Gho Sze Kee
Singapore
“Sir, Mr Speaker, I note that the premises at the Goodman Arts Centre are ultimately Government-owned and leased to the Arts House Group, a non-profit under the NAC, which also operates other arts places such as the Aliwal Art Centre and the Stamford Art Centre.”
“I have one supplementary question. In the United Kingdom, the Bankers Automated Clearing Services operates widely used direct debit scheme that includes advance notice of payment amounts, a direct debit guarantee, allowing for immediate refunds in case of error and strong consumer recourse mechanisms.”
“The Government is the stakeholder best sourced to identify future trends, it can anticipate emerging disruptions and map out skills and capabilities that will be needed. It can be seen that the broader patterns, the cross-sector shifts, the systemic risks and opportunities, and the Government can translate them into action.”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. I ask this question because I had many residents who came to see me about the PPHS and they were unsuccessful despite multiple attempts. I understand that the supply of these flats are from vacant Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Schemes (SERS) units. Are there other SERS flats available for the PPHS?”
“Mr Speaker, I noted the Senior Minister of State's answer to my earlier Question No 3. I just wanted to be clear. If there is a compression of available places for non-affiliated students because Direct School Admission (DSA) for non-affiliated students do eat into the minimum quota of 20%, as we have just learnt, is this a contributing f…”
“Mr Speaker, I think it would be very helpful if schools were to publish the number of DSA offers made this year and the number of affiliated students admitted in the previous year, and also, the incoming cohort size.”
The complete record
Every one of 73 lines we hold for Gho Sze Kee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to also extend my congratulations to Team Singapore for their showing at the 2025 SEA Games. They have flown our flag high and done our country proud. Well done, Team Singapore. Their performance is a fitting backdrop for the passage of this particular Bill in the House and at this juncture I would also extend my best wishes to Team Singapore at the ASEAN Para Games next week. Sir, Mountbatten has long been the sports hub in Singapore and not just because our ward is home to the Singapore Sports Hub complex, or now known as The Kallang. Sir, 22 Mountbatten residents donned the national colours to Thailand this year. Mountbatten is where many of our national sportsmen and sportswomen train, the home base of many NSAs and the Singapore National Olympic Council, the Singapore Disability Sports Council and SportSG itself. I especially look forward to the realisation of the Kallang Alive Master Plan when the Singapore Sports School will also find a new home in Mountbatten. We should acknowledge that the Government has done a great deal for sports in Singapore. One only needs to take a walk around the Kallang precinct to see the physical embodiment of the Government's support and commitment. And it is not just the physical facilities and hardware. We have also built a very comprehensive support system for our high performance athletes, one which supports them from the start of their sporting career journey through their transition into a second career. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Today, the various spex schemes support our athletes. Many of them receive a monthly stipend to a maximum cap of $804,000 dollars a month, and recently with CPF top-ups. Emerging athletes can receive a smaller amount through spexPotential.”
“Mr Speaker, I have two clarifications. I understand that the Government has to act because a demolition application has been submitted. Now that we are at this point where the Government has announced the intention to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, our focus should be on future plans. On the practical note, may I ask the Minister if the Landed Housing Areas zoning of the area will remain unchanged or will there be a review of zoning rules in the neighbourhood? My second question to the Acting Minister, is it truly necessary to arrive at a decision on what to do with this site in this term of Government? I ask this because of my disquiet at some of the options listed in the 2018 Ministerial Committee report, which included options to demolish everything except the basement dining room. We must remember that what is demolished cannot be undemolished. I note that the Ministerial Committee report also noted that there may be a loss of historical context under this option. Would it not be better to leave these decisions on future developments of the site to future generations?”
“We want fairness to become second nature in our workplaces. We want respect, inclusion and equality to become embedded in the work culture here in Singapore. And this is what we aspire to see. To get there, we cannot rely on legislation alone. We also need education, awareness and outreach. The different stakeholders must step up. The Ministry, our unions, our employers and our workers. Only we can make this happen and let us not forget that. Sir, notwithstanding my reservations, I do support this Bill.”
