threats that Singapore must prepare for and make recommendations to the Government on how these needs could be funded. Sir, I support the original Motion.”
“The value of both MAS' OFR and RMGS had been revealed publicly, so has the value of Temasek Holdings' net portfolio. What remains is the value of the Reserves held by GIC, which it has only revealed is well over US$100 billion. It is estimated to be many multiples of that. In a Parliamentary reply on 3 October 2023, Deputy Prime Minister Wong said that we need to brace for extreme tail-risk scenarios, including crises of unprecedented scale that could lead to significant capital outflows beyond MAS' Reserves, or emergencies caused by state or non-state actors threatening our economy, livelihoods or national existence. Sir, the spectre of extreme scenarios cannot be a carte blanche for maintaining a veil of secrecy over our reserves. Is the Government keeping the reserves held by GIC a secret only to prepare for extreme tail-risk scenarios? Or is it also to avoid questions from MPs and the public on why our substantial Reserves are not being invested more in Singaporeans? Greater transparency serves to both improve governance and foster a more inclusive and informed discussion about our nation's future. Transparency about the size of our reserves will facilitate more robust public discourse and democratic debate about our country's long-term Budget and expenditure plans. It will ensure that decisions regarding the use of our national wealth are made with the participation and understanding of citizens. Most importantly, it will increase accountability, as my hon friend from Sengkang, Jamus Lim, has explained in his speech, and build more trust in the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, in our quest to safeguard the Singapore dollar, especially the volatilities of currency crises, it is important for a country to hold sufficient OFR. We have seen the dire consequences of not having enough in the tank during Thailand's ordeal in 1997. The country's struggle, stemming in part from currency speculation, led to a severe depletion of its OFR. This forced it to float its currency, triggering an economic crisis which affected the whole region, including Singapore. MAS has assessed that the "optimal" amount of OFR it needs to provide a "strong buffer" against stresses in the global economy and market is between 65% and 75% of GDP. The central bank assessed this level based on internationally-accepted measures of reserve adequacy and its own practical experience in foreign exchange intervention to ensure the stability of the Singapore dollar. Since the MAS (Amendment) Act came into force on 21 February 2022, MAS has been allowed to subscribe to the Reserves Management Government Securities (RMGS). This allows the transfer of OFR to the Government for the long-term investment by GIC. This is OFR above what MAS needs to conduct monetary policy and support financial stability. Should there be a need to supplement the OFR on MAS' balance sheet, in the instance of a tail-risk event, it can redeem the RMGS before maturity at par. Based on a Parliamentary reply by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to me, as at September 2023, MAS' current OFR stood at $455.5 billion or 70% of GDP, with the potential to ramp it up to 106% of GDP by redeeming the RMGS holdings of $237.6 billion. This means MAS effectively has access to 31% more foreign reserves than the high-end of the range it assesses to be optimal to defend the Singapore dollar.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Since the Healthier SG programme was launched in July last year, does the Ministry of Health have data showing higher demand for enrolments in polyclinics or GP clinics compared to the available spots? Some patients who have been regularly visiting their neighbourhood polyclinics have reported being unable to enrol for Healthier SG under those polyclinics as they are at full capacity. Instead, they have to enrol in a GP clinic, which they are less familiar with. Just now, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that they are prioritising or they are setting site places for the regular patients. Can I confirm that all regular patients of polyclinics will be able to register or enrol in Healthier SG with the polyclinic that they have been regularly attending?”
“Mr Speaker, in conclusion, a healthcare AI moonshot strategy will position Singapore as a global leader in AI, by leveraging our unique capabilities in consolidating biomedical and healthcare data. It is a national approach, designed to secure data sovereignty, navigate data privacy concerns, ensure Singapore captures the benefits of AI and maximise public buy-in. This is not about picking winners. It is a proactive strategy to ensure Singapore thrives in the AI-driven future to benefit all Singaporeans. I presented just one example of a moonshot that Singapore could pursue. There may be other moonshots of equal or greater merit. I welcome open debate on selecting moonshots, but, we cannot pull our punches if AI is truly the new industrial revolution. Singapore possesses the talent, resources and infrastructure needed to compete for the top spot in selected AI fields. Achieving it requires political will, a readiness to embrace risks and proactive intervention by the Government. We can do it and we must do it, for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans.”