“For the system to be perceived as fair and just, and for all parties to have confidence in this process, the quality and training of mediators and, by extension, the quality of ECT judges at the ECT will be absolutely critical. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to touch on the point about the effectiveness of mediation in cases of post-employment. I feel that mediation still remains meaningful because it focuses more on resolution rather than reconciliation. Even after someone leaves a toxic workplace, mediation provides a very natural platform to clarify issues, address lingering grievances and negotiating matters like payment. It helps both parties move forward without the weight of conflict. In short, mediation after employment is not about repairing the past. It is also about creating a respectful closure for the future. At the end of the day, I would like to say this: the proof of this particular pudding is not in the pudding itself, but in the eating. The real test only comes when the first cases go through the process prescribed by this Bill. And I will be watching the process very closely. Mr Deputy Speaker, the law is by nature both prescriptive and reactive. It tells us what should not be done and sets out what happens if it is done. The two Workplace Fairness Bills make it clear that discrimination has no place in our workplaces, and they provide clear consequences where it occurs. But we must remember that the law we make is not an end in itself, but only a means to an end. Ideally, the law succeeds when it never has to be used to punish or correct. We must remember that what we really want in our society is not more claims or more cases. We want fewer. We do not want to punish what is wrong, but promote what is right.”
“But the requirements are perplexing. Direct union representation can happen only if the company and employee are members of their respective unions and the company itself is unionised. But not in any other scenarios. Union members cannot tap on their union to represent them if their company is not unionised. This strikes me as an odd segregation of union members. If I were to use the perspective of the unions, I would naturally presume that employees of non-unionised companies are actually more vulnerable. I am thinking of the PMETs in particular, who make up around 63% of our workforce, but their rate of union membership is a lot less, making up about 45% of union members. Many working in such capacities are employed by non-unionised companies. This arrangement leaves out a very significant segment of our workforce. Will the Minister and/or the union leaders in the House please clarify the reasons for this segregation; why union representation at the ECT cannot be extended to union members at non-unionised companies? Mr Deputy Speaker, in my maiden speech in this House, I spoke on the issue of trust and the importance of thinking through how each policy and decision lands on the ground. The people derive their trust from their lived experience with the system. The process and implementation of this Bill will matter as much as the Bill itself. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech I always advocate for mediation as a first resort in my professional capacity. I have worked with many mediators. I have much faith in mediation, in a large part because I was fortunate to have worked with many excellent mediators.”
“Allowing them to directly represent companies in the ECT would almost certainly prejudice the employee and lead to unfairness. There are many ways to define the scope of in-house counsels and specifically exclude them. A regulation to that effect could be made by the Minister. I urge the Minister to consider this point again. Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have strong reservations about leaving out smaller firms with fewer than 25 employees from the very start. The reason for doing this does not sit well. There are many laws in place that all employers, big and small, are expected to comply with, including the Workplace Safety and Health Act, the Personal Data Protection Act, the Employment Act, and so on. Thus, I can see no reason why we should assume smaller firms will struggle with compliance, and why they will need more time than bigger ones. In fact, I would argue that it is precisely because the smaller firms lack the competencies to comply with this law that makes their employees more vulnerable to workplace discrimination. I cannot find the exact numbers but considering that SMEs make up the overwhelming bulk of companies in Singapore, I think it is safe to assume that these smaller firms make up a significant percentage of employers. To exclude their employees from the coverage of the WFA is to do them a great disservice. I suggest that MOM should actually devote more resources to assist these smaller firms with the process of compliance instead of taking the path of least resistance. Sir, I also welcome the role of unions in this framework. I am glad to see a pathway for unions to directly represent the parties at the ECT. They will be invaluable in representing the interests of the parties without the added baggage and cost of lawyers.”