“By having a single foundation model for, say, both chest X-rays and retinal image interpretation, we can overcome data fragmentation across medical specialties and make it increasingly possible to uncover foundational principles of diseases. As for electronic health records, the NEHR system is valuable, but, it needs to be AI-ready in order to consolidate complex datasets such as histology imaging, genetic data or protein data. We should create comprehensive longitudinal patient histories, spanning years. Existing data needs to be sufficiently standardised to serve AI analysis, without a massive amount of preprocessing. An AI Healthcare Company under the AI Catalyst Corporation could drive this moonshot. This AI healthcare company needs its own versatile multi-modal foundation model, integrated with the NEHR. This will enable large-scale analysis to identify at-risk groups, conduct preventative screening and perform early treatment. It will also enable high-quality acute care, as a simultaneous expert in genomics, biology, general medicine and the specialties. The AI healthcare company could build the world's best multi-modal healthcare AI and healthcare dataset. This could establish an unmatched resource – built in Singapore, for the world. Local AI startups can also benefit from this foundation model, to build their own applications to sell to the world. Just like how OpenAI's access to ChatGPT queries, provides unmatched data for improving their future large language models, the first company to create a versatile multi-modal healthcare foundation model would likely find itself at the frontier of healthcare AI.”
“However AI, when used for healthcare, which can potentially benefit everyone, is less likely to attract controversies or nationalist and protectionist tendencies. By assuming a leadership role in this field, Singapore can export our healthcare AI innovations, generate much international goodwill and even use this to advance our foreign policy. And finally, does it benefit Singaporeans? Yes, through improved public health, economic growth and global technological leadership. Singapore has other comparative advantages in the race for global leadership in healthcare AI. We have a robust healthcare system, the SingPass digital ID, cross-domain talent and a history of Government investments and interventions in specific industries. Singapore's demographic diversity provides rich healthcare data across ethnicities and ages. Healthcare AI can catalyse the development of adjacent fields like computational genomics and precision medicine. Singapore has the ingredients for a breakthrough in Healthcare AI. To succeed, the Government needs to take the lead in putting these ingredients together. To realise a healthcare AI moonshot, Singapore must combine existing ingredients into a coherent strategy. We should aim to export specialised services and medical diagnoses, not raw data. We can create an advanced AI model trained on genetics, protein biomarkers, histology and electronic health records. We should aim to radically improve our ability to prevent disease, intervene and make causal inferences. A multi-modal healthcare AI foundation model, moves beyond narrowly specified point solutions.”
“The players are fragmented among various entities, like EHR providers, tech firms, life sciences companies, insurers and hospitals. Those with vast healthcare data may not have efficient AI models and vice-versa. Singapore, on the other hand, has a unique opportunity to build population-scale healthcare data ecosystem, tailored for AI. We can more easily overcome the coordination challenges that may oblige larger ecosystems to build healthcare AI components in a piecemeal fashion. A platform called MOH TRUST already aggregates multiple healthcare research datasets and the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) system, aggregates clinical data across Singapore. So, the Government is already collecting and coordinating healthcare data. What is missing, is the impetus to use this data to drive the future of AI through an industrial policy. Third, are there "moats" against global technological giants? Yes. Healthcare AI depends a lot on having local healthcare teams and physical sensors to collect and manage clinical data. AI can serve as an assistant to local healthcare workers and give Singapore an edge over others. Singapore has already signalled this commitment to generating comprehensive data, like in the SG100K genome study. Healthcare also has more durable data moats over other AI spheres, like linguistics, where SEA-LION's defences against global technological giants in low-resource languages is uncertain. Fourth, does healthcare have export potential? Yes, as a public good, healthcare AI can benefit other countries, while facing fewer sovereignty concerns. Debates are taking place globally about where large AI systems are trained and deployed.”
“I would like to propose five key principles: first, its products or services must directly benefit Singapore and Singaporeans; second, it should have export potential and become part of Singapore's economic growth engine; third, it needs to have "moats" – which are durable advantages to prevent it from being quickly outcompeted or swallowed up by global tech giants; fourth, there must be a genuine unmet global market gap that Singapore has advantages in tackling; and fifth, the industry should be ripe for fundamental disruption, not just incremental improvements. Healthcare AI could be a moonshot that Singapore can aim for. I will present the case for this and answer the five questions in reverse order. First, is healthcare ripe for fundamental disruption? Yes. Healthcare systems worldwide are under strain, due to ageing populations and chronic disease burdens. Healthcare institutions tend to treat diseases late in their course, when symptoms are severe and care is expensive. Yet, major conditions like obesity, heart disease and cancer, are driven by shared underlying factors. This outdated care model no longer aligns well with scientific reality. Healthcare AI, supported by population-scale data, has the potential to predict risks and intervene early to significantly improve health outcomes. This will require a reorganisation of healthcare delivery that focuses on early prevention and action. Singapore has started this journey through the Healthier SG programme. Let us turbocharge it with healthcare AI. Second, is there a genuine unmet global market gap? Yes. Electronic health record (EHR) systems remain fragmented worldwide. Even in the US, no dominant player exists in healthcare AI.”
“Achieving some of these AI moonshots has implications on our economic security and even our sovereignty. Advances in AI rely on large, high-quality data sets. We must ensure that foreign technological firms and governments do not end up extracting our data overseas to build AI products, which then get sold back to Singaporeans. This will allow such firms to profit immensely, while local expertise flounders. Currently, no global framework governs cross-border data flows and ownership. This allows predatory dynamics to continue between countries and companies. Once market dominance is achieved, network effects and the dynamics of chasing a moving target, make it almost impossible for new entrants to catch up. If we are not careful, Singapore may become only a consumer of such platforms, while the economic benefits and the best jobs go overseas. Singapore should avoid this, by proactively building comprehensive local data sets for homegrown AI development. We should pursue a few ambitious, publicly-funded moonshot projects. These projects must prioritise transparency and align their outcomes with the national interest, ensuring that economic gains directly benefit our citizens. A new government-owned AI startup will be needed to catalyse this moonshot and, I will refer to it as the AI Catalyst Corporation. It should be independently run with commercial dynamism, yet be ultimately answerable to Singaporeans. What constitutes a well-chosen moonshot?”
“To raise a body of local AI talent, AI-training programme places and talent pipelines must be focused on Singaporeans. We need to plan ahead and start training all our students early in AI – not just students who are academically strong in the sciences and mathematics. For mid-career workers, hands-on interaction with AI tools is one of the best forms of training. The Government should expand the scope of SkillsFuture Credits, to cover expenses for subscriptions to AI assistants like ChatGPT Plus or Github Co-pilot to accelerate their productivity. This will level the playing field for Singaporeans with less means to pay for such subscriptions. Paid models like ChatGPT-4, have been assessed to be significantly better than their free counterparts and we should give our workers more opportunities to use the best models. Next, on industry. It was once unclear if it were possible for humans to reach the moon. But US President John F Kennedy made a speech to Congress in 1961, rallying his nation to achieve the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth before the end of that decade. And the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s Apollo 11 mission achieved it ahead of schedule, on 20 July 1969. A “moonshot” is an ambitious, exploratory and groundbreaking target that has the possibility of spurring breakout growth. We need moonshots in AI, which NAIS 2.0 appears to lack. The Government has the resources and capability to take more risks, on a longer timescale, to pursue high-reward moonshots. These could catalyse future engines of growth. But first, the Government must catch the vision and have the determination to make our country number one in our chosen AI domains.”
“The goal in NAIS 2.0 to generate 15,000 AI jobs sparked a blend of enthusiasm and apprehension among Singaporeans. Concerns linger that, as has happened in the past, foreigners may dominate lucrative positions, including leadership positions, leaving Singaporeans with mainly the routine and lower-paying jobs. This could impede our citizens’ career advancement alongside the advancing AI landscape. NAIS 2.0 has three labour planks: scaling up AI-specific training programmes; scaling up technology and AI talent pipelines; and remaining open to global tech talent. Will the Government commit to ensuring that a sizable majority of at least two-thirds of the 15,000 new "AI practitioner" jobs will go to Singaporeans? I acknowledge the importance of global AI talent. However, there must be a clear differentiation between exceptional global talent and the average foreign technological worker. We should welcome the former, but, should avoid importing too many of the latter, as they may end up competing with Singaporeans who can do the job just as well. Any global talent that we bring in, must be expected to transfer their skills to locals, not just use Singapore as a springboard for greater pursuits in other countries. This can be done through tying company grants to the achievement of knowledge transfer or through limited-term foreign work passes, tied to the training of Singaporean workers. The AI playground is level, with a highly collaborative open-source community. The core techniques and frameworks are mature enough and reasonably accessible through papers and code. With the right training, mentorship and opportunities, Singaporean talent can deliver as well as anyone in the world.”