“The same scope for legal professionals that exist under the ECTs still exists. In fact, it will get bigger. The intent of the ECT is to deliver adjudication in a fair, quick and accessible way. Making it cheap makes it more accessible. Allowing direct legal representation makes it more expensive and it will likely make the whole process more adversarial and dragged out more than it has to be. This runs contrary to the intent of the ECT. Furthermore, I imagine if an employer is big enough to have an in-house counsel, then clearly there is already a stark and wide asymmetry of power – a David and Goliath situation. Allowing legal representation will not do much to alter this inherent imbalance but it will add another layer of cost to both sides, particularly for David. In a real legal arms race, the pockets of David will hurt far more. It is also less clear in real life who is David and who is Goliath. We can imagine a small company being disadvantaged by a sophisticated claimant. But I do believe that in-house counsels could be a problem. In fact, I did highlight this issue to the Ministry earlier in my capacity as a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee and suggested that in-house counsels should be restricted at the ECT. True, we typically see in-house counsels only in larger organisations. So, this issue may exist only in a minority of cases, but justice and fairness must not only be done, but it also needs to be seen to be done. Parties coming through the system must have confidence that they are not handicapped, and that the system is fair and equitable to all parties. More than just optics, I also speak from experience. Many in-house counsels were experienced litigators. I know what the capable ones can do.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to first declare my interest as a practising lawyer. Making the law is, of course, very different from practising the law. When we make laws, we should always consider the broader intent and spirit of the law and how it will be implemented and used. We also have to consider the implications for our society and the lived experience of those it will touch. It especially matters for this Bill, since it will guide us on how sensitive matters involving race, language and religion are dealt with in our workplaces. We mean for our workplaces to be harmonious, non-litigious and for disputes to be settled without escalation as much as possible. The proposed process is designed to reflect this intent. I agree that adjudication should be the last resort for any workplace discrimination disputes. I also think we should not become an overly litigious society. Not every issue should be fought in Court and not every grievance should be escalated into a legal arms race. In fact, I advocate for mediation whenever I can in my professional capacity. Justice is best served when it is quick, fair and accessible. And of course, it helps very much if it can be cheap, too, because lawyers can be very expensive. The ECT was designed precisely for all of that. I welcome the expanded role and scope that this Bill will give. There were some concerns about the lack of direct legal representation at the ECTs. It was pointed out that this may result in an asymmetry of power between the parties for WFA claims, especially so when some companies do have in-house counsels. First, I must note that even though direct legal representation is not allowed, there is nothing to stop either side from engaging lawyers to advise and prepare their case.”
“One supplementary question, please. Because the Central Manpower Base is administratively under the Ministry of Defence and handles the pre-enlistment of all uniformed services, I would like to ask the Minister of State, in light of the recent suicide attempt of a Singapore Police Force NSF using his own service arms, are there any plans to include psychological screening as part of the battery of pre-enlistment procedures?”
“Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. To put things into perspective, 25 kilometres per hour would be about seven metres per second, and about 14 to 15 seconds for every 100 metres. That is roughly the speed of a very fit and casual jogger, somewhat like Mr Speaker, when you are running at full throttle. So, imagine that, Mr Speaker, the momentum of a bicycle. And this is what pedestrians, especially the elderly staying in Mountbatten and perhaps in other areas of Singapore, are facing right now. So, in light of this, I will ask this question. Would the Minister of State not consider bicycles at that speed on a path shared by the elderly, young children and adults walking their pets, to be reckless as well? Should we not consider lowering the speed as a deterrent measure, as opposed to enforcement and education, especially when a lower speed limit will improve reaction time and safety?”
“It will directly impact Singapore's standing as a leading cargo hub. Sir, our status as a thriving air hub is crucial to our economy. It is a major driver of trade. It connects Singapore to the rest of the world. It also supports a large number of jobs, both directly and indirectly. The success of our air hub is crucial importance to our country. We must ensure that it remains strong and competitive. I am glad to know that the CAAS Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint, was recognised that environmental sustainability must be balanced with competitiveness. The previous Minister for Transport had also repeatedly emphasised the same point in this House. There is no benefit in moving too far ahead of others in SAF adoption. I could not agree more. Sustainability and competitiveness must go hand in hand. Only when we maintain our competitiveness, only when we thrive, can we meaningfully pursue sustainability goals. Without economic strength, sustainability becomes a heavy burden and a constraint. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill demonstrates Singapore's commitment to our environmental responsibilities. But I hope the Minister can assure us that cost structures are being closely monitored and that our air hub will remain competitive even as we pursue sustainability goals. We must always remind ourselves that sustainability and economic competitiveness must be pursued together.”