“Mr Speaker, the Government unveiled its National AI Strategy report (NAIS 2.0) last December. The report outlines Singapore's plans to harness artificial intelligence (AI) for the public good, focusing on enhancing AI capabilities, addressing potential risks and fostering a thriving AI ecosystem. I appreciate the hard work that many policy-makers have put into writing this report, including their efforts to consult with industry. However, I believe that Singapore needs a more comprehensive AI industrial policy and clearer outcomes for each industry. We need a strategy that aims to make our nation the global leader in selected AI fields. Under NAIS 2.0, the Government's main role revolves around enabling an environment for AI to grow and enhancing the efficiency of public agencies. While these are important, the Government certainly has the resources and capability to do much more. In this AI-driven era, we need the Government to intercede more proactively to create a world-leading AI industry. Simply leaving things to the free market may not produce the desired results because of the constraints of our local private sector and our small domestic market. It will risk forfeiting some promising economic growth opportunities that AI can bring for our nation. Singapore's small population size should not deter us from global AI leadership. Historical industrial successes have been built on strategic government interventions, such as Taiwan’s support of TSMC, which played a pivotal role in its journey to becoming a global semiconductor manufacturing juggernaut. Today, I will address NAIS 2.0’s AI labour policy and advocate for a strong AI industrial policy so that Singapore can aim for global leadership in selected AI domains. Let us begin with the AI labour policy.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I use public transport for the vast majority of my journeys and I have been using SimplyGo for the past few years. It has always bothered me slightly that I cannot see the fare charge at the gates because I do not know if I am being overcharged. However, I am able to see the fare charge on the SimplyGo app almost immediately after I exited the fare gate. And the fact that the fare game can open immediately after the SimplyGo card is placed on the reader means that the signals are able to make a round trip to the server and back in a reasonable amount of time. So, can the Minister share exactly what is the latency, preferably in milliseconds, that prevents the fare balance from being shown at the gate? Secondly, many commuters were upset that their user experience was being downgraded without the public consultation or benefit in return and that SimplyGo also cannot be used for motoring. So, instead of spending $40 million to extend the life of the card-based ticketing system for another six years, can LTA instead use that money to upgrade the SimplyGo system to overcome these technical constraints? LTA could, for example, extend the contract by just one more year while it irons out the usability issues and transitions the remaining 30% of users to the SimplyGo system. And finally, could the Minister please answer my Parliamentary Question No 15 Parts (b) and (c), and share how much cost savings will be gained by having a fully ABT system and whether it can return these cost savings to commuters in a form of rebates?”
“Who therefore, is ultimately accountable for the Government's anti-scam efforts? To summarise, my recommendations as follows. First, banks must significantly increase their responsibility towards consumer protection, including by providing physical tokens to customers. Second, MAS should take a more active role in acertaining responsibility for scams carried out on banks, digital platforms and supporting victims. Third, the Online Criminal Harms Act needs to be fully operational operationalised without further delay. Fourth, the Government needs to hold technology companies more accountable for their security of their platforms and devices. And finally, a central anti-scam agency should oversee and be ultimately accountable for the Government's anti-scam efforts. Mdm Deputy Speaker, we stand at the critical juncture in the battle against scams. Our actions in the face of this scourge will determine our commitment to protecting our citizens in the digital age. Let us act swiftly and decisively to protect our people and indeed, ourselves. I support the Motion.”
“Scam victims need a comprehensive explanation from a knowledgeable and impartial entity like MAS about how the scam occurred. This explanation should detail the roles of banks, telcos, customers and other entities in both the occurrence and prevention of such scams. This will determine who is responsible and who should bear the loss, the cost of these fraudulent acts. Furthermore, responsibility should not be limited to financial institutions, telcos and consumers. Social media companies and mobile phone handset manufacturers should be held accountable for securing their platforms again scams. All handsets sold in Singapore should be required to disable side loading of apps by default and make it difficult for end users to override critical security features. Social media platforms should be required to have processes in place to remove fraudulent posts soon after being notified. MCI has revealed that a notable proportion of residents, approximately 37%, do not regularly update their devices. Many of these may be less tech savvy users. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone will have the technical proficiency to keep their devices updated. Therefore, consumer protection strategies must be designed on the premise that a significant number of users will not know how to keep their devices updated and should incorporate additional layers of security to safeguard these users. A central agency should oversee all scam investigations and responses. I am aware of the Anti-Scam Command (ASCom) and the important work their officers are doing. However, given that ASCom is a department under the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force, I do not think it can be held accountable for whole-of-Government efforts to combat scams.”
“I echo Ms Sylvia Lim's earlier call for banks to reintroduce physical tokens as a default measure for multi-factor authentication for all their customers. Multi-factor authentication relies on a combination of something you know and something you have. However, when phones are compromised by malware, allowing scammers to view screens and keystrokes, this system collapses into a single factor. This allows scammers who have access to the password entered by the user to bypass the additional security layer. Therefore, bringing back physical tokens will reinstate the crucial second layer of security. MAS must more assertively and decisively tackle the problem of scams in the banking system to protect consumers. In my dealings with MAS, when advocating for constituents victimised by scams, I have observed that MAS tends to forward these critical cases to the banks for their follow-up instead of directly addressing and resolving the issues on behalf of victims. This delegation process then places the onus on the banks to determine who is at fault, the institution or the victim, for the occurrence of the scam. Such a practice raises serious concerns about the impartiality and effectiveness on the investigation. I have also observed a discrepancy in MAS' approach to enforcing actions on financial institutions for different violations. On one hand, MAS imposes very punitive measures like restrictions on acquisitions and additional capital requirements on banks when there are brief downtimes in online banking and ATM services. On the other hand, this level of decisiveness and rigour is markedly absent in addressing scam cases. MAS should require banks to tackle scams with the same level of intensity and rigour as they do in safeguarding consumers interest for system outages.”
“Without thorough investigations, it will not be possible to ascertain fault and ensure that innocent victims are not held responsible for losses that they did not cause. Is the default blame then placed on the victims, who have to bear most of the financial loss? Scams have emerged as a formidable obstacle to advancing digital access for our citizens, particularly in our senior community. Numerous elderly residents I have encountered expressed a fear of using internet banking or online payments because they are apprehensive about falling prey to scams. Consequently, I find myself hesitant to advocate the use of digital banking to them, despite its convenience, due to the real risk of them losing their entire life savings if they are targeted by scammers. This situation has precipitated what Member for Aljunied, Ms Sylvia Lim, as she describes, as a crisis with confidence with the digital banking system. Unless the authorities address the issues of scams more effectively and establish stronger consumer protections, our extensive efforts to transition all our citizens into a digitally empowered society will come to naught. One tool the Government has on hand to deal decisively with scams is the Online Criminal Harms Act. This will allow the Government to, inter alia, direct online platforms to disable access to accounts suspected to be involved in scams. Parliament passed this Act last July. However, it is only set to be progressively rolled out this year. When will the Online Criminal Harms Act be fully operationalised? Given that an average of 87 scams are taking place every day in Singapore, each day of delay will be one day too late for many scam victims. Banks must shoulder a greater responsibility in protecting their customers.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the rise of sophisticated online scams and the resulting financial devastation on victims is a critical concern impacting Singaporeans from all walks of life. Across our nation, residents, both young and old, tech savvy and not, have fallen victim to these fraudulent schemes. I have met constituents who have lost their entire life savings to scammers, with even fixed deposit accounts being cleared out by these criminals. Some have joint accounts with their children or parents, doubling the impact on families. These incidents demonstrate a concerning vulnerability that affects us all. While I consider myself relatively tech savvy, I have to admit that even I feel the looming threat of becoming a victim one day. Many victims I have spoken to describe a disheartening response from their banks. Upon reporting the fraud, they frequently receive responses that are frustratingly vague or non-committal. They offer little information citing banking secrecy, and at times, a goodwill payment that does not fully cover the loss. Victims are sometimes told by the Police that the funds had been transferred overseas and nothing further can be done to retrieve the funds. The technical nature of these scams is deeply concerning. Drive-by download attacks and the more advanced zero-day exploits make it possible for malware to be installed on phones with little or no user action. These methods exploit vulnerabilities in operating systems and applications. In view of these sophisticated attacks, how far do the authorities investigate each reported scam, especially those involving screen reading and key logging malware?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Some remittance companies have a practice of going through third-party payout agents to perform the funds transfer using personal bank accounts. The Minister of State earlier said that MAS has prohibited this practice for three months. Are there plans to extend this prohibition for longer or ban the practice outright in order to better protect consumers? Secondly, given that most of these funds have left Singapore's jurisdiction and are held up by authorities in China, has MAS been in communication with all the complainants to inform them about the limits of Singapore's jurisdiction beyond the outreach session that was conducted in December, which was attended by just 39 individuals?”
“Sir, I note that the Minister shared how schools are using generative AI in the instruction of their students, has there been any change in the stance of MOE on the use of generative AI for graded schoolwork and assignment submissions? Secondly, do schools specifically teach all students on how to prompt generative AI models, since this is fast becoming a key skill for the workplace?”