“However, our current passenger fees are already higher than all of our regional competitors. If costs rise too much, surely, we risk undermining Changi's position as a global air hub. Our competitors are also not standing still. Other airports are working hard to beat us at our own game. They are learning from us, improving on both hardware and software. Some are already nipping at our heels. Notably, none of our peer competitors, such as Incheon and Dubai airports, are as expensive. If we are not careful, if we take our eyes off the ball, someone else will be stealing our lunch. Next, I note that the proposed amendments enable a levy on both passenger and cargo flights. Indeed, CORSIA obligations cover both categories. I shall not pre-empt the detailed announcement of the levy structure. We do have some sense of how the centralised levy will work for passengers and a ballpark figure for the initial rate. However, there is still little detail on how the levy mechanism will apply to cargo flights. Sir, I must highlight this – Changi Airport is more than just a passenger hub. It is also a key cargo hub in the Asia Pacific. Beyond pure cargo flights, many services are hybrids, carrying both passengers and freight. Cargo customers tend to be more cost-sensitive. For them, intangibles, such as the Changi experience or the sights of Jewel have absolutely no bearing. What matters are efficiency, connectivity and cost. In that regard, cargo operators will even be more sensitive to increases in levies and costs. The impact could also be more significant to them in absolute dollar terms, since freight consignments can be much larger than individual tickets. That is how equitable the levy system is. The size of the levy quantum will be of great concern to cargo operators.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill introduces the SAF levy, a key part of the Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint and a step towards Singapore's net-zero carbon emissions. From next year, Singapore will be among the first countries and the first in Asia to mandate SAF use. The levy will also help airlines in Changi Airport meet CORSIA requirements, the global carbon reduction scheme for international aviation which will become mandatory in 2027. Sir, let me begin by making my position unequivocal. I support the Bill. Climate change is a major threat, especially for us, a tiny, low-lying island at the equator. We must do our part, not only for ourselves but also for our future generations. However, notwithstanding my support, I must voice a few caveats and seek some clarifications or, rather, reassurances, from the Minister. Allow me to share some quick numbers with the House. Currently, departing passengers from Changi Airport are charged a total of $65.20, comprising of the passenger service and security fee, the aviation levy and the airport development levy. This total sum is significantly higher than those of competing air hubs in the region. Let me offer some comparisons, based on current exchange rates in Singapore dollars. For KLIA, $23; Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok, $30; Dubai International, $45; Incheon, $24. Changi Airport's passenger charges are also projected to rise annually till 2030, reaching $79.20 before any SAF levy is added. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that Changi Airport offers unique value propositions over its competitors. We have strong values in connectivity, efficiency and quality of service. Changi is, simply put, a spectacular airport. Of course, I do not believe that we can successfully compete on cost and perhaps, nor should we.”
“We now stand on the cusp of a brave new world. What we do here in this House for the rest of our term, is not just for the Singaporeans who are here today, but for generations yet to come. So, let us never forget that. 6.51 pm”
“Many reported very low call-back rates and few positive outcomes. Most applications appeared to go unnoticed. The prevailing perception is that many jobs are merely posted to meet the legal requirement of 14 days, a performative task or exercise for employers before they could go on to apply for an E Pass for a foreign candidate who has already been earmarked. To me, this is a missed opportunity and a great pity, not because the intentions were unclear, but precisely the opposite. I know the Government's motivations. Our people are truly at the heart of everything that this Government does. I spent years with the grassroots before entering this House and I have witnessed this first-hand. Yet, I know good intentions and good policies alone are never enough. Without effective execution, without thinking through how things will land on the ground, even the best initiatives can fall short of their intent. We must always be mindful of the fragile and finite nature of this trust. Each time the lived experience of our people falls short of the intentions of policy, each time the execution falters, or lands wrongly on the ground, trust gets eroded. A deep reservoir of trust still exists between the Government and our people. That is the only reason we are still here. We do live in an imperfect world and no government is perfect. But this Government is the Government of the day. The awesome responsibility of governing Singapore and the trust of our fellow citizens rests with this party. We can and we must aim to do ever better. The seeds of today's Singapore were sown by our founding fathers 60 years ago. 60 years hence, most of us who are here in this House today will not be around. But our children, and our children's children, will be.”
“In the challenges ahead, it is this group that stands most exposed. And it is this group that has the most to lose. Mr Speaker, I worry for this particular group of people. They have been carrying the rest of us. Beyond preparing them to seize new opportunities, and guiding and supporting those who may face setbacks, I hope we can do more to lift some weight off their shoulders. I intend to speak up more for our PMETs and middle-class in this house. Lastly, some words on trust. Sir, the social compact that exists between this Government and our people rests fundamentally on trust. It is trust that underpins the partnership between Government and citizens, and it is this partnership that has allowed us to navigate many past crises together. The same will be true for the challenges that we now face. This trust is not abstract. It is derived from performance legitimacy. Performance legitimacy is formed in people's minds not from numbers and words, but from their lived experience, from what citizens actually see and feel in their daily lives, from how policies and initiatives land on the ground. Trust is not a permanent quality. It is also a finite quality. It cannot be assumed, nor can it be taken for granted. It can be eroded and must be earned and re-earned every single day. Sir, allow me to illustrate this with a concrete example, the MyCareersFuture Jobs Portal. The primary purpose of this website is laudable, to connect locals, especially PMETs, with job opportunities and to ensure that locals are given first consideration for jobs before foreign hires are brought in. After all, while we welcome foreign talent as a necessity, we should never be disadvantaged in our own country. Yet, the consistent feedback that we see online paints a rather different picture.”
“As long as we ensure that the pathway up is equally accessible to everyone, that is natural. That is to be expected. But we must guard against too many sliding down. We must especially guard against the hollowing out of the middle because when that happens, it erodes the very centre that holds us together and shakes confidence in the whole. Mr Speaker, our centre must hold. Not only are they the bedrock of our economy and drive our progress but they also embody the success and promise of the Singapore Story. We are successful, only because they are successful. Most crucially, this is because the broad middle is the one that anchors our social compact. A thriving middle class is therefore essential to our social stability and cohesion. If our middle-class shifts or gets squeezed, the ground beneath all of us becomes less steady. Our middle class has been feeling the squeeze for a long time. The pressures come from many fronts: job insecurity, a tightening labour market, inflation, rising cost of living and household debt. Many also shoulder the burdens of the sandwich class, supporting children on one side and caring for elderly parents on another. My ward, Mountbatten, has the full range of the socio-economic demographics, from rental flats to standalone bungalows. In my conversations with constituents, it is from the middle-class residents that I sense most anxiety and frustration. Our focus has always been to uplift those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder and rightly so. They must get the most help, and they do. The wealthy, by large, can weather the storms. They are better insulated from the pressures that buffet the rest of society. But it is our middle-class that often bears the heaviest burdens.”
“AI may just be one of the key enablers that allows us to break that mould. This could be the greatest opportunity of our generation. The choices before us are clear and stark. In truth, it is not even a choice. The AI disruption is here. It is unstoppable. We can either learn to ride it and thrive or be left behind. This is a challenge for our society and for every Singaporean. I am glad to note the Government has already moved decisively to position Singapore ahead. The GRIT programme will begin soon. Our national AI strategy, launched in 2019, well before ChatGPT entered our daily lives, sets out a clear and comprehensive roadmap to prepare our workforce, our infrastructure, and our economy for the transformations ahead. I actually encourage everyone to read the latest 2.0 version. The work of the Economic Strategy Review Committees will be critical in shaping the policies and initiatives that ensure Singapore is ready to confront the challenges and embrace the opportunities ahead. I look forward to their recommendations. Next, some thoughts on the Government’s response. This is a systemic challenge. It is not enough to look only at jobs and the economy. To ride this wave successfully, we must pay attention to the social impacts. In particular, we must guard against the inequality of outcomes. These stresses will be felt across society, but not equally. The most vulnerable and impacted segment of the AI disruption will, of course, be our PMETs, but they are also the ones who will power our transformation. The PMETs also form the core of our middle class. Together, they constitute the broad middle ground of our society. A healthy society always has some degree of social mobility. Some people move up, some move down.”
“The pace of change and breadth of disruption means there is far less time for the Government and our citizens, to react. It is also not only a distant problem. We are already seeing it unfold. Recent news of hiring freezes and layoffs among big tech companies in the US and other advanced economies, highlight the tangible, near-term impact of the AI disruption. We will not be immune. The first waves are already hitting our shores. Among my Mountbatten constituents, I am seeing fresh graduates struggling to find full-time jobs, and mid-career PMETs trying to pivot after losing theirs. The mid-career PMETs, with much heavier obligations, are having a hard time. Mr Speaker, I make no apologies for the frankness of my remarks so far. But I would be remiss if I do not highlight that this challenge, while daunting, carries with it enormous promise. The Chinese term for "crisis" – "危机" – combines the characters for danger and opportunity. The AI wave will be both. It will be disruptive, and perhaps painful in the short term, but it also holds immense potential for Singapore to advance, to innovate, and to capture new growths. While some jobs may become obsolete and displaced, entire new industries will emerge. New professions, new jobs will be created. Work that we cannot yet imagine will become part of the economy of tomorrow. Singapore is uniquely positioned to ride this wave. We have a highly educated, tech-savvy workforce. We have the supporting advanced infrastructure. And also, our high proportion of PMETs, in particular, can be our strategic advantage. With the right choices, together, we can transform this disruption into an era of renewed opportunity and prosperity. Conventional wisdom in economics holds that growth slows down in advanced, mature economies like ours.”
“It will create winners and losers. Those who can harness and adapt to the disruption will surge ahead. Others will struggle to adapt. Adoption will be uneven, outcomes will diverge. We will see high skill, high pay jobs created, even as many entry- and mid-level PMET roles are hollowed out or displaced. Those who climb up the value chain will advance rapidly, while others risk being pushed into lower value work. This will not just be a disruption in the workplace. It is a potential widening of social disparities. So, what does this mean for us? As I noted in the beginning, about two-thirds of our workforce are PMETs, which is actually one of the highest proportions in the world. Our advanced economy is also knowledge and services heavy, exactly the sectors where AI disruption will move fastest and hit the hardest. For our PMETs, this presents real pressure. Entry and mid-level white collar roles are the most vulnerable. Without timely upskilling and adaptation, many may find themselves displaced. The knock-on effects will be wide ranging. Entry and mid-level job opportunities may shrink in the near future. New graduates may face tough prospects, a trend we are already beginning to see. Mid-career PMETs will encounter greater uncertainty. Conventional assumptions about career progressions and success may no longer be taken for granted. Many jobs will be reshaped; hard earned skillsets may be rendered obsolete in short order. The narrowing of opportunities also risks trapping more on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Income and social inequality may widen. All of this presents a comprehensive challenge for our Government, for it will impact not only the economy, but also the very fabric of our society. And time is short.”
“Our national resilience will be tested. Our social compact may be strained. It is in this context that I would like to speak on some of the challenges ahead and share thoughts on how we can approach them. The most immediate challenge before us today is, of course, jobs, jobs and jobs. There are many factors churning our job market. But of all these, I believe the AI disruption will have the most pervasive and consequential impact. It is also an accelerant and amplifies the effects of all other challenges that we face. There are three aspects of the AI disruption that we should take note of. First, the speed of change. The rate of technological disruption today is unprecedented. Previous waves of tech disruptions, from personal computing to the Internet, unfolded over decades. Societies had the relative luxury of time to absorb and adapt. AI has up ended that timeline completely. To put things in perspective, ChatGPT reached 100 million users in just two months. Entire sectors, and entire industries, could be reshaped in a flash. Second, the breadth and depth of change. The AI disruption will touch every sector of our economy. It will strike further up the value chain, at knowledge intensive and cognitive tasks, tasks which are the very heart of PMET roles. It is also impacting tasks once thought to be uniquely human, such as creative and artistic endeavours. What is not displaced, will be reshaped and redesigned. Consider the tech sector, which gave us the very tools of this disruption. Today, one can create, debug and deploy a website or an app without writing a single line of code. The work of junior developers, routine programmers and similar roles is rapidly becoming obsolete. Third, the inequality of change. AI does not affect everyone equally.”
“Mr Speaker, it is a privilege to deliver my maiden speech in this House to register my support for the President's speech. I am a brand-new Member of the House. Thus, I seek your guidance and the indulgence of other Members of the House as I begin my parliamentary journey. Sir, Singapore is still a young nation, as nations go, but we have come far in our national journey. Today, we are a first world nation with an advanced economy. There are many measures and metrics that we can feel proud of. But most importantly, for our people, around two-thirds of our workforce are PMETs. Similarly, around two-thirds of our households are middle class by OECD's definition. These numbers put us in the leaders' pack globally. They are a reflection of decades of good governance, careful planning, and investment in the future. But these are not numbers just to feel good. More importantly, they are indicators that we have built a just and inclusive society, where opportunities and prosperity are not limited and concentrated in a few, but broadly shared. It is a validation of our social compact and the promises of our founding fathers made good. Yet, we must never forget the fundamental and unchanging hard truths of our nation. We are small, with no natural resources. We are highly connected, and therefore highly exposed, to the rest of the world. Changes to the winds and currents of the outside world will affect us deeply. We must always remain clear eyed and unflinching in the face of challenges. As the President has noted, we are sailing into choppy waters. Shifting global economic currents, a changing new world order, and AI-driven disruptions in the workplace make for some powerful headwinds. Each alone has the potential to reshape our society in profound and lasting ways.”
“Thank you, Speaker. One supplementary question for the Minister. With regards to the GRIT@Gov Programme, would the Government commit to offering employment to trainees at the end of their traineeship, or at least set a clear expectation that the Government agencies should seek to hire these trainees into permanent roles rather than treating the programme as a stop gap measure?”